|
Since
When Is 'Private Property' Not Self-Explanatory?
by
Karen De Coster
Libertarian
guru Murray Rothbard called them "modal libertarians." They
are an assemblage of leftover Marxists, 60s-70s drug users, cultural
leftists, assorted members of the Arts-and-Croissant crowd, and
Christian-hating atheists. They latch onto the libertarian name
because, somehow, they think "libertarian" means "do-whatever-the-heck-you-want"
in the name of freedom.
The
recent article by Steve
Kubby of Pot-TV fame definitely falls into
this category. The modal libertarians, as a whole, do not distrust
government because the imperial State won’t allow individuals to
do what they want with their own body, mind, and tangible property.
But rather, they dislike government because it interferes with their
right to use drugs, to sell and read porn, and to engage in other
unusual moral practices.
After
viewing a web page peppered
with marijuana this and marijuana that, one wonders if Kubby cares
at all about those "quaint old libertarian ideas and principles"
that he mocks me for. Or is it just the pot thing that matters?
Exclusive
property rights, and therefore, the right to discriminate against
others on one's own property, is not even a part of the left-libertarian
thought process. After all, these concepts go against the very ideals
they support, such as gay and civil rights, utilitarianism, moral
relativism, and non-rationalism. However, enjoying true freedom,
without absolute control of one's property, is not possible. And
on the mass immigration issue, the modal libertarians put their
devotion to multiculturalism, diversity, and PC-ness ahead of the
core libertarian principle of private property.
As
I stressed in a previous
column, libertarianism holds as its central axiom the principle
of non-aggression. That is, no one may rightfully aggress against
the person or property of another. Private property rights and Kubby's
pro-mass integration stance are philosophies at odds with one another.
Mr.
Kubby does not as he says stand for clear-cut property rights.
He claims to be a supporter of this basic libertarian principle,
but never once explains how the alleged right to immigrate can possibly
exist in a setting where true property rights exist.
We
live in a world where the existence of the State is a very real
and burdensome thing. In this country, we have a massive State that
tramples on all rights everywhere including outside its own borders and
perpetuates a burgeoning welfare nation that is the destroyer of
liberty and prosperity. Welfare and related State giveaways, such
as the public schools, have become the largest draw for non-property
owners to move to this country and deny property owners exclusive
control over the management of their property. Welfare means redistributing
property from the owners to the takers; it favors the have-nots
at the expense of the haves; it expropriates private property in
the name of the "collective good"; and it legislates away the right
of protection from owners, while bestowing the right of trampling
on the victimizers.
Contrary
to Kubby's jabber, it does not require an expansion of the State
or the "militarization of our borders" in order to keep out the
"wretched refuse of their teeming shores." What is does
require is land ownership by private means everywhere, and an absence
of State usurpation of that ownership.
As
it stands now, without State interference, private property owners
would be able to defend against intruders on either an individual
basis or in a voluntary cooperative manner where defense is negotiated
through private agreements and private companies. This means that
individuals could freely defend their neighborhoods; landowners
could forcibly remove violators; business owners could legitimately
discriminate, hire, and fire; and private contractors and not the
collective police State could provide legitimate protective and
retribution services.
However,
the State and its current immigration policy deny property owners
the right to fend off aggression. We can no longer defend ourselves
and our rights of ownership, but instead, must rely on a corrupt
and incompetent police State. Even the basic right of gun ownership
has been commandeered or even negated.
In
addition, the State aggresses against individuals everywhere with
its forced integration policies. Affirmative action laws, corrupt
civil tights legislation, and anti-discrimination shams all bring
about a situation where coercion and force tie the individual property
owner in the noose of the State. Business owners cannot hire and
fire as they choose. Property owners cannot freely discriminate
within their own boundaries, neighborhood communities, co-operatives
and formal associations. Rental agents cannot deny rental of their
property to those they deem unsuitable. The State is everywhere
at every moment in our lives.
It
takes a mammoth State to promote this agenda that regulates and
legislates and expropriates, and therefore, allows for private property
to be overrun and trampled down. And yet the left-libertarians/utilitarians
like Mr. Kubby are there to falsely claim that they are the true
purveyors of liberty, while at the same time they promote the State
when and where it is necessary to defend their notion of a free-for-all,
modal society.
In
the modal world, if the overall feel-goodism gained by society i.e,
sweeping tolerance and universal rights for non-property owners outweighs
the rights of intolerant property owners, so be it.
Mr.
Kubby claims "it would be easier and more popular to reject
our controversial policy of open borders, but libertarians don't
abandon basic principles of freedom, regardless of which way the
political winds may blow." Yet while claiming the defense of absolute
ownership of oneself and one's property is on the road to statism he
uses this very basic argument, as all libertarians must do, to maintain
a hardline stance on the legalization of drugs. So where does that
principle go when it comes to property and immigration? It gets
tossed out the door in favor of political correctness.
Surely
there is a right to emigrate, as Murray Rothbard pointed out. But
there is no right to trespass. This is the genuine libertarian position.
Kubby's
political wind is blowing from the Left, and yes Mr. Kubby, us theoretical
libertarians that are born and bred of the old ideas and
principles do not bend with the political winds, but rather, only
the buttons-and-balloons and single-issues Libertarians do.
So pardon my rehash of a tired old Lloyd Bentson cliché,
but Mr. Kubby, you ain't no libertarian.
February
6, 2002
Karen
De Coster, CPA, [send
her mail] is a paleolibertarian freelance writer, graduate student
in Austrian Economics, and a business professional from Michigan.
She is writing her first book, which is a treatise against all things
statist. See her Mises
Institute archive for more online articles.
Copyright © 2002 Karen De Coster
Karen
De Coster Archives
LRC
needs your support. Please donate.
|