You do realize that anarchists are a part of the libertarian movement, and this very website harbors many of them?
I do, that's why I am here.
Oh, come on. Libertarians should know better then to make such cliche mischaracterization of what anarchism means. Anarchism does not mean nihilism or hedonism. It simply means "no rulers", free association, and implies a polycentric or pluralist approach to social organization. "No rulers" does not necessarily imply no law or no social organization.
You sure made it sound that way. But isn't the word 'law' just another term that means rule? If you are good for what you said above you agree that some laws are needed for the public good. I'm not quite sure, though, how you propose to set down these laws. Who is to decide which laws will be in effect? Who gets to decide which members of society have to follow them? Will it be you? Or should we gather together at predetermined intervals and decide what laws are to be in effect? Beginning to sound a little like government, isn't it? I don't believe men can live together without some sort of legal structure governing behavior. To believe otherwise is, in my opinion, pie in the sky, or in other words, anarchy. There are just too many people who will take advantage of me or you if given the opportunity. One need only walk down the streets of a major city to see that. You may be able to trust a stranger with your purse but, please, don't entrust him with mine.
Murderers will be murderers regaurdless of wether or not a law is in place making murder illegal.
You've not been in a police action, have you? There were plenty of murders in Viet Nam. Look at what happened in Iraq with the Blackwater group. They were not subject to any laws but I'll bet you when they get back to the states most, if not all, of those involved in shooting and killing those civilians will adhere to the law against killing just as those coming home from Viet Nam did. And don't give me any static about that being in a time of war. I know the difference between murder and killing as an act of war. I've seen both. That argument doesn't hold water. Laws do control people most of the time. You probably would not run that red light in the presence of a police cruiser for fear of getting a ticket. Your behavior, in that case, was affected. If you were a real anarchist red lights would be meaningless to you. That would be a government control on you. A rule. One may not be able to coerce morality but men can be coerced into acting in a moral way. One of us sure doesn't understand human behavior. With statements like the one above it is clear that I am not the one with the misunderstanding.
"the people" are naturally bad in the first place
Not sure where you got that but let me try to explain. People are not bad as a general rule. People, however, do bad things from time to time when there are no controls on their behavior or when they think they can get away with it. I'm sure you would agree with that. My assertion was that there are various controls on behavior that, in most cases, are good for society. The laws laid down by representative governments, in most cases, allow us to live together without or with little strife. That is a good thing. One can do this, one cannot do that. Most of those laws regulating behavior between men (people) were derived from the ten commandments and expanded upon. I believe people would like nothing better than to get along with their neighbors. When a member of society engages in a violation of those commandments (laws) a remedy must exist. This, in no way, implies that people are naturally bad.
I believe a man can have a physical and emotional attraction to a female and, because of the emotional nature of females and their ability to be empithetic as well as sympathetic, he will be affected by her view of his behavior in a positive or negative way depending on that behavior. She will be able then, within limits, to control that man's behavior. If you have been involved with a woman you will know what I mean. Women, as a general rule, will expect good behavior from the man. If he exhibits that behavior she finds pleasing he will, in various ways, be rewarded. This says nothing about "the people" being naturally bad. It merely states that there are rewards for pleasing behavior.
The church also recognizes good behavior as being good for society (Please don't bring up the cruisades, inquisition or priests who molest. I'm talking here in generalities.) The church or religion holds out the promise of a reward and plays on the fear of a punishment. You may not believe in that but many do and either for fear of eternal damnation or for holding out for the promised post-worldly reward many comport themselves in such a way as to obtain those ends. Whether those fears and the promises are real is neather here nor there. As long as the believer does believe he will very likely act in a way that he hopes will attain his just reward. This, again, has nothing to do with man's inherent goodlines or evil.
I'm not going to get into a debate about anarchism because that's not what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that I don't think you really understand what the anarchist position is, since you seem to equate it to the cliche of total chaos or no social cooperation, which no anarchist in history, from Proudhon to Rothbard, has ever actually advocated. "No rulers" (a ruler being one who violates your individual sovereignty) does not mean no rules, no social organization, no cooperation.
I'm not going to get into a debate about anarchism because that's not what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that I don't think you really understand what the anarchist position is, since you seem to equate it to the cliche of total chaos or no social cooperation, which no anarchist in history, from Proudhon to Rothbard, has ever actually advocated.
I don't blame you, given your logic so far.
poco424: I'm not going to get into a debate about anarchism because that's not what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that I don't think you really understand what the anarchist position is, since you seem to equate it to the cliche of total chaos or no social cooperation, which no anarchist in history, from Proudhon to Rothbard, has ever actually advocated. I don't blame you, given your logic so far.
Given that you don't seem to understand what anarchism is, it would be a fruitless debate filled with straw men.
Now, back to immigration.
