My goal is to create a one-stop resource where someone can learn the main tenets of libertarian anarchism. One of the problems with the libertarian movement is that it is lacking an “argument database” where a newbie can find the answer to every one of their questions. Sure there are websites like Libertarian Nation and Mises.org, or books like Human Action and Man, Economy, and State, but the reader still has to do a lot of work putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I want to present a systematic, step-by-step analysis of the premises and conclusions of both libertarian and statist arguments. By doing the heavy lifting, hopefully I can shorten the learning curve and multiply the progress of the libertarian movement (at least concerning education).

There are no comments in the Articles section, so I will make a blog post for each article, where you can comment.

My first three articles are up:

• The Case for Free Trade
• The Case Against Drug Prohibition
• The Case Against Gun Control

I plan to write future articles on: price controls, the case against monopoly, education, roads, health care, money, courts and police, and more.

Essentially, this strategy is just one result of applying the 80/20 principle to conversions. Who would be the most profitable converts? Who could promote anarchism most efficiently? Who would have the strongest influence on the masses, or on the elites?

In terms of actually converting a community, I would follow a two-step approach. First, make the standard case that government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn’t work. Second, show how anarchism is congruent with that community. Make specific, practical links between anarchist philosophy and the community, and show why they should support anarchism. For example, anti-war groups should oppose the State because it is the institutionalization of war.

One person I want to convert is Steve Pavlina. His topic is personal development, and he has 2.4 million readers per month (*drool*). Now that’s a good convert! In fact, in one article on atheism, he wrote: “You’d think I’d be quite a prize for any serious religion. With 2.4 million monthly readers, that’s a lot of people I could potentially enslave convert, not to mention how much I could fill the Church coffers by soliciting indulgences donations on their behalf.” And since anarchism is just common sense, persuading people is easy: just make the case that anarchism is the most moral and practical society, and that government is an unnecessary evil. Steve is a great convert because he has high credibility, many readers, and a subject that is compatible with anarchism.

Elsewhere, Steve writes:

“My more specific mission is to influence the influencers.

Single-handedly raising the level of consciousness of the whole planet is too much for me to handle, at least at my current stage of development. Triage is essential. I have to say no to a lot of worthy causes, and sometimes it’s heartbreaking to do so, but if I try to help everyone on earth directly, my specific mission will fail, and I cannot allow that to happen.

Influencing the influencers is my particular leverage point. I specifically aim to catch people in their 20s and 30s, a large percentage of whom are Internet-savvy, and help them realize that there’s more to life than getting a job and making money. These people are the future leaders of tomorrow, and if just a small percentage of them learn to listen to their hearts and not just their heads, it will make a world of difference.”

“Like many others my age, I have little faith in our current business and political leaders. I don’t vote in any elections because there’s no point. The people and issues that make it onto our ballots are spawned from a very low level of consciousness. Our leaders care more about power and perception than they do about truth and service. That’s cowardice, not leadership, and it needs to change. But the only way I see change happening is if enough people raise their own consciousness to the point where they refuse to be manipulated by fear and falsehood. We need leaders who are conscious and compassionate, who care more about serving the greater good than they do about enriching their egos. But we also need people who are willing to accept having an honorable leader in power, and that requires that people learn to manage their fear so it can no longer be used as a means of manipulating them.”

Like Osho, Steve thinks that positive change can only come about through a mental evolution, a raising of consciousness. When I was ecognorant I believed the same thing. But now that I understand economics, I see that a huge problem is the structure of society itself – that is, society by government. Statism runs so contrary to human nature. For example, tax-funded monopolies have perverse incentives, bureaucracies are inefficient, externalization of costs through taxation and inflation encourages war, etc. On the other hand, organizing society on the market principle, i.e. voluntary cooperation, is consistent with human nature, and hence leads to much better consequences. For example, competition leads to efficient businesses and low prices, private property solves the tragedy of the commons problem, free trade leads to worldwide prosperity, etc. In short, there are many changes we can make, producing massive benefits, without even attempting to change human nature. Accepting people how they are for now, as greedy, unconscious, or egotistical, we can still drastically improve society by focusing on institutional changes in how society is organized. Specifically, this means abolishing useless government functions and having the useful ones provided on the market.

