I was just wondering if anybody knew much about Ron Paul's stance on immigration. I just saw a few videos about it on youtube and he doesn't seem to have a very libertarian approach.
I also think people are hyping him up a bit too much. After all, if he does become president there not a whole lot he can do without congress's approval. And from watching videos of his supporters on youtube and the comments being left under his videos, they seem to think of him as some sort of god who will fix everything. Alot of them seem to be dumbasses who are in love with him just like they were with Obama, without even understanding anything he says or the theory behind his policies. And most don't even realise that even if he gets elected, things will be very bad for some time.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
I support voluntary borders. All the evidence shows that racially diverse areas do the worst economically and immigrants love taking welfare (so more immigrants means more taxation.) I don't fully agree w/ Dr. Paul on immigration but I do think libertarians should be more cautious about the right to travel.
Immigration was touched on here (be sure to check the links there).
As for the tired "a president can't really do any thing so Ron Paul being elected wouldn't really make much of a difference" refrain, see here (especially from paragraph 4 on down) and the thread discussion starting here. And for good measure, here.
Vladimir Ulyanov:I also think people are hyping him up a bit too much.
Disagree. He is so rare as a politician who not only promotes liberty in the vast majority of circumstances, he walks the walk and has done so for decades. He is such a rarity as to make a diamond seem commonplace. Ron Paul is the last chance to reform the system from within. I don't necessarily think that is the best approach, at least not long term, but I definitely see the hype.
Vladimir Ulyanov:After all, if he does become president there not a whole lot he can do without congress's approval.
Nonsense. He can shred the Federal Register, pardon non-violent criminals, veto bills and BRING THE TROOPS HOME. That's just what he can do all by himself. His influence could also be crucial in other areas. Harry Browne wrote an article one time about his first day in office, were he to become president. You should hunt it down and check it out.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
@Freedom Well if you abolish social welfare your taxation problem is gone. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySIz4mV5Ccs
All the evidence shows that racially diverse areas do the worst economically and immigrants love taking welfare
That is so irrelevant to a voluntary society...
As to the OP: I think RP is for repealing birth citizenship according to the 14th and is not for amnesty. While it initially appears anti-voluntaryist, remember that whenever a new person is granted the privileges of a citizen, he is granted the privileges of other people's money. Hence, adding more citizens to the pool could make things worse from a libertarian perspective.
The solution, of course, is to remove welfare and taxation and then open up immigration in accordance with property rights. Yet since that is so far off, we can at least begin by not loading the welfare finances more (though, now that I think about it, illegals would produce more than they'd consume...)
I also think people are hyping him up a bit too much.
Note that his campaign is not about him, but about the ideas he champions. Even if he signs zero bills as a president, he would bring enormous exposure to the liberty movement.
Wheylous:While it initially appears anti-voluntaryist, remember that whenever a new person is granted the privileges of a citizen, he is granted the privileges of other people's money.
Wheylous:The solution, of course, is to remove welfare and taxation and then open up immigration in accordance with property rights.
That's the Hoppe position, but it is flawed. The solution is to remove welfare and taxation AND open up immigration. The sequence should not matter. Let's not get into that game where we wait until such a day as some government edict is repealed before we consider repealing another one. On the day that medicine fully divests itself from socialism, then we can consider repealing seatbelt laws. On the day that US troops stop infuriating Arabs, then we can stop groping airline passengers.
I'm sorry, that's not the proper libertarian position. If we had a chance to open the borders, somehow, we take it. We don't pass because there is a welfare state. Indeed, we would probably find that the influx of immigrants would spur on reform of welfare, though regrettably probably not abolition.
I get what you're saying, and although I do believe he will do his best to live up to his word, but I find it difficult to get over excited. I mean we have had this kind of hype before. I just think people should be a little more cautious in their support; they might be embarrassed in the future.
I didn't say he couldn't do anything. Sure he can do some, but what about things like the budget - arguably the most important.
All the evidence shows that racially diverse areas do the worst economically and immigrants love taking welfare That is so irrelevant to a voluntary society...
http://www.amren.com/features/hispanics/index.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf
Vladimir Ulyanov:I get what you're saying, and although I do believe he will do his best to live up to his word, but I find it difficult to get over excited. I mean we have had this kind of hype before. I just think people should be a little more cautious in their support; they might be embarrassed in the future.
