An old, unpublished short story of mine from long ago–1980s I believe: The Subjectivist’s Lament. Written during a heavier Randian phase. A bit overwrought, but grains of truth.
- An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State, Objectivist Robert Tracinski
- Katrina and the End of Illusions, Justin Raimondo
- Interdictor: Survival of New Orleans Blog, Michael Barnett
- Good Morning from Ground ‘Minus One’
- Web Firm keeps going in storm zone
- Former Green Beret Stays Online in Katrina’s Wake
- A Dismal Reality: It Wasn’t Supposed To Be This Way, Fred Reed
As I previously noted on the LewRockwell.com blog, an emerging nickname for Baton Rouge is “New Rouge,” because of the huge number of New Orleans residents moving there in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. See, e.g., Capital city struggling with inflow (Sept. 3, 2005, Houston Chronicle). So, Daddy has registered www.newrouge.org and am temporarily pointing it to www.kinsellalaw.com/newrouge.
***
Also–as noted here, Houston–currently home of an estimated 150,000 of Katrina evacuees–stands to gain big from the hit felt by New Orleans.
My latest article: A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005. The version now on LRC is corrupted; see the version below. See also followup posted on LRC blog (reprinted below).
Recent twitter:
"I'm talking about rightful ownership under libertarian property rights, not state property law."
Me too. Some libertarians argue that the state property is unowned and therefore that it violates the rights of immigrants for the state not to let them use it. This is just…
— Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) December 7, 2025
See also:
- Walter Block, “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique“
- Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan
- I’m Pro-Immigration and Pro-Open Borders
- Kinsella on Anarchy Time Discussing Immigration
- followup comment here and the post here (No-Treason);
- and this one here (Raico and Hoppe on Switzerland);
- and the reply to Neverfox here)
- Transcript: “Liberty Forum Debate vs. Daniel Garza: Immigration Reform: Open Borders or Build the Wall?“, by Stephan Kinsella, Daniel Garza, and Jeremy Kaufman, New Hampshire Liberty Forum, Manchester, NH (Feb. 7, 2019) [KOL258]
- KOL160 | Bad Quaker on IP, Hoppe, and Immigration
Mar. 13, 2018
- KOL074 | The Libertarian: Interview by Keir Martland: Argumentation Ethics, Immigration, Libertarian Property Theory
- KOL056 | Guest on Anarchy Time with James Cox: Immigration Issues (2010)
- Discussion with Bieser on Immigration
- Reply to Neverfox on immigration: “Whatever Mileage We Put On, We’ll Take Off”
- Boudreaux on Hoppe on Immigration
- Immigration Threads and Posts
A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders
September 1, 2005
[LewRockwell.com]
To own means one has the right to control a given resource. Ownership is distinct from mere possession or actual control; it is the right to control. (On the nature of ownership, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, chs. 1, 2, esp. pp. 5—6, 8—18, discussing notions of scarcity, aggression, property, norms, and justification, and ch. 9, esp. pp. 130—145; also links in this post.) 1
As H.L.A. Hart argued, the question of what the law is, is different from the question of whether a particular law is moral or just. We can distinguish the way things are from the way things should be. Fact and norm, is and ought, are different things. When we speak of the actual state of affairs, we are talking about actual or legal ownership, and the positive, legal right to control a resource.
What I am getting at is that the state does own many resources, even if (as I and other anarcho-libertarians believe) the state has no natural or moral right to own these things. Nonetheless the state does own some resources — roads, ports, buildings and facilities, military bases, etc. We can allow that a road, for example, is actually, or legally, owned by the state, while also recognizing that the “real” owners are the taxpayers or previous expropriated owners of the land who are entitled to it. This poses no conceptual problem: there is no conflict between the proposition that the taxpayers have a moral or natural right to the land, i.e. they should have the (legal) right to control it; and the assertion that the state has the actual positive or legal right to control the land. The state is the legal owner; but this legal ownership is unjustified, because it amounts to continuing trespass by the state against property “really” owned (normatively or morally) by certain victims of the state (e.g., taxpayers or the resource’s previous owners).