In fact, anarchism and personal development are very congruent subjects. Anarchism creates fertile soil for personal development to flourish, if only because it is the end of war, poverty, and injustice. Personal development is all about taking responsibility for your own life. This means exercising personal control over your life, not being a servant to the government. Personal development is also individualistic, because it focuses first on improving your own life, and making yourself happy. Furthermore, personal development creates people who can accomplish goals and get things done. This is a boon for anarchism, because these motivated go-getters run the world; converting them means influencing the influencers. These are the people who will devise strategies and take action on them; these are the people who will bring about an anarchist society.

And just think, if I converted Steve and he in turn converted a million people, we would have a free society in no time.

Who is your ideal convert?

Hans Hoppe has provided the answer to such questions with his strategy of “Anti-intellectual Intellectualism”. Following Boétie’s insight that governments derive their power and legitimacy from public opinion, we must recognize that it is the intellectuals who shape this public opinion. Accordingly, Hoppe calls for “anti-intellectual intellectuals” to take up the task of combating the state intellectuals, and ultimately delegitimizing, and hence destroying, the State. The two main branches of this strategy are (1) rooting one’s arguments in morality, and not mere utilitarianism, while (2) circumventing academia and reaching out to the general public. Thus, Hoppe writes, “states, as powerful and invincible as they might seem, ultimately owe their existence to ideas and, since ideas can in principle change instantaneously, states can be brought down and crumble practically overnight.”

The anti-intellectual intellectualism strategy is laid out in full in Hoppe’s article, Rothbardian Ethics:

From this insight into the importance of ideas and the role of intellectuals as bodyguards of the state and statism, then, it follows that the most decisive role in the process of liberation – the restoration of justice and morality – must fall on the shoulders of what one might call anti-intellectual intellectuals. Yet how can such anti-intellectual intellectuals possibly succeed in delegitimating the state in public opinion, especially if the overwhelming majority of their colleagues are statists and will do everything in their power to isolate and discredit them as extremists and crackpots? Time permits me to make only a few brief comments on this fundamental question.

First: Because one must reckon with the vicious opposition from one’s colleagues, and in order to withstand it, and to shrug it off, it is of utmost importance to ground one’s case not in economics and utilitarianism, but in ethics and moral arguments. For only moral convictions provide one with the courage and strength needed in ideological battle. Few are inspired and willing to accept sacrifices if what they are opposed to is mere error and waste. More inspiration and courage can be drawn from knowing that one is engaged in fighting evil and lies. (I’ll return to this shortly.)

Second: It is important to recognize that one does not need to convert one’s colleagues, i.e., to persuade mainstream intellectuals. As Thomas Kuhn has shown, this is rare enough even in the natural sciences. In the social sciences, conversions among established intellectuals from previously held views are almost unheard of. Instead, one should concentrate one’s efforts on the not-yet intellectually committed young, whose idealism makes them also particularly receptive to moral arguments and moral rigorism. And likewise, one should circumvent academia and reach out to the general public (i.e., to the educated laymen), which entertains some generally healthy anti-intellectual prejudices into which one can easily tap.

Third (returning to the importance of a moral attack on the state): It is essential to recognize that there can be no compromise on the level of theory. To be sure, one should not refuse to cooperate with people whose views are ultimately mistaken and confused, provided that their objectives can be classified, clearly and unambiguously, as a step in the right direction of the de-statization of society. For instance, one would not want to refuse cooperation with people who seek to introduce a flat income tax of 10 percent (although we would not want to cooperate with those who would want to combine this measure with an increased sales tax in order to achieve revenue neutrality, for instance). However, under no circumstances should such cooperation lead to or be achieved by compromising one’s own principles. Either taxation is just or it isn’t. And once it is admitted as just, how is one then to oppose any increase in it? The answer is of course that one can’t!

Put differently, compromise on the level of theory, as we find it, for instance, among moderate free-marketeers such as Hayek or Friedman or even among the so-called minarchists, is not only philosophically flawed but is also practically ineffective and indeed counterproductive. Their ideas can be – and in fact are – easily co-opted and incorporated by the state rulers and statist ideology. Indeed, how often do we hear nowadays from statists and in defense of a statist agenda cries such as “even Hayek (Friedman) says, or, not even Hayek (Friedman) denies that such and such must be done by the state!” Personally, they may not be happy about this, but there is no denying that their work lends itself to this purpose, and hence, that they, willy-nilly, actually contributed to the continued and unabating growth of state power.

