 Don't miss out. Get your free copy of Dr. Guido Holtzman's How Inflation Destroys Civilization. Visit Mises.org slash H.A. Pod Free, and we'll send you the book. This is the Human Action Podcast, where we debunk the economic, political, and even cultural myths of the days. Here's your host, Dr. Bob Murphy. Simon, welcome to Human Action Podcast. Thanks, Simon. So, folks, I was explaining to Simon before we started recording here. This is going to be a bit unusual, and he has gracefully given me permission to do this. I think he needs to sit there for a minute and just listen to me talk to explain the context of this particular episode of the Human Action Podcast, because this one, unlike most of the other ones, is not really a standalone. This is largely a response to the Dave Smith episode that we had recently, where I had Dave come on and the context of that was Dave Smith was literally trending on Twitter, and it was about his immigration views, and he was just getting embroiled in all kinds of arguments. So I thought, you know what, this is a big topic, obviously, both in terms of the American political discourse, but also within the ranks of libertarians. So I had Dave come on this show, and I'll link, of course, folks in the show notes page to that episode if you missed it. And I had Dave lay out his current thinking on immigration policy from a libertarian perspective, and I'll very, very quickly summarize that in a minute, but just to get to the context of what we're doing here. And then there was some pushback, so a lot of people loved it, who agreed with him. Some people criticized him vehemently, but what came up in the disagreements, a lot of it I thought was just rehashing the same terrain that, you know, Dave had covered in the discussion. But one critique or objection that intrigued me was someone said, Bob, you're missing the point that what Dave is doing there and echoing, you know, the Hapa-Kinsela stance on this, and the later Rothbard, that Rothbard's views changed on the topic, you're overlooking the fact that there's a crucial link in their argument or piece of their argument that assumes something public property, the so-called public property that the state claims to be in control of and, you know, own in that sense, that they assume that it's the rightful property of the taxpayers or the public at large or something like that. And then they, everything else follows from that. But actually you should go read, I was told, Simon Genzel has a paper in the journal Libertarian Papers that disputes that. And so, you know, that's the strongest objection to what Dave Smith said on your show, Bob. And so if you want to be fair and balanced and present both sides, which is what I do want to do here, you know, you should have Simon come on and talk about that point. So that's what we're doing here. One last bit. I am going to, I think just like I was trying to be devil's advocate with Dave, so here too with you, Simon, I want everyone to really understand what your argument is. So I'll ask terrifying questions, but then at the tail end of this episode, we'll do a lightning round and I'll, you know, try to throw stuff at you to see, you know, put your views to the wind tunnel. And I can just predict right now I know folks what's going to happen. People are going to say I'm harder on Simon than I was on Dave, but partly it's because I've had longer to think about this one. And so I try to cope with entertaining zingers, but be that as I do. Last thing I'll, as a disclaimer, I, I'm not being coy. I'm truly not trying to take a stand on this because I really do understand where both sides are coming from. For an analogy, it's like, if people say, should there be prayer allowed in public schools or should public school teachers be able to post the 10 Commandments? And there's no good answer to that. Like, I understand where both sides are coming from on that. And the only real solution is you should privatize everything. And so likewise here, we all in this debate, you know, Dave Smith, Simon, me, Hoppa, Rothbard, the other people that are on the other side of the for all and caps, we all, you know, Brian Kaplan, we all agree the perfect solution is privatize every bit of real estate, let the owners set whatever policy they want. And now we're just arguing about, okay, but in the real world next Thursday, what, if anything, should this government's policy be vis-a-vis the border and people crossing it? Okay, so that's kind of where I'm coming from. So I'll stop there. And then Simon, like I say, if you want to explain where you're coming from and the origin of this paper, that's the sort of the focus of our talk. And I know you jotted some notes down to about the Dave Smith episode and maybe, you know, bring up things. So I'll largely let you kind of take this where you want in terms of giving the other side. And like I said, folks, I'm going to play the role of, but I think Dave Smith would say, particularly if I think he would have a good answer, but this should not be construed as me saying I agree with Dave and disagree with Simon. It's more, I want the viewers to get a fair hearing of both perspectives. Okay, so with that long-winded introduction, Simon, take it away. Well, thanks, Bob. Just in terms of the history of how I came to write the paper, a number of years ago, I had been reading up on the Hop Concella versus Block debate on immigration. And I ended up, it occurred to me that there was a big assumption people were making as you noted about who owns public property. So I ended up emailing Walter and we had some exchanges back and forward. And in the end, he said to me, you know what, you should take these arguments and put them in an academic paper. And he introduced me to Matt McCaffrey, who is the editor of libertarian papers. And that's how this article came about. And then as you said, you know, so I've had this position, it's really the paper deals with two aspects. Number one, that I don't know what to call them. Let's call them these libertarians. It's libertarians who advocate for state management of board as well as a state. It doesn't exactly run off the tongue easily. So maybe we'll just call them these libertarians. But these libertarians say that number one, it is the libertarian position that taxpayers own public property. And therefore, the second position is sort of who should how should that property be managed by the state? And it's that the state should manage the property on behalf of taxpayers as trustee for taxpayers as a private owner would manage it, et cetera. And so my paper did take on the ownership part as well as the management part. There's actually a lot more to the management part as well, which is that some of the notes I jotted to you after the Dave Smith episode. So the way I would sort of approach this topic is in three broad buckets. One is sort of what I would regard as the libertarian legal principles on property ownership. Then I would say that deals with the ownership point mainly. And I think there are some common understandings among libertarians or guiding principles that I think refute the management theory that these libertarians So Simon, just so I'm jotting notes to the listener again, what are the three buckets? And then I guess you'll go through them each in turn. Yeah, so that's what I was saying is there's the legal principles of libertarianism in terms of acquiring property. There's more so broader libertarian ethos of guiding principles, which deals with the management of public property. And then there's some purported justifications that these libertarians give for their position that so I'd like to address all three of those. Okay. So, you know, the let's start with the ownership of public property. And it really hasn't been developed anywhere in the literature as far as I can tell. Before we get to that, I do distinguish between two types of public property, state seized land and state claimed land. State seized land is land that was owned by a private owner and the state seized it. And often that's eminent domain, but it could be criminal or civil asset forfeiture. State claimed land, on the other hand, is land that was never owned by anybody. And the state just claims in effect, a state wouldn't put it this way, but the state claims to a home set it. And, and I think the differences can be important when looking at the contention that taxpayers own public property. And I'll get to that. But just to I'll assume the viewers are conversant in why we have property rights principles in the non aggression principle. Yeah, probably for the purposes of this, we shouldn't reiterate that. So, you know, when you look at libertarian legal principles of how property can be acquired, there are really three heads. One is voluntary transfer that the existing owner intends to convey title to the transfer. The second one is peaceful homesteading, so unknown land where someone comes along using peaceful means and marks out the properties theirs. And the third limb, which isn't always discussed, but Stefan Kinsella has done some good work on this is what I would call restitution actions because in libertarianism, while it's not legitimate to initiate force, if someone initiates force against you, you are entitled to use force in response. And in the moment, that would be self defense, but subsequently, it could be that you get a judgment against them. And there and then you go to enforce that judgment. And as part of that restitution, you can actually seize their property. And that would not be initiation of force. It's more reactionary. So can I stop you Simon? So like what an example that last one be something like somebody stole your car and you know, was joyriding and totally ruined it. And it's just to draw it off a cliff, you know, he like the James Dean movie or whatever. And it's just wrecked. But he has a car in his driveway. And so maybe the libertarian judge would say, well, you're allowed to take that guy's car. And so that would be an example of how you could acquire just ownership, not through homesteading and not through buying it from the original owner. Correct. Okay. Yeah, and I should just wonder once voluntary transfer doesn't have to be buying it could be a gift or a request. Right. One is the intention of the transfer. So if you run public property through those three filters, I think you end up in a different place from the prevailing assumptions. So first of all, with state seized land. I think most people would agree that it belongs to the prior owner. And and I will say that when hop and cancella discuss public property, sometimes they do drop language to that effect, but not all the time, not consistently. But I don't think I think if push, they would agree that state seized land belongs to the prior owner. So so we can certainly say with respect to that land, it's not owned by taxpayers. Maybe it's owned by one taxpayer and an identifiable taxpayer. For state. Okay, just to stop you Simon and make sure so the listeners are getting this. So you're saying we think not just you and, you know, Walter Block or somebody like that, but even you think cancella and presume Dave Smith, probably as well, would agree if the local government, you know, for eminent domain purposes, some guy clearly owns this house, and they just come along and seize it and give him a wave below market value. So