Libertarians get accused of being utopian idealists by non-libertarians all the time. Isn't it amusing when libertarians start to use such tactics against their own kind for trying to remain principled?
As for justice, how is allowing the continued growth of welfare roles at the expense of private property rights justice?
Of course, I've advocated no such thing. I have advocated NOT increasing government intervention in the name of fighting immigration and enforcing political borders. As a means in and of itself, there is nothing unjust about it. As a consequence of it, perhaps more people will enter the territory and become welfare recipients - then you should then address the welfare state itself, the root of that particular problem. But the act of allowing people into the territory in itself, allowing them to buy homes from willing sellers and to take jobs from willing employers, does not necessarily violate justice or property rights in itself. You, on the other hand, have advocated (as a means in and of itself) the continued growth of paramilitary powers and immigration bereaucracy at the expense of private property rights. This is hardly justice.
And in your utopia of anarcho capitalism, which I too see as the ideal world, there is no freedom of movement guaranteed beyond that which people are willing to permit on their own property anyway. The freedom of travel, of movement, is always limited by what people permit on their own private property, even in your ideal world
Using the state as if it were a private property owner of the entire territory is incredibly dangerous and opens up a huge can of worms. The state is not a private property owner. And, of course, you are imposing your own personal preference as to how you would use your private property onto the state, assuming that owners would restrict movement. I view it quite the other way around. I think that the incentives in a free market would make immigration restrictionism mostly self-defeating economically, much in the same way that discrimination is a retarded and self-defeating buisiness model. It is true that the individual has a right to exclude someone from their property, but it is fallacious to use state intervention under the assumption that this is how people will employ their property, and it strikes me as ignorant to think that in a free market this would be particularly conductive in the long-term.
How then is protecting that property by restricting movement through the government as an interim plan a problem?
It's a problem because the state is not private property, and restricting movement violates the private property rights of individual owners who DO want to allow such people onto their property, who DO want to allow them into their homes, who DO want to sell them homes, who DO want to hire them. There is no way around this. You cannot treat the entire territory as the private property of the government without in actual fact restricting the liberty of owners of individual plots of property from freely employing it as they please.
Brainpolice:That is not the issue of immigration. It's the issue of taxation and national healthcare and public housing and public education. Complaining about that as an arguement against immigration is disingenuous.
Not when it's the immigrants taking advantage of the housing and the public education and the healthcare. I can restrict the movement of immigrants across my property, I'm sure you would agree that I can protect my wallet from them as well. So, why does this ability end after the government steals my money and proposes to give it to them? Why after the government nationalizes land and makes it practically impossible to exercise defense rights do people lose those rights through other means? Why do you ignore the people pouring gas on the fire and insist on aiming the hoses at one spot only?
And, once again, the exact same complaint applies to legal citezens, who attend public education and accept subsidized healthcare. There is nothing exclusive to illegal immigrants about it. The vast majority of people guilty of what you're complaining about are not illegal immigrants, they are your average voter. So why don't we see you advocating evicting them from their homes and their deportation? Because this is obviously a matter of personal preference for groups of people, not a matter of principle.
Not quite. A citizen of this country has paid into the system and can be said at least to be taking back some of what was already stolen from them. Not so for illegals. When citizens take such benefits there is at least the practical implication of restitution to be made to them, stealing from the thief as it were.
Nor will cracking down on the border increase the police state beyond where it already is. The powers are already there, the government refuses to act on them because the government damn well knows uncontrolled immigration at this point in time is in its favor. Nationalists get a buggaboo to scare their voters with, corporatists get cheap labor for their voting block, liberals get to 'celebrate' how wonderful we all are and call conservatives evil for not liking the poor immigrants.
Which all begs the question: if your government is the enemy, why would you enable them? Freedom is not an end result. Like everything else it is defined by action and process. Freedom is the subversion of the state and state interests. If the state and its special interests want illegal immigration, and by and large they do and get it through attrition and neglect of laws already on the books, then I don't and fight against it through whatever means are at hand. And if the state and its interests want the welfare system, and they do, then I fight against that as well. I'm perfectly happy having more than one front to fight on, and using the enemies own weapons against their own interests. Nor will I be constrained by idealism in a world that is far from ideal. I'm sure if well joined hands and read The Ethics of Liberty out loud the world would immediately change. But that's not going to happen anytime soon, and I do not blame others nor accept any blame myself for fighting the good fight as much as possible while also looking to my own interests and comfort as well and just generally trying to live a decent life. Which means driving on government roads that I wish were private, using the post office because it's there and UPS/FedEx spots are futher away, and generally working within a system I don't necessarily endorse but can't practically escape all at once at this point in time.
Which all begs the question: if your government is the enemy, why would you enable them?
That's my question for you. Allowing willing sellers to sell things to immigrants, allowing willing employers to hire immigrants, is not enabling the government. A lack of intervention in a particular area, or simply not increasing it, which is all my position is, does not enable the government. Having the government establish paramilitary raids on employers, border patrols, immigration quotas and prohibitions (same thing), is enabling the government. You are advocating the direct use of the government as a means. I am not. My position on immigration itself involves no government intervention as a means. Yours does.
