Macker:

One way we can keep distinguish between those immigrants who wish to freeload off others and those who do not (my preference as you obnoxiously put it) is to establish rules that disallow the freeloading. For instance one could make it illegal for first and second generation immigrants from going on the dole and that doing so would revoke citizenship.

Fine. Let’s do it. Now will you start working for this, rather than for calling for immigrants to be shot at the border?

And hey, why stop there, anyway? Why not try to make it so that nobody can go on the dole at taxpayer expense?

One could require the immigrants to provide some form of bond or insurance that would ensure that they would not have to be cared for by the state.

This will only create exactly the same monitoring and enforcement problems as any other form of ex ante immigration control. (Who do you want to verify that they have the right level of assets? The IRS? Who do you want to take action against them if they don’t match up? La Migra and the Border Patrol?) As such it involves a violation of the rights of numerous innocent third parties, and falls to the same objections. It’s also completely unnecessary if you make it impossible for immigrants to go on the dole anyway.

Kennedy,

I didn’t suggest that descriptions like “Du Toit is using bigotry to excuse aggression against innocent third parties” should be presented without an accompanying argument against the bigoted premise, did I?

What I think I have argued is that that is an accurate description of the structure of du Toit’s argument, and that it can be part of connecting your exposition of the argument to your criticism of it (in this case, as a transition to the general reasons for rejecting political collectivism), so there’s no reason why describing an argument as resting on a “bigoted” premise entails not addressing the argument on its merits. It’s just a description of the structure of the argument, which may or may not be accurate in a particular case, and which, if accurate, can be part of addressing it on its merits, by pointing the way to the rest of the argument.

How much of that argument needs to be spelled out and how much can be taken for granted depends on the audience that you’re addressing; here I’ve only mentioned the general reasons against political collectivism rather than spelling them out, or spelling out their application to this particular case, because I’m not trying to convince du Toit (or other border creeps) of anything at all about immigration at the moment. I’m trying to convince you of something about something else, and I figure you’re already acquainted with the arguments that I’m using as examples.

So, what’s the problem with describing the structure of du Toit’s argument by saying “Du Toit is using democratic mysticism [or, bigotry] to justify violence against innocent third parties”? If there are good, established reasons for saying that they are, in fact, innocent, isn’t that an accurate description of what du Toit is in fact doing?

Kennedy,

And aren’t there good, established reasons for saying so? (E.g. that collectivism is false?)

Kennedy,

Well. Aren’t they, in fact, innocent?

Kennedy,

Isn’t it true that Du Toit is using democratic mysticism (among other things) to justify aggression against innocent dissenters?

Kennedy,

That again begs the crucial question: Is America the collective property of it’s citizens?

No more so than saying “You’re using democratic mysticism to justify aggression against innocent dissenters” begs the question. Of course you need to have some further argument to demonstrate that democratic mysticism is wrong, and that the consent of 50%+1 isn’t binding on any of the 50%-1, but if you’ve got a general case that political collectivism as such is wrong, then a fortiori you’ve got a case that democratic mysticism is wrong, and with that case in hand, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that “You’re using democratic mysticism to excuse aggression against innocent dissenters” is indeed the structure of the argument. I’m just saying that it works the same way when people use racial, class, national, religious, or other forms of bigotry to excuse aggression.

As far as premises behind anti-immigration arguments go, I think that the claim that America is collectively the property of its citizens is only one among many, although it’s a very common one, especially amongst people who like to play at libertarian. But it’s not the only one. For example, a lot of the Law-and-Order types more or less explicitly operate on a premise of collective punishment, to the effect that if some illegal immigrants commit crimes against person and property, then the government is entitled to force all of them to submit to ex ante screening, searches, etc. with or without probable cause, on the excuse that it’s a defensive measure (even though they would never accept that kind of treatment for, say, anyone who happened to come from the same state as Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph).

In either case, though, operating from a premise that all and only members of a particular national group are either (1) collectively entitled to control land that has neither been freely given to them nor homesteaded by them, solely in virtue of their nationality, or else (2) are fair game for collective punishment and preemptive violence without probable cause, solely in virtue of their nationality, just means operating from a bigoted premise. Specifically, both premises are instances of some of the cruder and more militant forms of nationalist bigotry.

Describing the argument as “bigoted” may or may not be persuasive in a given context (in fact it’s usually not, since it raises people’s hackles), but it can be an accurate description of the content of the premises, and not just an attempt at psychoanalysis of the motives behind them, as you seem to suggest. Since the point of describing the structure of a bad argument is not always persuading the person who made the argument not to make it anymore, I can’t see what’s wrong with the procedure.

Kennedy:

No such general case exists. It’s perfectly legitimate to use force to keep anyone you like off of your own property, even if your reasons for for doing so are bigotted.

It’s not a crime to do so, but it is a vice. As it is a vice to do anything from collectivist (or, more specifically, bigotted) premises, actually.

But that wasn’t my point anyway, and if I was unclear, then my bad. Read “use violence against innocent third parties” where I wrote “use violence” above; criticizing someone for offering bigotted reasons to excuse aggression against innocent third parties is no more problematic than criticizing them for using any other form of collectivism (e.g. democratic mysticism, corruption of the blood, etc.) in order to excuse aggression against innocent third parties.

Kennedy: We each are entitled to recover money from you. But if Hoppe takes $2500 from you do I have any more legitimate a claim against him than against the casino?

I don’t know. Sometimes people who accept stolen goods certainly are obligated to return them to the owners. Sometimes they aren’t. The question is which category this case falls under. Does Hoppe know where the money comes from? And what’s he accepting the money for? It seems like both of these may be relevant to whether or not the act of accepting it makes him an accessory to the theft or not.

Stefan: Who then has a ‘right’ to any of the remaining 3 clocks? Why shouldn’t it be first-come first-serve?”

I think it should unless the claimaints make some kind of contractual agreement with each other to the contrary, and I mentioned this above. My question for Kennedy is whether, in each given case, anybody at all can lay claim on a first-come first-serve basis, or whether the class of people who can lay claim on a first-come first-serve basis is limited to the people from whom the loot was taken in the first place.

Kennedy,

If I steal $1,000 each from you, Lopez, Lynette, and Sabotta, throw it all into a bag and shake it around, and then blow $1,500 at the casino, are the property rights for the remaining $2,500 completely unsalvageable? Can anyone at all lay claim to the remaining loot?