The point here is the state does (legally) own resources which are “really” owned by others. As libertarians, we can view this situation as the state holding property on behalf of the real owners, as a sort of uninvited caretaker.
Now my contention is that given the existence of significant public property in a certain country, it is not necessarily unlibertarian for immigration to be restricted by means of usage-rules established on public property by the state-owner.
Consider this case. I live in a small independent city, which has about 10,000 residents. It is very small and dense, and smack-dab in the middle of Houston, which has 4 million people. Our City has a public pool a few blocks from my house. As a resident of the City (and hence a taxpayer) I am entitled to use the pool for a very small fee — say, $2 per visit. Nonresidents — outsiders — may use the pool too, but they pay three times as much: $6 per visit.
Now let’s say that as a libertarian I would rather the pool be privatized, or sold and the proceeds returned to those who have been victimized to found or maintain it — the taxpayers, or residents, of this City. This would be a type of restitution for the crime committed against them. Alternatively, if the land for the pool had been expropriated, the owner ought to be paid restitution. Etc. The point is that given a government theft, taking, or trespass, it is better, other things being equal, for the victims to receive restitution; and more restitution is better than a smaller, insufficient amount.
But restitution need not be made only in dollars. It can be made by providing other value or benefits to the victims. One such benefit to me is the ability to use a nice, uncrowded, local pool for a cheap price. It is arguably better, even more libertarian, for the City to discriminate against outsiders. If it did not, the pool would be overrun by outsiders seeking cheap swimming. It would be virtually worthless to me and most of my fellow residents of the City if there were no rules on entry, or no discrimination against outsiders. The rule set on the usage of this property by its caretaker-owner, the City, is a reasonable one — one that the owner of a private pool might adopt, and also one that generates more restitution for the victims of the City’s aggression, than a less discriminatory rule would.
This example illustrates the general point that when the state assumes ownership of a resource, then it has to establish some rules as to the resource’s usage. This is what it means to own something: to be able to determine how the thing is used. Coming back to immigration, let’s take the case of the federal government as owner-caretaker of an extensive network of public roads and other facilities. If the feds adopted a rule that only citizens and certain invited outsiders are permitted to use these resources, this would in effect radically restrict immigration. Even if private property owners were not prohibited from inviting whomever they wish onto their own property, the guest would have a hard time getting there, or leaving, without using, say, the public roads. So merely prohibiting non-citizens from using public property would be one means of establishing de facto immigration restrictions. It need not literally prohibit private property owners from having illegal immigrants on their property. It need only prevent them from using the roads or ports — which it owns.
It seems to me establishing rules as to how public roads are to be used is not inherently unlibertarian. Even libertarians who say the state has no right to make any rules at all regarding property it possesses — even speed limits etc. — really advocate the following rule: allow anyone to use it, and/or return it to the people. This is a way of using a piece of property. But most libertarians don’t seem to have a principled opposition to the very idea of rule-setting itself. Sure, the state should not own a sports stadium or road, but so long as it does, it is not inherently unlibertarian for the state-owner to promulgate and enforce some rules regarding usage of the resource. A road may have speed limits; a stadium or museum may charge an entrance fee; the sheriff’s office and the courthouse might have locks on the doors preventing anyone but employees from entering.
Advocates of open-borders/unrestricted immigration are simply those who prefer a certain rule of usage be issued by the feds: that anyone at all may use federal roads, ports, etc. Whereas other citizens have a different preference: they prefer that the feds not allow everyone, but only some people. By having the latter rule, obviously, a version of immigration restriction could be established de facto.
Now I am not so far arguing for the latter rule. I am simply noting that it is not necessarily unlibertarian, as the open-borders types want to maintain. They urge that the illegitimate owner-caretaker of public property use it in this way; others want it used another way. We all agree the rule that really should be adopted is: return the property to private hands. Where we differ is on what second-best rule is more libertarian, or more preferred. Is one second-best rule more clearly libertarian than the other? It seems to me that one useful way to compare alternative rules is to examine the restitution that would be provided by various usage-rules. A rule that generates more restitution for more people is, other things being equal, probably preferable to other rules.