In other words: Theoretical compromise or gradualism will only lead to the perpetuation of the falsehood, evils, and lies of statism, and only theoretical purism, radicalism, and intransigence can and will lead first to gradual practical reform and improvement and possibly final victory. Accordingly, as an anti-intellectual intellectual in the Rothbardian sense one can never be satisfied with criticizing various government follies, although one might have to begin with this, but one must always proceed from there to a fundamental attack on the institution of the state as a moral outrage and its representatives as moral as well as economic frauds, liars, and impostors – as emperors without clothes.

In particular, one must never hesitate to strike at the very heart of the legitimacy of the state: its alleged indispensable role as producer of private protection and security. I have already shown how ridiculous this claim is on theoretical grounds: how can an agency that may expropriate private property possibly claim to be a protector of private property? But hardly less important is it to attack the legitimacy of the state in this regard on empirical grounds. That is, to point out and hammer away on the subject that, after all, states, which are supposed to protect us, are the very institution responsible for an estimated 170 million death in the twentieth century alone – more than the victims of private crime in all of human history (and this number of victims of private crimes, from which government did not protect us, would have been even much lower if governments everywhere and at all times had not undertaken constant efforts of disarming its own citizens so that the governments in turn would become ever more effective killing machines)!

Instead of treating politicians with respect, then, one’s criticism of them should be significantly stepped up: almost to a man, they are not only thieves but mass murderers. How dare they demand our respect and loyalty.

But will a sharp and distinct ideological radicalization bring the results aimed at? I have no doubt. Indeed, only radical – and in fact radically simple – ideas can possibly stir the emotions of the dull and indolent masses and delegitimate government in their eyes.

Purism! Radicalism! Intransigence!

Now that is a slogan to live by.

The libertarian immigration debate is alive and well.¹ Although there is no debate over the immigration policy of a free society, there is considerable controversy over the proper immigration policy in our currently existing statist society. However, this debate has neglected to address the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and its solutions fail accordingly. This article will attempt to resolve the debate by addressing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by proposing solutions that address these root causes.

Before we can address the problem of immigration under statism, we must establish several premises.

First, under anarchy, the concept of immigration is meaningless. As all property is privately owned, there is no distinction between citizens and foreigners. People don’t immigrate, but simply travel from one place to another. There are no government borders, but only private property borders. And as property owners have the right of admission and exclusion, there is no forced integration or forced exclusion, and hence no immigration problem.

In contrast, under statism, we have government borders, government property (roads, parks, etc.), and antidiscrimination laws. Government borders, by preventing invited travel, violate the right of admission and so cause forced exclusion. Government property and antidiscrimination laws, by preventing property owners from excluding unwanted guests, violate the right to exclusion and so cause forced integration. As libertarians, our goal is to move from statism to anarchy.

Next, we must recognize that open borders are a free market institution. That is, open government borders are the same thing as no government borders. And since there are no government borders under anarchy, open borders are anarchic. Consider: with closed borders, there is a government building, government border patrol guards, and perhaps a government fence. With open borders, there is nothing, only private property borders. Because libertarianism means abolishing all elements of government, in a free society there would be no government building, no government guards, and no government fence. Thus, open borders are the same as no borders. Open borders are a free market institution.

Striking the root

One of the many problems with statism is that it causes forced integration and forced exclusion. But what are the root causes of these phenomena?

Forced exclusion occurs when invited travel is violently restricted or prohibited by the state. It is a direct violation of the right of admission. As Hoppe notes, “if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion”. Government borders are the primary means by which invited travel is restricted. Hence, government borders are the root cause of forced exclusion. Accordingly, the solution to forced exclusion is to abolish government borders.

