Tom Palmer has engaged in yet another attack on Hoppe, this time in response to Hoppe’s brief comment about immigration policy.
There are several problems with Palmer’s piece. First, the entire point of his post is that Hoppe’s immigration theory would have excluded Hoppe. But this is not an argument at all. It is perfectly possible for Hoppe’s theory to be right even if it would have excluded him. It is also possible for Palmer to drive on public roads on the way to work yet still advocate that roads should be private, is it not? So what if the proper immigration theory would not have allowed Hoppe to emigrate to America? Should he (and we) base our immigration views around how it would have affected Hoppe himself? Is this about Hoppe now? (In fact, Hoppe’s immigration proposed policy would not exclude Hoppe, but that is irrelevant.)Ad hominem/hypocrisy
Maybe Palmer is trying to say Hoppe is a hypocrite, for taking advantage of an immigration policy he himself disagrees with. But even if Hoppe is a hypocrite, his argument might be sound; thus this would be an ad hominem argument, in a post in which Palmer himself has the chutzpah to criticize Hoppe for “quickly resort[ing] to arguments ad hominem….” Elsewhere Palmer calls Hoppe “inimitably kooky,” “zany,” and “Nevada’s very own mad professor.” Talk about ad hominem!
Hoppe and Palmer on Economics
Palmer also says Hoppe has “virtually no knowledge of economic science,” and that “his knowledge of economics is as deep as is my knowledge of Sanskrit”. This, Palmer says of the author of dozens of monumental and pathbreaking Austrian economic works including A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, and others. Palmer of course may disagree with some of Hoppe’s substantive economic, philosophical, epistemological, sociological, historical, and ethical views, but Palmer embarrasses himself and reveals some kind of weird personal obsession or animus when he makes the simply absurd claim that Hoppe has no knowledge of economics.
In fact, as I showed previously, in the one substantive criticism Palmer has made of Hoppe’s economic views, Palmer falls flat on his face. He attacked Hoppe’s pedigree as an Austrian economist by pointing to Hoppe’s allegedly non-Austrian view that involuntary unemployment is impossible on a free market. Yet when I simply pointed out that Mises himself had the same view, not to prove that proposition is correct but to show that this view is not “an embarrassment to Austrian economics,” Palmer retreated to the charge that my citing Mises is cult-like.
(Other discussion of Palmer on this post.)
Rothbard
Palmer then takes a low blow at Rothbard (I guess following the Cato party line here?) when he says Hoppe was invited to UNLV “because Professor Murray Rothbard (who did not read German) received his dissertation and found his name many times in the footnotes.” In other words, Rothbard chose Hoppe out of ignorance and because he was flattered? How can Palmer know that Rothbard didn’t do his due diligence? It’s just amazing: The Catoites want to tear down Rothbard, but still respect him enough to not want anyone to think Rothbard’s longtime endorsement of Hoppe was sincere or well thought out! (This is reminiscent of Leland Yeager’s ridiculous claim that Rothbard posthumously recanted his earlier endorsement of Hoppe’s revolutionary argumentation ethics, as discussed in footnote 7 of my article New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory.)
Hoppe and Palmer on Immigration
Palmer also says “Hoppe thinks that, in the name of the “market,” the government should be treated as if it were the owner of all of the land of a country. (We used to call that “socialism.”)” Here Palmer implies that Hoppe–an anarcho-capitalist and arch-opponent of all forms of socialism–is advocating socialism. Hoppe does not say the state should own all the land in the country. What Hoppe says (see his full article) is that given that the state does own public property, which it received through confiscation of the property or money of citizens, is that it should act as the trustee of the real owners, i.e., the confiscated citizens; and use the property as much as possible like a private owner would–which would be to have a more selective “invitation” policy rather than one designed to invite immigrants on the basis of how they are likely to vote in favor of the state.
Restricted Immigration
But the bottom line is this. Palmer is either an open borders advocate, or he is not. If he is not, then he, like Hoppe, is in favor of restricting the number of immigrants; and this restriction requires some selection criteria. Hoppe would select based, e.g., on quality (i.e., employability, self-sustainability, lack of criminality) and compatibility with our existing culture and institutions (speaking English, etc.).
As Hoppe points out in another piece on immigration:
What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.