That's what is exciting about Dr. Paul: you can trust him. I am not yet excited about his prospects, but I am excited about what he has introduced into the national debate. If he can win Iowa, I might start to get excited about his prospects.
Vladimir Ulyanov:Sure he can do some
some = a lot
Vladimir Ulyanov:but what about things like the budget - arguably the most important
As Rothbard said, the libertarian's first goal must be to end government warfare. Dr. Paul can do that unilaterally, and would.
On the day that medicine fully divests itself from socialism, then we can consider repealing seatbelt laws. On the day that US troops stop infuriating Arabs, then we can stop groping airline passengers.
Different scenarios from the one I propose. Consider this other scenario:
Suppose that there are two groups in society: A and B. There is a law on the books that says government must on Mondays beat group A so that it can then do something good for B. On Tuesdays group B gets beaten. It continues alternating like this. For each new person added to either group, the government needs to beat up the other group a bit more.
The question is: should we add people to this system, knowing that they will 1) get some nice manna from heaven (good) and 2) necessarily cause other people to get beaten (bad) ?
My response is that we should never support an additional act of violence, even if it gets rid of some previous act of violence. Hence, I'd be against cutting $1 trillion in taxes if it means than 50 peaceful socialists must get their arms broken.
My scenario applies to the immigration debate and the same principles apply to both.
Hm, just realized the same argument can then be made about any new immigrants and citizens...
Your thoughts?
Vladimir Ulyanov:I didn't say he couldn't do anything. Sure he can do some, but what about things like the budget - arguably the most important.
You said "not a whole lot". I would consider giving millions of people back their freedom, severely limiting the growth of government, ending war and saving thousands of lives (not to mention preventing unknown future conflicts through a non-aggresive foreign policy), and having the Presidential Seal in front of him when he says the things he does (which not only means an automatic level of respect, but also automatic and constant attention)...quite a bit more than "not a whole lot".
Again, look at the links I provided.
P.S.
The President proposes the budget...as in, sets the agenda (spending)...and has veto power over bills.
This is the problem. From listening to some of his supporters, they have no understanding of the he champions and seem to think that he will magically be able to fix things, and that the economy will be cured overnight. People spouting out shit about how he is a good man because he has been married for so long and the amount of babies he delivered. Although some understand the ideas he champions, I fear most don't.
Well, that's a challenge we face. You are right: RP should make it clear that the president cannot "fix" the economy but let it fix itself. Just being in office doesn't wish away the entitlement mentality of a multitude generations and the wealth differential caused by preferential treatment.
@Freedom Its not a crime to drop out of school or college. As for the other issues, a crime should be dealt with as such, but that does not give us the right to discriminate against people from a certain ethnicity. I also wonder how much of the crime and so on is due to stupid government laws. For example, people without an education will probably have a low wage and find it attractive to join a gang and start to deal drugs, which will get them involved in other criminal activity.
That's what is exciting about Dr. Paul: you can trust him
I don't fully trust any politician. And yes, I know he has been saying the same thing for thirty years.
Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something.
Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something
What is it saying?
No, it's really not. And you're making a terrible correlation/causation fallacy there.
Perhaps white people have a higher standard of living which allows them more time to theorize about abstract concepts of social injustice, while black people who live in inner city poverty actually have to hike up their sleeves and do stuff?
I haven't seen many black survivalists, while white "return to nature" survivalism appears to be alive and thriving (that also goes along with the agrotourism of rich Europeans to poorer Eastern European countries).
Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something What is it saying?
It's saying that he doesn't understand how statistics and controlling variables work.
''Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something What is it saying?
''Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something
It's saying that he doesn't understand how statistics and controlling variables work.''
And, maybe, that he is somewhat racist.
I like your argument Gocrew, you make some interesting points, but I have to agree with Wheylous. In a welfare state the benefits of immigration are much lessened. For now it seems Illegal immigration gives us the best of both worlds. We get an influx of cheap labor and new minds and by the time they have children, their children may have the potential of having equal opportunities as the average American.
