I know some, I can’t say my sample is large enough, but those I know are very much thinkbois without any actual principles for themselves.
“What do you think of the current wave of immigration?”
“Let’s stop with the open immigration and forced integration.”
“Yeah that’s cool, but what do you think? Are YOU okay with foreigners being all around you?”
“I don’t want state interference in this matter.”
Like grow some balls and have an actual opinion.
I know many, and the majority have very strict moral values. What you described are libertinians that have never read Rothbard and Hoppe.
It was these guys I speak of who introduced me to Hoppe.
Then they either didn't read his books or didn't understand Hoppe's rational argumentation on immigration.
They did read and they did understand. Hoppe’s rational arguments are very much on point. But Hoppe did not give any personal preferences on the subject. I’m sure he has opinions but he keeps them to himself and his circle, whatever they are.
These guys didn’t utter any personal preference, and we were just hanging out. Very NPC behavior.
Libertarianism isn’t a source of morality. You get that from somewhere else.
Morality can be found starting from the NAP, or as an extension of natural law. I totally disagree that Hoppe don't have a personal moral value of not wanted immigrants not respecting private property as he calls them invaders. The same way he calls those that "work" for the state parasites.
I’m sure he does, and you can guess his opinions when you read between the lines. He doesn’t say them on the record though. He’s always very rigorous when speaking publicly so that he doesn’t stray far from infallible logic, and I find that admirable.
My problem with these guys is that they think they’re Hoppe, so try to be as rigorous as he is when speaking. Except they’re not academics, they’re not public personae. We were just hanging out, yet they did not speak from any personal point of view.
I mean Hoppe has very strong arguments in regards to immigration, if they disagree with him I would love to know why, and what better solutions they offer.
It’s not that they disagreed per se.
It was like:
Me: “look at all these immigrants, I don’t want them here. They cause a lot of problems.”
Them: “just stop the state interference and it’ll be okay.”
Me: “okay, and how will we deport them back? I’m not getting it, do you want them here ?”
Them: “just no open immigration and no forced integration. If I don’t like them, I’ll voluntarily disassociate from them.”
Me: “So do you like them or not? And if they completely outnumber you, how will you disassociate from them?”
Them: “Just stop with State interference in this matter.”
Me: “okay dude.”
They are not respecting private property and robbing people with the state money they receive. If it's not a problem for them, they can open their house door and welcome them. People like that without moral values are not reliable at all and very dangerous, run!
Agreed.
This belief misses the importance of protection of individual property rights in society from both internal and external threats. The reason for a court system, police force, military and government to oversee it.
This is one difference between Libertarians and Objectivists, the latter advocating the need for a strong government for protection of a free society.
For completeness, Objectivists also advocate laissez-faire capitalism under the rule of law, therein no government intervention in the economic system. The laissez-faire capitalist belief overlaps with Libertarians view that governments shouldn’t intervene.