In the case of federal highways, for example, most citizens currently get a benefit from being able to use roads. Is it “worth” the cost of being taxed to maintain the roads, or to pay for compensation fees paid to expropriated or bought-out property owners, or the associated liberty violations? No. But given a rights violation, some restitution is better than none. If the feds announced tomorrow that no rules at all applied to the federal highways, the utility of the roads to most people would fall dramatically, meaning that restitution has decreased. The resource would be wasted. If the feds announced tomorrow that no one could use the roads except the military, then again, this would reduce overall restitution. Some more reasonable rule in between would obviously generate a more respectable amount of restitution than either extreme.
Is there an “optimal” rule that leads to “optimal” restitution? Most certainly not. Private property is the only way to objectively and efficiently allocate capital. But some rules are better than others; and one reasonable rule of thumb used to judge the validity of a given usage rule for a publicly owned resource is to ask whether a private owner of a similar resource might adopt a similar rule; or to compare the amount and types of restitution corresponding to alternative usage-rules. And since it is impossible for the state to adopt a rule that perfectly satisfies all citizens — this is one problem with having public property in the first place — then, other things being equal, a rule that is favored by the overwhelming majority may be viewed as providing “more” overall restitution than one that is favored only by a few people.
Given these considerations, it seems obvious to me that, just as my neighborhood pool discriminates against outsiders, and just as a private pool also does this, so the state owner-caretaker of federal property might also establish rules that discriminate against some immigrants. It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of citizens do not want open borders; which means almost every American taxpayer would prefer that public property not be open to everyone. It is also clear that given federal anti-discrimination laws, providing unlimited access to public roads is tantamount to forced integration, has Hoppe has argued (1, 2). This cost is yet another reason why most Americans would prefer not to have public property open to all with no discrimination or restrictions. Given that values are subjective, using property to cater to the subjective preferences of the vast majority would seem to be one way of achieving a more substantial degree of restitution.
What are my own personal preferences? Well, I would prefer the public property be returned as restitution to the victims and the mafia called the state disbanded. Barring that, so long as they hold property rightfully “owned” by me and others to whom the state owes damages/restitution, I would prefer property they own to be used only for peaceful purposes of the type that would exist in the free market (can any libertarian seriously deny that it’s objectively better for the state to build a library or park on public property than an IRS office or chemical weapons factory?). I would prefer rules to be set regarding the usage of these resources so that they are not wasted, and so as to act in a reasonable manner like private owners would, and to maximize restitution. So far, I think my “preferences” are the only libertarian ones possible.
But what actual rules should we prefer? Here I think we start to veer from libertarianism into the realm of personal preference. I would not want the feds to allow any and all comers onto federal property, for the reasons mentioned above — I believe it would reduce the utility of public property, and impose costs (such as forced integration). In any event, even if this were now my own preference, I have to admit 99% of my fellow taxpayers would simply prefer some immigration restrictions, and therefore probably would prefer some kinds of rules of the road that discriminate against outsiders — given this preference, which does not seem per se unlibertarian — it is obvious that far more restitution is made overall if such rules are enacted.
Libertarians who righteously assume that their open borders view is the only principled one can only maintain this stance if they argue that the state should not ever establish any rules on property it asserts ownership of. Once they grant that some rules should be set, then they can not assume that discriminatory rules are automatically unlibertarian; all rules are “discriminatory.” And I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough. It cannot be a libertarian requirement to add injury to injury; libertarianism is about vindicating and defending the victim, not about victimizing him further.