Forced integration occurs when private exclusion is violently restricted or prohibited by the state. Property owners have the right to exclude unwanted guests, and forced integration is a direct violation of that right. The two primary means by which the government causes forced integration are government property and antidiscrimination laws. Government property, Hoppe writes, means that “by proceeding on public roads, or with public means of transportation, and in staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, an immigrant can potentially cross every domestic resident’s path, even move into anyone’s immediate neighborhood and practically land on his very doorsteps.”² Antidiscrimination laws, by restricting how property owners can discriminate, are an obvious violation of the right of exclusion. Hence, government property and antidiscrimination laws are the root causes of forced integration. Accordingly, the solution to forced integration is to privatize government property and abolish antidiscrimination laws.

Now we come to the heart of the issue. Open borders are not the root cause of forced integration. It is true that open borders may exacerbate the problem of forced integration. For example, the effects of forced integration are amplified if open borders allow more people to take advantage of government property and antidiscrimination laws. However, note that open borders would not cause any problems if government property and antidiscrimination laws did not exist. All this means is that open borders are a “branch cause”, or a contributing cause, of forced integration. They are not the root cause. Consequently, closed borders are not an appropriate solution to forced integration. If the root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws, then addressing a contributing cause, i.e. closing the borders, will not solve the problem. This is evident when we realize that closed borders will only prevent foreign forced integration; domestic forced integration will remain unsolved. Moreover, closed borders still leave us with the problem of forced exclusion.

Clearly, the solution to forced integration must be to address the root cause. This means privatizing government property and abolishing antidiscrimination laws. With this accomplished, forced integration will be defeated forever, as property owners can exclude any unwanted guest, domestic or foreign. As all property is private, and all travel is invited, the immigration problem is solved. To paraphrase Thoreau, the advocates of closed borders are hacking at the branches of forced integration, while the government property and antidiscrimination laws abolitionists are striking at the root.

Analytically distinct problems

Another way to look at the problem is to recognize that just as welfare is a separate issue from immigration, so too are government property and antidiscrimination laws separate issues from immigration. As analytically distinct issues, therefore, they must be treated accordingly.

As Hoppe notes, immigration is a separate issue from welfare.

“It would also be wrongheaded to attack the above case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become to a significant extent the immigration of welfare-bums, who, even if the United States, for instance, is below her optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards. For this is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.”

Those who blame the negative effects of the welfare state on open borders are incorrectly tracing causality. The problems of welfare are caused directly by the welfare state, not open borders. Granted, open borders may exacerbate the problems of welfarism, but they are not the root cause. This is obvious when we consider that open borders do not exacerbate welfare problems when there is no welfare state. Moreover, closing the borders to prevent welfarism will only hinder foreign welfarism; domestic welfarism will remain unsolved. The only way to resolve the problem is to analyze separately the distinct problems of immigration and welfare. Then, the solution to welfare is to address the root cause, i.e. abolish the welfare state. Closing the borders does not address the root and so will not solve the problem.

This reasoning also applies to government property and antidiscrimination laws. Those who blame forced integration on open borders are incorrectly tracing causality. Forced integration is caused by government roads and parks, and by antidiscrimination laws violating the right of exclusion. Again, open borders may exacerbate the problem, but they are not the fundamental cause. Here too, the only way to resolve the problem is to analyze separately the distinct issues of forced integration and immigration. Thus, the root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws. The solution therefore cannot be closed borders, but must be to abolish government property and antidiscrimination laws. The immorality of forced integration is not an argument against open borders, but against government property and antidiscrimination laws.

Thus, in Hoppe’s quote above we can simply replace the word “welfare” with “government property and antidiscrimination laws”: “For this is not an argument against immigration but against government property and antidiscrimination laws. To be sure, government property and antidiscrimination laws should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and government property and antidiscrimination laws are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.” Once we recognize that the root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws, it becomes evident that closed borders are not an appropriate solution.

Strategy

Yet another way to see the problem is to compare the strategies of the closed border advocates to the government property and antidiscrimination laws abolitionists. As noted above, today under statism we have government property, government antidiscrimination laws, and government borders. Our goal is anarchy, with private property, no antidiscrimination laws, and private property borders. Also note that under statism we have forced integration and forced exclusion, and that these problems are solved under anarchy. So how do we get there?