I believe I know what it is but I also believe it will not work. Everything you have read in all of your books may lead you into the fields of Ambrosia but given the failings of normal men and the natural propensity to take and keep advantage I'll just hang out with the rest of the uneducated, boorish louts who make due with the system we live in and deal with things in a common sense, pragmatic manner. Good luck though.
given the failings of normal men and the natural propensity to take and keep advantage
I need not repeat that your objections to anarchism on the basis the flaws of human nature are not a rational arguement for having a state, because it will be reflected and amplified in your state. The only way you can rationally justify the state on the basis of human nature is to assume some kind of "philosopher king" position, I.E. that members of the state are somehow specially endowed individuals. In short, to fall back on an elitist attitude. You have to assume that these "normal men" will not (1) be members of your state or (2) be represented by your state. You have to assume that this natural propensity to take and keep advantage can be held at bay when people are presented with control over a territorial monopoly. I do not assert that human nature can be improved by removing the state, but merely that, all else being equal, monopolizing these very base aspects of human nature, presenting them within a formal and coercive institutional framework to act through, is hardly a solution to the problem.
But I can see that by getting into this with you we'll be going in circles.
xahrx: You reply, "That isn't a pure market solution, you're a statist, gobble gobble gobble..."
You reply, "That isn't a pure market solution, you're a statist, gobble gobble gobble..."
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: xahrx: You reply, "That isn't a pure market solution, you're a statist, gobble gobble gobble..." And you don't deny it. Why are you complaining?
Ha. Gobble Gobble Gobble.
I've slowly come to the realization that most "social anarchists" (I.E. anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-communists, etc.) are functioning as social democrats at best in the present because they paradoxically openly support the state as a means to their ends. Like when Noam Chomsky claims to be an anarchist and proceeds to advocate the welfare state.
I think I'm starting to realize that the same is true of many "anarcho-capitalists", who are functioning as conservatives, perhaps classical liberals at best, in the present because they paradoxically openly support the state as a means to their ends, or at least tend to take a surprisingly reformist approach to the state.
poco424:You sure made it sound that way. But isn't the word 'law' just another term that means rule? If you are good for what you said above you agree that some laws are needed for the public good.
You sure made it sound that way. But isn't the word 'law' just another term that means rule? If you are good for what you said above you agree that some laws are needed for the public good.
What public? Last time I checked, I didn't receive my special, collectors public-class-ring. How did I get into this club now? And how do I get out?
poco424:I'm not quite sure, though, how you propose to set down these laws.
I'm not quite sure, though, how you propose to set down these laws.
Just laws are not set down. No just laws exist that prevent person A from doing X.
If you're speaking about defense against unjust acts, that's an issue of defense and justice, not law.
poco424: Who is to decide which laws will be in effect?
Who is to decide which laws will be in effect?
God?
poco424: Who gets to decide which members of society have to follow them? Will it be you? Or should we gather together at predetermined intervals and decide what laws are to be in effect? Beginning to sound a little like government, isn't it? I don't believe men can live together without some sort of legal structure governing behavior. To believe otherwise is, in my opinion, pie in the sky, or in other words, anarchy.
Who gets to decide which members of society have to follow them? Will it be you? Or should we gather together at predetermined intervals and decide what laws are to be in effect? Beginning to sound a little like government, isn't it? I don't believe men can live together without some sort of legal structure governing behavior. To believe otherwise is, in my opinion, pie in the sky, or in other words, anarchy.
poco424:There are just too many people who will take advantage of me or you if given the opportunity. One need only walk down the streets of a major city to see that. You may be able to trust a stranger with your purse but, please, don't entrust him with mine.
There are just too many people who will take advantage of me or you if given the opportunity. One need only walk down the streets of a major city to see that. You may be able to trust a stranger with your purse but, please, don't entrust him with mine.
I live in the city. When I walk down the street I'm looking to avoid the cops, not the blacks down the road just because the former bothers me, whereas the latter wants to buy marijuana from me.
Ok, I won't trust a stranger with your purse. I won't conversate with you, live with you, enjoy your company or be in the same club as you. Sounds like Anarchy to me!
poco424:You've not been in a police action, have you? There were plenty of murders in Viet Nam. Look at what happened in Iraq with the Blackwater group.
poco424:They were not subject to any laws but I'll bet you when they get back to the states most, if not all, of those involved in shooting and killing those civilians will adhere to the law against killing just as those coming home from Viet Nam did. And don't give me any static about that being in a time of war. I know the difference between murder and killing as an act of war. I've seen both. That argument doesn't hold water. Laws do control people most of the time.
poco424:You probably would not run that red light in the presence of a police cruiser for fear of getting a ticket. Your behavior, in that case, was affected. If you were a real anarchist red lights would be meaningless to you. That would be a government control on you. A rule. One may not be able to coerce morality but men can be coerced into acting in a moral way. One of us sure doesn't understand human behavior. With statements like the one above it is clear that I am not the one with the misunderstanding.