Your complaints always fall back on separate issues - welfare, education, housing, and so on. Instead of seeing the elimination of welfare, public education, subsidized housing, and so on, as a solution, you seem to advocate cracking down in immigration as a mere pragmatic step to stopping the increase in those things. That is not going to do anything to strike at the root of those problems. All it will do is directly enable state intervention in other ways, while excluding access to state services in other ways. As a means, it is not reductionist. Using increases in state intervention to stop increases in state intervention elsewhere is not a reductionist strategy.
Portraying a lack of support for immigration restrictionism as support for the welfare state is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. I don't believe my characterization of support for immigration restrictionism as support for a police state (as well as protectionism) is, I think that's exactly what it is as a means. I stand by my claim that libertarian support for immigration restriction is a sign that the movement is being infested by paleoconservatives, and that paleoconservatism is a nationalist, protectionist ideology that is not much better then neoconservatism.
Brainpolice:Libertarians get accused of being utopian idealists by non-libertarians all the time. Isn't it amusing when libertarians start to use such tactics against their own kind for trying to remain principled?
Nice rhetoric, got a point? Libertarians are not idealists anyway, they are a compromise of the anarcho capitalist ideal. To change the world you must interact with it. From the anarcho capitalism point of view that means compromise by definition.
Of course, I've advocated no such thing.
Well, by not helping a drowning man you're not advocating his death either, but your nonaction, while not necessarily legally/ethically/morally wrong, ain't helping the poor guy either now is it? Practical vs Ideal.
I have advocated NOT increasing government intervention in the name of fighting immigration and enforcing political borders.
Which leads necessarily in our current context to higher welfare doles and more property rights violations.
As a means in and of itself, there is nothing unjust about it. As a consequence of it, perhaps more people will enter the territory and become welfare recipients - then you should then address the welfare state itself, the root of that particular problem.
Exactly: idealism. One should completely ignore more immediate and practical problems to go after the bigger problem which is at the root of the whole thing. And in doing so suffer a great deal needlessly to support ideals which are likely not going to be realized in his lifetime. When one is sick with say cancer, one wants to get rid of the cancer. That doesn't mean they don't take meds to deal with the symptoms too even if their effect on the body isn't ideal in the short or medium term. There is no such dicotomy on the immigration issue. as with cancer one need not do one or the other, one can do both. The laws needed are already there, already passed, already a part of the police state. The government doesn't enforce them because it has no interest in doing so. By the rule that I oppose the state and its interests, I do have an interest in enforcing them, and so I will try to do so.
You, on the other hand, have advocated (as a means in and of itself) the continued growth of paramilitary powers and immigration bereaucracy at the expense of private property rights. This is hardly justice.
It's justice to those who property won't be appropriated to such an extent as it otherwise would have been. Since we are never going to get rid of the government we are always going to have to deal with trade offs. There were trade offs being made in the heyday of the US republic. For quite some time the government was restrained and much smaller than its current form. But then again gays, blacks, pagans, Indians, and other assorted people didn't have such a good time of it for a while. Where there is government there will always be compromise. The question is where do you aim your efforts, and I personally feel that using the US government to protect the property of US citizens should take precedence over respecting the rights of non citizens, even if one portion of the government is enabling those non citizens. One can aim at both problems, one doesn't have to sacrifice practical reality and immediate need for the ideal just because, "Give me liberty or give me death," sounds good and reasonable to some. Others would rather live and fight for liberty to the extent it is practically possible for them and then otherwise enjoy their lives as best they can in the current circumstances.
Well, I think that it's unfortunate that so many anarcho-capitalists are reformists who still think with a statist mindset, enthusiastically involve themselves in the political process and seem to think that the state can be dismantled from within. I prefer the strategy of the agorists. And I do not consider agorism to be utopian idealism, but rather quite realist in the realization that the pragmatic approach that libertarians have attempted over the past few hundred years is a complete failure. In practise, this "practical" or "pragmatist" or "reformist" strategy amounts to the status quo remaining in place, as libertarians continue to beat themselves over the heads wondering why they never get their way.
I feel like a broken record here at this point, but immigration restrictionism inherently requires property rights violations, more taxing and spending, more central planning and bereaucracy, emminent domain and flexing of executive powers. At least the lack of such restrictionism does not involve political means in itself.
Exactly: idealism. One should completely ignore more immediate and practical problems to go after the bigger problem which is at the root of the whole thing.
I view the flexing of a police state to restrict immigration as an immediate and practical problem. And even as a matter of baby steps, I don't consider the use of state intervention as a libertarian strategy. Libertarian strategy is supposed to be reductionist, it is not supposed to use state intervention in the name of reducing state intervention, which is self-defeating in principle.
When one is sick with say cancer, one wants to get rid of the cancer. That doesn't mean they don't take meds to deal with the symptoms too even if their effect on the body isn't ideal in the short or medium term.
Actually, I think a cancer analogy does much more harm to your position. Immigration restrictionism is, at best, a band-aid, or an anti-biotic. Not only does it does not cure the disease, but it merely temporarily staves off the effects of the disease only for the disease to come back a second time, even worse then before. But I think it's much worse then this. I think it actually spreads the disease because you are using the disease as a means in itself. Evil means cannot begat good consequences in the long-term. No good can come from an act that is unethical in itself.