there you go. And now it's that the position would not be Oh, well, that house belongs to all the taxpayers is no, the state took it from that guy. And really, it should return it to him. Correct. Okay. And if you would apply the these libertarians management theory, the state should actually manage it on his behalf according to his wishes. So right, we'll get to that in the management theory. But so then let's deal with state claimed land. So first of all, the voluntary transfer doesn't help you out because the land was unowned is no prior owner to voluntarily transfer to the taxpayers. I don't think the homesteading limb helps either because taxpayers certainly haven't homesteaded it. They've done nothing on the land. And I would argue the state hasn't validly homestead either because it's used violence to acquire the means to seize control of that land or claim control of that land. So no one I would argue the two relevant parties neither has homesteaded state claimed land. And then the third, the restitution limb, I don't think applies either because although taxpayers may have a cause of action against the state or the individuals of the state for stealing their income in the form of taxes, you know, your remedy is to go against the legitimate property of the aggressor. Well, since the state doesn't legitimately own state claimed land, that you can't the taxpayers couldn't go against that land as a remedy for the aggression levied by the state. So when as I said, when you when you run state claim land through those three filters, I think the conclusion is that it's not owned by taxpayers. It's certainly not owned by the state. It actually remains unowned. And Can I stop you for a second, Simon? So just to make sure I so here I'm not trying to like blow you up. I just want clarify because I totally get what you're saying. But it seems to me there's an interesting scenario that you're stopping over here that could arguably be quite relevant. So what happens if the government taxes the taxpayers against their will, you know, so it has a bunch of money, and then it goes to a clearly legitimate owner of some land and gives the owner the money and the owner voluntarily sells the government the land in exchange for the money. No, that's a very good point. I think I because the questions often I've seen asked, can the state ever own property legitimately? And I think the answer is the state can own property from a voluntary transfer, but it can't from homesteading. So and the reason I say that is voluntary transfers, the key criterion is the intention of the transfer or so if someone intended to convey title of land to the state, I think that's valid. I mean, they could do it as a gift without receiving any compensation or or or or they could receive compensation. But the state can never homestead land because it's not using peaceful means. So that, you know, to the extent you're right, to the extent there is land that has been voluntarily transferred by the prior legitimate owner of the state, the state could own that. The problem I have with with that is in practice, because we're talking about what is a voluntary transfer? And if the government comes to you and says, Hey, I want I want I want to buy your land. You know, the question is, is there the implication of pressure or duress or threats of eminent domain, etc. So but I but I do I do agree in theory, if that's not present that there could be some land that let me can I ask one a different one? But can I so that? Okay, yeah, go ahead. Sorry, just to finish that thought. To the extent that is the case, then the state would legitimately own their land, not the taxpayers. Okay, what? Like, like the strategic petroleum reserve in the United States, the SPR, the government maintains stockpiles of crude oil, you know, buried in salt caverns and stuff. So am I correct in saying you're not claiming that those barrels of crude oil in the strategic petroleum reserve are virgin unowned assets waiting to be homesteaded? Okay, so let me let me answer that with two points. One is, we have we need to assume that it was voluntary required, the state didn't pass a regulation saying that all oil, you know, for every every barrel of oil, you know, 10% has to go into the reserves. Okay, so so we have to we have to assume that the other point I would note is to the extent the state does legitimately acquire property through a voluntary transfer. It's actually a you could look as a temporary or unstable ownership because now that the state owns property, if taxpayers would assume the state for return of their stolen income and the state couldn't or didn't return it, then yes, the taxpayers could go against that property. So the state could own property in that respect, but it would be it could be temporary. OK, OK, go ahead. Right, so so leaving leaving that that particular aspect to the side for a second, I think the other interesting part about state claimed land is, you know, in the in the case of state seized land, it's I think everyone would agree that the prior owner owns it. But in the case of state seized land, the state has also stolen the income of taxpayers to create the means to seize the land. So they it's it's it's there's the same wrong that's been committed in as in the case of state claim land. But in the case of state seized land, I don't see anyone saying, well, therefore the taxpayers also have an interest in the state seized land, right? So if they don't have an interest in the state seized land, then why would they have it in the case of state claim land? Because it's the same wrong and you'd be looking at the same remedy. Can I can I ask you like, so I want to make sure I just to distinguish it. So let's say there's a local, you know, crime gang, and they come and they steal $1,000 from a business owner. You know, maybe they say it'd be a shame if something happened to your place here. If you gave us $1,000, we can make sure that nothing bad happens. And you know, everyone understands what's going on. The guy gives him $1,000. And then if they go and spend the money, I don't know, buying a jewelry for their girlfriend. And it's and there was no coercion will stipulate in the jewelry sale. Are you saying the original business owner has no claim on the the jewelry? No, I'm saying that the mafia would, the mafia also would own that jewelry because the seller of the jewelry intended to transfer a title to Matthew Oso. But if the business owner had been extorted were to sue the mafia, so because that property is the mafia, so is the business owner could actually claim the jewelry. Or I mean, he could sue for his money back or for the jewelry. But in either case, I think, you know, again, that's why I say the ownership of the mafia, so would be temporary in most cases. Okay, right. And then just one more tweak. So now suppose he leaned on the first guy as before, you know, got the $1,000 of cash. He's walking, he goes into the jeweler and does the same thing and says, oh, wow, that's a beautiful necklace. My broad would like that. Just as a sign of your good will and the fact that we're doing such a good job in the neighborhood. Can I have that and give it? You wouldn't want to disappoint my girlfriend. And the guy says, oh, no, Mr. Soprano here. Go ahead as a gift from us, but everyone knows what happened. And so now he walks out. And so he has both the $1,000 and the jewelry. So I'm comfortable saying clearly the first guy that lost the thousand, even if the guy goes, the mafia also goes and gambles it away, the money, the cash. I can see why the first guy, even a libertarian judge would not, would not award the first guy. The jewelry is compensation because he'd say, well, no, that was stolen too. Whereas if it had been legitimately purchased, then I could see the judge ruling. Strictly speaking, the best thing would be to give you $1,000 in cash. But since he doesn't have it, but he's got that jewelry, he'll give him that instead. Are you okay with at least the broad features of what I just said? I am. Okay. And then just to finish up on this legal part, there's, there's actually support. When Rothbard in Ethics of Liberty talks about land titles related to oil concessions, and when he talks about frontier settlements, he makes, he makes some explicit statements about the fact that regardless of what the government claims, regardless of government claim to own the land or be out of control of, it's actually open for homesteading by, by others. So there's that support in, in Rothbard in a different context. And then, similarly, Hopper actually, I think contradicts his own position on immigration when he's writing about desocialization in East Germany. Because remember, on immigration, Hopper is saying that the taxpayers own public property. But when it comes to desocialization, he is quite explicit that when you're dividing privatizing land or any property in as a socialist economy become this market oriented, he says that it'll be immoral and inefficient for everybody in the country to get a share of that property. In fact, he's in favor of what he calls syndicalism, where the users of the property would be the homesteaders. So if there were a state-owned factory that was being destatized, the workers, the factory workers would own it. But the reason I think that's a contradictory to his position on immigration is it seems to me in socialism that the tax, you're being taxed 100%, right? You don't keep any of the fruits of your labor. You can't even query whether you can even use your body as you see fit. So I look at the population and socialist economy as being taxed the rate of 100%, whereas in the market oriented economy, maybe it's 30 to 40%. And so I don't see why it seems like when Hopper was saying in the case of immigration, the taxpayers own that property. But in the case of desocialization, the taxpayers don't the users do. So there's a bit of a contradiction there in his writings in different contexts, I agree. Okay, let me just say I'll read it because I know exactly from your paper. I'll read the quote. So I agree with you, Simon, without seeing more of the context and folks obviously encourage you to go read Simon's paper to see the exact details and judge for yourself. You're right. You have some quotes from Rothbard about like if a multinational oil company comes into some underdeveloped country and starts drilling for oil that they like they're homesteading it, you know, as opposed. And it's that that does seem hard is like I get why Rothbard thinks the local, you know, government run by a bunch of thugs. It isn't the rightful owner. But on the other hand, it's not obvious why he's calling that unowned because, you know, didn't the local government steal that from the people who live there all along? Not, you know, the multinational oil company coming in. So I get Simon why you think there's a tension with Rothbard's views on that. And then at least the later Rothbard's views on immigration. But the hop of thing, let me just read I I don't think there's a contradiction here and we can, you know, I'll read it and just let you push back if you want. But let me just say what I think hop is getting at. So he says this is hop of folks in Simon's paper. More specifically, all original property titles should be immediately recognized, regardless of whether they are present, presently held by East or West