I thought I’d seen poorly written articles before, but then I saw this one from L. Neil Smith. I have no idea why, but Mr. Smith rehashed an old Internet debate on immigration (involving Pat Buchanan, with both me and Steve Kubby responding to Pat in the negative), and went on a long and vicious attack on me. He distorts my views; makes juvenile, personal attacks; and just basically falls off the rational wagon. This thing leaves me thunderstruck.Here is a first example of Mr. Smith distorting facts in order to paint me black. He says:

De Coster seems more intent on attacking Steve Kubby than handling the matter of immigration, parroting nasty, puckered Rothbardisms no genuine libertarian ought to repeat about somebody else’s personal and political priorities. Admittedly, I was never terribly interested in marijuana, medical or otherwise, myself; she appears to believe she has a kind of calling to tell others how they may use their freedom, reading them out of the movement if they insist on making their own choices.

Now, he purposely leaves out the facts here. First off, I wrote two articles on immigration, one for WorldNetDaily and one for LewRockwell.com. The first one was in response to a Pat Buchanan article, and the second one was a response to Steve Kubby, who weirdly attacked me for my first article in which I criticized Pat.

This is my first article, and my purpose here was to criticize some things that I thought Pat Buchanan got very wrong on immigration and on the varied libertarian views on immigration. I thought he was remiss in not mentioning the Hoppean, private-property views on immigration that some libertarians support. The only mention of Steve Kubby in my article is this part here: “It’s true that open borders lead to more statism. Indeed, it takes a massive state to maintain open borders. So libertarian critics such as Steve Kubby are wrong, and Buchanan is right.” That is it.

Kubby then wrote this article, which included extensive and gross personal attacks on me. So I responded by doing the same in return. So Mr. Smith, seeing this only through his friend Kubby’s eyes, unfairly attacks and chastizes me for defending myself from an attack from Kubby, and attacking that man in return. This is shoddy and reprehensible writing, and he should be embarrassed by his half-report. Then, this comment from Mr. Smith is a really bad zinger in my humble opinion.

Border controls of the kind that De Coster and Cox seem to demand are totally inconsistent with maintaining a free country. Of course if the last thing you want is a free country, then border controls are the perfect place to begin. And there are always plenty of “useful idiots” like these two to help you make it happen.

I have never, ever “demanded” border controls. To support my point, Smith links to nothing that I have said that “demands controls,” but only states that as his interpretation, and leaves it up to his very trusting readers to believe him. Then Smith again completely distorts things. He says:

Similarly, those who demand that the borders be closed blather about the burden they imagine illegal immigrants to be on taxpayers. I’m not altogether convinced of this, myself—a great many of their statistics carry the distinct odor of having been extracted from one of their bodily orifices or another—but even if I were, whose fault is it, individuals who are new to this country, or those who have permitted a welfare state to be constructed all around them where they stood?

Now the “body orifice” comment is actually quite revealing of the personal nature of things (And I am left clueless as to why this is the case.) There are severe welfare issues concerning immigrants, as with Americans or any non-producers who are “in the system.” Some immigrants do suck on the teat of welfare and they do create a larger demand for distributionist policies. However, I clearly state that this is not a part of my foundations for arguing on the immigration issue. To the contrary of Mr. Smith, here are my points on that notion:

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, has written extensively on this topic. He is the first theoretician to look at the immigration debate not through utilitarian concerns about increasing welfare in society, but from a rigorous argument focused strictly on property rights.

…Contrary to what Mr. Buchanan suggests, the libertarian private-property order does not enhance the state – nor does it empower it – but, instead, it strips away the state entirely, as the mere existence of this omnipotent body is a complete contradiction of private property. The Buchanan position, in effect, makes the mistake of ignoring this private-property order. Rather, he takes the more authoritarian paleoconservative view that links the welfare state to immigration and gives the problem of The Great Welfare Giveaway as his basis for a closed-borders stance. He believes that limiting immigration is the way to restore welfare to its rightful, domestic recipients.

Then I go on to challenge Buchanan’s lack of limited-government principles that he, at the time, purported to hold. So Smith purposely leads the reader to believe that I am one of “those” libertarians who bases my “closed-border” view on the “welfare” issue. In fact, I clearly establish that I do not link my immigration views to such, and criticize Pat for doing so. Also, I clearly state in each article my recognition for the Hoppean, strict, private-property position. Nowhere does Smith point this out, nor does he put forth an intellectual challenge against the Hoppean case. He just pulls a rant and run.

Third and most important – I have never once advocated for “closed borders.” There have been folks on LewRockwell.com who have done so, and indeed I was very much appalled by some of the pieces in the past that agitated for fences and immigration police, but then again I suppose this is a forum where different viewpoints are aired and debated. Perhaps Smith is a confused man when it comes to names? As to his comments that I am “a conservative” and “not a libertarian,” well, his correspondences to me in the past do not support that, and, such a dumb statement will get no serious response time from me. My website archives are open for all to see. He is greatly confused by the term “conservative.” Mr. Smith’s reference to “nasty, puckered Rothbardisms” is perhaps a final piece of the attack puzzle. But why he chose me as his target of distortion and, yes, lies, is not something I care to take the time to pursue. In spite of ideological differences, I had thought Neil was a decent guy and valued libertarian.

In the end, Internet archives are always there to correct a distortion.