I believe the groping of airline passengers may be appropriate under wartime or emergency situations. You could argue that right now this is not one of those situations, but if it were, then the hazard would have to be removed before groping should stop. I understand it is not libertarian, but sometimes in order get the desired effect, you need to do things in a sequence. If you want to build a home, then you can not build the roof before the foundation. Maybe if we had a massive influx of immigrants welfare would die, but this is not realistic because of the public outcry and also it would stifle our economic growth until welfare would be abolished. Ron Paul is for having secure borders. I agree with him because I feel that there are many things that would be much more beneficial to do now, before we unsecure them and it will be easier to do these things having secure borders.
I saw that there was some discussion that Ron Paul is overhyped. I guess that depends where you look and what your subjective opinion is. Personally I don't feel that way because I think he is the only one that will take the necessary, appropriate steps to getting the country out of a state of perpetual war and on a road to ever increasing prosperity. The direction that you are looking at I think, are supporters drawn solely upon his honesty, sincerity and message of liberty. Thankfully liberty and prosperity go hand and hand, so even for supporters only focussing on his message of liberty, he is not overhyped in my mind.
Wheylous: Different scenarios from the one I propose. Consider this other scenario: Suppose that there are two groups in society: A and B. There is a law on the books that says government must on Mondays beat group A so that it can then do something good for B. On Tuesdays group B gets beaten. It continues alternating like this. For each new person added to either group, the government needs to beat up the other group a bit more. The question is: should we add people to this system, knowing that they will 1) get some nice manna from heaven (good) and 2) necessarily cause other people to get beaten (bad) ? My response is that we should never support an additional act of violence, even if it gets rid of some previous act of violence. Hence, I'd be against cutting $1 trillion in taxes if it means than 50 peaceful socialists must get their arms broken. My scenario applies to the immigration debate and the same principles apply to both.
The immigrants coming to America are also leaving another unjust system. So to make your argument analogous - and I'm not completely certain that it is - you would have to note that while someone is entering group A in country 1, he is also leaving group A in country 2. It's a wash, even if it is analogous, which I am not ready to concede yet.
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves is violence justified, because that is what it means to be a libertarian. If someone sells his home to a person, and that person now moves in to what he has justly purchased, are we permitted to use violence to stop him? I think the answer is clearly no, and we don't need to ask if he crossed an imaginary border or not, or what kind of imaginary border he is meant to have crossed.
It certainly becomes problematic if he wants to start voting himself benefits. I have no problem with not giving citizenship to any immigrant, but their property rights should be sacrosanct until they forfeit them.
Wheylous: Hm, just realized the same argument can then be made about any new immigrants and citizens... Your thoughts?
I was going to bring that up until I saw you did. And not just any immigrant, but anyone who moves from state to state, or county to county.
Vladimir Ulyanov:I don't fully trust any politician. And yes, I know he has been saying the same thing for thirty years.
God keep you in that frame of mind. But RP has been doing more than just talking. Does anyone know how many times Dr. Paul has been the 1 in a 434-1 vote in the House?
Wheylous:No, it's really not. And you're making a terrible correlation/causation fallacy there.
+1
Good points, gocrew. Blargh. I guess it's just all the more reason to focus on the actual issues such as private property and not the fictional ones such as "national" immigration policy.
commonsenselako:In a welfare state the benefits of immigration are much lessened.
I don't support other people's property rights because it benefits me. And when you talk about the benefits of immigration it seems you are being a little chauvinistic. The immigrant does not derive his right to own property and live on that property because it benefits us.
commonsenselako:I believe the groping of airline passengers may be appropriate under wartime or emergency situations.
Dear God! You need to read my article. This is hardly comprehensive, but it is enough all by itself to refute that.
commonsenselako:If you want to build a home, then you can not build the roof before the foundation.
Not an appropriate metaphor for this situation. Government is a gigantic monster infringing on our rights. If you have the chance to lop off a tentacle, then you do it. Period. The opportunity does not come around very often.
Wheylous:Good points, gocrew. Blargh. I guess it's just all the more reason to focus on the actual issues such as private property and not the fictional ones such as "national" immigration policy.