You probably would not run that red light in the presence of a police cruiser for fear of getting a ticket. Your behavior, in that case, was affected. If you were a real anarchist red lights would be meaningless to you. That would be a government control on you. A rule. One may not be able to coerce morality but men can be coerced into acting in a moral way. One of us sure doesn't understand human behavior. With statements like the one above it is clear that I am not the one with the misunderstanding.
poco424:Paleocon bullshit.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
Brainpolice:Of course, a desperate Mexican can get past such a fence within minutes. It hasn't worked and doesn't work.
Of course, if the legal immigration process is easy enough one would have to question why a Mexican or anyone else for that matter would want to side step it if its concentration is on disease and criminality.
Brainpolice:Prohibition in general doesn't work.
Still haven't gotten it through your head that no one is talking about prohibition, have you? And you wonder why people call you an idealogue...
Brainpolice:That's one of the things about this immigration thing that I don't understand from a purely practical economic perspective. Why doesn't prohibition theory apply to immigration and immigrant labor? Why would we think that we can crack down on an immigrant black market, when the immigrant black market is precisely the result of restricting immigration to begin with?
You don't get it because you're still stuck in your fantasy world and can't understand the practical difference, to extend the analogy, between outlawing all sales of alcohol and merely having an age limit and laws against drunk driving.
Brainpolice:And I simply don't buy into the notion that to not do such things will end up creating some kind of major catastrophe. I don't view immigration itself as a fire.
Here's hoping you never have to.
Brainpolice:And if it is a fire, prohibition theory tells me that trying to further restrict it will only spread the fire.
Well, then we're in agreement because after this many posts you are of course well aware that I do not want immigration restricted more than it is now, I want it made easier. Which of course you knew, since I've written it repeatedly several times by now, though somehow it has barely entered into your responses.
JimS:Anti-immigration as a political movement started off as a leftist idea championed by the Labor Unions. In any case, I don't often assign labels to particular individuals; instead, if I have to assign labels, I attach them to particular ideas and adovocacies, such as minimum-wage, anti-immigration, public-education etc. as being statist. There are politicians, both on the left and the right supporting those statist ideas.
Not the point and you know it. Answer the point: is a less statist society the same as a totalitarian society in your view? Is there no difference in your world between the America of old and now, between a constitutional republic and the USSR, or is there no differentiation in your mind between any form of governed society and anarcho capitalism?
JimS:And I agree. However, spending more resources on laws against immigration is a step in the wrong direction. Obviously you can't call something similar to Prohibition and War on Drugs as reducing the size of government regardless whether you are for or against the banning of alcohol and drugs.
Once more you have failed to read. Legalizing drugs and setting an age limit on their sale would the be the equivalent of what I am proposing. I guess however since the age limit would be enforced by the state then it must be statist, collectivist, and as such indistinguishable from our current situation of locking up nonviolent people by the millions. Neither situation is desirable since neither is a perfect anarcho capitalist utopia.
I'm honestly tired of 'debating' with people who are so blind by ideology that they can't make a very simple differentiation in points of view. Have a good time with your circle jerk.
He's right on that point. Read some of Robert Murphy's work, he gives good examples of incidents of order that arise even though there is no top down authority imposed. Language is one, the sciences being another. What anarchists miss in their arguments is that people often want a top down imposed authority, a final decider of right and wrong, legal and illegal. They want categorical distinctions made and generally speaking go to the state or the church for such things.
Niccolò:And you don't deny it. Why are you complaining?
Because once it's self evident moving past that is generally considered a good idea. Unless of course your idea of debate is summed up by, "That doesn't agree with my ideals, therefore...", well I'm not sure where the therefore leads, because all actions in the real world deviate from the ideal. So, unless you, BP, and Jim S are prepared to claim all your actions are perfectly in line with an anarcho capitalist ideal, then I would have to assume the therefore only leads to a disagreement in method. You think the use of state services and power is wrong in all instances, I don't. But then if the former is your view, as I said, stay home, never leave the house, stay off the internet (started by the state you know, think of all the stolen tax dollars...), etc. Truly live up to that ideal, or admit your actions are just as much a compromise as anyone else's.
Of course the practical need to live in this world precludes such action. But the practical need that allows you to use government roads while still fighting for their privatization is not yours alone to assert. Those of us who have to deal with the hell illegal immigration causes us also have that option. Unless of course you think that opposing all new roads and then only using them grudgingly and under duress counts. But then in real terms that like getting a little bit pregnant. And when one is suggesting a retraction of law and enforcement of remaining existing laws already on the books, what is being advocated is still a net reduction in regulation: legal immigration made easy, laws already on the books against illegal immigration enforced, and then only the ones that will have a practical effect.