The laws needed are already there, already passed, already a part of the police state. The government doesn't enforce them because it has no interest in doing so. By the rule that I oppose the state and its interests, I do have an interest in enforcing them, and so I will try to do so.
So, in other words, you are essentially admitting that you are advocating an increase in enforcement of police state legislation. Then you wonder why I don't consider this to be a libertarian strategy. And if you oppose the state, it hardly makes sense to then advocate that the state enforce its laws. Shouldn't the libertarian want quite the opposite: to render the state's law unenforcable? I think likewise with immigration. I wish to render immigration laws unenforcable, which to some extent they already are anyways, and there's nothing you can do to make them enforcable if we are going to really think in terms of prohibition theory. Indeed, do you really think that illegalizing immigration is going to get rid of, rather then create, a black market in immigration? Illegal immigration exists because immigration is, to some extent, illegal. To think that hiking up prohibition will stop people from coming here anyways is a pipe dream.
The question is where do you aim your efforts, and I personally feel that using the US government to protect the property of US citizens should take precedence over respecting the rights of non citizens, even if one portion of the government is enabling those non citizens.
I do not believe that immigration restrictionism protects the property rights of citezens. I believe it violates the property rights of citezens who wish to allow immigrants onto their property, sell them homes and hire them. Of course, being an ethical universalist, I don't buy into any notion of only legal citezens having rights or being worthy of having their rights protected. I do not believe that one person's rights have to be compromised to protect that of others. Isn't that precisely the problem with the Hobbesian world view? The idea that people's rights conflict? I say they don't. There is no reason why we should tolerate injustice on a particular group in the name of preserving the rights of another group.
Brainpolice:That's my question for you. Allowing willing sellers to sell things to immigrants, allowing willing employers to hire immigrants, is not enabling the government.
Yes it is when the government is providing the incentive for those workers to come here in the first place. And yes that means welfare is at the heart of the issue. But the heart of the issue isn't the only thing most people are going to be concerned with. They are going to be concerned with the lungs, stomach, spleen, live and genitals of the issue as well.
My position on immigration itself involves no government intervention as a means. Yours does.
Yes, my position acknowledges the practical difficulties and tries to address them while also going to the root of the matter. Yours demands people ignore immediate concerns and go after the root of the matter exclusively. That's a categorical decision, quite odd coming from someone who is economically inclined and so should understand marginalism, that categorical decisions are not necessary. And that some people might find the problems illegal immigration causes them too much to simply ignore to support the idealism of going after welfare alone. Just like a cancer patient is going to sacrifice his hair for radiation treatment, or his ability to eat comfortably for chemo, and take whatever meds he can to offset those sacrifices. Of course in the ideal world he'd just pop one pill or have the tumor cut out, or never get cancer to begin with. But that isn't reality.
Your complaints always fall back on separate issues - welfare, education, housing, and so on. Instead of seeing the elimination of welfare, public education, subsidized housing, and so on, as a solution, you seem to advocate cracking down in immigration as a mere pragmatic step to stopping the increase in those things. That is not going to do anything to strike at the root of those problems.
See above.
Portraying a lack of support for immigration restrictionism as support for the welfare state is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
No, it's reality. And as has been said one need not only go after one issue or the other.
I don't believe my characterization of support for immigration restrictionism as support for a police state (as well as protectionism) is, I think that's exactly what it is as a means.
And so be it. In practical terms, as opposed to ideal once more, we will always live in a police state to some degree or another. The question is not whether we will, but what will be the scope of their power and its focus be? Border protection is not unreasonable. Also, if I'm such a paleoconservative and nationalist, one might want to ask why in my original post I advocated making it easier to come here legally. Much easier. I honestly don't even care if people speak English so long as the government doesn't spend my money to accomodate them on that. If they're not a criminal, not harboring any diseases, and aren't going on the dole, that's good enough for me and I could care less about anything else. I know that is EXTREME statism and might as well invite references to Hitler and Mussolini, but for some reason it strikes me as reasonable.
I stand by my claim that libertarian support for immigration restriction is a sign that the movement is being infested by paleoconservatives.
Good. Maybe instead of a bunch of twits hearding cats the movement might go somewhere. It will be less pure to be sure, but I'd rather live in a somewhat compromised libertarian world than constantly strive for pure anarcho capitalism and never get there.
I'm not accusing you of being a paleocon. But I do believe that paleocon influence has made an-caps weaker. Much weaker, since apparently all kinds of protectionism and police statism can be tolerated in the name of "practicality".
I would rather shoot for long-term goals in an unfree world and work on my personal life then give up all my principles in the name of achieving a tiny chunk of liberty in the present to benefit a special interest group.
Brainpolice:So, in other words, you are essentially admitting that you are advocating an increase in enforcement of police state legislation. Then you wonder why I don't consider this to be a libertarian strategy.
