[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
Letter from Dennis Wilson
More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!
In 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.
In an otherwise excellent article, there is a fatal flaw in his logic, 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". Emphasis
If *I* am a legitimate owner of the public property in the U.S. [as Dr. Hoppe proposes], then *I* have a say in how it is used and *I* want unrestricted access! *I* cannot trade with people who are excluded from reaching my property, especially "foreigners".
- "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 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 a legitimate owner of the "public property", and 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" property of which *I* am a legitimate owner!
Furthermore, I know of other legitimate owners of this public property in the U.S. who hold the same view.
Dr Hoppe's [very own] argument is sufficient grounds for ENFORCING 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:
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."