***
More on Immigration and Open Borders
11:54 am on September 1, 2005
Re my LRC column A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, I’ve already received many comments, most, surprisingly, positive. One thoughtful reader writes to tell me he is concerned that the argument could be used to justify all sorts of unlibertarian laws. For example, the State could say citizens can only use the roads if they agree to submit to taxation and narcotics prohibitions.Let me quickly summarize my thesis and then reply to this. My basic idea is that the citizens are the true owners of public property, and should have some say-so over how the state uses that property. Their interests and preferences should be taken into account. This will result in a greater degree of restitution, and thus an overall smaller degree of net harm, to them. Now obviously all their preferences cannot be simultaneously satisfied, but it seems reasonable, other things being equal, for the state to try to use the property in reasonable ways (like a private owner would) so as to result in partial restitution being made the citizens, or as many of them as possible. Obviously a greater degree of restitution (a better use of the property) made to a larger number of citizens is “better” (even from a libertarian standpoint) than a smaller degree of restitution (a more wasteful use of the property) made to fewer citizens. This does not imply there is an “optimal” usage of state property (other than to privatize it) but it does imply some uses are clearly worse than others. And it also implies that not every rule that ends up reducing usage by outsiders (immigrants) is necessary or inherently unlibertarian.
And yes, I share the concerns that this can be abused and it could be used to impose illiberal regulations on us. Gray areas and slippery slopes are a problem, but that is the unavoidable problem accompanying a state-run society. Given such a society, I see no reason we have to throw up our hands and say that any (second-, third-, or fourth-best) rule of property usage is just as good as any other. I threw in a lot of ceteris paribuses in my argument.
Given public ownership of property, which is already an offense, a rights-invasion, is it not libertarian to at least prefer certain public uses (and rules) to others, namely, those rules that don’t further victimize people, and/or that return to them some benefit to partially compensate them for the damage done to them by the public system in the first place?
And is it not sensible then to ask, what would a private owner do? to determine a better public use of property? Sure, this can be limited, and can only go so far, because the state is not a private owner. For example: a private road might not discriminate against outsiders–it might allow immigrants to move on the roads to property of willing participants. But the private road would also charge a fee (which is a way of filtering out some people); and would only take people who had a destination to go to (a willing invitee); and would not be imposing affirmative action and anti-discrimination requirements on citizens, so that its trafficking immigrants would not be a costly action.
And consider this too: whose rights are violated if the state does not permit immigrants onto roads? The immigrant’s rights? How so? This is a resource collectively owned by the citizens of the U.S. Whatever rule “they” adopt, I don’t see how the outsider has a right to complain. So I don’t see that it violates immigrants’ rights to not be permitted to use a U.S. public resource.
So whose rights are violated? arguably, those citizens who want to use the roads to transport immigrants to their own property. These citizens are “part owners” of the road and are unable to have it used in the way they wish. But for every citizen like this, there are 99 others who do not want the roads open to all–because that means dumping tons of immigrants onto public services and having the right to sue for discrimination and having access to everyone’s neighborhood due to the network of public roads. So if the open borders citizen has his way with the property, then 99 of his neighbors have their rights violated, because the road is being used the way 1 guy wants but not the way 99 others prefer. So there is no way to avoid violating someone’s rights, since the property is public and it has to be used one way.
It seems to me it is reasonable to use the property in this case the way 99 prefer, instead of the one prefers.
Now, as I stated in the article, if the state let only the military use the roads, that would harm the citizens by failing to let them use the roads. The state could theoretically enforce all kinds of bad “law”–taxes, drug laws–by saying to citizens: you may use the roads only if you agree to submit to taxes, drug laws. However, notice that this is just a conditional grant of usage of the property. I would not agree that is a good use of it–it’s tantamount to saying only the government can use it. Given that the citizens own it, it’s reasonable to allow the citizens to use it (with orderly rules, like speed limits) instead of to ban them from using it. If you prevent citizens from using it, that is reducing the restitution. So I would say that conditioning a citizen’s right ot use the roads to establish de facto unlibertarian laws is reducing the restitution, and increaseing the state aggression and harm, so I would oppose it. But denying an outsider the right to use the roads is not the same at all.
