Probably. Here’s Ryan McMaken, from the LewRockwell.com Blog:
We must have a police state in this country or immigrants will come here and support the creation of a police state.
This raises what I think is a very important question. A lot of people oppose the war on drugs because of the horrific consequences or agree that we should abolish the TSA because of the predictable consequences for liberty. Matt Zwolinski, for example, details some of the encroachments on liberty that have emerged as a consequence of the drug war.
One of the arguments people make against immigration is that immigrants from less-free countries will lead to the adoption of policies that encroach on liberty in the US. I doubt that the immigrants in the US want to recreate the dysfunctional institutions that encouraged them to leave their homelands in the first place, but I also think the consequences of the wars on drugs and terror are instructive. There’s no free lunch, and there’s also no free border fence, either financially or institutionally. I also doubt very much that we could deport even a fraction of the undocumented workers who are already in the US or do “secure our borders” to the nativists’ satisfaction without even more of the kinds of encroachments on liberty that we have endured as a result of the wars on drugs and terror.
I think the case for immigration is pretty solid on its own practical and philosophical merits (Lant Pritchett’s Let Their People Come–downloadable for $0–offers a solid defense). Even if immigrants bring with them the possibility of tyranny, I think stopping them would require that we embrace even greater tyranny.
{ 162 comments }
Americans to me seem to be much more open to tyranny…
Slavery is freedom, and freedom is slavery. You can’t decide for other people what value freedom has to them. As the Grand Inquisitor was bold to ask: what is the value of your freedom when obedience can be bought with bread.
A war on immigrants would be catastrophic because it would force people to be identified and registered at every corners of society or else face prison charges etc.
Normal citizens would always have to prove their belonging to their country for everything, it would be the ultimate assault against freedom and civilization.
If you want to control immigration, privatize everything, health care, education, roads, eliminate all taxes, income taxes, sales taxes and allow free market capitalism in everything.
Immigrants would then have to compete and perform like everybody else and immigration would no longer be viewed as a problem. People would be free to come and go.
That would be my position as well, but it’s kind of hard to bring down the welfare-warfare state when it keeps importing more constituents. There are currently at least four Armenian lobby groups devoted to influencing American foreign policy in favor of Armenia and against Armenia’s historic enemies–centuries-old intertribal conflicts which Americans know nothing about. Do you think they’re in favor of the US shutting down foreign aid and rolling back its overseas military presence? Do you think AIPAC is?
Do you honestly think that you would be happy having to compete with an unlimited number of Chinese people for any educational opportunity or job? Do you think you’d be better off, or are you willing to accept a significantly lower standard of living, just so you can enjoy the benefit of having no government whatsoever?
You should spend some time around Chinese immigrants, both legal and illegal, before concluding that you’re sanguine about your chances of competing against them in a free market. It’s unlikely you will be willing to work as hard as them or for as little money for any job you want. And the current experience of US universities suggests that Americans in general would not be able to effectively compete for education opportunities. You need to be willing to put your standard of living where your platitudes are: Are you going to be happy to lose out in the free market?
Chinese people can certainly work for $2 a day in China, but they would have a tough time living off that same wage here in the USA. If our wages would go down because of work force competition, so would the cost of living. What makes you think that in a libertarian world, everybody would want to work in the USA, I’m pretty much sure that most Chinese would want to stay and work in China.
You’ve missed my point. The Chinese person doesn’t need to make $2 per day here to lower your standard of living, he just has to either (1) be willing to produce more for your wage or (2) be willing to work for less and produce the same. In the alternative, he can lower your standard of living by working harder to take up the available education opportunities, so that you have less marketability.
The apparent low wages of Chinese workers in China is just a trick of a non-market exchange rate. It has nothing to do with how much the workers would demand if they lived here.
If someone can produce more with less resources, that benefits everyone who wants access to what that someone produces. Even if workers demand less to start with, why would they continue to keep making less? The Chinese immigrants of a century ago proved how industrious and entrepreneurial they were, and would have continued making life easier for everyone around them had not government and unions ganged up on them through regulation. I fail to see how someone who has the guts and determination to work harder than I do doesn’t deserve to be paid before I do. I think you’re ultimately making the mistake of looking at economics as a zero-sum enterprise.
Actually, Marissa, I don’t think economics is a zero-sum game. And if you really would be happy to see someone else beat you out in the market, that’s great. Perhaps someday you’ll actually be able to put that theoretical position into practice.
Karl, many people have already beat me in the “marketplace” for jobs. That should be patently obvious to anyone who has attempted to get a job.
Then he deserves the job and I don’t. I’m not sure what your argument here is, other than, “The gov’t should use force to maintain an artificially high labor price so that I can benefit from it at the expense of others”. Sounds pretty monsterous to me.