That you people can't see the difference between that position and locking everyone in their houses and shooting anyone without a federally issued Permit to Move only shows why your views will get you no where in the real world. They are completely impractical and, because they dismiss everything outside of the ideal as an inherent failure of equal magnitude, provide no process for change to even start to reach for the ideal other than hacking away at the government no matter the immediate effects on people. You're like a group of people with a destination in mind but no practical means of reaching it, and rather than using the horribly compromised roads open to you have decided to build a dirigible out of your underwear because it's what you think your ideals dictate. Good luck with that.
Hummm...I only see one person proposing radical changes here regarding immigration. Frankly, I could live with the status quo, then make minor changes, like those proposed by the other candidates (than RP, that is). What RP is proposing IS a radical change, and not for the better. I'm having to justify RP as a real libertarian, and someone who isn't going to destroy the movement with a lot of long time, prominent Canadian libertarians. I can't and won't defend his stand on immigration, and nothing I've read here has changed that.
xahrx:Answer the point: is a less statist society the same as a totalitarian society in your view? Is there no difference in your world between the America of old and now, between a constitutional republic and the USSR, or is there no differentiation in your mind between any form of governed society and anarcho capitalism?
Devil is in the details, not the labels. In case it's not clear, "USSR" stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and it too had a consitution, so guess what? The USSR was a constitutional republic.
xahrx:Legalizing drugs and setting an age limit on their sale would the be the equivalent of what I am proposing.
While the drinking age law is better than the ridiculous total Prohibition, let's not forget that the US has a far greater problem of teenager and college binge drinking than any country that does not have any prohibiiton or age limit on drinking. Any theoretical policy proposal of both expanding the scope of legal immigration and cracking down on illegal immigration is highly dependent on which one comes first: the loosening comes first or the cracking down first. If a dramatic loosening comes first, the problem will mostly solve itself as "illegal immigrants" will be defined away as they are legalized. If it's the cracking down first, followed by loosening when supposedly we have the illegal immigration problem solved, then the policy proposal is funcationally equivalent to proposing cracking down and not loosening ever . . . because a policy of prohibition will never succeed; any theoretical loosening after its success is a charade. The Stalinist soviet constitutional republic promised its citizens prosperity and fair distribution of wealth after a collectivist "sacrifice" to jumpt start industrialization; well, since collectivism could never deliver prosperity, so the shared prosperity and fair distribution of wealth never came about. FDR ran for president on a platform of small government (yes, believe it or not), but justified his collectivist policies on a temporary "national emergency." Well, guess what, after nearly 3/4 of a century, we are still waiting for the national emergecy to pass so that we can undo Hooverism and get our small government back. Yes, that's three or four generations now, and still waiting.
The bottom line is, a "temporary" policy of draconian enforcement against illegal immigration will be plenty enough to drasticly increase the size of the government and dramaticly reduce civil liberty for all US citizens; not even our great grand children would live to see such a "temporary" policy drawing to a successful conclusion because Prohibition can never succeed. It would only make the trafficing of "illegal labor" all the more profitable due to monopolization by organized crime.
xahrx:What anarchists miss in their arguments is that people often want a top down imposed authority, a final decider of right and wrong, legal and illegal. They want categorical distinctions made and generally speaking go to the state or the church for such things.
What minarchists often miss is that people want to steal, and want to take stuff, so you shouldn't outlaw theft. No, that conclusion doesn't follow? Then what follows from the observation that people want some authority to crack in the heads of people with whom they disagree?
xahrx,
Not sure why you keep saying my objection to anti-immigration policies are theoretically based. All along, I have been pointing out the practical cost of enforcing "laws already on the books against illegal immigration." Do you believe finding and deporting every Canadian who has stayed in this country for 91 days or sold anything on Ebay or to anyone during the first 90 days that he is here is going to be easy or cheap? Do you believe that removing 12 million people from their existing jobs and existing homes is going to be cheap or easy? or cheap or easy on their counter parties in the economy? or cheap or easy on the tax collectors who receive taxes from these counter parties? Do you really believe the removal of 12 million people in our society won't entail a national ID system? Do you believe that such a national ID system won't result in new cheats and criminal organizations that infilterate the database and manufacture fake ID's and fake database entries? Do you believe that it won't be necessary to have another layer of bureacracy to crack down on such ID thieves? Do you believe that the next layer of bureacrats will be immunte to corruption?
None of these questions are theoretical ones, but very concrete and easily anticipated consequences of prohibition policies. Refusing to acknowledge these inevitable consequences is as silly as refusing to acknowledge the social consquences of welfare tax and redistribution that we are all against.
xahrx:Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Let me guess, your parents used baby language when you were an infant?
Prominent Canadian libertarians are afraid Ron Paul is going to destroy the movement? Are they aware of Ron's other positions? Are they aware that he has re-introduced libertarian lines of thinking to American political dialogue? How is seeking to eliminate the IRS, end the drug war, eliminate the departments of education energy homeland security, lower federal government spending, work toward phasing out certain entitlements, etc, etc, going to kill the movement? How is a candidate who constantly extols small-government virtues going to destroy the libertarian movement?
