Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Immigration Analysis Failure

Posted by James Bowery on Sunday, 17 March 2013 17:11.

Posted to Ron Paul Forums in response to the urgent crisis in immigration policy facing the Republican Party in the United States, where a “swing” contingent of the Republican Party is represented by its so-called “libertarian wing”:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s critical intellectual failure in his thinking about immigration policy is embodied in the following quote from “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration”:

Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism).

In this he is presuming there is no option for what pre-Austrian-school libertarian philosopher Lysander Spooner called a “mutual insurance company” where a voluntary agreement may be reached between private owners of land that restricts what individual participants in the mutual insurance company may do with their land.

His prescription is therefore ill-founded:

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).

In the absence of eliminating government, the best approximation to humane action is for democratic rulers to treat their position as officers or board members in a mutual insurance company formed by contractual agreement among the shareholders who each hold one voting share.

With this correction, other aspects of Hoppe’s analysis are rendered valid since it is true that, for example in the United States treated as a company, there are by-laws that demand free internal migration of shareholders. This means the only protection the shareholders have is at the boundary of their mutually insured land holding and that, therefore, the officers and board members of the company have a fiduciary responsibility to control that boundary.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:53 | #

I haven’t read any Hoppe at all for ten years. But his failing here seems to me to be the presumption that immigrants are able to immigrate to private property. How on earth did his brain get so jewed that he could think that? It’s enough to make me want to shake him violently while slowly informing him that “Man is NOT an individual, but an organism with the genetic trait of individualism expressed to a greater or lesser degree dependent on his race and personal and genetic history.”

Posted by Roland on Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:35 | #

Jim,

Are you sure that Hoppe’s argument can’t accommodate Spooner’s solution? Assuming Hoppe believes in a purely contractual theory of corporations, I see no reason why the two arguments can’t be reconciled.

Perhaps the problem surrounds the concept of “forced”, by which Hoppe implies threat of government coercion. An owner of an interest in a mutual insurance company whose ownership contract includes an agreement to assent to company decisions to exclude potential immigrants cannot be “forced” under this definition.

Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:40 | #

Who cares? Rand Paul, practically the last person I liked in national politics, just sold out on pathway to citizenship for 28 million Mexican criminals.

Hoppe’s position is nothing but word games. It is logical within his own anarchocapitalist matrix, but none of this has any bearing on the real world. In the real physical world, we are under invasion. This is no different from a standard military matter.

Stop writing and start fighting!

Posted by Joe on Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:29 | #

More information about Mussolini’s “ontology” and metaphysics :

http://redroom.com/member/frank-sanello/writing/mussolini’s-jews-the-chosen-people-fascist-italy-rejected

Link about Mussolini, his jewess mistress, and the large number of Jews in the Fascist Party in Italy. In addition, Mussolini’s mistress was a Jewess : Margherita Sarfatti. Yes, Mussolini had a jewess mistress : And, they had a 20 year on-going affair, even while Mussolini was in power, too boot.

http://www.dejanlucic.net/The Jewish 20mother of Fascism.html

If link doesn’t work, Search : ” Mussolini + Margherita Sarfatti + dejanlucic.net”

Read about Margherita Sarfatti’s Jewish family - it’s very telling how crazy and schizophrenic these Fascist Jews truly were [are]. Sarfatti’s descendants and family still live in Rome. A very interesting article about Italian Jew-Fascists and how crazy/schizoid they are. Read what Sarfatti’s descendants say about present-day Israel.

These are the type of people the great “White Roman Conquering-Hero” Mussolini surrounded himself with, so Mussolini had to be just as crazy like the Jews all around him. Mussolini himself was not a Jew, though, ” Hitler Was A Jew Himself “, is an excellent search term. Both Hitler and Mussolini were involved with satanism, Hitler more so, still Mussolini was involved with satanism as well : That was Mussoini’s and Hitler’s ontology and metaphysics.

Search Term : Mussolini + Jewish Fascists”

“DeJanLucic.net” is a good website to learn about Italian Fascists - Jewish and otherwise.

That’s why I take John Kaminski with an extremely large grain of salt.

I don’t think the White Race had a White “Nationalist” leader since Charlmagne. For all of his faults, at least he unified the White Race in Europe, making Europe strong to resist both Islam, and the Jews, at least for a time—before all the sell-outs and scoundrels decided to trip over themselves to become Freemasons, and ipso-facto minions of the Jew satanic bankers.

Sure, Charlemagne was tough with the Germans/Teutons—he had to be - the Germans loving their internecine wars more than any other group in Europe. The Germans/Teutons always loved war more than any other group in Europe, and that’s saying alot.

It’s true the Romans loved war—but at least they had some kind of goal when they went to war. The Germans/Teutons went to war just for the sake of war, no plan really - just plunder [ like the Vikings] so Charlemagne had to be tough with them in order to unite Europe and make Europe strong and united against the foreign enemies of White Christendom.

Maybe we study Franco. At least he didn’t destroy Spain while fighting the Communists. He did win a very good measure of freedom for his Spanish people with his tactics and strategy. Unfortunately, when he died, all the dastards and serpents swarmed all over Spain once again.

Probably better off studying Franco’s strategy than Hitler’s or Mussolini’s. Franco is the only “Nationalist” leader - other than Charlemagne - who ever made any sense.

Keep in mind when you read anyone comparing Italian Fascism and German Nazism in the above articles I linked to, the Nazi Party was full of Jews as well. Truly a crazy people the Jews are—that’s why I keep Jews at arms’ length, and take everything they say with large grains of salt.

That’s why it’s important for ALL white Americans to reject Freemasonry. Start pointing fingers at our own White Kind who are Freemasons. They are working with the Jews to destroy us. Venal, mercenary, smirky-face, lying, mercenary bastards.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:37 | #

But he allows for the possibility that land is subject to restrictions, such as those that you propose, in which case there is no such thing as free immigration:

All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a “freedom to move around,” unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.

Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:41 | #

And:

The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian).

He almost explicitly countenances what “Lysander Spooner called a ‘mutual insurance company’ where a voluntary agreement may be reached between private owners of land that restricts what individual participants in the mutual insurance company may do with their land.”

Posted by Joe on Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:48 | #

On why “Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Immigration Analysis” is a failure, from an ontological, metaphysical stand-point : And why about 99 % of all kinds of immigration analysis is a failure, from an ontological, metaphysical stand-point :

” Against The Heathens” :

http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/2011/12/against-heathens.html