post-single

The “Stork” argument re immigration

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

To: ‘David

Subject: RE: Hoppe and children

Dear David:

But poor people wouldn’t be allowed to have kids. For they could not post bonds to forfeit if their kids misbehaved. They could not reliably promise to make good for their kids future misdeeds. Isn’t that a good reductio?

Poor people, then, wouldn’t be able to invite foreigners, immigrants, onto their holdings.

Best regards,

Walter

From: David

Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 7:08 PM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Hoppe and children

On Hoppe’s argument, you can still have children. You just have to be responsible for any costs they impose on others. When they grow up you can either continue to be responsible for them or send them out of the country, whichever you prefer.

On 7/24/22 3:21 PM, Walter Block wrote:

Dear David:

No, he has not replied to this argument, to the best of my knowledge. But he’s not the only one who is vulnerable to his reductio, of course.

However, not only does this apply to being responsible for the bad deeds of foreign invitees, or being respoinsible for children’s misdeeds, it also applies to having children in the first place. They are all “immigrants” from the country “storkovia.” If you think children come from pregnancy, you’re wrong. They come from the country storkovia, and are brought here by storks! So, if you oppose open immigration, you should, logically, oppose “open” births. The government should limit the number of kids that are born. Yay, China and it’s one child policy, in this view.

I wrote about this “stork” reductio here:

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism,” Lincoln Memorial University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 142-165; http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol4/iss1/6/;

http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lmulrev

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 593–623; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_29.pdf

Best regards,

Walter

From: David

Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:50 PM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Hoppe and children

I am adding to my chapter on immigration your point that Hoppe’s argument applies to newborn children of present residents as well as to immigrants. If he is consistent, he should propose that parents be responsible for any costs imposed by their adult children and, if they are not willing to be, the children should be exiled.

Has he ever responded to that argument?

David

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2022 2:22 PM

To: ‘David

Subject: RE: Hoppe and children

Dear David:

No, he has not replied to this argument, to the best of my knowledge. But he’s not the only one who is vulnerable to his reductio, of course.

However, not only does this apply to being responsible for the bad deeds of foreign invitees, or being respoinsible for children’s misdeeds, it also applies to having children in the first place. They are all “immigrants” from the country “storkovia.” If you think children come from pregnancy, you’re wrong. They come from the country storkovia, and are brought here by storks! So, if you oppose open immigration, you should, logically, oppose “open” births. The government should limit the number of kids that are born. Yay, China and it’s one child policy, in this view.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:14 pm on October 6, 2022