Germans. So he's talking about the fall of, you know, the Berlin Wall and everything. And how do we, how do we privatize coming back from communism? Insofar as the claims of original private owners or their heirs clash with those of the current asset users, the former shouldn't principle override the latter. Regarding governmentally controlled resources that are not reclaimed in this way, syndicalist ideas should be implemented, assets should become owned immediately by those who use them. The farmland by the farmers, the factories by the workers, the streets by the street workers, the schools by the teachers, the bureaus by the bureaucrats and he's gotten parentheses insofar as they're not subject to criminal prosecution and so on dot, dot, dot. Moreover, our syndicalist proposals economically more efficient than the only conceivable privatization alternative in line with the basic requirement of justice. According to the latter alternative, the entire population would receive equal shares in all the country's assets not reclaimed by an original expropriated owner. Aside from the questionable moral quality of this policy, it would be extremely inefficient. Okay, so that's the quote. So I think what he's getting at there is to say yes, if, if somebody could prove definitively that yeah, the, the Soviets or the East German government or whatever took my grandpa's house 30 years ago, then clearly it should be given back, you know, to the air. But absent something like if there's just some car factory that was built, you know, by the comrades, collectivized labor and everything over the years. And now there've been East Germans going in and out of this car factory, cranking out cars. Well, who should get it? Hop is saying, well, the people who've been working there day in and day out, they should get it, not just the East Germans as a collective because there's lots of people in East Germany who had nothing to do with that particular car factory. And so absent some direct demonstrable claim, like it was seized from, you know, somebody originally when the communists took over, it should go to the people who are the most tied to it. And he's saying he thinks that would be more moral, but clearly more efficient than just kind of saying, oh, every East German gets a per capita share and all the different industries and farmland and everything going on. He thinks no, let the who knows best how to manage the farms right now on day one of the revolution. Well, the people who've been working the farms all along. So I think that's what he's saying. To me, that doesn't seem contradictory. But Simon, go ahead. And if you think that do disagree with my interpretation, I do. I mean, let's leave aside the state sees land. I think there's no disagreement there. If you show it as your grandfather's property, then it is yours. But I think when he's talking about land besides that, where there are no historical claims. Again, I think I think the whole population are taxpayers in a socialist economy. They're just being taxed at a higher rate than in a market or economy. So that's why I think he's saying taxpayers in a market or into the economy own state claim land, but taxpayers in a desocializing economy don't own state claim land instead that users do. I mean, I don't know if that means the customs and border patrol officers would own would own the state claim land or, you know, in the US or whatever. But it just seems like he's he's overlooking the fact that the general population are taxpayers in a socialist economy. OK, yeah, so I mean, I I understand the point, which is one last thing, just to clarify, I think, you know, I haven't talked with Hoppe on this topic per se, but my guess is he would say something to you like, well, yeah, if it's a money using capitalist market, you know, interventionist, but market economy, typically what the government does is it broadly taxes people and then quote voluntarily, you know, with its stolen funds, enters the voluntary marketplace and you know, builds a factory. You know, if people are working in a quote, socialized car factory in the United States or whatever, they're not slaves. It's not slave labor. They're being paid market wages to bid them away from other private sector uses. And so I think that's why he's thinking the taxpayers are more just the owners per say, whereas in a truly communist society, then it's like who won't who actually built the car factory? Well, it's not the broad public because they were taxed. It's more like no, the people who actually at gunpoint were ordered go build that thing and you go in there and make cars come red and that's your part in the in the cog. I mean, I think that's what he's coming from. What I mean, I guess what's coming from I mean, you could argue the taxpayers in the market economy did nothing to deserve ownership of land either. They just had their income stolen. I mean, Rothbard does say that slavery is as a one hundred percent tax. And so that was what got me thinking that that socialism is a hundred percent tax. So anyway, OK, but one just so just so you understand the same where I'm coming from. That's why I stopped you earlier to clarify. So I we would have to see empirically with some of these things historically, where how did the state come to claim ownership? But I think that's why I was going through the whole thing about the mafia. So we did. So I think the idea is if a lot of what the current government property is was actually because it raised general funds through taxation or running the printing press and then went out and purchased most of it voluntarily, you know, given that it was using stolen money, then that's different from if yeah, they steal a bunch of taxpayer money and they also go around grabbing stuff, you know, through just literal expropriation of the assets. I would agree. I mean, I agree. There is that third category. I think it's probably less relevant to the border and the land near the border. But but it could could well exist. And I also think it also says, I think there's a there's a heavy inquiry into whether it was really a voluntary transfer. But yes, I think in theory. OK, OK, yeah. So I think we're fairly close on the basic theory. And now it's a lot of this is going to turn into OK, in practice, what does all this theory mean vis-à-vis the immigration question? So let's let's turn to that because the the implication from these libertarians is because the taxpayers own public property and we have a state or while we have a state then the state should manage that property again. There are different formulations on behalf of taxpayers as trustee for taxpayers or as a private owner would manage. And I actually think I've got like sort of five reasons why I think that advocating for that is really contrary to common libertarian positions in other areas. So the first just so I'm mapping this like if we're if we're judging into be here. Are you still are you now in the second bucket? Yes. And these are five points within bucket number two. Yes, I'm dealing with the problems I have with the whole management theory about the state managing public property. So the first one is that as libertarians, you know, our end goal is the elimination of this as and kept libertarians. Our end goal is the limit elimination of the state. And we should all be advocating for fewer state violations and less state power, not more violations and more state power. And with immigration comes a massive immigration state, right? So you've got armed officers running around they board greyhound buses, check papers, they raid employers, businesses. The courts have defined the border is including 100 miles inland, which basically I think probably touches every state in the US. And so they've got funding and bureaucracy. So it seems weird for libertarians to be advocating that that position. And in fact, what they'll be advocating is an enlarged immigration police state and note that the immigration police state doesn't just have implications for immigrants. It also I think violates the rights of citizens because it prevents citizens from freely employing immigrants, renting to immigrants, having personal relationships with immigrants. So, you know, and I think when Rothbard when he was writing in for any liberty on destatization, he was saying that our message should always be consistent with our principles that basically you should only advocate things that are on the path towards your end point and not deviate from that path. I guess the other the other point I would make in this respect is, you know, Jacob Hornberger writes a lot on immigration and the libertarian position. And he makes the point that libertarians should always be for abolition, not reform. And which is this a bit of an irony because Hornberg is not actually an ANCAP. But he, you know, he gives the example of, you know, think about slavery. I mean, I've seen statistics that, you know, in the antebellum period, maybe only one to two percent of the population were actually abolitionists. And can you imagine if the abolitionists, instead of pounding the table for abolition, were saying, look, slavery is cruel. So let's reform it instead of 30 lashes a day for wrongdoing, just 10 lashes a day. Well, sure, that'd be much better for the slaves. But would we ever have gotten to abolition of slavery if there weren't a group pounding the table for it? And Hornberger often says, you know, we have conservatives to argue for reform. If libertarians want to add something to the debate, they should be steadfast, you know, arguing for abolition. So I think these libertarians are actually asking for reform of the immigration police state, just a different policy. So that's why, you know, for all those reasons, I think I think it's I would call it unlibertarian to argue for an enhanced immigration police state. OK, so maybe just on that one. And again, folks, my point here is not to tackle Simon, like just to give him the obvious, what to me is the obvious pushback that I think Dave or, you know, somebody in his shoes would would give in this point. So I think Dave could brightly say to you, Simon, oh, right. My, you know, the analog from I am an abolitionist, I don't want there to be government agents searching buses and putting up fences. My goal is my ultimate goal is complete abolition of the state. That's the ideal. And, you know, private property for everybody, that's the goal. And I will say that. And if I could vote for that tomorrow, I would vote for that. And again, but that's not what's going to happen. And so now we're all just arguing over the second best alternative and for people claiming to be open borders, libertarians, I don't know if you use that phrase. But they're not merely saying, hey, the government should just get out of this all together. Like, for example, a lot of people are saying, and like Chris Freeman was one of them and I pinned him down on Twitter about this. He thinks the federal government shouldn't merely say we have nothing to do with immigration. But no, if they see agents of the Texas government or whatever, National Guard under there putting up a fence, then the agents of the federal government should go down and tear the fence down. So it's not merely, hey, let's just get out of this and do nothing. It's actively intervening. So it's using the powers of the government to implement open borders as