Bottom line: any libertarian who disagrees with me her must do so on one of two grounds: (a) there are no second-best rules; the state may not impose any rules at all; or (b) there are second-best rules but they require the state not discriminate against outsiders in the rules set on public property.
I reject (a) because it means you can’t prefer a peaceful use (a park or library) over a tyrannical one (IRS office, nuclear weapons facility); and it means you can’t prefer a reasonable use that gives some benefit back to citizens (public roads with reasonable rules and usable by citizens) rather than a wasteful use that provides no restitution (roads with no rules at all; or usable only by the military). And as for (b), the critic would need to set forth a theory of second-best usage of property. I tried to sketch some of these factors: prefer a peaceful to a criminal use; prefer a reasonable use along the lines of what a private owner would do, and taking into account the level and degree of restitution and the preferences of citizens. If someone has a better theory, let’s hear it.
Coda:
Email from a reader:
Stephan:
I’m surprised you’re surprised about all the positive comments on your recent essay. There seems to be a disconnect between people I would consider at the “top” of the libertarian community (academics, writers and political activists) and “rank-and-file” libertarians. Perhaps more people (not necessarily you) realize that the cause of liberty is hampered by the importation of millions of people with no tradition of limited government. These new arrivals (the ones here legally) owe the blessing of US residency not to the locality where they live but to the District of Columbia.
I think the libertarian arguments against immigration can be summarized as follows:
1. Mass immigration is a form of rent-seeking. Employers can increase their margins and off-load the increased infrastructure and various non-monetary costs on others.
2. Government is enforcing compulsory association. “Civil rights” laws and welfare benefits mean that those who do not want immigrants around are forced to abide and pay for them.
3. Government is importing more welfare-warfare state constituents.
4. Government is deliberately changing the native culture over the wishes of its own citizens. Substantively, there is no difference between the US open borders policy and the American Indians de facto open borders policy.
5. Open borders are a tragedy of the commons.
6. Government is inflating citizenship and residency in the US, as it did with college educations. Prior purchasers of these assets now see them devalued.
Few people realize that prior to a Supreme Court ruling in the 1850’s, immigration was a matter for the individual States, where the expense of immigration is actually borne.
Keep up the good work.
- Update: The post is The Essence of Libertarianism? “Finders Keepers,” “Better Title,” and Other Possibilities. For more on this issue, and on the nature of ownership, see Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), various chapters, e.g. chs. 2, 4, 9, et pass. [↩]
Update: On the Core Principles of Libertarian Property Rights
Recently I shared with David Gordon my thought that libertarianism can be distilled to a two-word summary: “first possession” (or “finders keepers” or “first user“). All competing theories believe in property rights; socialists, for example, believe the state should own the means of production. The difference between them and us is that we believe the only valid means of acquiring title to property is to appropriate it from the state of nature by being the first user or possessor, or by acquiring it ultimately from such a first possessor.
David pointed out that this principle covers homesteadable, alienable property, but does not cover rights in our bodies. As he said, “If you confine yourself to finders keepers, doesn’t this leave me free to kill you, so long as I don’t take your property?” Well, if we say that “first possession” or homesteading is how we acquire rights in our bodies too, I supppose “first possession” covers body-rights too. One is the first user of one’s body, after all, as emphasized by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (pp. 8-14). But do we homestead our bodies in the same way we homestead external, unowned scarce resources? It’s not as if, if I choose not to homestead my body, it remains unowned–as is the case for unowned scarce resources.
But David got me thinking about this, and I think I found another short phrase that also captures the essence of libertarianism, in a somewhat different way. The essence of libertarianism?: “BETTER TITLE” (see, e.g., La. Civ. Code, arts. 531, 532).
