praxeologist on Nostr: Hans-Hermann Hoppe distinguishes between two scenarios: one where migrant A moves to ...

Hans-Hermann Hoppe distinguishes between two scenarios: one where migrant A moves to the destination country with an invitation from person B, and another where migrant A migrates without an invitation. He believes that the first scenario is exactly like free trade, where for every good entering a state's protected territory, there's an accepting party. Therefore, any restriction by the state is unethical. However, in the second scenario, since no one has accepted the migrant, there is forced integration, as A is using public goods that are collectively owned by all residents.

The contradiction I don’t understand is that simply having an invitation from person B doesn’t turn migrant A into B’s property! Apart from the working hours set by B, A is essentially like any other migrant who has just crossed the border without any invitation from any resident.

Does the mere fact that one person (B) is okay with A’s presence during non-working hours—just because A might (we don’t know if A will uphold their promise to B, and under libertarian legal theory, failing to fulfill promises is legal as long as it doesn't harm private property)—mean that forced integration doesn’t occur? If that's the case, then if even one American is okay with Mexicans entering the country because they might benefit from their services in the future, wouldn't closing the U.S. border be forced exclusion rather than forced integration?

#grownostr #libertarianism #freeimmigratiton #anarchocapitalism #anarchocapitalism #openborders #freetrade #hoppe #freesociety