opposed. So anyway, whether I guess to let you respond to that. Right. So the second best alternative, I agree. I mean, I was going to deal with this later on to the justifications, but I'll deal with it now. Yes, these libertarians would say we don't want to state. But while we have a state, the second best alternative have the state managing the border. But I feel like that's distracting as a libertarian. That's distracting from the core wrong here, which is state power. I mean, play that out. You know, let's take the invasion of Iraq. So, you know, these libertarians to be consistent would say, sure, the US government should not have invaded Iraq. But, you know, while it's there and controlling Baghdad, it should definitely be able to set a policy of shooting males between 18 to 35 if they violate the 6 p.m. curfew because a private property owner would take steps to repel or, you know, shoot dangerous trespassers if they were going to threaten the people on the property that the private property owner cares about. So all you could take the education system, you can say, sure, we don't want the state involved in education. But while we have a state, this is the curriculum they should put in place. So again, I don't I'm not disputing that they are abolitionists in a sense, but their message is is not is not, you know, hack away and get rid of the immigration police day. It's it's reformat and it's and it's do things that it's a message that I don't think is is in accordance with with libertarian, you know, principles. OK, so here just because this is so relevant, let me push back on this one. But again, Simon, I do want to give you plenty of time to make your position. But on this one, I'm pretty sure Dave, because I've heard him deal with it. So I think Dave would say, and again, folks here, Dave thinks he's just, you know, recapitulating what he learned, you know, because his view is that Dave used to be an open borders kind of guy saying this is just an arbitrary line on a map. I don't want agents of the state telling people what they can do and then he's come around. So his point Simon is to say, yes, in terms of second best or whatever and not introducing more aggression into the equation. Under no circumstances would the policy be that the government is allowed to initiate new aggression on people. But where he's coming from is to say there is it's not the case that somebody from Denmark or from Guatemala has a libertarian right to walk into the current landmass of the United States. Whereas, like you said, in the case of somebody, you know, some kid in Baghdad, if US troops go over there and just shoot him in the head, well, then they clearly have violated, you know, that his body was his. Whereas it's not the case that if somebody stops somebody from entering into Texas, just, you know, a priori without more information that that that they're violating his rights. You don't have a right to just walk around wherever you want. Whereas you do own your body as the default position. So I think that's how he would distinguish that. And then you said the thing about the schools. And I think Dave would say, yeah, that's not a reductio you had observed. You're right. I do think if the schools are going to start teaching Satanism and transgender stuff or teach times tables and that you should listen to your parents and not do drugs, then I think he would say, yeah, clearly, how could we not prefer the letter? You're saying that, no, the libertarians should just say, no, you should just privatize the schools. And that's it. And let the, you know, let other people dictate what public with the curricula are. You know, it wouldn't be though to say, well, given that we have schools, yes, the teachers can go and smack kids in the head and cause them to bleed because then that's clearly a violation. But it's not that you have a right to be taught in, you know, taught Satanism at school. So if the libertarian says, no, I don't want public school teachers teaching that it's violating somebody's rights. So I think that's the way he would try to respond to what you just said. Right. But as I said earlier, I think their mismanagement theory is predicated on state claim land being owned by taxpayers. And if I think as I contend it's on own land, then it's like people can freely traverse it or homestead it. And then secondly, that there are new violations of right there, violating the rights of citizens to interact with with immigrants. So I don't I don't see how it can be a libertarian position to advocate for for enhanced government power. I think we should be arguing for the abolition of it. And then there are other actions libertarians can take to really get at the source of the wrong. But I think mistaken the immigrant as the wrong is, in my view, not not the right position for libertarians to take. OK, yeah. Why don't you go ahead? Yeah, so like I could push back but here I know all this stuff is going to come up as we keep going through this. So if you want to go ahead with your. Well, the other another assumption is another thing that I think is odd for libertarians to talk about is by distinguishing between a citizen and immigrant, you're basically giving credence to the state's designation of your status rights. One one person has the right state papers, the other doesn't. And if you look at citizens and immigrants, there's no moral distinction between a citizen and immigrant and there's no economic distinction. The only distinction is a political arbitrary distinction. And it citizens commit crimes. Citizens go on welfare. Citizens strain the hospital and government education system. So citizens do everything that the immigrants are that these libertarians are claim immigrants do. And so they're only distinction in making is because the governments put some people in one bucket and some people in another that they should be treated differently. And again, I think that's that's not a healthy position for libertarians to acknowledge that the state can can designate your status. OK, yeah, I mean there too. I I'm very sympathetic to that one Simon. I suppose they could say something like somebody like because I've seen this Chris Freeman action. I hope I'm saying his last name right. He and Dave debated this on with was Liz with Wolf and Zach. His last name starts with W. I forget what they recently hosted them to do in there. Yeah, the Chris's position was I think most libertarians would would be upset if you know you're in Ohio and you're in your car and you're trying to drive into Pennsylvania and the government agents stop you and they want to see your papers and whatever like you'd be outraged. And what is this fascist police state that and so he's saying. So if you get that, well, then why you know, would you want people? You know, so I guess there they could argue and say, well, because you probably implicit if you've been the citizen here for your whole life and you're an adult, probably you funded the interstate highways and that but so you could come up with that. But I think he's right that most people they it's not that they would be going through all that in their mind. I think they're just initial reaction would be. Are you kidding me? You're not letting me go from one state to another. That's crazy. That's fascism, right? OK, a third sort of point I would make is that the one of the defining elements of libertarianism is that we assess justice at the individual level. We believe that only individuals have rights and only individuals commit wrongs, not groups. And, you know, a lot of a lot of these libertarians will say, you know, the immigrants, you know, they're the criminals, their welfare of bums, etc. And maybe there are derivations of that. Maybe they're saying, you know, a lot of them are. But but I think we wouldn't do that in any other contexts as libertarians. I mean, just to pick an arbitrary example, if if a bolding economist killed somebody, we wouldn't say all boarding economists are killers. You know, if a redhead stole something, wouldn't say all redheads are thieves. So I think, you know, you've got to tar or to sell an immigration policy because you've tarred all immigrants as criminals or welfare bums or whatever. I think is unlibertarian because we we believe in assessing justice at the individual level. And in fact, it almost seems like that Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, where they have the pre crime unit, you know, where they predict who's going to commit crime and they go intradict them before they commit the crime. So in my contention, immigrants are not committing a crime by traversing public state claim land. And and so in that context, you know, to to borrow them from doing so, I think is just because they might be a criminal or they might be a welfare bum, I think is is a problem there. Because again, you're assessing justice at the group level, not individual level. OK, yeah, I think that's a valid point and especially to your right, Simon, I think a lot of the arguments that you'll see, especially like on Twitter or something that are anti open borders will make arguments like you're saying and strictly speaking, yeah, you could use the same thing to say, well, the stage is coming in, sterilize, you know, certain types of women because clearly statistically, if they keep popping out kids, you know, they're going to grow up to be criminal, you know, and that clearly is an un-libertarian. Having said that, I don't think Dave's position is that so he is and we'll return to this, obviously, as I let you go through your points. But I think the fundamental class he's going to have with you, Simon, is to say, right, I it's not I'm saying keep them out because statistically, they might commit crimes. I'm saying they do not have the right to just walk into land where they're not invited, that you don't have the right to do that. That's not aggression to prevent somebody from walking into land. And I know so I think ultimately the disagreement is going to be over this issue of the land that the government claims to own what's its status vis-a-vis libertarian theory. And that's why I think your paper was great and why I wanted you to come here because to me, that seems like the central question here among Rothbardian types who are arguing about this. Right. And then so a fourth point that I would say it's odd for libertarians to take is it seems like the stance is that the ends justify the means and let me unpack that. You know, it seems like the these libertarians would say, well, you know, what would the country come to or look like if we just if we just had so-called open borders? And, you know, can you show me how, you know, we could survive or it's or how the, you know, the country wouldn't deteriorate or et cetera, et cetera. And and by the way, I'm not attributing any of these specifically to Dave. These are discussions I've had with with all of the libertarians who have a state management of borders while there's a state has got to be a better way to say that. So to me, it's a bit like, you know, if you are arguing with a slave owner in antebellum US and saying, you know, slavery is immoral. We need to end it. And the slave owner says, well, who would pick the cotton or how would blacks integrate into society? Or, you know, if you were talking about drug tree criminalization, someone said, well, can you tell me, show