No matter how much a libertarian might disagree with the one issue, I don't see how it could possibly trump his entire small-government platform and the good he has already done for the movement.
Smiley Gladhands:Prominent Canadian libertarians are afraid Ron Paul is going to destroy the movement? Are they aware of Ron's other positions? Are they aware that he has re-introduced libertarian lines of thinking to American political dialogue? How is seeking to eliminate the IRS, end the drug war, eliminate the departments of education energy homeland security, lower federal government spending, work toward phasing out certain entitlements, etc, etc, going to kill the movement? How is a candidate who constantly extols small-government virtues going to destroy the libertarian movement? No matter how much a libertarian might disagree with the one issue, I don't see how it could possibly trump his entire small-government platform and the good he has already done for the movement.
You'd have to ask them. I still support Ron Paul because he's still a thousand times better than the alternatives from my perspective. The ad he's run, however, is Disgusting .
Smiley Gladhands:Prominent Canadian libertarians are afraid Ron Paul is going to destroy the movement? Are they aware of Ron's other positions?
Prominent Canadian libertarians are afraid Ron Paul is going to destroy the movement? Are they aware of Ron's other positions?
"...never initiate any act of violence regardless how likely a "libertarian" result may appear. To do so is to reduce yourself to a statist. There are no exceptions to this rule. Either you are fundamentally consistent or not. A New Libertarian is fundamentally consistent and one who is not fundamentally consistent is not a New Libertarian."SEK3
Niccolò:"...never initiate any act of violence regardless how likely a "libertarian" result may appear. To do so is to reduce yourself to a statist. There are no exceptions to this rule. Either you are fundamentally consistent or not. A New Libertarian is fundamentally consistent and one who is not fundamentally consistent is not a New Libertarian."SEK3
Well, surely one could work within the state, to try to limit it to its more necessary functions like national defense. Given that the american people are now all hopped up over this terrorism thing and are likely to be so for a while, isn't it preferential to limit the american government to protecting its borders from foreign enemies, rather than running an empire that costs trillions as well as thousands of american lives? Ron Paul points out the inconsistency that most of the hijackers were over here on student visas and now we give more visas to their countries of origin than we did before. How is that helping to protect our country? We should give fewer (if any) student visas to people from countries that are known to be breeding grounds for terrorism. Sensible, rational, pragmatic use of government to protect its citizens from a perceived threat.
Also, insead of preemtively invading countries who might seek to acquire the technology that could lead to nuclear weapons...why don't we just secure our own borders so that a potential nuclear-weapon-hider would have a tougher time sneaking one in? I don't know how feasible that scenario is, but a lot of the populace is afraid and these wars somehow comfort them....we're fighting them over there so we don't have to over here is the slogan. Well I think we need to protect ourselves over here so it's not so easy for them to come over here if they hate us. And if Paul's non-interventionist policy is implemented there will probably be less hatred for america over time, but in the meantime a strong national defense is important.
As long as it's there, our federal government should protect its citizens from foreign threats. Securing the border is part of Ron Paul's national defense policy (in my opinion), the sum-total of which greatly reduces government spending, government aggression, and lives lost...all while protecting our people and our national sovereignty. Well, moreso than the status quo at least and Ron Paul's the only one suggesting anything noticeably different from the status quo. So what's wrong with a step in the right direction?
The alleged 9-11 perpetrators consisted of a few brains from Egypt and a bunch of muscles from Saudi Arabia. Notice, none of them came from Iran, Iraq or Syria (countries on the terrorist sponsor list). Egypt is supposed to be one of our most important "allies" in the "war on terrorism" as they torture terrorists for us; Saudi Arabia government combats terrorism too, at least on paper. I'm not even sure how the list of banning student visas would be compiled, aside from by bureacratic whims, closing the barn door after the horse has left.
Given the technology of nuclear weapons, if there is one to be smuggled into this country, it's not likely to be carried on a person. Nobody would be able to walk through airport security with a fridge-sized thing without setting alarms off, not even with the incompetent unionized government workers we have today for airport security. Shipment in large containers through the ports would be far more likely. No, I'm not advocating shutting down ports. Look, the bottom line is that 9-11, the most severe terrorist attack in history, killed about 3000 people . . . whereas the highway system kills 35,000-50,000 peope every year in this country. We are not exactly shutting down highways. At some point, we have to face the cost-benefit analysis. Legislating by fear is never a winning strategy.