If we privatize government property, abolish antidiscrimination laws, and abolish government borders, we will have attained anarchy and solved the problem of forced integration and forced exclusion. Privatizing government property and abolishing antidiscrimination laws will restore the right of exclusion, and hence end forced integration. Abolishing government borders will restore the right of admission, and hence end forced exclusion. This is the proper solution.

However, if we follow the anti-immigrationists and privatize government property, abolish antidiscrimination laws, but keep government borders, we will not reach anarchy: obviously, government borders are a government institution. True, with government property and antidiscrimination laws (the root causes of forced integration) being non-existent, the right of exclusion will be restored and the problem of forced integration would be solved. However, the existence of government borders means there would still be forced exclusion. Thus, advocating closed borders cannot be a libertarian solution, because there would still be government and there would still be forced exclusion.

One might object that the second strategy (privatize government property, abolish antidiscrimination laws, keep government borders) is more efficient, as it would minimize the effects of forced integration and welfarism during the transformation process; also, the borders can simply be abolished after first eliminating forced integration. However, this obviously violates libertarian principles. Government borders violate the right of admission. As Rothbard said, libertarians must be abolitionists; we cannot be gradualists, because that would mean sanctioning injustice. Amazingly, this strategy would mean directly advocating and even promoting statism. It would mean accepting the principle that “Government intervention X is justified to solve the problems of government intervention Y”. But if this is granted, we are no longer dealing with libertarianism, but with full-blown statism. Supporting government borders is clearly an example of unprincipled right-opportunism, and hence cannot be a viable strategy.

The vicious cycle of interventionism

The anti-immigrationists are unwittingly exemplifying the vicious cycle of interventionism as explained by Mises. He showed that there could be no third way between statism and a free market, because any government intervention would create unforeseen problems, which require further intervention to solve the new problems. But, the new interventions cause yet newer problems, and on and on until society is wholly state managed.

Likewise, by responding to the problems of government property and antidiscrimination laws, i.e. forced integration, the anti-immigrationists, like statists, miscomprehend the root cause: the original government intervention. With this miscomprehension, they go on to prescribe more government intervention to solve the first problem, e.g. advocating closed government borders. But, as we know, government borders will create unforeseen problems of their own, requiring yet further interventions. What’s next, advocating government-enforced apartheid to separate immigrants and their culture from the rest of America?

The solution, as Mises recognized, is to identify and address the root cause: the first government intervention. With forced integration, the root cause is government property and antidiscrimination laws. Open borders are only a contributing cause. With forced exclusion, the root cause is government borders. The proper solution, then, is to abolish antidiscrimination laws and government borders, and privatize government property. Closed borders are not a viable solution. They do not treat the root cause.

Once seen in this light, the advocacy of closed borders is very bizarre indeed. As open borders are a free market institution, why would anyone support closed borders – a government institution?! The goal of libertarians is to hack away at the size of government, not increase it! Advocating closed borders to solve the problem of forced integration is exactly analogous to advocating closed borders to solve the problem of welfare. In both instances the anti-immigrationist fails to recognize the root cause of the problem (the welfare state and government property and antidiscrimination laws, respectively), and hence advocates a bogus solution.

Objections

One might object that if open borders are achieved before government property, antidiscrimination laws, and welfare are abolished, the result would be the end of civilization. Hans Hoppe has advanced such an argument:

“Assume that the U.S., or better still Switzerland, declared that there would no longer be any border controls, that anyone who could pay the fare might enter the country, and, as a resident then be entitled to every “normal” domestic welfare provision. Can there be any doubt how disastrous such an experiment would turn out in the present world?. The U.S., and Switzerland even faster, would be overrun by millions of third-world immigrants, because life on and off American and Swiss public streets is comfortable compared to life in many areas of the third world. Welfare costs would skyrocket, and the strangled economy disintegrate and collapse, as the subsistence fund—the stock of capital accumulated in and inherited from the past—was plundered. Civilization in the U.S. and Switzerland would vanish, just as it once did from Rome and Greece.”

However, once we have accepted that consequences can overrule principle, we have abandoned libertarianism for utilitarianism. We must analyze the problem on libertarian principles, not solely on consequences.