me how we're not going to have a drugged out zombie community? But the wrong is throwing people in cages for possessing or trading a substance the government disapproves of. And then you gave an example, I think in your recent talk at OSU about if a Soviet government had consulted you about, you know, privatizing grocery stores and and, you know, you would rightly say, you know, they'd say, well, where will the grocery stores be? And you would rightly say, I don't know, that's for the market process to work out. And so the implication being then they'd say, well, then, you know, we're not privatizing until we know what it looks like. And so all of these situations are where people are saying, unless you can give me a satisfactory end state, then I want the status quo to continue. And the problem with that is that is the end is just finding the means. And libertarianism is all about means libertarian is never about ends. It's about the proper use of force. So, you know, for these types of libertarians to say that that we need the state to do this, unless you can show me that there'd be a satisfactory end state without the state, I think, again, is overlooking the wrong and using ends to justify the means. OK, again, totally fair point in your I agree with you insofar as it goes and just broken record at this point. I know Dave's position on this is to say, right, I agree, Simon, if this were an illegitimate use of force, but he's saying, I don't think it's violating anybody's rights to keep out uninvited trespassers. And hence, he's saying, what would really be dumb is if libertarians go around chanting open borders when the public thinks that's crazy. And so we, you know, we just look like idiots and we advocate things that in practice would be devastating, Dave would claim. And it's not even in defense of principle. Like, yes, if it's, you know, you put a gun to my head and say, should we legalize heroin? Yes, even though a lot of people think that's nuts. But that's the libertarian position. But Dave's point is he doesn't think open borders is obviously the libertarian position. So why are we fallen on the sword that we don't have to fall on? That's what he would would say. Yeah, and obviously it's the same point recurring. But the only new point I would raise is let's not forget that the immigration police state also violates the rights of citizens, right? Citizens are free to to interact with whom they want. And so even if Dave were to say that immigrants don't have the right to traverse the border, it's not a case that that means there's no that that that's the only right that needs to be protected, you know, that that's the only violation that there's a violation by the state of of the rights of citizens to interact with immigrants. So there's always that violation going on, regardless of your stance on immigrants. OK, so rather than me trying to argue here, let's defer it because I at the end, you know, on the lightning round when I bring up these a lot of my stuff's going to come. So go ahead if you because I think you still got more you want to say. Yeah, so just the last point on the on this second bucket is the other aspect I think that is unlibertarian to argue is it's pretty odd. It's it's depending on the state to make effective policy and implement it because think of think of what that's saying. First of all, it ignores public choice theory. You know, libertarians have been railing for years about at best the incompetence, if not the evil corruption and evil and corruption of individuals at the state. You know, I mean, Hopper has said that the nature of democracy is that the worst demagogues rise to the top. You know, that these these people are not subject not subject to market discipline, but what these libertarians are saying is that's true, except in the case of immigration will go with that. And, you know, for now while we have a state, so I think that's odd. Yeah, another odd point is that you often have them say no one wants open borders. And and that that has a number of shortcomings. I think first of all, I'm not sure it's true. I think there's probably a fair number of Americans who are comfortable with the current policy and maybe would want a more liberal policies. It's not the case that no one wants open borders. But it's not enough to say no one wants open borders because you need to come up with a specific policy that you want the state to implement. And I think these libertarians assume they'll get the policy they want. But you know, you think about as you know, pro-Austrian economics, preferences are subjective. And if you have 240 million adults in the US, you could have 240 million different preferences on an immigration policy. And to say the state should manage that means first of all, you're assuming the state can know what those preferences are and that they can reconcile them into a single policy. That elected representatives will be faithful servants. And I think Kinsella says that we should go by the majority view. But you know, it's long been a libertarian principle that that majority the majority's opinion isn't it's not legitimate to bind a dissenting minority. So there's a lot of aspects of of what libertarians are used to saying about the state and its shortcomings that seem to be pushed aside in the area of immigration. It's a bit like conservative saying the state is incompetent at home. We've got to reform it. But once they go abroad and go, you know, invade other countries, yeah, we've got the best military in the world and they're efficient. They can get the job done. So I think there's a bit of an inconsistency there. And then I just like to, under this bucket. Yeah, let me. So is that the end of your sub point on that one? Yes. OK, yeah, let me just respond to that time. So to me, that's I think one of the strongest objections I and why I personally, again, folks, I'm I promise I'm not just trying to be coy. It's I do want to facilitate and this is what I was when I had Dave on Simon. That's kind of the point that I made. And since he didn't seem like he had a problem with it, that's that's why it ended up looking like I was just agreeing with him. But it was more that my one major problem he was fine with it. Whereas I was kind of saying me personally, it doesn't matter what I say, it's not going to affect government policies. So why don't I just mostly focus on let's imagine what an Ancap society would look like. Like I think that's the most good I can do or also now facilitating this debate and trying to clarify and make sure we're not straw manning each other. So that's why I'm taking the role I am because, yeah, it is a bit weird. Simon, I agree with you that the more extreme people on this issue are sick. Oh, it's not just that they're busing in immigrants to vote Biden in. They're like equipping an army that who are going to crack down on, you know, American white heterosexual Christians five years from now. And by the way, I'm not saying that like, oh, that's so stupid. I mean, if you want to make that argument, you can point to a lot of data. So I'm saying so it's a bit weird to say, so to stop that, why don't we just get enough libertarians to finally say close the borders and then Biden's going to do with the right thing. You know, that's kind of like, no, if that's who up against, you know, that that's why I personally am talking about secession and things because to me, it seems like if that's where we are trying to get the right people to go to Washington or make our voices heard and they're going to finally do with the people, that seems kind of like a losing strategy if things are that bad. So I think I'm kind of agreeing with you on this point five of bucket two. Well, I got I got I got just a couple more two more under this last last point five bucket two. So Hopper in his writings has a very specific solution that I think a lot of people latch on to it's this invite tour concept invite tour guarantee that the only way an immigrant can come in is if the invite tour, I guess that's an employer or a landlord or somebody guarantees all the living costs of this immigrant and also guarantees he will peacefully act. You know, he won't commit any violent crimes and I understand where Hopper is coming from, but this then this comes back to he's not saying we should apply that to citizens, right? So an employer of a domestic citizen isn't being asked to guarantee all that a landlord to a domestic citizen tenants not being asked to guarantee all that it's actually like it's sort of like protectionism for for domestic tenants and labor because you're imposing like a tariff on on imported labor and imported tenants. And the only way to argue that that's valid is if you again, going back to an earlier point if you give credence to the state's designation of individuals as either an immigrant or a citizen. So I you know, I have a problem with that particular invite tour guarantee concept as well. OK, yeah. And here again, so well, I think in terms of the economics that the distinction Hopper makes in one of his earlier papers on this he's trying to explain why he is still for free trade but no longer or I don't know if you ever was but is not in favor of unrestricted immigration because a lot of free market types think it's the same thing. Like, well, gee, if it makes the kind of what you're getting there Simon, like it if you understand why protectionism against, you know, for domestic auto car makers is bad. Why would you want it for domestic workers? Like, isn't there a sense in which that, you know, they're getting privileges that the worker in Mexico is not getting if domestic US workers can go around to anywhere they want and supply their services. But the Mexican guy, you know, no, all of a sudden the employer has to not only pay the wages but also beyond the hook for all kinds of stuff that the guy's going to do whereas if you hire an American worker, that's not the case. So I get that. But I guess Hopper's point is to say, well, the difference, though, is that when you it's not the cars or Chinese TVs or sweaters just on their own volition enter the United States, there's always an importer bringing them in. So there's clearly a voluntary trade. It's not as obvious. And so if somebody comes into the country, especially if it's, you know, an illegal immigrant, the fact that some guy pays him some money to, you know, pick fruit or whatever or clean, you know, clean the rooms in a hotel or something. And, you know, they're voluntary, they're employed, but they're imposing costs that other people or damages that, you know, the employer, they're not fully compensating it for. So I get what your point is, but I guess it ties back to just to go out on a quick tangent. And once I wrote a novel where I imagine there was this island that was totally Ancap and I just went through the paces of what would happen. And I thought what would partly what would happen is governments around the world would take their convicts like serial killers and whatever, political prisoners and just get rid of them. And instead of keeping them in their own countries, we'd just drop them off on the shores of this Ancap Island. It'd be like, here, you do it. And so I thought what would happen? And I thought, well, the property owners wouldn't want just hordes of people showing up that they had no idea who they were. And so I thought