[2006-09-10]“More arguments for Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!”
Links to this article:http://tinyurl.com/Hoppe-borderhttp://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=16.msg58#msg58
Article has been updated since that publication.
More arguments FOR Open BordersIn conjunction with the views I expressed in previous articles, supporting the libertarian Non Aggression Principle and Open Borders, I was recently reading "Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe wherein he attempts to justify a rejection of the libertarian view of freedom of travel and open borders.
This time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!
--Wherein Hoppe commits the logical fallacy known as "Asserting that everyone agrees (bandwagoning)"--
--He has also committed the logical fallacy known as "Selectively using facts (card-stacking)"--
--AND he also commits the logical fallacy known as "Making jumps in logic (non-sequitur)"--
In an otherwise excellent article, wherein he proposes a method by which a portion of The Commons might be converted to private property, there is a (non-sequitur) fallacy which is a fatal flaw in his logic. It occurs just before he presents his conclusion that "the moral status of public property as expropriated private property" is "sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal". Bold Emphasis added. The "bandwagon" and "card-stacking" fallacy is underlined and enclosed in [ ] brackets. My explanation follows the quoted section.
First the non-sequitur. Examine the last two sentences quoted above. They are classic examples of the "non-sequitur, jump in logic". The "moral status of public property" has nothing whatsoever to do with "open border proposal" and Hoppe's article has not established any logical connection between them. And yet NONE of his PhD peers at Mises.org or LewRockwell.com has called him out on his logic fallacies.
- "Public property is the result of state-government confiscations—of legislative expropriations and/or taxation—of originally privately owned property. While the state does not recognize anyone as its private owner, all of government controlled public property has in fact been brought about by the tax-paying members of the domestic public. Austrians, Swiss, and Italians, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid by each citizen, have funded the Austrian, Swiss, and Italian public property. Hence, they must be considered its legitimate [he conveniently leaves out: and NON-EXCLUSIVE] owners. Foreigners have not been subject to domestic taxation and expropriation; hence, they cannot be assumed to have any rights regarding Austrian, Swiss or Italian public property."
"The recognition of the moral status of public property as expropriated private property is not only sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal. It is equally important for combating the present semi-open "affirmative action" immigration policies of the Western welfare states."
As for asserting that everybody agrees, Herr Doctor Hoppe erroneously, fallaciously and illogically assumes that *I* am on his "close the borders" bandwagon. If *I* am a legitimate NON-EXCLUSIVE owner of the public property in the U.S.A. [as Dr. Hoppe proposes], then *I* have a say in how it is used and *I* want unrestricted access! Furthermore, the NON-EXCLUSIVE nature of the ownership means that the access may NOT BE restricted NOR other owners and their family and invited guests EXCLUDED. *I* cannot trade with people who are excluded from reaching my property, especially "foreigners".
As a legitimate NON-EXCLUSIVE owner of the "public property", and an EXCLUSIVE owner of private property within the territory commonly known as the United States, *I* issue a standing, open invitation to any and all individuals in the world to use the "public" NON-EXCLUSIVE property of which [as Dr. Hoppe proposes] *I* am a legitimate NON-EXCLUSIVE owner!
Furthermore, I know of other legitimate NON-EXCLUSIVE owners of this public property in the U.S.A. (and also some in Europe including Austria, Switzerland, and Italy) who hold the same view.
Dr. Hoppe, who has a PhD degree from Goethe University, Frankfurt, apparently in the fields of Political philosophy and economics, has committed the logical fallacy known as "Asserting that everyone agrees (bandwagoning)". He has also committed the logical fallacy known as "Selectively using facts (card-stacking)". He does this by deliberately ignoring the fact that there is a distinction between EXCLUSIVE ownership of property (such as a single owner) and NON-EXCLUSIVE ownership of property, the latter of which consists primarily of property with multiple owners. An EXCLUSIVE owner may EXCLUDE others from using his property whereas a NON-EXCLUSIVE owner CANNOT EXCLUDE other owners (and their families and guests) from using the property for the intended purpose as agreed upon by unanimous consent of ALL the NON-EXCLUSIVE owners.
Dr. Hoppe's [very own] argument is sufficient grounds for advocating and embracing OPEN borders!
Dennis Wilson DennisLeeWilson@Yahoo.com
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent
The quoted paragraphs from Hoppe's article are the last part of paragraph 6 and all of paragraph 7 in section V.Creative CommonsAttribution Share Alike
On a discussion group, in response to the question
- "Now, how do we satisfy the very legitimate concerns of (y)our fellow taxpayers who
A) paid for the same roadways, and
B) don't want them here?"
"Zack Bass" rightly pointed out the following NON-EXCLUSIVE nature of roads:
After all, using roads for travel *IS WHY* roads are constructed!! Put gates at your driveway if you want to block off your private property!
- "We all get to USE the Road; no one gets a Veto."
Dr. Hoppe commits at least two of the following fallacies in the article reviewed above. As you read other articles written by him, look for additional fallacies from the list below.Intentional fallacies
Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
Examples of this include the speaker or writer:
1. Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
2. Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
3. Assuming they are right by "begging the question" (petitio principi)
4. Making jumps in logic (non-sequitur)
5. Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
6. Asserting that everyone agrees (bandwagoning)
7. Creating a "false dilemma" ("either-or fallacy") in which the situation is oversimplified
8. Selectively using facts (card-stacking)
9. Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)
10. Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization)
In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of amphiboly, for instance, to make ironic statements; Gary Larson employs fallacious reasoning in many of his cartoons. Wes Boyer and Samuel Stoddard have written a humorous essay teaching students how to be persuasive by means of a whole host of informal and formal fallacies.