Another objection, put forth by John Hospers, is that focusing solely on root causes will not solve the problem rapidly enough:

“When one questioner asks, “Isn’t there a danger that immigrants will enter the country to receive the benefits of the welfare state?” Jacob Hornberger responds, “Then get rid of the welfare state!” The response, of course, provides no answer to the question asked. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? We have at the moment a rather “advanced” welfare state, and what policy should we adopt while we still have the welfare state with us?”

This response again amounts to pure consequentialism. The idea that libertarian principles can be sacrificed to achieve short-term gains is a clear manifestation of right-opportunism. Further, Hospers seems not to recognize that the welfare state is the root cause of welfarism, and that abolishing it is the only viable solution. “What are we supposed to do in the meantime?” Obviously, work towards abolishing the welfare state! Why would we want to devote scarce time and resources to any solution other than that which addresses the root cause?

Hoppe has also argued that “if and insofar as this government derived its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the “people” and was viewed as the outgrowth of an agreement or “social contract”" and “which assumed as its primary task the protection of its citizens and their property (the production of domestic security)”³, then the government would have to implement restrictive immigration policies. However, we all know that government does not derive its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the people, and that social contract theory is totally false, and that government production of security is monstrously illegitimate. What is Hoppe, a proud anarchist, talking about?!

He also writes:

“A popular government that wants to safeguard its citizens and their domestic property from forced integration and foreign invaders has two methods of doing so: a corrective and a preventative one. [First, the corrective method:] the government must reduce the quantity of public property and expand that of private property as much as possible, and whatever the ratio of private to public property may be, the government should help rather than hinder the enforcement of a private property owner’s right to admit and exclude others from his property. [Second, the] government must also engage in preventative measures. At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket; that is, a valid invitation by a domestic property owner; and anyone not in possession of such a ticket must be expelled at his own expense.”⁴

However, we all know the theory of “popular government”, of government as the “trustee of its citizens”, to be a naive myth. Why is Hoppe spouting off these fallacious theories?!

A closed border advocate might respond with the majoritarian restitution argument as advanced by Stephan Kinsella: “immigration controls, or at least prohibition of illegal immigrant usage of “public lands,” can constitute a form of restitution. Since taxpayers have been victimized by the state’s forcing them to finance public spaces, they are owed something by the state as victims. Kinsella argues that “restitution need not be made only in dollars. It can be made by providing other value or benefits to the victims.”” (p.9) However, Gregory and Block’s response is a sufficient refutation: “In principle, a victim of robbery has no “right” to direct his assailant to aggress against others as a matter of “restitution,” for doing so violates yet other person’s natural rights. Being a victim of the state in no way entitles someone to use the state against anyone else…. Moreover, the state does not have its own resources and it can only “compensate” people by robbing from others.” (p. 9-10)

Conclusion

The libertarian immigration debate has failed to take into account the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion. The purpose of this article is to fill that void by recognizing the root causes of forced integration and forced exclusion, and by suggesting appropriate solutions. Specifically, the root cause of forced exclusion is government borders; abolishing government borders will end forced exclusion. The root cause of forced integration is government property and antidiscrimination laws; privatizing the former and abolishing the latter will end forced integration. By falsely labeling open borders as the root cause of forced integration, closed border advocates ignore the true reality of forced integration, and their solutions suffer accordingly. Hopefully, this root cause analysis will resolve the libertarian immigration debate and foster greater unity within the libertarian movement.

1. See the Journal of Libertarian Studies’ Symposium on Immigration (Vol. 13 Num. 2), especially Block, “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration”, and Hoppe, “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration“; Block and Callahan, “Is There A Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective”; Hoppe, “On Free Immigration and Forced Integration“; Gregory and Block, “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe”.
2. The argument that government property is a root cause of forced integration is subject to criticism. For instance, it relies on the assumption that the taxpayers are the sole owners of public property; one might object that public property has the status of unowned property, and should be open for homesteading. Another objection is that it assumes that the government is the trustee of the taxpayers; but since Spooner, it is commonly accepted that government is not a trustee but a criminal gang. In any case, whether or not government property is a root cause of forced integration does not affect this analysis, as it is undisputed that antidiscrimination laws are a root cause.
3. On Free Trade and Restricted Immigration, in Democracy: The God that Failed, p. 164
4. Ibid, p. 167