there'd clearly be companies that would bring them in, you know, they'd search them with weapons or whatever. And then you would just very, you know, over time get more and more privileges or entry into the community at large. And you would have to have like a third party vouch for you. And to say that, you know, we agree if this person commits a crime or something will, and that's why all the property owners would be okay with, oh, okay, you got so many vouchers for you. Yeah, you can come into my mall because if you're just some random guy from planet earth, I don't know who you are. You can't come into my mall because that's great, you know. So that's kind of how I pictured it. And so I think that's the sense where Hop is coming from that, yes, it's imperfect and everything, but there's a sense in which it's not hypocritical or a contradiction to say outsiders coming into the system, you know, there has to be a way to limit that flow. Well, but you could object to that in a couple of ways. One is citizens endanger other citizens and citizens commit crimes and a welfare bomb. So the idea is to reduce the strain on the system or keep safety to a minimum standard, then you should apply the same thing. There's no, as I said, no moral or economic distinction between a citizen and an immigrant. And secondly, shouldn't you then control birth rates because those are new entrants into the economy. And, you know, it just, I think the implication of saying that a subset of humanity needs to be guaranteed, but the others don't just seems to me, you know, undeveloped as a concept. Yeah, I like that. You know, I think I have, I mean, I'm pretty, I'm almost positive that I've seen Hop say the idea that if someone can sneak into the country and just have a baby on US soil that the baby becomes a citizen, that's crazy. I'm pretty sure I've seen him say that. I don't want to put words into his mouth, but yeah, I agree, Simon. I could see a certain logic with, well, given that the citizens are here, it is what it is otherwise. The only conclusion would be the state should deport everybody and then, you know, just wide, empty US and that seems kind of weird. But you're right, like the, about new people coming into the state via people's birth canals as opposed to external immigration. I have not seen anybody even grapple with that. And so I agree with you. That's something that's not clear to me how they would even attempt to address that. Right. And then just put the one last point in this bucket. So these libertarians would say that the state should manage this public property as a private owner would. But the only question they ever ask is who shall enter the property? But a private owner also cares about what use the property is put to. And so why shouldn't the state therefore decide what use to put land to? And is that what libertarians are saying that a private owner, if he had a vacant land near the border might decide to build houses and roads and stores and schools because he wants to maximize the value of the land. But so why then shouldn't the state do that? And it's just, again, an odd extension of the concept of the state managing property as a private owner would. Who enters is not the only decision a private owner makes. Okay, maybe this is the time to deal with Dave's school analogy or example that wouldn't Dave say, I don't know what you mean, Simon, clearly like my workhorse example of the local public school where to me it seems pretty obvious that the heroin addict does not have some libertarian right to walk into the school and sit down in the third grade classroom and shoot up while the kids are staring at them that they can keep them out. But I think he would go further than that and say, and also to go back to my earlier example that yeah, if it's up for referendum that should the local public school be teaching times tables and phonics or should it be teaching the proper way to worship Satan and why white people are evil, what do you think? I think Dave would have a strong opinion on that and he would say it's not un-libertarian to vote for one or the other. You don't nearly need to say, no, there shouldn't be public schools period and I don't even know how we're talking about curricula. So I think he's his position. So are you just saying, but anyway, I think that's what he would say. So now if you wanna like push back on that. I guess I think my point was a little different maybe I misunderstood what you said that these libertarians assume that the only question needs to be asked is who enters this public land. But if the idea is to mimic a private owner then the state needs to mimic what the private owner would do with that land. So we need to develop the land and it just seems odd to be putting forward an argument the endpoint of which is that the state should erect buildings and build roads and that I mean, aren't we against that? So I don't know, it's just, it's like an incomplete discussion about how a private owner would manage property. It's not just a question of who comes onto the property. Okay, so what I was trying to just be understood why I respond the way I did Sam was to say, I don't think Dave is shying away from talking about more than just who's allowed to enter. Like in the school example, I think he has said explicitly in other places I've seen him arguing on Twitter saying that kind of stuff. Like should the schools teach Marxism versus free market economics? Like should libertarians care? And he said, yeah, of course they should say something. So but your point Simon, if I get it, is you're saying it's why stop it just saying, oh well, given that we have border checkpoints set up, let's have the people at the border checking to limit the influx of immigrant. Why don't they put a bank there? Why don't they put a shopping mall there that's owned by the government and run on behalf of the taxpayers and it'll lower the deficit? Right, very few private owners would let land stay vacant. They'd put it to use to maximize value. And then the calling card is, we've got to manage the property like a private owner would. Right, okay. Yeah. All right, so then I just had two other points that are sort of dealing with some of the justifications that these libertarians give. Where do you dealt with one of them? I had three points. We dealt with one of them. That's the second best. So you often hear one justification for this position is that these immigrants coming in, they're gonna damage the culture, destroy the American identity, or I forget whatever phrases people use. And I guess I would have a couple of responses to that. First of all, as a historical matter, I'm not sure there has been an American cultural identity. If you look at the way the country was settled, it was a whole bunch of separate societies developed as colonies. And these people came from different parts of Britain or Europe, there are different religions, traditions, governance practices. The fact that the colonies cooperated in a limited extent to kick out the British doesn't mean that there was one culture. There's always been a whole series of separate societies in the US as the nature of the federal system. And then secondly, I feel like this song has been sung before on many occasions. People saying that these immigrants are taking jobs or strains on the system, damaging the culture. I mean, think back again to the antebellum US. Blacks were not popular. I mean, that's when the word racist actually meant something or had real meaning. I mean, even in the North, there were black codes that blacks couldn't enter the state or vote or own property. So, people didn't want blacks to integrate inside. They thought they would be an issue. They would ruin the culture and take jobs and things like that. Look at in the earlier 20th century, Irish Catholics, Italians, Jews, Poles, the same arguments against those immigrants are the ones you're hearing now against today's immigrants. And then when I look at what has, you know, I understand where these libertarians are coming from. I think they're on what I would call the cultural right. And I'm on the cultural right too. And I define that as people who have a respect for tradition, who believe in pushing governance down to the lowest level possible and who are comfortable with human differences. And so I understand that people look at the USA and say, well, those things aren't there or they're being attacked. But you look at who did that. I think it's mostly white European Americans on the cultural left who have been responsible for that. I mean, the worst, most tyrannical presidents who enlarge the central government and set up the national security and welfare states, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR or LBJ, I think they were the product of voting and policy preferences for the most part of white European Americans on the cultural left. So I think it's convenient to blame immigrants for what's gone on. But I think it misses the mark that this has always been a song that people sing about today's disfavored immigrants. And secondly, I think the rot set in years ago, well before the current batch of immigrants. Yeah, if we could just stop those white men from becoming US president, record might be better, right? Well, let me just ask, so are you, let me put it this way, because I think unfortunately this debate often ends up in the context of the United States. And then the implication is, so clearly anyone who wants the US government to enforce this border controls, it's because they're racist. But like, let's take Japan. I believe Dave would be fine. I think my understanding is the Japanese government has a relatively compared to other kind of, restrictive immigration policy. And also like, I haven't been there yet, but I very much want to go visit Japan. And I kind of want there to be mostly Japanese people when I get there. So I feel like I'm in a foreign exotic land. And if I got over there, and it was a bunch of guys who looked like me and it was just a bunch of McDonald's, I would be kind of disappointed. And so are you just making a particular case about the United States in the melting pot, or are you saying even around the world you don't think it's valid for people to kind of like the way their country is right now and be a little bit dissad if it rapidly changed over the next 20 years? Well, I'm saying the state muddies everything, right? But ultimately what you're talking about is the ends justifying the means that you want an end state of society and you'll use violence to get there. I mean, in my context, I'm thinking that the immigration police state is a violent institution. So you get back to the ends to justify the means, which I, as I've said, I don't agree with. But, you know, so I think, you know, libertarians should be attacking the problem, which is the state, the welfare system, the school and hospital regulations, the minimum wage occupational licensing, the war on drugs, war on terrorism, all these things are what create the problems in society. And so it's the state that should be the focus of libertarians' advocacy and efforts, not individuals who come from somewhere different than where they are. So I'm not saying, people are, I mean, everyone wants to live in a society that they picture as being like them probably. I mean, maybe not everybody, but a lot of people. But it's a question of