I don't care if you consider it a libertarian strategy as I don't consider myself a libertarian with an upper or lower case "l". As for the agorist approach, good luck. Personally on its own I think it will accomplish zilch. Even Rothbard acknowledged a need to work with people within the system and to judge actions by the standard of whether or not it would increase personal liberty. My standards are a bit more varied. I ask: Will it undermine the state?; Will it piss off this particular group I don't like?; will it benefit citizens or non citizens or everyone and which do I prioritize? I view the fight for a liberty as a constant attempt to undermine the state for the benefit of US citizens in the end, and if they leave a guard position open with a gatling gun pointed directly into their fort, which is what I see immigration law as, I'm going to grab it and start firing if I can.
If you think a complete lack of political action will lead to victory, I think you are sadly mistaken. Change only comes through revolution, often bloody, which comes after you manage to fire up a significant portion of the citizenry. You don't do that by ignoring their most basic and immediate concerns and educating them in the specialized science of economics.
xahrx: Kent C:But BP, if you open the borders, we dirty, disease ridden foreigners will be coming in and raping xahrx's sister. Best keep them out. But Kent C, it's easier to offer caricatures of arguments than deal with what people actually say. Oh, I'm sorry, you obviously already knew that.
Kent C:But BP, if you open the borders, we dirty, disease ridden foreigners will be coming in and raping xahrx's sister. Best keep them out.
But Kent C, it's easier to offer caricatures of arguments than deal with what people actually say. Oh, I'm sorry, you obviously already knew that.
Okay, well here's another one for you. Americans sure love their empty rhetoric of "Freedom". Worked for Jefferson, Reagan and now Ron Paul.
Brainpolice:I'm not accusing you of being a paleocon. But I do believe that paleocon influence has made an-caps weaker. Much weaker, since apparently all kinds of protectionism and police statism can be tolerated in the name of "practicality". I would rather shoot for long-term goals in an unfree world and work on my personal life then give up all my principles in the name of achieving a tiny chunk of liberty in the present to benefit a special interest group.
From what I know of history I think that tiny chunk is all you'll likely ever have, and so from a practical standpoint would you rather fight for that tiny chunk or fight for long term ideals which ends up meaning fighting for nothing at all? If the ideals are what fire your burner, go for it. But I honestly don't think you'll ever get anywhere with ideals alone. There is an ideal, but I think there is also a difference between constantly trying to move towards that ideal and accepting only the ideal and nothing else. The former involves some compromise, the latter the strict adherence to principle you seem to want. Me, I want to enjoy some of my time on this Earth, not just constantly fight for something not even my children's children will likely get, should I ever have any children to have their own.
I don't believe violent revolution is the only kind. My views on libertarian strategy are heavily influenced by la Boetie. Mass civil disobedience is the key, and that may include forming and patronizing alternative institutions in competition with the state. You most certainly do not manage to overthrow the state by using it for your short-term advantage. Understandably, people want liberty now, but I think it is incredibly short-sighted to dive head first into the political process and support intervention as a means and think that you're going to get much of anything out of it. I think, realistically, the only way you're going to get liberty now is not on the political level, but in your personal life, particularly familial. On the political level, you're better off forming a counter-economy and engaging in civil disobedience to the best of your ability, within the confines of staying alive of course.
One of the few areas I strongly disagree with Rothbard on is libertarian strategy. I think he was unfortunately too much of a pragmatist.
At this point, this discussion belongs over in Niccolo's thread "Revolution or Reformation?".
Kent C:Okay, well here's another one for you. Americans sure love their empty rhetoric of "Freedom". Worked for Jefferson, Reagan and now Ron Paul.
And to be blunt these one liners and the people who used to fling them are the reason I left so many boards like Maher's. It's a wonder to find them here amongst people I thought by nature would be a bit more intelligent and on the ball. But either way if addressing an actual issue is too hard for you and you'd prefer to simply stick to your ideals and toss out one liners, be my guest. It's a strategy that has gotten the libertarians so far as of now I can understand why one would stick with it.
Brainpolice:You most certainly do not manage to overthrow the state by using it for your short-term advantage.
You don't overthrow the state, period. That's where you and I disagree. To overthrow the state you need to do just what socialism couldn't: create a new man. A man blind to incentives and immune to time preference, one who will never see a benefit in stealing as opposed to trade, much less the benefit of institutionalizing theft in the form of the state. It will never happen. In that light you have no choice but to work with the state in the ways you see necessary while attempting to limit its overall scope and power. Easy? No. Possible? Maybe not, but no more impossible than an anarcho capitalist utopia.
xahrx: Brainpolice:So, in other words, you are essentially admitting that you are advocating an increase in enforcement of police state legislation. Then you wonder why I don't consider this to be a libertarian strategy. I don't care if you consider it a libertarian strategy as I don't consider myself a libertarian with an upper or lower case "l". As for the agorist approach, good luck. Personally on its own I think it will accomplish zilch. Even Rothbard acknowledged a need to work with people within the system and to judge actions by the standard of whether or not it would increase personal liberty. My standards are a bit more varied. I ask: Will it undermine the state?; Will it piss off this particular group I don't like?; will it benefit citizens or non citizens or everyone and which do I prioritize? I view the fight for a liberty as a constant attempt to undermine the state for the benefit of US citizens in the end, and if they leave a guard position open with a gatling gun pointed directly into their fort, which is what I see immigration law as, I'm going to grab it and start firing if I can. If you think a complete lack of political action will lead to victory, I think you are sadly mistaken. Change only comes through revolution, often bloody, which comes after you manage to fire up a significant portion of the citizenry. You don't do that by ignoring their most basic and immediate concerns and educating them in the specialized science of economics.
