About Racism
The is yet another discussion going on at Mises about controlling immigration, which always devolves into one group saying they have the right to discriminate against people based on their race.
I agree that people can not be forced to associate with anyone they don't wish to, when it comes to their private property. I also agree that groups of these people can choose to "band together" in a certain area to exclude persons of another race from settling there, on any of their private property. I think that any community that chose to do that would suffer from their decision to do so, but they certainly have the right to do that.
There are really two arguments involved in the pro-racism camp. The first has to do with the loss of cultural identity, which is just another way of complaining about race mixing. They like to reference Hoppe on this point and his "tribalism" approach to immigration. However they fail to point out the inconsistencies with this argument, which Hoppe himself avoids by saying that the state should, "act as if they were a private property owner" and that we should look at the argument in this light. Without stating the obvious, that the state is not a legitimate private property owner, lets go ahead with this line of reasoning for the sake of argument.
Lets say that all borders are privately owned land and the owner has the right to exclude anyone they want from tresspassing on that property. First, anyone that could get to someone elses property, someone that actually does believe in a free market and wants that diversity, the person owning the "borders" could have no say so over who that property owner could associate or do business with. Second, lets pretend there are no such things as helicopters and the only way to get to the free market owners property was to cross the property at these "borders". Surely any act that deprived the free market owner the right of association, the right to do business with whomever they choose, can be seen as nothing less than an act of either force or coercion against the free market owner. Any violation of the NAP warrants a reaction by those who are trying to participate in the free market. I think their argument falls apart at this point. Another area to look at is the validity of any contract. For it to be valid, there must be a way to exit the contract.
Say I wanted to be a part of this collectivist, protectionist society. Five years later some Martians offer me a million dollars for my property. I have the right to exercise the escape clause from the orginal exclusionary contract and I have the right to dispose of my property in anyway I see fit. There can not be a valid contract that holds me or my property to the terms of the contract forever. So there is no way to insure that an insular, racist community would stay that way forever. Even if there was a clause that said the racists got first shot at the property in question, there can not be a clause that forces me to accept their offer without violating either the NAP or libertarian principles in general.
The second argument in the pro-racism camp revolves around Rothbards argument that it is neccesary to limit immigration because non-libertarians may move in and change the "political landscape" to something decidedly non-libertarian. This view MUST have a political system in place that accepts that government intervention into the free market is acceptable. Which is exactly what we have now. This is, of course, a non-libertarian position and I can only attribute it to Rothbards conversion late in life from a staunch libertarian to a paleo-conservative that still considered himself the "guru" of libertarianism.
The libertarian and free market view is that anyone may associate or disassociate themselves from anyone that they chose. They may not use force or coercion against anyone else. Both of the above arguments require either force or coercion to be used against persons with differing views.
I agree that people can not be forced to associate with anyone they don't wish to, when it comes to their private property. I also agree that groups of these people can choose to "band together" in a certain area to exclude persons of another race from settling there, on any of their private property. I think that any community that chose to do that would suffer from their decision to do so, but they certainly have the right to do that.
There are really two arguments involved in the pro-racism camp. The first has to do with the loss of cultural identity, which is just another way of complaining about race mixing. They like to reference Hoppe on this point and his "tribalism" approach to immigration. However they fail to point out the inconsistencies with this argument, which Hoppe himself avoids by saying that the state should, "act as if they were a private property owner" and that we should look at the argument in this light. Without stating the obvious, that the state is not a legitimate private property owner, lets go ahead with this line of reasoning for the sake of argument.
Lets say that all borders are privately owned land and the owner has the right to exclude anyone they want from tresspassing on that property. First, anyone that could get to someone elses property, someone that actually does believe in a free market and wants that diversity, the person owning the "borders" could have no say so over who that property owner could associate or do business with. Second, lets pretend there are no such things as helicopters and the only way to get to the free market owners property was to cross the property at these "borders". Surely any act that deprived the free market owner the right of association, the right to do business with whomever they choose, can be seen as nothing less than an act of either force or coercion against the free market owner. Any violation of the NAP warrants a reaction by those who are trying to participate in the free market. I think their argument falls apart at this point. Another area to look at is the validity of any contract. For it to be valid, there must be a way to exit the contract.
Say I wanted to be a part of this collectivist, protectionist society. Five years later some Martians offer me a million dollars for my property. I have the right to exercise the escape clause from the orginal exclusionary contract and I have the right to dispose of my property in anyway I see fit. There can not be a valid contract that holds me or my property to the terms of the contract forever. So there is no way to insure that an insular, racist community would stay that way forever. Even if there was a clause that said the racists got first shot at the property in question, there can not be a clause that forces me to accept their offer without violating either the NAP or libertarian principles in general.
The second argument in the pro-racism camp revolves around Rothbards argument that it is neccesary to limit immigration because non-libertarians may move in and change the "political landscape" to something decidedly non-libertarian. This view MUST have a political system in place that accepts that government intervention into the free market is acceptable. Which is exactly what we have now. This is, of course, a non-libertarian position and I can only attribute it to Rothbards conversion late in life from a staunch libertarian to a paleo-conservative that still considered himself the "guru" of libertarianism.
The libertarian and free market view is that anyone may associate or disassociate themselves from anyone that they chose. They may not use force or coercion against anyone else. Both of the above arguments require either force or coercion to be used against persons with differing views.
posted by Unknown at
12:19 PM
1 Comments:
Great points. I completely agree and have said likewise before.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home