Amen, brother!
I appreciate your recent contributions to these forums, gocrew :)
Hm... It does appear that a libertarian, completely no-aggression approach is in fact impossible due to the two things we face:
1) Prevention of border crossing infringes on property rights
2) Allowing immigrants in in the current system increases welfare burdens, infringing on property rights
Oh geez - the lengths to which the state goes to make libertarians completely unable to act morally :P
Yup. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do.
I think we have to act in the moment. If we see someone crossing a border, we can't assume he will be soaking up welfare benefits (often, immigrants wind up paying for them while Americans soak them up). If we see him about to head to the polls and we know he is going to vote for welfare benefits... well, one vote won't throw the election one way or another, so I say let him be and try to reason with him later.
Thank you for sharing your article with me Gocrew. It was very good, nice job. The point I was making though was not this current situation is infact an appropriate situation for groping, but that such a situation exists. "I believe the groping of airline passengers may be appropriate under wartime or emergency situations. You could argue that right now this is not one of those situations, but if it were, then the hazard would have to be removed before groping should stop." Sometimes X is greater then (A-(B + C + D)).
What I really think we are debating is do ideals come before economics, or vice versa. I believe that economics should be directed towards meeting ideals, so therefore the ideal must be established first, but ideals are ends, not means, so economics should be impletemented first. I do think my metaphor is appropriate, as you can essentially build the roof before the foundation and still build a house, but wouldn't it be less strenuous to start with the foundation?
You arguement is the Government is a gigantic monster, which if we are given a chance we must lop off a tentacle. I feel the governemt is in the market like all other things and it is our job to change consumer preference, by showing them the better product. Giving them awareness and urgency is I feel the better tactic then standing toe to toe with a larger more experienced opponent, hoping we can out fox him. Reaching the people through enterainment is I feel the most effective way, as they learn because they want to and it will appeal to larger audiences, then say books or articles. To ensure lasting change, we must not only change the government, but the people.
I believe that economics should be directed towards meeting ideals
Why? Economics is a positive science, not a normative one. Do you want physics to be morality-directed?
The job of economics is to say "Action X in the economic sphere leads to consequence Y." Nothing more, nothing less.
I should have elaborated. Since austrian economics does meet ideals, economics should be directed towards meeting ideals.
commonsenselako:Thank you for sharing your article with me Gocrew. It was very good, nice job
Thank you!
commonsenselako:The point I was making though was not this current situation is infact an appropriate situation for groping, but that such a situation exists.
But it can't ever be just if the government monopolizes the rules of air travel. Let people choose the amount of security they want.
commonsenselako:I do think my metaphor is appropriate, as you can essentially build the roof before the foundation and still build a house, but wouldn't it be less strenuous to start with the foundation?
Sure, but to make that analogy fit the situation, we are not building anything. In fact, the bit of house we do have is being destroyed by government. It might behoove us to build the foundation first, but if it's been fifty years and not a bit of house has been built, and we suddenly see an opportunity to build a roof, then let's do it! We'll worry about fitting it on the walls if we ever get around to building walls.
commonsenselako:To ensure lasting change, we must not only change the government, but the people.
Absolutely!
Since austrian economics does meet ideals, economics should be directed towards meeting ideals.
I don't understand what "AE meeting ideals" means.
I guess I am more optimistic. I see your point, but I don't think the past necessarily dictates the future. Austrian economics has grown exponentially and if we take appropriate action, we can take advantage of this time of economic distress to ensure it never happens again. The youth are unhappy and want solutions and if we can explain to them how prosperity is created and what is stifling it, they will act and we will have the future we desire. There is no reason we must settle for any less. If it is beyond our talents, we must raise our talents.
The emergency situation is a grey area and looking at the U.S it is hard to imagine a situation where emergency actions are necessary, but what about a small country in turmoil that would face extinction without emergency actions? The important thing is that the people are aware that the government is only allowed to do this temporary, or we will have the natural progression we are witnessing. In America you may be right, that there is never a need for emergency actions, but such a situation does exist. It doesn't meet my ideals, but I can't deny its existence.