Working with people and prioritizing is one thing. Offering the most authoritarian immigration policy of any of the current candidates is another. Paul isn't offering a compromise, he's offering the most extreme anti-libertarian solution. He could offer a plan that removes the "incentives" for abusing the system, such as no benefits to immigrants, allowing illegals to apply from within the U.S. for legal status, and streamlining immigration to allow anyone in that doesn't pose a known danger to the public (criminal record, contagious disease, no means of support). Morever, I don't think the case against immigrants is by any means a proven one, even as it stands today.
xahrx: Kent C:Okay, well here's another one for you. Americans sure love their empty rhetoric of "Freedom". Worked for Jefferson, Reagan and now Ron Paul. And to be blunt these one liners and the people who used to fling them are the reason I left so many boards like Maher's. It's a wonder to find them here amongst people I thought by nature would be a bit more intelligent and on the ball. But either way if addressing an actual issue is too hard for you and you'd prefer to simply stick to your ideals and toss out one liners, be my guest. It's a strategy that has gotten the libertarians so far as of now I can understand why one would stick with it.
I left Maher's board a while ago too. Too much left-bias there to get a half-decent conversation or debate.
Do you wish me to expand? I would have thought it obviously true. Jefferson was a man who promoted freedom, limited government and individual rights, yet held hundreds of slaves, didn't even allow they release after his death, nor promoted their freedom while in power. Moreover, he didn't have a huge problem with eliminating native populations that got in the way of American expansion. Reagan spoke against large government while increasing it, spoke for freedom while expanding the war on drugs, and spoken about national self-determination while supplying the Contras. Paul speaks about individualism trumping collectivism while having a collectivist immigration policy. How would you like me to view it?
Sorry I'm not smart enough for you. I'm just a common guy who sees lots of hypocracy.
xahrx: Brainpolice:You most certainly do not manage to overthrow the state by using it for your short-term advantage. You don't overthrow the state, period. That's where you and I disagree. To overthrow the state you need to do just what socialism couldn't: create a new man. A man blind to incentives and immune to time preference, one who will never see a benefit in stealing as opposed to trade, much less the benefit of institutionalizing theft in the form of the state. It will never happen. In that light you have no choice but to work with the state in the ways you see necessary while attempting to limit its overall scope and power. Easy? No. Possible? Maybe not, but no more impossible than an anarcho capitalist utopia.
I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. You do not need to improve human nature one bit to eventually overthrow the state. State or not state, human nature remains exactly the same. I do not believe you have no choice but to completely work within the system. There is no reason why you cannot start to undermine the system by competing with it. It makes no sense to propose that the way to break up a monopoly is to join it and to try to compartmentalize it from within. In order to break up a monopoly, you need external competition. That means forming alternatives as far outside of the reaches of the system as possible.
It seems to me that for an anarchist (I'm assuming you are one here), you think anarchy is impossible to achieve. And you throw the word utopia around as if that's what any of us advocate. But I don't believe in utopia. A utopia, in the original meaning of the word, is planned or socially engineered. Market anarchism is not utopian. We do not propose a change in human nature or a perfect society. But neither should we accept means that we know are unethical in the name of achieving our goals. Nor should we view change outside of the political process itself as being impossible - that strikes me as, pardon the word, defeatist. Self-defeating, in fact.
IMO, an anarchist society is achievable by ending state monopolies through competition and allowing new institutions to take their place. I believe in spontaneous order in the absense of imposed order.
Kent C: IMO, an anarchist society is achievable by ending state monopolies through competition and allowing new institutions to take their place. I believe in spontaneous order in the absense of imposed order.
That's basically the agorist perspecitve, namely, that state monopolies can be ended by simply competing with them, denying them access to resources and engaging in mass civil disobedience. The market itself can render the state monopolies null and void, and make them purposeless in the eyes of the lay public. Afterall, if the private provision of something is obviously far cheaper and more efficient, the state provision of that service quickly becomes rather archiac and unecessary, doesn't it? Why should the state raise grain when grain is already provided cheaply and abundantly on the market? And why should not the same apply to everything else, from arbitration to security? The market basically renders the state useless over time. So I see the market process in itself as the ultimate means by which state power can be reduced.
Brainpolice: newson: Brainpolice: So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon. large numbers of people will be drawn to seek opportunity in a wealthly country, even in the absence of transfer payments. where there is capital structure growth, immigration can occur without sacrificing living standards. this happened here in australia, post world war two. enormous capital growth generated demand for unskilled immigration, but per-capita income grew. that would no be longer the case, as capital growth is stunted by punitive taxes, and a byzantine regulatory regime. unskilled immigration would only lower per-capita income. freeing borders without having first pruned away large swathes of government to augment capital investment is not going to fly in democratic societies, people won't vote themselves a pay-cut. Yes, some people may lose out if labor is allowed to freely compete, just like some buisinesses may lose out if firms are allowed to freely compete. Whoopdeedoo. It certainly doesn't justify any kind of protectionism. Of course, these are all consequentialist, utilitarian considerations. I find them irrelevant to the ethics of the matter. If the means in themselves are unethical, I simply do not care if it's done in the name preserving people's per-capita income. I am not primarily concerned with preserving economic prosperity for certain groups, I am primarily concerned with justice. In the absence of justice, I could really care less about good consequences. Of course, there is no reason why justice and prosperity cannot co-exist, with prosperity being a consequence of justice. But things such as per-capita income are not a proper measuring stick of justice. Sometimes we need to take our utilitarian economics hats off for a moment and think about ethics. Utility is not justice. Although I sometimes wonder if the anti-immigration libertarians are singling out the anglo who lost his job or has to pay for someone's welfare and are refusing to see the comparative advantages.