how you get there. Do you get there through violence or do you get there through other means? Okay. And then just the last point that you often hear these libertarians justify, they say, yes, we don't want the state, but, you know, we can only get rid of order controls once we've gotten rid of the welfare system. I sort of call that sequence libertarianism. And, you know, there's a precise sequence in which things have to unfold to get to where we want. But that reaps of state self-justification or one wrong justifying another. I mean, if the wrong the state's committing is setting up the welfare system, and then you're saying, because we have the welfare system, now we need the state to stop people coming in and living off the welfare system. You know, it's sort of self-justifying or one wrong justifying another. And again, citizens are strains on the welfare system too. I think Rothbard in For a New Liberty, when he was talking about de-statization, said that we should never rely on the state to get to where we want. We should hack away at every manifestation of its power. And again, I'm not trying to argue from authority, but I'm saying that there, you know, I think it's a cogent point that libertarians should everywhere and anywhere attack aspects of the state and don't set out a plan that, by the way, is never gonna unfold in the order you want. And it's not like the state couldn't have scripted this or pay no attention to the problems we've created on the welfare system or the hospital or school system. You know, it's the immigrants. So anyway, I think I have a problem with what I call sequence libertarianism too. Okay, just on that point, so I get the broad point you're making there, Sam, and just a little bit of a pushback on that one, when we get to the fun lightning round, hang in there, folks, don't turn the dial. The lightning round's gonna be fun. But on that, what if somebody said something like, hey, I'm a libertarian and I don't think there should be prisons, certainly not for nonviolent drug offenses. And I also don't think there should be food stamps. You know, the government shouldn't be giving food to people, leave that to private charity, cut taxes and what, and then somebody says, so, okay, so I think what the government should do clearly is there's a bunch of people in prison right now for nonviolent drug offenses and the government should stop feeding them. They're still locked in cages, but the government should cut the, we should cut the funding to the cafeterias of the prisons and just let those big people not get food. And you could imagine someone saying, whoa, whoa, I agree, the government shouldn't give food to people and the people shouldn't be in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, but we should do it in the right order. Let the people out of prison first and then stop giving them food. Don't keep them locked up and cut off the food because then you're starving them to death. But isn't that compounding violation upon violation? Would the state let charities send food into the prison or would the state prevent charities from doing that? I think there are ways around that, but one violation of putting someone in a cage doesn't, to then say you should also stop them from eating, it seems to me that you're just compounding the violations. It's not really doing any good there. Well, right, but I mean, I get what you're saying and I don't wanna push this too far, but I'm just being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but strictly speaking, I could push it again and say, well, no, because these really are analogous, maybe not in the impact, but in terms of the argument that they're saying, no, if we, yes, we all agree complete privatization would be the goal, but what we're saying, the closed border libertarians would say, or the non-open libertarian borders is, we gotta get rid of the welfare state because if we just open the floodgates and let 3 million people a day come in, that's going to increase the initiated aggression against the taxpayers who are funding the schools and da-da-da-da, and so it's, yeah, you maybe are reducing the rights violations of domestic employers and things like that who wanna hire some of these immigrants that right now can't come in, but you're increasing the rights violations of these people over here, just like if the state stopped feeding prisoners, it would reduce the rights violations of the people who are funding it, even though it would increase the violations of the people sitting in jail. So anyway, that's the point I'm making, that the sequence in that particular example that I gave is clearly pretty important, whereas earlier you were kind of making a blanket statement, no, if something makes sense, do it, and don't worry about the interaction it has with other pre-existing government interventions, any intervention that we can end it right now, I don't care about what the other ones are, that's, you know, so. Yeah, maybe it comes down to what you just, you say is the state policy that should end, I mean, they should let these people out of prison. That would be the libertarian call, not to stop feeding them. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so is that the main points you wanted to make? Yeah, I mean, there's an Austrian economics point that, you know, Julian Simon noted that humans are the ultimate resource. And so it seems like more potential workers increases, you know, prosperity, because it increases production in the economy, and we should all want that. And again, to say that immigrants are lazy bums, I think is, you know, tiring a whole class of people without basis. So, you know, but I think the argument is, I guess just to sum up, my main point is that these libertarians claim that the libertarian position is state management of borders while there's a state. And I don't think that is the libertarian position. I think as I've laid out, I think that's not the libertarian position. But then the whole management of the property, I think it's not even a productive libertarian strategy because so much of the arguments as I've outlined, I think goes against general libertarian principles. And, you know, you push back rightly on some of them. So I'm not disputing that. But anyway, that's about all I think. Okay, that's good. So I could sit here and get into the weeds with you but I think it'll be more fun. Let me illustrate what I think might be some of the potential problems with your framework by giving you some examples. Some are more serious, some are more, just intended to be funny. But, okay, so I'm just gonna run through here. I've got several, like about five or six examples of just wanna get your, so if you can sign them and try to keep your answers on the short side, because we've got like six of these to get through. And your answer may be the same flavor for four of these. Okay. Let's say there is a church that, you know, a church building, the local government wants to build a road. They use eminent domain to seize the church, the congregation, the pastor, their outrage, the community is a little bit alarmed and they file and they get an injunction. And so it's held up in the courts, right? The church community is saying, no, this is our property. You can't build a road. The city government's saying, yes we can. I'm in a domain and we're gonna compensate. We compensate them. And they're arguing, so it's held up in court, but right now legally speaking, according to the status court system, the local city government is the owner and imagine that there's a bunch of Satanists who are squatting inside the church at night, doing all kinds of sadistic rituals and things. And the church leaders go to the government and say, ultimately we want you to give that back to us. But in the interim, can you at least put some cops on the doors to keep these Satanists from desecrating our property? And is it your position that no, technically it's unowned and it would be a further, not only did they steal from the church people, but it would be violating the rights of the Satanists to not let them go into that area that now unowned virgin property and homestead it with their rituals. I would regard that as a case of state seized land. So there was a prior legitimate owner. And so I would say that if you were gonna have the state managing property on behalf of, this is again, where the literature falls short that no one talks about in state seized land, the state should really consult the prior owner, so. Okay, so you're fine. To you that wouldn't be two wrongs. That would be the one wrong was seizing the church's property. And then, yeah, given that the state's gonna manage it, it's okay to ask the church leader, how do you want us to manage this property? Yes. Okay. What about? I mean, in the context of, yes, they're being a state and that's what you start with. Yeah, yeah, obviously the best solution is that the government says, oh my gosh, we read Rothbard, we're so sorry, take your church back. Obviously, but say they're not gonna do that, would it, is it okay for a libertarian to say, I think the government should put some cops, I mean, ideally they would be volunteer police who aren't using tax dollars to fund their, but to keep, I think I'm not shooting the Satanists in the head, but just saying you guys can't, you can't come in here, sorry, keep walking. Right, it's just recognizing the prior legitimate ownership now. What about, and this is real, there's lately, well, it was a couple months ago, there were a lot of, I think it was like climate stuff, but just in general, protestors just blocking roads, people are trying to go to work and 15, whatever, climate change activists just hold arms and stop traffic. And a bunch of people, does the libertarian have to say, no, I mean, no one really owns that road and the protestor, they kind of homesteaded that and it's their, these people, it's not that the guy in his car has any more right to use that road, that intersection than the protestors do. So libertarians really should just butt out of this. So first of all, if it were state claimed land as opposed to state seized land, then I would say that the correct characterization is, it is unowned, but then the question is, well, has actually someone homesteaded it or are they just on it? Because you can be on a pace of unowned land without the intention or the actions of actually homestead it. But I would argue that the protestors probably have the same right as the drivers to be on unowned land unless you're gonna say that one or either of them have homesteaded. You could say that the drivers have been driving the same route so at the office, every day for the last year that they've in fact homesteaded an easement on that unowned land. So you could make that argument whereas the protestors just got there, they've had the Johnny come lately, so they probably wouldn't have the same rights. That's the type of arguments I would write. So just to connect that then to the immigrant. So I mean, you see where I'm going with this, right? That if you agree, even US-born citizens who live in that city can't just go block an intersection or at least you agree it's plausible to say that they don't have the right to do that under libertarian theory. How can people who are for the first time stepping foot onto that intersection, how do they have the untrammeled right