No less important is the difference between hostile governments and friendly individuals (and vice versa). The technocrats that build democracy nowadays in the former Soviet Bloc are largely ex-students who had previously studied in the western democratic countries on student visas. Even today, students in Iran are far more democratic leaning than the mullahs running that country. One has to wonder exactly whom a ban on student visa would hurt, and who will benefit. Private sector trade, cultural and scholarstic exchange are some of the most effective ways that the US can influence the rest of the world without costing tax dollars. Without the private sector exchanges like trade and student visas, what's left between the US and regimes like that of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be purely of government and military nature . . . the sort of exchange that often leads to "blowbacks."
Overall, the student visa issue conveys a distinct feeling of barking up the wrong tree. . . that's part and parcel of what made the ad unfortunate.
Smiley Gladhands: Niccolò:"...never initiate any act of violence regardless how likely a "libertarian" result may appear. To do so is to reduce yourself to a statist. There are no exceptions to this rule. Either you are fundamentally consistent or not. A New Libertarian is fundamentally consistent and one who is not fundamentally consistent is not a New Libertarian."SEK3 Well, surely one could work within the state,
Well, surely one could work within the state,
And initiate aggression against people not within the state - No, one can not work within the state and claim oneself a libertarian.
as i understand it, the whole immigration problem revolves around how to handle two problems given the existence of a state, namely that of minimizing forced exclusion and at the same time minimizing forced integration. in a world of private property these problems would never arise. but once you have the state present they come up. the problem of forced integration arises largely because of the presence of publicly-owned land. in fact it is how they view the problem of publicly owned land that differntiates the stances of prof.block and prof.hoppe on this issue. the key question to be answered is - how will the state ensure that it will minimize forced integration by regulating entry into publicly-owned, taxpayer funded land and yet also ensure that it will minimize excluding people forcefully. CAN that state do it?...well, its the state...what more is to be said?
Niccolò: And initiate aggression against people not within the state - No, one can not work within the state and claim oneself a libertarian.
So no one running for public office can be a libertarian (since they are obviously trying to work within the state), yet prominent Canadian libertarians are afraid Ron will destroy the movement? Shouldn't you hardliners just ignore all political races, since there is no hope that anyone working within the system can improve it? btw, why does the Libertarian party exist, if it's by definition full of a bunch of statist non-libertarians?
Also, I don't believe I've heard Ron call himself a libertarian during this race. He describes himself more often as a constitutionalist. It's, of course, the media that keep trying to paint him as a big L Libertarian, because that characterization is seen as more fringe and extreme (go figure) than a Republican constitutionalist who wants to keep government off Americans' backs.
That makes me wonder: in your mind, what is the end-game? Does the political system collapse on itself due to a financial crisis that makes its failings apparent...or due to mass confusion after a calamity? Or do the politicians just give up one day and say sorry, you libertarians are right....we hereby cede power to the people to run your lives as you see fit? I'm having trouble picturing a scenario (besides getting Paul elected) that moves toward the libertarian ideal, and doesn't involve some giant crisis that exposes the weaknesses of the system, probably paving the way at least in the short term for massive increases in government aggression. Are people magically going to stop trusting government one day? In either case don't libertarians need visible politicians educating the general public as to the real cause of their problems? Isn't there a history of government-caused calamities used as excuses to increase government, so won't any potential void be filled by the same perpetrators who got us into this mess (unless the public somehow put 2 and 2 together)?
Jim, I understand and identify with a lot of your points, and don't necessarily feel like securing the border or limiting student visas to certain countries would be all that cost-effective in protecting us (relative to invading Iraq, I do, but not in absolute terms). But understand that it's hard enough to get the Republican nomination when you say you want to withdraw from Iraq, kill the dept of education and the dept of energy, end the federal war on drugs, stop giving foreign aid to Isreal as well as her neighbors (Antisemite!), leave airport/plane security to the private sector, end our UN membership, close down foreign bases across the world, move toward a sounder money system, etc.....and not have SOME answer to the question: how are you going to protect this country from foreign threats (terrorism)? At the very least that's what the federal government is here for (if anything), and Ron's plan on balance intrudes into individuals' lives far less so than ANY other candidate's platform. With any other candidate we'll be taking 50 steps in the wrong direction for every 1 step in the right one....even if you believe the border/visa part of Ron's platform is a step in the wrong direction, he's still taking 50 in the right direction for every one that doesn't conform to the libertarian ideal.
Yea, you're gaining more Ron Paul voters, and turning the libertarian movement into a paleoconservative bandwagon in the process. It's getting to the point where I have to debate with "buy American products only" people in LIBERTARIAN forums.
I'm still perplexed why this criteria of what books they read is brought up. It's downright silly and irrelevant, and vaguely reminds me of the old commie-hunting (got a copy of the manifesto? treason! you're under arrest!). And It's not as if the bulk of anti-immigrationists are clutching copies of "Human Action" either. More like Pat Buchannan books.
