From owner-austrianecon@worldcom.com Fri May 17 14:34:45 1996 Received: from Princeton.EDU (root@Princeton.EDU [128.112.128.1]) by ponyexpress.Princeton.EDU (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA03855 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 14:34:45 -0400 Received: from safety.worldcom.com by Princeton.EDU (5.65b/2.125/princeton) id AA26734; Fri, 17 May 96 14:34:41 -0400 Received: by worldcom.com id <53792>; Fri, 17 May 1996 13:22:14 +0100 Received: (from smtp@localhost) by safety.worldcom.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) id NAA11193 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 13:19:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: from foxtrot.worldcom.com(198.64.193.12) by safety.worldcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma011189; Fri May 17 13:19:01 1996 Received: (from smtp@localhost) by foxtrot.worldcom.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) id NAA09859 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 13:13:19 -0500 (CDT) Received: from hungary.it.earthlink.net(198.68.160.64) by foxtrot.worldcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma009794; Fri May 17 13:13:04 1996 Received: from digi (pool035.Max2.Newark.NJ.DYNIP.ALTER.NET [153.37.24.35]) by hungary.it.earthlink.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA26196 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 11:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199605171812.LAA26196@hungary.it.earthlink.net> X-Sender: jsale@earthlink.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: AustrianECON@agoric.com From: Joseph Salerno Sender: owner-austrianecon@agoric.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: AustrianECON@agoric.com Status: RO 1. In an anarcho-capitalist regime, people indeed would own their own neighborhoods, since the streets and all other "public" services would be privately provided. Of course, the precise size of the optimal "neighborhood" would vary according to technological circumstances and consumer preferences. But every residential area would feature tightly restricted immigration just as hotels, condominium and townhouse complexes, and leisure villages do today. Thus only individuals who were specifically invited by the private property owners of the neighborhood to visit, shop, rent or buy would be permitted to "immigrate" to the neighborhood--and then only on the precise terms specified by the property owners. For example an immigrant may be permitted to purchase a residence in the neighborhood only on the condition that he refrain from practicing a particular religion or indulging a dietary custom that the resident-owners found offensive. Or a particular group, defined by age, religion, race, gender, etc. or a combination thereof, may be debarred from shopping in the neighborhood because its members are thought to be particularly prone to criminality. 2. Thus, as Hans Hoppe has pointed out, in a marvelously insightful unpublished article, restricted immigration, and not "free" immigration, is the libertarian counterpart of free trade. Both free trade and restricted immigration rest on mutual consent and benefit; free immigration is on all fours with restricted trade as an invasion of private property which unilaterally benefits the immigrant or the protected industry. Contrary to Steve Horwitz's point, the immigrant's wishes in moving into a neighborhood should count for no more for the libertarian than those of U.S. Steel's when lobbying for a tariff. 3. This brings me to the question of the proper immigration policy for a nation in which the State has appropriated ownership of streets, highways, parks, airports, etc., and has grossly restricted the freedom of association inherent in private property through antidiscrimination laws. These circumstances strengthen rather than weaken the case for restricted immigration. Given that streets and other publically-owned spaces are scarce resources, they have a multitude of competing uses. No one (except Bryan Caplan) would deny that the government as de facto owner of these resources should define and enforce rules for using them. Preventing people from defecating, copulating, bowling, erecting shooting galleries etc. in the middle of the street is hardly a violation of libertarian principle. These activities would most likely be prohibited on privately owned streets also. Indeed, as pointed out above, a libertarian neighborhood would be even more restrictive in setting rules for the use of its streets and parks, determining not only WHAT activities take place but WHO may perform them. Preventing a noncitizen from walking or driving on a town's street is no more illibertarian than preventing a bum from sleeping on a park bench or mandating that teenagers cannot roam city streets after midnight. Admittedly towns or cities as the outcome of a political process may not be the optimally-sized "neighborhood" and without the aid of monetary calculation and the competitive market process, municipal bureaucracies may not have the ability or incentive to discern or formulate the most efficient rules for the use of streets and other public areas. But this is not an argument for free immigration any more than it is an argument for permitting an open air latte bar to operate in the middle of the street; it is, however, an argument for privatizing streets, parks etc. by turning them over to neighborhood homeowners' or downtown merchants' associations, which would then be free to implement rules for the use of these resources which increased the value of their residences and businesses. Private covenants and deed restrictions excluding certain groups from residing in the neighborhood, if permitted, could then then be negotiated between members of these neighborhood associations and might further enhance the value of their properties. 4. Indeed the emphasis on de facto ownership reveals that immigration policy should not merely or even mainly be a function of the Federal government but of State and, especially, local governments. The Federal government should restrict immigration through its ports and especially onto and through the vast areas of productive land that it has expropriated from the States. Towns and cities, however, bear the greatest responsibility for determining who may use its public areas and how these may be used, since such use impacts most directly on the quality of life of local taxpayers/homeowners. Until such areas are privatized, local taxpayers have a right to expect that they are used exclusively in their interests. Like the (basically market-created) cities of the Middle Ages, municipalities would post welcome signs indicating who could use the public areas and for what purposes. They may for example indicate that all ex-felons register with the local police on a daily basis, that all women cover their busts, that all male teenagers riding the subway ride only in the last two cars, or that noncitizens be sponsored by a local business or homeowner. These are all rules that may, in principle, be enforced by a private property owner and are not illibertarian per se. 5. I would like to conclude with a sociological point. Bryan Caplan gleefully considers that a free immigration policy would lead to a situation in which "public property becomes unworkable." Surely a nihilistic position if one ponders it. He also refers to "Professor Rothbard of his declining years" and charges Rothbard and other established scholars in the Austrian tradition with upholding a "contrived and disingenuous" position on immigration designed to "please their paleoconservative friends." Given that the roots of Caplan's position lie in seventies-style libertarianism, I think it instantiates my point, made in another context, that this type of libertarianism leads for many to a postmodernist intellectual posture, peculiar to the Austrian school, whose name shall remain unspoken.