What used to be a very bizarre and strange argument against immigration, capped off by psychoanalysis of anyone who might disagree, has been taken off the air at Lew Rockwell.com. No reason was given, but it was clearly an embarrassment by any standard. It has been replaced by this:
———————
Hoppe on Immigration
Publishing Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s footnote 23 from Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem caused a lot of comment. Please see also his Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem, On Free Trade and Restricted Immigration, and On Free Immigration and Forced Integration. There is also his LRC archive and his personal website. ~ Ed.
September 27, 2004
———————
(Maybe it’s been replaced again, but as of 8:56 pm EST, that was what was up.)
Too bad that I didn’t have it saved someplace, since it was pretty amusing. Fragments of it are quoted in the discussion below, including his scintillating refutation of those who have not yet seen why Hoppe is right:
“Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be understood only psychologically.”
“They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its ‘antiauthoritarianism’ (trust no authority) and seeming ‘tolerance,’ in particular toward ‘alternative’ — non-bourgeois lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development.”
Brilliant, no?
Anyway, I’ll leave this horse, since even Lew Rockwell has had to admit that it’s dead. I’ve got other issues to think about.
P.S. I just got a note that this was an error. Instead, the entire essay is available. My mistake. Well, read it and you’ll find more of the same. (Hat tip to Jim B for pointing out my mistake.)
The original post is contained in footnote 23 to the linked article, presumably so it can be seen in context with the rest of the article from which it is extracted. Nothing is off the air.
P.S. I just got a note that this was an error. Instead, the entire essay is available. My mistake. Well, read it and you’ll find more of the same. (Hat tip to Jim B for pointing out my mistake.)
Thanks for the pointer. Actually, note 23 may be the second worst note in that piece. Look at note 5, specifically the references to J. Phillippe Rushton, thought by many to be a pseudo-scientist and racist. A quick Google search will turn up lots of recommendations to check him out by various white supremicist sites. Of course, that by itself doesn’t make him wrong or a racist, but we can add this to the “moths around the LRC flame.”
If you’d like to see why he happens to be wrong, check out this critique by two of the top evolutionary psychologists in the business (who also happen to have, as I understand it, pretty libertarian leanings). This is a scientific critique by people who know and don’t have an ideological agenda against libertarians.
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/rushton.html
Incidentally, I took on an earlier iteration of Hoppe’s immigration views, here:
http://www.shrubbloggers.com/archives/20040201.html#e20040207-0440am
It was published (in truncated form) in Liberty magazine as a reflection a few weeks later…
>>>>P.S. I just got a note that this was an error. Instead, the entire essay is available. My mistake. Well, read it and you’ll find more of the same. (Hat tip to Jim B for pointing out my mistake.) <<<<
That “JimB” was actually Kinsella. Why is he scared to use his real name? Is he afraid the Mexicans might get him?