I'll change my position when anybody can post pictures of anti-immigrationists clutching copies of "No Treason: Constitution of No Authority". Until then, I will see them as mostly a bunch of protectionists, unionists, nationalists, racists and neo-***. And maybe a few libertarians with a major case of cognitive dissonance and confusion.
I forgot how dreadfully unsubtle anarcho-capitalist students are. The point I was trying to make that did not make it through the osseous matter surrounding your cerebrum is that we are importing social democrats, in addition to our homegrown social democrats, making the goal of a libertarian society even more remote.
Of course, the anti-immigrants propose to use social democracy to their advantage, and propose measures or means that some if not many social democrats would applaud, as a solution. In other words, you're adding to the numbers of the social democrats too. Of course, if your criteria for creating a libertarian society has to do with socially engineering a society of people with the "correct" personal preferences by excluding those who don't "qualify", we are going by two different definitions of what such a society entails.
If, on the other hand, they were clamoring for directions to the Mises Institute as opposed to DFCS, I might reconsider my position.
Are the bulk of anti-immigrationists doing this either? Are they a crowd that generally favors economic freedom? Hardly.
To put it another way, when the immigrants take to the street demanding the gold standard and an end to the income tax instead of marching for civil rights and expansion of the EIC, I'll be pro-immigrant.
To put it another way, when the bulk of anti-immigrationists take to the streets demanding free trade and an end to the drug war, instead of marching for tax-funded fences and stronger police powers, I'll start to reconsider my image of them. Until then, I will generally see them as a part of a broad protectionist and nationalist movement that wants more prisons built.
Byzantine: You need to attack the premises rather than just tediously recycling statements and ad hominem (not that being called racist, etc., is worth much as an insult these days). Presumably, you are too busy throwing off the shackles of the state from your dorm room to bother constructing a syllogism.
You need to attack the premises rather than just tediously recycling statements and ad hominem (not that being called racist, etc., is worth much as an insult these days). Presumably, you are too busy throwing off the shackles of the state from your dorm room to bother constructing a syllogism.
I've already spent a good deal of time in this thread debunking the premises of anti-immigrationists. The response mostly consisted of me being called a utopian idealist, rather then any valid counter-arguement. There were even those who aknowledged the "theoretical validity" of my arguements, but then said that we have to be pragmatic right now for reasons X, Y and Z. I have held back bringing up racism until this point, and it was listed as only one out of many sentiments behind anti-immigrationism. But when I see people basically painting the most dreary picture possible of Mexican and "3rd world" immigrants, you damn well bet that I am going to have a bit of a suspicion that some racism is at play.
Byzantine: ". Of course, if your criteria for creating a libertarian society has to do with socially engineering a society of people with the "correct" personal preferences by excluding those who don't "qualify", we are going by two different definitions of what such a society entails." BTW, people exercise such preferences in their associations all the time, wherever they can get away with it or the law does not prohibit them from doing so. In an anarcho-capitalist society, vagrants and trespassers will have to pay for the privilege of sojourning or be escorted to the town limits and told to keep walking. People will be free to build their own communities with membership qualified by whatever criteria they desire. Given the natural discrimination that is actually the very essence of property rights, I doubt most anarcho-capitalists really want an anarcho-capitalist society at all.
". Of course, if your criteria for creating a libertarian society has to do with socially engineering a society of people with the "correct" personal preferences by excluding those who don't "qualify", we are going by two different definitions of what such a society entails."
BTW, people exercise such preferences in their associations all the time, wherever they can get away with it or the law does not prohibit them from doing so. In an anarcho-capitalist society, vagrants and trespassers will have to pay for the privilege of sojourning or be escorted to the town limits and told to keep walking. People will be free to build their own communities with membership qualified by whatever criteria they desire.
Given the natural discrimination that is actually the very essence of property rights, I doubt most anarcho-capitalists really want an anarcho-capitalist society at all.
Just because of the fact, which I have granted already, that a private owner is free to discriminate/exclude, it by no means follows that this is how they will or must act in a free society, nor does it follow that we should use the state in this manner in the present as if it were a private owner. Nor does this line of arguement aknowledge the plethora of incentives towards association in a free society that would render cultural separatism economically suicidal in the long-run.
Yes, people will be free to form their own comunities with membership qualified by whatever criteria they desire - and those who have draconian qualifications will be outcompeted and will eventually find their communities poor and abandoned because they have essentially restricted their own consumer base to the point of economic suicide. A monocentric society is not possible, or sustainable, in an atmosphere of free association. Big time discriminators eventually lose out in a free market.
The idea that in a private property society, immigration ceases to exist and the climate will be one of extreme ethnic and/or cultural separatism, is absolutely ridiculous. Citezenship in the contemporary sense ceases to exist, yes. Incentives towards integration and social cooperation between vastly differing groups of people most certainly do not dissapear. If anything, they intensify. Territorial mobility, if anything, would likely be easier, not harder, because there no longer is a territorial monopoly.
