Yeah; I think that Paul's obvious evasiveness and non sequiturs are a perfect example of how political strategery actually obliterates anything like sensible communication. If he had his head screwed on straight, it would have been obvious to him that the sit-in movement works in favor of the position that you don't need federal laws to win civil rights victories -- if it didn't occur to him spontaneously, it should at least have occurred to him when she repeatedly bashed him over the head with it. But of course, if he had his head screwed on straight, he wouldn't be running for United States Senator. So. We end up with this rigged conversation in which both sides play off of each other to obliterate the real issue.

Yeah; I think that Paul's obvious evasiveness and non sequiturs are a perfect example of how political strategery actually obliterates anything like sensible communication. If he had his head screwed on straight, it would have been obvious to him that the sit-in movement works in favor of the position that you don't need federal laws to win civil rights victories -- if it didn't occur to him spontaneously, it should at least have occurred to him when she repeatedly bashed him over the head with it. But of course, if he had his head screwed on straight, he wouldn't be running for United States Senator. So. We end up with this rigged conversation in which both sides play off of each other to obliterate the real issue.

... Oh, bollocks. I challenge you to produce even one single message, post, or article that I have ever written in which I said anything of the sort. In fact,

... Yes, he does, and I'm glad when he does so. Unfortunately the time when he mentioned his position most often was when it was a purely defensive move likely

... Well, in the past he has reacted with similarly intense hostility towards people who point out that chattel slavery and conscription are not libertarian.

... . . . Am I the only one who immediately imagined the song being belted out by [this guy][1]? [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsC0BCAwkb4

As far as I know, the NRA started out as a gun safety and hunter education outfit before it got more political.

Yes and no. It was originally a gun training outfit, but the NRA was originally founded by a gang of Army officers just out of the Civil War (Gen. Ambrose Burnside was its first president), and was founded with the express purpose of helping the U.S. government’s soldiers learn how to murder people more efficiently. So I’d argue it was a political outfit in a rather strong sense, although my understanding so far is that its political agenda had more to do with upholding the theo-nationalist civic religion broadly, more than with the day-to-day details of legislation.

I’d be curious whether anyone knows whether the NRA took any public stance, during the 1870s, on the efforts by Southern state governments and by the Klan to forcibly disarm Southern blacks. Cruikshank was in 1875, just 4 years after they were founded, and most of the men in charge were former Union soldiers who supported Reconstruction. But I don’t know whether or not the organization took any public stance at the time. Anyone here know?

I never “agreed” to have my neighbors cook barbecue for dinner last night. Fortunately for them, I was never asked; because their right to engage in basic social commerce on their own property doesn’t depend on my prior approval.

Terry Hulsey:

Allow anyone in the U.S. — employers, individuals, groups — to post a five-year bond on anybody they want to sponsor as an immigrant to this country. At the end of the five years, the immigrant presents himself to an immigration office, and, provided that the immigrant has no serious criminal violations, the bond is returned and the immigrant becomes a citizen.

This is an absurd, Rube-Goldberg sort of solution that imposes extensive bureaucratic requirements on immigrants for purposes that are entirely unclear. (What is supposed to be the advantage of this arbitrary probationary period for people who you have no reason to suspect of any criminal intent? What’s the benefit to be gained by giving police arbitrary powers to punish traffic stops and noise complaints with exile from the country?) It also clearly cannot deliver what it promises. (How exactly do you think the police are going to identify people to deport after a traffic stop, except through a system of immigration papers, which constitute a de facto national ID?)

I have a better suggestion. How about what we do instead is this: if somebody is on my property with my permission, then they have a right to stay there, unmolested, as long as I am happy for them to stay there. If somebody is own property without the permission of the owner, they can be deported — to the edge of that property.

In practical terms, this would, of course, mean open borders and unconditional amnesty for all currently undocumented immigrants. (Since undocumented immigrants typically live in houses and work in shops they’ve been invited to live and work in; and if they aren’t, well, there’s already laws against trespassing, and the appropriate remedy is to get them off the property, not to strand them hundreds of miles away from their homes.) I am sure that that would make my proposal both unpopular, and unlikely to be brought about through any conventional political process. (As you say, “This is a solution that will satisfy only a small coterie of thinkers, and will not be implemented.”) But so what? Popular beliefs aren’t always right, and if I weren’t comfortable with standing up for unpopular beliefs, I wouldn’t be an Anarchist, or any kind of libertarian. And I would point out that your Rube-Goldberg proposal of bonds and probationary periods is also extremely unlikely to ever be brought about through any conventional political process. (Certainly, it looks nothing like the status quo, and nothing like any immigration “reform” on the table from any political party.) If I’m going to spend my time promoting very unlikely political schemes, then I may as well spend it promoting the very unlikely political schemes that I believe in, rather than very unlikely “compromise” schemes that I don’t believe in.

your conception of property ignores many things that most people find of value in property, namely, its utility in allowing us to associate with some people and not others.

No, what we’re objecting to is precisely that you intend to use the state to stop property owners from associating with the people they want to associate with on the property that they own.

Of course, you have a perfect right to set up your stupid little Fremderein zone of parochialism and belligerent ignorance. On your own land. You have no right whatever to use coercive political means to force your neighbors to do the same.

Terry Hulsey:

If you maintain that “monarchy isn’t a case of (legitimate) property rights” then you are placing yourself on a wheel of endless regression that absolutely undermines any establishment of property rights.

What in the world are you referring to? Do you seriously want to claim that challenging the propriety of any claim to property “absolutely undermines any establishment of property rights?” If so, why do you believe such a crazy thing? (There are lots of mutually exclusive claims made about property rights in this world; some of them have to be false.) Or do you think that the challenge to monarchical property claims rests on some tacit premise that would undermine any establishment of property rights? If so, why do you believe that? The standard radical libertarian objection to monarchical claims is that they are based on nothing but aggression and conquest. (Most libertarians suggest a theory of homesteading based on productive labor, instead; but the negative claim against conquest as a means of acquisition is separable from the positive claim for labor-mixing.) Do you think that ruling out conquest as a means of acquiring rightful ownership “would undermine any establishment of property rights”? If so, why? If not, what’s your beef with Roderick?

Terry Hulsey:

Versailles as a typical case of monarchy

You’re right that Versailles is not typical of monarchy; it’s an extreme example of the trend towards absolutism. But precisely because it is, it ought to be a better example of the kind of monarchy that Hoppe favorably compares to democracy, not a worse one. Hoppe’s whole analysis rests on the claim that the king acts like a proprietor over the entire country. But that far more clearly describes the position of early modern absolute monarchs than it does the complicated system of mutual rights and obligations that existed between overlords and vassals under feudal systems, or the various sorts of elected kingship that prevailed throughout most of the early Middle Ages. If you squint hard enough, “L’etat, c’est moi” might look kinda like the attitude of a landowner towards his or her land; the Magna Carta, say, or the Holy Roman Empire prior to the late 15th century, certainly does not.