newson: Brainpolice: So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon. large numbers of people will be drawn to seek opportunity in a wealthly country, even in the absence of transfer payments. where there is capital structure growth, immigration can occur without sacrificing living standards. this happened here in australia, post world war two. enormous capital growth generated demand for unskilled immigration, but per-capita income grew. that would no be longer the case, as capital growth is stunted by punitive taxes, and a byzantine regulatory regime. unskilled immigration would only lower per-capita income. freeing borders without having first pruned away large swathes of government to augment capital investment is not going to fly in democratic societies, people won't vote themselves a pay-cut.
Brainpolice: So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon.
So long as you're all for a paramilitary state in the name of keeping the evil social democrats (who will surely rape your sister and become welfare leeches) out, don't expect neo-fascism to dissapear any time soon.
large numbers of people will be drawn to seek opportunity in a wealthly country, even in the absence of transfer payments.
where there is capital structure growth, immigration can occur without sacrificing living standards. this happened here in australia, post world war two. enormous capital growth generated demand for unskilled immigration, but per-capita income grew. that would no be longer the case, as capital growth is stunted by punitive taxes, and a byzantine regulatory regime. unskilled immigration would only lower per-capita income.
freeing borders without having first pruned away large swathes of government to augment capital investment is not going to fly in democratic societies, people won't vote themselves a pay-cut.
Yes, some people may lose out if labor is allowed to freely compete, just like some buisinesses may lose out if firms are allowed to freely compete. Whoopdeedoo. It certainly doesn't justify any kind of protectionism.
Of course, these are all consequentialist, utilitarian considerations. I find them irrelevant to the ethics of the matter. If the means in themselves are unethical, I simply do not care if it's done in the name preserving people's per-capita income.
I am not primarily concerned with preserving economic prosperity for certain groups, I am primarily concerned with justice. In the absence of justice, I could really care less about good consequences.
Of course, there is no reason why justice and prosperity cannot co-exist, with prosperity being a consequence of justice. But things such as per-capita income are not a proper measuring stick of justice.
Sometimes we need to take our utilitarian economics hats off for a moment and think about ethics. Utility is not justice.
Although I sometimes wonder if the anti-immigration libertarians are singling out the anglo who lost his job or has to pay for someone's welfare and are refusing to see the comparative advantages.
prosperity is per-capita income. per-capita income is determined by the ratio of capital to labour. increasing labour whilst capital investment is fixed gives a falling standard of living. nothing in what i've said negates the fact that there are winners as well as losers. but its the average that counts in gaining popular support. and in democracy, people will not vote in policies that lower average living standards. you've dodged this spiny point.
the only time immigration can win popular support is where the capital growth outweighs the growth in labour. if you want to see what happens to societies where capital is stable and population growth is dramatic, take a wander back to in history to ireland in the lead up to the potato famine.
i think liberalising immigration has to take a back seat to removing obstacle to domestic capital accumulation, and frankly this seems destined to worsen, rather than improve.
i agree that per-capita income is no measure of justice, just that people are self-interested. not even marx was able to get around that with his "new man".
Brainpolice: Sometimes we need to take our utilitarian economics hats off for a moment and think about ethics. Utility is not justice.
for the many black-and-whiters on this post, i recommend viewing "liar,liar". (jim carrey film). its theme, in a nutshell, is that lying is wrong and immoral, but see how long you can stay pure. and observe the collateral damage!
Fear.
In this mornings Lewrockwell.com blog:
Libertarianism qua political philosophy, by definition, cannot be racist. It is a political philosophy based on the view that all human beings have rights by virtue of their nature and the nature of the human condition.
No libertarian can possibly be racist in their political philosophy. It's possible for a libertarian to be a racist I suppose but not in their political views. Were a "libertarian" to adopt racist political views, he would instantly cease to be a libertarian.
Now, how about a libertarian being a nationalist. That's just another form of collectivism very similar to racism. And denying access to the country is certainly done because of nationalist concerns. Therefore, Were a "libertarian" to adopt nationalist political views, he would instantly cease to be a libertarian. "
Byzantine:" The solution would be to repeal those laws, not restrict immigration to avoid the effects of those laws." Well again, that is increasingly difficult to do as we simultaneously welcome a ready-made constituency for such laws. Granted, I wouldn't be objecting if Mexicans were crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of "Human Action" held aloft to keep them dry, but that is not the reality nor is it ever going to be. In fact, what you are going to see is an increasing "Third World-ization" of American politics (and economics), as people who identify very strongly with their own ethnicity and who view economics as a zero sum game take democratic possession of the levers of power. This is the heart of the objection: if you import millions of impoverished Mexicans, eventually you end up with Mexico, complete with the same poverty-generating political and economic conditions. You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality.