Byzantine: On the contrary, the historical observation is that multi-ethnic empires are held together by force, and eventually succumb to the centrifugal forces of loyalty to the pre-state institutions of Faith and Tribe. Eventually, all multi-ethnic empires devolve into their constituent nations. This is the trend from the former USSR to the UK to Belgium to Iraq, Somalia, etc. To airily proclaim that things will be different under anarcho-capitalism is to ignore human nature. At this point, the anarcho-capitalist joins arms with his Marxist soulmates to proclaim the New Anarchist Man, free of such old-fashioned notions. Free trade and segregation are perfectly compatible in the absence of the civil rights laws that take away everyone's safe harbors.
On the contrary, the historical observation is that multi-ethnic empires are held together by force, and eventually succumb to the centrifugal forces of loyalty to the pre-state institutions of Faith and Tribe. Eventually, all multi-ethnic empires devolve into their constituent nations. This is the trend from the former USSR to the UK to Belgium to Iraq, Somalia, etc. To airily proclaim that things will be different under anarcho-capitalism is to ignore human nature. At this point, the anarcho-capitalist joins arms with his Marxist soulmates to proclaim the New Anarchist Man, free of such old-fashioned notions.
Free trade and segregation are perfectly compatible in the absence of the civil rights laws that take away everyone's safe harbors.
Nonsense. I propose no such "new man", I do not propose any change in human nature at all. The simple fact of the matter is that history is an endless story of intermingling between ethnicities and migrations between territories. The human race has been interbreeding forever and will continue to do so, and this will intensify over time. All human beings are "muts" on some level. There is no such thing as a culturally pure community. All societies are "multi-cultural" to some degree. On the contrary of your claims, I would argue that a completely monocentric society cannot be held together without force, without essentially stopping people on the margin from associating with "the other guys" and letting "the other guys" in. Someone in your "pure" community WILL associated with, hire, sell homes to "them there other guys", and there is nothing you can legitimately do to stop them.
If voluntary "multiculturalism" is an impossibility to you, then I really don't think you understand the pluralist implications of free association. That you seem to think that separatism and segregation is some inevitable law of nature frankly baffles me, because the market itself was showing a trend towards integration long before the civil rights laws came along. Yes, you can theoretically have an ethnically pure community in a free market. But it most certainly will not stay that way, it certainly is not sustainable in the absence of force, it certainly is not economically feasable in the long run (by comparative advantage alone). When I see people like you essentially argueing for ethnic separatism in an anarchy, you can't really complain when I do start to pull out the "race card", because you are showing what your true intentions are afterall, and it has nothing to do with opposing the welfare state.
Keep in mind that you are in fact the one proposing a sort of monopolistic or monocentric model for society here, trying to proclaim it as some natural occurance under freedom, while my view is that freedom has pluralist implications. You seem to equate decentralization to segregation, while I equate it to a lack of monocentrism (which, by default, means people are not forced into uniform groups) and therefore pluralism. Yes, people are free to not associate, but this by no means equates to it always being in their rational self-interest to. It by no means spells out a world in which everyone "sticks to their own kind" in some hermetically sealed manner. It by no means spells out a world in which I cannot have next door neighbors of different ethnicities, religions and personal preferences.
Private property anarchism will allow as much 'immigration' (a statist concept - better to say 'movement') as is desired by individuals in given societies. To the extent that disassociation is desirable, it will dominate. We agree on that much. Again, though, closed borders have the opposite effect of open ones - of forced disassociation. Not even closed border libertarians like Hoppe would support this (Hoppe outlines another scheme in DTGTF, basically requiring someone - like an employer - to vouch for the immigrant in question IIRC.)
Byzantine:I forgot how dreadfully unsubtle anarcho-capitalist students are.
I forgot how dreadfully unsubtle anarcho-capitalist students are.
We are? Maybe, I've noticed we're not the most diplomatic lot generally speaking.
Private property anarchism will allow as much 'immigration' (a statist concept - better to say 'movement') as is desired by individuals in given societies. To the extent that disassociation is desirable, it will dominate.
Sure, I don't disagree with this at all. To the extent that people want to disassociate, it will occur. And "movement" or "migration" would indeed be a better term. However, I think that, particularly on a large scale and over a considerable period of time, segregation is counterproductive and suicidal to those who are trying to hermetically seal themselves off from others. While it is absolutely true that people are free to discriminate as they please in a private property society, they will still have many incentives to associate with "undesirables" on some level.
A completely segregated world seems like an impossibility to me because people on the margin are going to break up the monocentrism and it's simply a self-defeating buisiness practise to be turning down large swaths of potential customers like that. I need not exactly be best friends or in love with someone to live close to them, do buisiness with them and trade directly. There is no logical reason that I can think of for not buying, selling, hiring and living next to people just because the people I have to deal with are from a different ethnicity or religion or what have you.