This is an expression used in law when two people dispute title to a piece of land. Neither party has to prove “absolute” ownership of the land, “good against the world”; only better title than the other. The “better title” favors the “first possession” rule for homesteadable property. As for rights in one’s body, the person whose body it is has a better claim to control the body than others, because of the natural connection between a person and his body (and, yes, because one is the first user of one’s body, as opposed to the latecomer). Further, if an aggressor does not acknowledge the victim’s special claim to have primary control over “his own” body, then the aggressor has no cause to complain if aggression is used against his body. After all, the aggressor has no special claims to control his body, if the connection between him and his body is not sufficient to support such a claim. Therefore, any aggressor who makes such a claim has to admit the legitimacy of force against him in response to his aggression. This is all the victim needs to prove in order to establish that he has a right against aggression towards his own body. And this shows a person has “better title” to his own body than do others. (For more info on this type of reasoning about rights, see New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory.) [Update: Gordon jokingly suggested a different two-word summary for the essence of libertarian rights: “F*ck you!”]
Yet another possibility: “Conflict Minimization”
And another: Modus vivendi.
Update:
I originally posted this back in July 2002 but have updated it with additional info:
- my SoloHQ post on The Problem of Initial Acquisition
- my article A Libertarian Theory of Contract, text at note 2, and note 2; and text at note 35.
- Defending Argumentation Ethics: Reply to Murphy & Callahan.
Later I will add some of my thoughts on difficulties of homesteading one’s own body (body, baby ownership issues, etc.). [update: see: Objectivists on Positive Parental Obligations and Abortion; How We Come To Own Ourselves]
from this Chronicles thread:
I agree that most people do not want liberty; that is why we do not have it. IMO those who think we can “win” the battle for liberty are just deluding themselves. Why libertarians, who denounce altruism etc., feel as if it’s some moral duty to go around wasting large parts of their life in some campaign for liberty is beyond me–it’s altruistic; it’s futile; it’s a waste of time, since one is at most barely increasing the odds, that we will temporarily and slightly increase liberty, the puny benefit of which falls primarily on those who do not deserve it.
I have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done (affecting Yul Brenner Pharao pose)
Coda:
In the wake of some emails, let me add a few clarifying commments. I am not saying that it is a waste of time to try to work for liberty. To the contrary. I am saying that one would have to view it as a waste of time, if one really believed the costs of fighting the battle must be justified by the gains achieved–because one must delude oneself into making the equation balance. I just reject the equation. I help fight for liberty because it is the right thing to do. If I strutted around like some libertarians who claim that in their devotion to the struggle for liberty they are “making a difference”–certainly “more of a difference” than people like me who don’t write “influential books” or a daily op-ed column or give speeches to socialist legislators in Arabia–then if I were honest I would have to say, it’s really not worth it. If the justification for spending time and effort and money etc. to fight for liberty is whether or not we are “winning,” then the project is a failure, on those terms. As I noted above, the actions of most of us at most result in a slightly higher chance at barely, and temporarily, increasing liberty–or, more likely, slowing down the rate of increase in government growth–primarily for the benefit of the masses who at root are to blame for the problem in the first place. And honest analysis realizes this.
Freeing oneself from self-delusion is essential for self-honesty and integrity. It also frees one to take principled positions and to avoid making the dishonest and irritating mistake of judging the truth or value of a theory or view by its “strategical” significance.
I cannot count the number of times some irritating jerk libertarian says to me, in response to a theory or normative proposition, “but that is not going to persuade anyone.” They immediately assume that everything is to be judged by strategy, rhetoric, persuasiveness. I see nothing wrong with using such standards when appropriate. For example if I am proposing a method or argument to persuade people, then it is relevant whether the proposed argument or technique is persuasive. But when I assert to a fellow libertarian that we have a right to such and such, or that there is no right to xyz, for such and such reasons–it is just a non sequitur, a category mistake–and usually smarmy disingenuity, IMO–to say BUT that is not “going to persuade people.” Hey dumbass–I never said it was gonna persuade others. These type of libertarians are in my view basically moral skeptics, relativists, and/or utilitarians. They are incapable of discussing anything normative. Moral talk is simply not “useful.” What good, after all, does it to do identify moral truths, if it does not persuade others?