to be there if the local native-born people don't? Well, I didn't say the local native-born people didn't have the right to be there. I said, I mean, I'm not sure I'm gonna say your question. As I said, the locals who drive that route every day, you could argue homesteaded an easement to drive that route. They might not have homesteaded the whole property but they've certainly gotten an easement right away. So if they were doing that first, then late-comers who try to interfere with the exercise of the right so that easement would be in the wrong. Okay, so where I'm pushing this, Simon, and my examples are gonna get more and more ridiculous as we go through this, just to warn you. I'm trying to show how, to me, it seems obvious, like the legal status is not just a certain, the literal border between the US and Mexico but the idea of all the government, the sidewalks in the building or the roads and so forth throughout the country, that it's not that all those arteries and whatever are but just completely unowned, right? That surely US residents have more of a claim over how that property should be used or managed on their behalf by the government since, technically, the government says, no, we own those sidewalks and the roads rather than somebody in South America who's never even set foot in the country. Yeah, no, I see your point and I guess you have to look at each parcel of land and ask, have people, if you assume that it's not owned by the state and I would contend not owned by the taxpayers, open for homesteading, have locals homesteaded that land or have they created an easement? So, and that immigrants and not just immigrants, citizens who haven't also created that easement cannot interfere with the exercise of rights. So again, I don't distinguish immigrants and citizens, it's a question of who has homesteaded that easement if anyone has it all and no one can interfere in that. And in any case, advocating for the state to manage that I think is again, I believe I'm libertarian. Okay, I got just four more and I'll go fast them. And again, folks here, I'm just gonna say them and then let Simon give his response and we're gonna move. I'm not gonna keep pressing him cause I didn't do that with Dave. So it wouldn't be fair, right? I just, I want to raise these issues so everyone can know where Dave, how he handled the tough, I think I asked him one hardball question. I'm asking you more partly like I said, Simon because I had more time to get ready for this one. Okay, the international space station, right? It's in orbit around the earth. I'm pretty sure lots of stolen taxpayer dollars were used from various countries to fund that thing. If Martians showed up and physically took possession of it, did they do anything wrong to earthlings? Or did they just homestead this unowned thing that was orbiting the planet? So let's go back to the discussion we had earlier about can the state legitimately own property? So if the state, if the materials used to construct the space station were voluntarily transferred by private owners to the state, or if private owners constructed the space station and then voluntarily transferred it to the state, then I think in that case, the state would own that space station. But as I said, it's temporary. The taxpayers could go against it and seize it. But while the state owns it, if the Martians come and if they want to use force to seize it, I would say that it's weird to say this, but they're interfering in the state's legitimate ownership. Okay, like I said, folks, I'm not gonna push, I'm just gonna keep moving on and then I'll let you decide. You can founder of these things. Okay, recently there were protesters who broke into the Louvre and threw soup on the Mona Lisa. Like it was protected, but they threw it. I went and looked, my understanding is the Mona Lisa was originally owned by the French Royal Court or something. And then after the revolution in 1789, the people owned it. So I think in our framework, you know, it's not Pierre Vaughan sort of owns it like it's, you know, government property. So did those protesters mix their soup with the unowned artwork and make it their own? Did those protesters now own the Mona Lisa? Well, two responses. One is, I'm not clear on how the state came to own that painting. Did they seize it off a private owner or did the private owner abandon it? And so it was open to homesteading. And I don't think the state can homestead it. So we could just- I'm pretty sure the owner of the Mona Lisa didn't abandon it. I don't know exactly what happened, but- So it states these properties, so it belongs to the prior owner. But the second point, more importantly, is I don't think throwing paint on a painting is evidence of homesteading. I mean, the whole notion of mixing your labor with the land, I think that block espoused I think has been, is not- I lean towards Hopper's approach that the way to homestead is to objectively indicate to the world that you have the most direct link to control the property. And so, if you drive by unowned land and you throw a coke can on there as garbage, it's not evidence of homesteading. I don't think you've taken the right action to homestead it. You need to go and build a fence around it and claim it. Merely throwing paint on the Mona Lisa I wouldn't say is an act of homesteading. Okay, so what about environmentalists who chain themselves to like old redwood trees? Do they own, if it's in a public forest? That's a good question. That's probably an edge case. So they intend to claim ownership. I mean, when they unchain themselves, they go away and leave the tree alone and never come back. So I don't know the answer about it depending on the facts and circumstances, but I agree that's an edge case. Like, has they done sufficient actions to homestead it? Okay, what's interesting on these is to your credit, like you're kind of butting the bullet. Like, to me, I think the people who like Dave are gonna think they can't believe that your answers aren't obvious and you're just trying to wait. But no, you're kind of like, well, maybe. So, okay, you're being consistent. I got two more, folks. Okay, next one, this is a fun one. There's a movie, I didn't actually see the movie, so maybe I'm gonna botch the plot. But my understanding is there's a Nicholas Cage movie where he goes to steal the US Constitution. Yes. Now, this is clearly- National treasure, I think. Yeah, a status thing that, you know, overthrew the articles of confederate. So if there's ever a wicked status document. So in general, again, I don't know the plot. If some private person breaks into the, where is it, the Smithsonian, steals the US Constitution and did he just liberate it and we should, Americans should applaud, American libertarians should applaud the liberation of the US Constitution if someone were to break into, again, I don't know if this is the Smithsonian, wherever they keep that thing. And gives it to some private collector in Dubai and he keeps it quiet because he doesn't wanna get Seal Team Six after him. Should American libertarians have to publicly applaud that and say, thank goodness, somebody homesteaded that thing finally? Well, Walter Block would certainly say, yes, he has the Ragnar principle of the liberator theory that it's okay to liberate stolen goods from a thief. But I guess there aren't enough facts here because you gotta ask, okay, so the Smithsonian itself or the National Archives, whatever it is, you know, is that state claim land or state seized land? So was the person, you know, did the person, was it a violation to break into there? And then I would argue the same thing about the document itself, was it, you know, created by private parties and voluntarily transferred to the state? You know, the material was in it where they transferred to the state. I mean, you need to, I go back to the same principles I've been espousing all night. I just don't know how you can answer those questions for that. Okay, so just for the last, for two of these, just to make sure I'm getting your, I don't wanna misrepresent you because I'm sure later, you know, once this episode drops, people are gonna be argued about it. And I wanna make sure you understand. Let me just admit, some private art dealer or, you know, collector in shake in Dubai or something, he hires his people, they steal the Mona Lisa and they steal the US constitution and now it's in his private collection and when he has parties, he's like, come here and he shows people and he's like, you know, keep it under your hat. But, you know, look at this. And the French people are outraged. The Americans are outraged and the correct libertarian response is to tell both of them, you people don't understand property rights. No, we should applaud both of those thefts and you know, you didn't own it. What are you talking about? That was unowned, you know, a parchment and a canvas. And that that's libertarian should go on record telling the outraged French people, no, you guys clearly don't understand libertarianism. That wouldn't be the most weird position libertarians hold. Fair enough. Okay. But I'm not. We have weirder positions than that. Okay, but you're not clearly disavowing that you're saying, yes, depending on the particulars, that is possibly what would pop out of your framework. Right, every piece of property is either owned or unowned and it's either required legitimately or not. And I think you need to ask the same questions every time. Okay. And then the last one, in Superman 2, have you seen the movie? Yes. Okay, so just to refresh people's memories. So there's the three Kryptonians, General Zod, Ursa and Nam that were sent to the Phantom Zone and Superman takes a, there's a nuclear bomb on the Eiffel Tower and Superman in the beginning of the movie and he throws it, releases them. And at one point in the movie, the three Krypton, after they've, Superman gives up his powers because he's trying to get friendly with Lois Lane there. And the three Kryptonians are just running rough shots. They take over the world nominally, all the world leaders surrender. And one of the scenes, they're flying by Mount Rushmore and they use their heat vision and they change it from the, they make it, there are three, it faces on Mount Rushmore and they blow up the fourth one. Did they just homestead that? And is that now the property of the Kryptonians? Assuming it was out owned, I would say changing it irreverently like that would be a pretty good act of homesteading. Okay. Well, I think that's a good place to end. Simon, thank you for your time. You were a good sport with this. And I guess, do you want to point, so people should know your paper is, and we'll link to it of course, folks, but if you want to go look at it, it is Public Property and the Libertarian Immigration Debate. Simon Genzel, it's volume eight, number one, 2016, and the Libertarian papers, you know, you can Google that. And his name is spelled G-U-E-N-Z-L. So thanks, Simon. I think, you know, there's gonna be a lot of fun reaction to this one, so I appreciate how much time you gave me. I appreciate it. I think our discussion went well beyond my paper, but it was fun, so thank you. Okay. And thank you everyone for tuning in. We'll see you next time. Check back next week for a new episode of the Human Action Podcast. In the meantime, you can find more content like this on nieces.org.