Notice here Hoppe does not endorse the state or “socialism”; but recognizing current reality, says the democratic state should act “as if they were the personal owners of the country”. Clearly Hoppe here simply means the state, since it has taken the citizens’ private property, ought at least to use it as the private property owners would, i.e., try to act as their trustee, and use their own property for the owners’ benefit. This at least reduces the damage done to them. Hoppe however realizes this is unlikely, since we have democracy. This is why he points out elsewhere (much ridiculed by Palmer) that monarchy is better (in some respects) than democracy (though still inferior to anarcho-capitalism), since the monarch has more incentives to have a better immigration policy, to increase the value of “his” private property, unlike democratic lawmakers who have an incentive to select on the basis of bad qualities which correlate with voting more pro-state, pro-redistribution, etc. Since he views monarchy–under which the individual monarch “owns” the whole country, in a sense, and thus has better incentives to have better immigration selection criteria so as to increase the wealth of “his” holdings–as superior to democracy in this respect, he is advocating that the democracy act more like the monarch would, which is to act “as if they were the personal owners of the country,” since this is more in the interest of the confiscated property owners/citizens. He advocates such a policy even though democracy’s perverse incentives make this unlikely (which is why Hoppe opposes democracy).
If Palmer is not an open borders advocate (I am not sure what his position is), what would his criteria for admission be? Low quality? Incompatibility with our culture? A random, arbitrary lottery? In any event, if Palmer is opposed to open borders, then he really has no principled case against Hoppe’s views, for the opponent of open borders has to have some restriction and selection criteria, and Hoppe’s emphasis on quality etc. (on the grounds that the state is approximating the preferences of the real owners of the public property it fictionally holds “in trust” for them) is certainly not unreasonable or unlibertarian.
Open Borders
If Palmer is, by contrast, an open borders advocate, surely it can be admitted that libertarians can have respectful disagreement over this issue, just as they can over the war, over abortion, the voucher system, etc. In fact there are good libertarian reasons to oppose open borders. As Ralph Raico (whom Palmer acknowledges is “an outstanding scholar and a fine writer”) points out,
Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”
In other words, relatively liberal societies would certainly soon become less liberal if they opened their borders. Surely it is libertarian to oppose become less libertarian, to oppose policies and measures that will result in more rights violations!
As Hoppe points out in further detail here (emphasis added):
It is not difficult to predict the consequences of an open border policy in the present world. If Switzerland, Austria, Germany or Italy, for instance, freely admitted everyone who made it to their borders and demanded entry, these countries would quickly be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants from Albania, Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, for example. As the more perceptive open-border advocates realize, the domestic state-welfare programs and provisions would collapse as a consequence. This would not be a reason for concern, for surely, in order to regain effective protection of person and property the welfare state must be abolished. But then there
is the great leap—or the gaping hole—in the open border argument: out of the ruins of the democratic welfare states, we are led to believe, a new natural order will somehow emerge.The first error in this line of reasoning can be readily identified. Once the welfare states have collapsed under their own weight, the masses of immigrants who have brought this about are still there. They have not been miraculously transformed into Swiss, Austrians, Bavarians or Lombards, but remain what they are: Zulus, Hindus, Ibos, Albanians, or Bangladeshis. Assimilation can work when the number of immigrants is small. It is entirely impossible, however, if immigration occurs on a mass scale. In that case, immigrants will simply transport their own ethno-culture onto the new territory. Accordingly, when the welfare state has imploded there will be a multitude of “little” (or not so little) Calcuttas, Daccas, Lagoses, and Tiranas strewn all over Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. It betrays a breathtaking sociological naiveté to believe that a natural order will emerge out of this admixture. Based on all historical experience with such forms of multiculturalism, it can safely be predicted that in fact the result will be civil war. There will be widespread plundering and squatterism leading to massive capital consumption, and civilization as we know it will disappear from Switzerland, Austria and Italy. Furthermore, the host population will quickly be outbred and, ultimately, physically displaced by their “guests.” There will still be Alps in Switzerland and Austria, but no Swiss or Austrians.
Is a libertarian obligated to favor a policy which would result in civil war and the devastation of western culture and life? Cannot Palmer admit that opposing open borders based on such concerns is at least a respectable libertarian position to take?
11:42 am on September 24, 2004