" The solution would be to repeal those laws, not restrict immigration to avoid the effects of those laws."
Well again, that is increasingly difficult to do as we simultaneously welcome a ready-made constituency for such laws. Granted, I wouldn't be objecting if Mexicans were crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of "Human Action" held aloft to keep them dry, but that is not the reality nor is it ever going to be. In fact, what you are going to see is an increasing "Third World-ization" of American politics (and economics), as people who identify very strongly with their own ethnicity and who view economics as a zero sum game take democratic possession of the levers of power. This is the heart of the objection: if you import millions of impoverished Mexicans, eventually you end up with Mexico, complete with the same poverty-generating political and economic conditions. You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality.
They said that when the Irish came, then with the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese and now the Mexicans. They all came in relatively large numbers (compared with the populations into which they settled).
I'd have to see the actual numbers compared with those born in the U.S. Anyway, following the blog note I posted, came another where the author says that if the U.S. continues with "oppressive policies" that Americans will just pack their bags and move elsewhere. What makes him think the rest of the world is going be any more open to American immigration than Americans are to immigration into their country? I myself am a very "tit-for-tat" person and won't oppose controlls against a country that creates them against me. Were I live, we're flooded with American immigrants, which pushes up our real estate market (which has had a strong negative effect on our family), alters cultural values, and has made our city a generally less friendly place to live. Thus, we need to put up immigration barriers to keep the Americans from coming up. Glad I can now freely advocate this while still calling myself a libertarian.
Byzantine:Kent, What's your point, other than that you support national efforts to keep out people who threaten your way of life?
Kent,
What's your point, other than that you support national efforts to keep out people who threaten your way of life?
My point is, as should be obvious by now, that libertarians should not be promoting immigration controls. They are not libertarian at all. But if American libertarians are going to do so, don't be surprised if it catches on with libertarians worldwide as a now excepted part of the ideology.
As for keeping cold socialist Canada to myself, you might want to tell your fellow Americans that, as they are coming up in droves. And I suspect when the U.S. economy collapses, they'll be coming up in numbers matching those of Mexicans into the States.
Byzantine: " The solution would be to repeal those laws, not restrict immigration to avoid the effects of those laws." Well again, that is increasingly difficult to do as we simultaneously welcome a ready-made constituency for such laws. Granted, I wouldn't be objecting if Mexicans were crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of "Human Action" held aloft to keep them dry, but that is not the reality nor is it ever going to be. In fact, what you are going to see is an increasing "Third World-ization" of American politics (and economics), as people who identify very strongly with their own ethnicity and who view economics as a zero sum game take democratic possession of the levers of power. This is the heart of the objection: if you import millions of impoverished Mexicans, eventually you end up with Mexico, complete with the same poverty-generating political and economic conditions. You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality.
I think this is utter scare-mongering nonsense that represents an absurd prejudgement of the characters of such people. I also think that it is irrelevant what the personal preferences are of people who come here. I can care less if they come carry copies of "Human Action" or the "Communist Manifesto". That is entirely irrelevant to the actual question as to wether or not it is legitimate for the state to illegalize their entrance into the territory, their purchasing of homes by willing sellers and their hiring by willing employers. And, if anything, the nationalist and protectionist sentiments of anti-immigrationists are treating economics as a zero sum game and are using the democratic process to maintain power for themselves by keeping out people they personally do not like.
I am sick and tired of actual principled positions being mischaracterized as hopeless idealism, while unlibertarian positions are argued for in terms of pragmatism which these very same people would argue against if it were just about any other issue - the exact same "pragmatist" sentiment is thrown at libertarians on just about every other issue. In short, you people are using the tactics of our opponents against fellow libertarians. Open borders is only "idealist" if you accept Pat Buchannan style fear-mongering claims about the end of anglo civilization. I don't, and I don't think, as a political means, political border enforcement and immigration restriction is compatible with libertarianism at all. It belongs in the realm of quasi-fascist populist politics, with Pat Buchannan.
Libertarian positions, from non-interventionism to sound money, can always be snubbed off as being in an "idealistic vaccum" IF and only if we accept false claims. This same attitude is thrown at us over foreign policy, when non-interventionism is characterized by conservatives as being idealist because we are ignoring the "threat of communism" and the "threat of islamo-fascism" and so on. Immigration is no different. You are basing your position on fear-mongering of outsiders, an imaginary threat of decivilization and cultural contamination. It is no better then the post-ponement position that "so long as Russia still exists, we should stave off this whole free market and non-interventionism stuff and fully support a central military state".
But here is where your pristine ideology founders: by opposing restrictions on immigration, you are simultaneously supporting the government's efforts to enlarge its own constituency.
No, I am not. I am supporting people being allowed into the territory without a gun being pointed in their face. Entrance to the territory and citezenship are two different, albiet related, issues.
Immigration in its present form is not freedom of movement and contract; rather, it is compulsory association
Immigration itself is no such thing - you are not forced to associate with someone just because they buy a home from a willing seller on your street (you may as well argue that ANYONE who buys a home from a willer seller on your street is "forced association"). Immigration restrictionism is compulsory dissasociation, protectionism and police statism.
