[2006-09-10]“More arguments FOR Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!”+ Disqus CommentsLinks 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 also commits the logical fallacy known as "Selectively using some facts and ignoring others (card-stacking)"--
--AND he 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 are several fallacies which are fatal flaws in his logic as he tries to use his proposal to justify his long-held prejudice against immigration and "open" borders. Some of these fallacies occur 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". The "bandwagon" and "card-stacking" fallacy is underlined and enclosed in [ ] brackets and Bold Emphasis has been added. 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.
- "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."
[The non-sequitur in those last 3 sentences is that there is no grounds presented to DENY them access to what is historically public and clearly NON-EXCLUSIVE property that connects and provides access to all the private, EXCLUSIVE properties. Furthermore, Hoppe implies that EVERYONE inside a country is on his (Hoppe's) bandwagon to ban immigrants. Indeed--and as I show later in this critique--if only one Austrian, Swiss and Italian taxpayer issues an invitation to all humans in the world, then, by Hoppe's own logic, there is no "bandwagon" and any and all humans could exercise the invitation to use that public, NON-EXCLUSIVE property. ~ Dennis Wilson]
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 some facts and ignoring others (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!
NONE of his PhD peers at Mises.org or LewRockwell.com has called him out on his logic fallacies. Instead, he receives praise and is published at Mises.org. Ludwig von Mises, himself a refugee from Hitler's ambitions, would be appalled at what his student, Lew Rockwell, has done! Worse yet, Rockwell has betrayed not only his education master but the Institute that he started in Mises' name.
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.
 Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal
, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. November 10, 2015 in Phoenix, Arizona https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/
- "This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.
"I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe."
 Fritz Machlup was a student of Mises's, one of his most faithful disciples. At one of the Mont Pelerin meetings, Machlup gave a talk in which I think he questioned the idea of a gold standard; he came out in favor of floating exchange rates. Mises was so mad he wouldn't speak to Machlup for three years. Some people had to come around and bring them together again. It's hard to understand; you can get some understanding of it by taking into account how people like Mises were persecuted in their lives.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises#CriticismsCreative 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 three of the following fallacies in the article reviewed above. As you read other articles written by him, look for additional fallacies from the lists below.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy#IntentionalIntentional 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
2. Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem
3. Assume the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "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
) Appearances can be rigged by highlighting some facts and ignoring others.
Card stacking is a propaganda technique that seeks to manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another.
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.
1 Logical constructions 1.1 Affirming the consequent 1.2 Denying the antecedent 1.3 Affirming a disjunct 1.4 Denying a conjunct 1.5 Fallacy of the undistributed middle2 Non-sequitur in everyday speech
3. See also Modus tollens
(or modus tollendo tollens
and also denying the consequent
) Modus ponens Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Example: The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. Regression fallacy
ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations.
was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument. Aristotle's "Sophistical Refutations" (De Sophisticis Elenchis) identifies thirteen fallacies. He divided them up into two major types, those depending on language and those not depending on language. These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively. A material fallacy is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a verbal fallacy is an error in how the arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who amongst humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant.  Language-independent fallacies may be more complex, e.g.: "(1) Coriscus is different from Socrates (2) Socrates is a man Therefore: (3) Coriscus is different from a man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophistical_RefutationsSophistical Refutations (Greek: Σοφιστικοὶ Ἔλεγχοι; Latin: De Sophisticis Elenchis) is a text in Aristotle's Organon in which he identified thirteen fallacies. The 13 fallacies Aristotle identifies are the following:
Fallacies in the language Equivocation Amphibology
(ambiguous sentence structure) Composition Division Accent Figure of speech or form of expression
Fallacies not in the language Accident Secundum quid Ignoratio elenchi
aka Irrelevant conclusion Begging the question False cause Affirming the consequent Fallacy of many questions
A complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. Complex questions can but do not have to be fallacious.