I wasn’t making an argument; I was questioning the basis of your assertions. You advocated a policy that I think would not benefit you. You could either disagree with my assessment or be happy to lose out. And you’ve clarified that you’d be happy to lose in the market. Okay. Unless we get to the immensely unlikely point that you’d actually have to back your words with action, for now you can take that position for free.
Except I’m already losing out to the market, everyday. I don’t have an engineering degree, so I lose out to engineers for those lucrative jobs. I can’t program in more than a couple of basic computer languages, so I lose out to computer programmers who can.
I find things that I’m good at and that others aren’t, and I do those things for a wage. If someone else does the same thing as me, to the same level of quality, only for cheaper, then it’s on me to find something else to do. And that has happened; I was let go from a car dealership (don’t laugh; it was my first job out of college) because I couldn’t speak Spanish, and they brought in someone who could. I wasn’t bitter about it; they found a candidate who better fit their needs. It’s not their fault that I don’t speak Spanish, it’s mine.
Well, everyone being free to come and go includes the al Qaeda guys. I live in New York, and I don’t like the idea of open borders. We have enough terrorists slipping in as it is. I can tolerate a moderate chance of being blown up whenever I go to Time Square, but I don’t want it to be any higher.
I think you are conflating two different issues: (1) opposition to any form of immigration and (2) being in favor of stronger efforts to control the flow of immigrants. People supporting the first position would object even to legal immigrants, but those supporting the second, presumably, would only object to illegal immigrants.
There are obviously lots of arguments in favor of allowing some people to immigrate legally. (My wife is a recently naturalized US citizen, so I can even think of personal reasons why that seems like a good idea.) But I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the benefits from allowing some number of legal immigrants to come to the US would also apply to allowing anyone who can get her to come to the US.
A major objection to unlimited immigration is obvious from a casual glance at world demographics: Take just one country — China. It has about 300 million people living in major cities who enjoy a fairly reasonable standard of living by the standards for Asia. But even so, all of them live in a dictatorship where opportunities are not equal and corruption is rampant. Even if most of them were reasonably satisfied with their own standard of living, the vast majority would conclude that living in the US would give them more freedom and more opportunities. Evidence of this is the large number of Chinese graduate students, scientists, physicians, etc. in the US: however well a doctor or scientist can do in China, a very large number conclude that they can do better here. And that 300 million is only the people living in the cities; there are around 1 billion more living in the countryside who do not enjoy the much touted economic growth that is manifests only in the cities. How many Chinese people who want nothing more than to work hard to better their lives could we absorb simply as a matter of space and infrastructure?
That is just one country. India presents similar issues, as does most of Africa. While it’s obvious that people from these areas, both well-educated and uneducated, have come to the US, worked hard, and produced a lot, you simply can’t extrapolate that to an argument that an unlimited number of immigrants would benefit either us or themselves. At some point over use of resources hurts everyone.
(All of that, of course, ignores the other issue: there’s lots of folks around the world who want to come to the US not to work, but to kill Americans. Just for self-preservation, I can’t be in favor of open borders.)
Once you conclude that you have to have some control over the movement of people, you necessarily have to have some sort of enforcement powers. People don’t stay outside the US because we ask nicely. Different people are more tolerant of security inconveniences than others. I’m amused by the libertarian hysterics about TSA hooliganism. Yeah, I don’t like government dopes manhandling me either, but what’s your alternative? Perhaps we can put together a seance and see if we can get the ghosts of some of the folks from Pan Am Flight 103 to opine on whether they would have been more inconvenienced by having their plane explode in mid-air and fall to the ground, or by having a full body scan. I really dislike air travel now, but I’m sure I’d dislike being blown up even more.
The US government’s current lax attitude toward illegal immigration is extremely beneficial to businesses like Tyson’s and others who find it convenient to have a large pool of workers who have essentially no power to resist exploitation or poor working conditions. That is a perversion of the free market: normally a worker is free to withhold his labor from an employer who has substandard conditions. But if you seek out a pool of workers who, because you are committing a crime by employing them, cannot exercise normal market choices, you are able to impose substandard conditions on the employees that the market would never bear.
The question of whether we should tolerate the exploitation of some workers so that, for example, others of us can buy cheap chicken, is a moral question, not an economic one. Obviously a significant basis of colonialism was the moral assumption that some people could be exploited for the benefit of others. My understanding of how a free market properly functions is just the opposite of that: the market is a leveler and prevents the scoundrel from exploiting someone (that is, getting from him more than the market would justify) because the others are free to sell their labor or buy their products some place else. Those unwilling to pay market rates, should be subjected to substandard laborers.
Do you have any problems controlling the flow of Chinese immigrants inside your house ? Is your house infested with Chinese immigrants and you don’t know how to stop the inflow ?
NO
Why ?