By this logic, there are no rights violations; there is only power. After all, even if libertarian rights could be proved by the Word of God delivered in an engraved envelope–still, an aggressor could disregard it. “Telling” him that he is violating your rights will “do no good.” Yes. So? And so? What is the point of this elementary school observation? This entire mindset is that of the self-proclaimed “pragmatist” who does not want to say there are no rights–after all, it might be “useful” if some people do believe in them–but he does not really believe in them. He, in engineer-like fashion, cares only about “practical” “results.” And I have no problem with this. But I would prefer they be honest. If I say, “there should be no murder,” don’t say “that’s not practical”; it’s not “impractical”; it’s a normative truth. To say the rule against murder is “impractical” is to fail to distinguish between ought and is.
Every 5-15 years you see some libertarians waxing about how we are winning the battle, or that we can win the battle, all we need to do is… As far back as the 1930s etc…. They have to delude themselves and engage in wishful thinking and rah-rah political rally self-delusion (“we can win! we can win the Presidency! This year we will get 100 million votes if we just get our message out there!!!”). They have to delude themselves because they have bought into the idea that the cost of the fight is a worthwhile “investment” in the struggle to “achieve” liberty. They must believe that worth it to fight for liberty, implying they think we have, or can, achieve suffiient “gains” to “outweigh” the “Costs”. This is naive and wide-eyed gullibility, wishful thinking.
Me–I say, be a libertarian activist if you want (of whatever stripe: more academic, like some of us; a blogger; a writer; join a local discussion group; run for office; donate your time or money to something; help promote economic education and literacy; whatever). I am, myself, to a degree. It’s okay to spend effort on a cause one is passionate about. I expend effort reading science fiction, and don’t seek to justify it w/ some made-up phantom tangible gains. Fight for liberty for its own sake. If you fight for it based on the gains, you will soon give up.
[From my Webnote series]
From a 2005 post on LRC:
Reading Alan Watson’s Roman Law and Comparative Law, I came across this passage, describing the status of slaves in ancient Rome:
A slave could own no property, but from early times it was customary to give the slave a peculium, a fund that he could administer as if it belonged to him. Technically, this sum belonged to the master, but to some extent it was treated as a separate estate with which the master did not interfere except for good reason. [p.40]
It occurred to me that our property and income today is basically merely a peculium (not to be confused with pecunium)–since the state presumes the right to take as much of it as they want, leaving a discretionary amount to us serfs, at their pleasure. Further proof that taxation enslaves.
[continue reading…]
What can one say to this? Except, so typically Objectivist.
The Magnificent Seven Billion
by Ross Elliot
Oh, and how they floated there. Two hundred & twenty miles above the Earth in their spaceship.We. Our guys. Us.
Shuttle Discovery performs a majestic back flip at 18,000 miles per hour and comes in to dock alongside the space station with nary a jolt. An orbital tango. Twinkling stars and twinkling toes. Fred Astaire in a spacesuit. Perfect.
The hatch opens and through they float. The Magnificent Seven. John Sturges, eat your heart out.
Can you imagine, a scant hundred years ago, in 1905, our ancestors even conjuring up such a scenario? No. Yet there it is. There we are.
The heroism, the adherence to objectivity, the breathtaking concentration of wealth and the focusing thereof: these things make it possible. They make it real.
Seven million pounds of thrust hurls them upward faster than a speeding bullet. Their journey is fraught with peril. It must be, for Man dares to break free of his home. We, who were once helpless babes, decipher and render nature’s power to our own ends, and with supreme confidence in our own destiny, thrust starward.
And, while men on Earth play with their own DNA, Man above toys with the heavens. We burn the candle at both ends and oh! how brightly it burns.
There need never be an end to this. The market, the satisfaction of needs and wants, the mind-blowing accumulation and exploitation of capital, the dreaming, the searching and the attainment.
Everything is possible.
Man is capable and Man is good.
Just get out of his way.
See this post, and comment on it there, if you feel like it. Defend the Mises Insitute from scurrilous charges!
Recent Comments