As I pointed out, people aren't crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of Human Action held aloft. Nor, I suspect, are immigrants to Canada hitting the streets to demand the dismantling of your single-payor medical care system and an end to the odious "Human Rights Commissions."
Once again, this criteria is irrelevant. What books they happen to be reading is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In either case, legal citezens aren't either, and indeed most of the adults go around living life with the comprehension skills of elementary or middle school students. So let's deny them home ownership, evict them, illegalize their jobs and deport them.
Byzantine: It is not scare-mongering nonsense. For all their hard work, Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants are largely net tax consumers with high rates of illegitimacy (a behavior incentivized by the 14th Amendment and welfare laws) and criminality. They are a people with no libertarian tradition, which becomes clear when you take a look at the places they came from. So again, you can preach ideology all you want, but the bottom line is open borders are political and cultural suicide for libertarians.
It is not scare-mongering nonsense. For all their hard work, Mexican and other Hispanic immigrants are largely net tax consumers with high rates of illegitimacy (a behavior incentivized by the 14th Amendment and welfare laws) and criminality. They are a people with no libertarian tradition, which becomes clear when you take a look at the places they came from. So again, you can preach ideology all you want, but the bottom line is open borders are political and cultural suicide for libertarians.
Cultural preferences have nothing to do with libertarianism. And this IS scare-mongering nonsense. The American people have no libertarian tradition for the most part. They vote for socialism all the time. They do not care about freedom, they care about preserving privileges for their interest groups, which is part of precisely what immigration restriction is all about - keeping the welfare state and union privileges safe for certain groups, not opposing it in principle. Your position hinges on nothing but empty rhetoric about cultural superiority that is based on a bed of sand. You can preach cultural preferance all you want, but the bottom line is immigration restrictionism and border enforcement is not libertarian at all. It cannot be ethically justified.
Byzantine: Do you support the right of property owners to put guns in the faces of trespassers? That's what happens to immigrants who venture off public roads, after all. Some how I don't see you arguing nearly so vigorously for this but I could be wrong.
Do you support the right of property owners to put guns in the faces of trespassers? That's what happens to immigrants who venture off public roads, after all. Some how I don't see you arguing nearly so vigorously for this but I could be wrong.
I don't know why I should need to repeat that the state, and its borders, are not private property and should therefore not be treated as such. From my perspective, it is homesteadable.
Byzantine:But here is where your pristine ideology founders: by opposing restrictions on immigration, you are simultaneously supporting the government's efforts to enlarge its own constituency. Immigration in its present form is not freedom of movement and contract; rather, it is compulsory association. Your policy choices are also self-defeating from a libertarian perspective. As I pointed out, people aren't crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of Human Action held aloft. Nor, I suspect, are immigrants to Canada hitting the streets to demand the dismantling of your single-payor medical care system and an end to the odious "Human Rights Commissions."
But here is where your pristine ideology founders: by opposing restrictions on immigration, you are simultaneously supporting the government's efforts to enlarge its own constituency. Immigration in its present form is not freedom of movement and contract; rather, it is compulsory association. Your policy choices are also self-defeating from a libertarian perspective. As I pointed out, people aren't crossing the Rio Grande with their copies of Human Action held aloft. Nor, I suspect, are immigrants to Canada hitting the streets to demand the dismantling of your single-payor medical care system and an end to the odious "Human Rights Commissions."
Well, Albertans are, and no one here considers them "real Canadians". Actually, there's been a strong movement in the direction against our current medical system to something more along the lines of that in New Zealand. Its at least a movement in the right direction.
But none of this has to do with the issue of immigration. We should deal with the disease. Get rid of social entitlements for immigrants. That problem is then solved. As for compulsory association, you have that anyway. You can't choose your neigbours. My neigbours happen to be Americans, there goes the neigbourhood.
Byzantine: Border controls can be ethically justified. Even if you do not believe in government, the fact remains that immigrants have no greater right to cross a national border than anybody else. So in the absence of private ownership, it is up to the taxpayers and their proxies to decide who gets in.
Border controls can be ethically justified. Even if you do not believe in government, the fact remains that immigrants have no greater right to cross a national border than anybody else. So in the absence of private ownership, it is up to the taxpayers and their proxies to decide who gets in.
This represents a fundamental disagreement on how public property is constituted and how it should be treated. I say that there is no discernable just owner of public property - it is homesteadable as if noone previously owned it. There is no way to rationally allocate it to original just owners because it has been redistributed in an endless web. It is impossilbe for the tax-payers to exercise their quotal share. It seems to me that you cannot make this arguement without imply that public property is our common property, which I thought libertarians essentially rejected.
A national border is unowned land; it has no discernable just owner. Anyone can cross it as they please. Natives have no greater "right' to control entry and exist to it then anyone else, and in fact it is the government that is doing the controling, not the natives. Of course, natives (or tax-payers, if you will) have conflicting desires among themselves as to wether or not to associate with immigrants, so it is nonsensical to treat the border with only one of those preferences and to monolithically or unilaterally impose that preference. The "community" has no such uniform desire.