Because your house is a private property and therefore you’re the one who decides who gets in and who gets out. We don’t need borders. Free market capitalism would decide by itself how many persons can come in and live a productive life. If too much people want to get to the USA, then private properties would become expensive and there would be less places willing to sell, less housing available and at a certain point, would be Chinese immigrants would conclude that it makes better economic sense to stay home than move to the USA.
Large land owners would be fully free to keep their land for themselves and not sell any parcels of it to immigrants. Other owners might welcome the opportunity to profit from the inflow. But the immigration movement would be controlled by the collective will of individual private property owners, private business owners etc.
This is the libertarian hypothesis.
For some people, the Libertarian Hypothesis seems to be mostly a matter of faith: in response to any argument or comment, one can simply shout the Party Approved Platitudes and the problem will go away. Or in any event, he’ll feel superior to others, which is a benefit in itself. The abstract platitudes of communism sounded great to plenty of people until they had the messy little problem of actually trying to implement them and make them work.
You might be right about how simple all of this is. The communists certainly were no less firm in their convictions. They got to have an experiment to prove their folly. The problem is that it cost millions of people their lives and imposed horrible suffering on millions more. Maybe someday the libertarian hypothesis will get its chance too. So far, however, I’m not sanguine about it’s chances of success. And repeated platitudes don’t do anything to convince me.
Your “reasoning” along the lines of this leads to this leads to this leads to this leads to utopia is about as convincing to me as the “reasoning” of the TV commercials that try to convince me that if I drink a particular brand of beer hot chicks will flock to me. Every time I’ve tried that experiment, it failed. But maybe I’ll be shown to be wrong . . .
This debate isn’t about utopia. It’s about freedom. Basically it comes down to is universal individual freedom more important, or is not having brown or yellow neighbors more important. The open borders crowd believes the former, the closed borders crowd believes the later.
This would explain why people like Ted Kennedy had so many brown and yellow neighbors, right?
And why the fair-skinned Iberian governing class is lined up at the Mexican border, begging their Aztec countrymen not to leave, correct?
The basis for immigration restrictions can be racist or xenophobic or whatever other evil lies within mans heart that causes him to act contrary to the divine imperatives “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
levin makes the case that the golden rule is not equal felt across ethnicities.
https://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_4.pdf
Do you really believe that? There are only people who favor “universal individual freedom” and people who don’t like brown and yellow people? That’s all there is in this debate?
Are the advocates of the Austrian School of Economics reduced to the tactics of Keith Olbermann?
There’s obviously some people out there who are convinced by this sort of thing, hence Mr. Olbermann’s success, but it just seems a little too trite for the ASE.
You can be against immigration for any number of reasons. But of those reasons, a strong belief in individual liberty can not be one of them. Immigration restrictions are contrary to individual liberty by definition.
But Karl is right, we live in a physical universe and force and aggression is everywhere, in everything and we will not remove aggression from the equation so it might not be as simple as the libertarian “platitude” and I myself go so far as to consider life and existence itself to be a constant brutal aggression from the part of God, the universe and nature, but that’s another story.
The reality is that we are not free, we’ve never been free and even though we can fight to augment our freedoms, will we ever be as free as the libertarian principles command ?
Just because a billion people might have some feeling that they want to move here doesn’t mean they can afford it. They’d need someplace to live and they’d have to compete for living space just like everyone else. I might want to live in New York city, but without a good job waiting for me there it wouldn’t make sense for me to do so as my savings would soon be depleted due to the cost of living difference. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we should enact migration restrictions among states. Having the freedom to take advantage of opportunities is what makes this country great.
Okay. I think we’re sort of talking past each other.
The libertarian viewpoint on immigration is irrational nonsense. Perhaps open borders and the free flow of labor is good in a fuzzy minded theoretical sense but when you combine the welfare state with a huge third world population with low IQ and no education then you get, more or less, another third world hell hole.
Furthermore,the “cant deport em all” straw man has gotten tiresome. Enforcement of existing laws would cause many illegals to return without drastic measures being required.
The open border idea ranks right up there with privatizing of roads, police and public water systems.
Those types of looney notions will get you real far libertarians as evidenced in your extensive electoral success to date.
Also, McMaken is his usual hysterical self on this one. Without the State’s public roads, coastline and due process rights, immigrants are shot as trespassers, die in the high desert or drown at sea.
Without due process rights citizens can be shot or imprisoned arbitrarily as well!
That is correct. Without the State, there would be no “due process” and no “immigrants.” There would only be owners, licensees and trespassers, with whatever attendant rights the property owner sees fit to grant.
What exactly is the point you’re trying to convey?
The point that “immigration” with its due process and civil rights is entirely a State creation, having very little to do with the free market or with individual liberty.
In a stateless world you could go wherever you wanted to. You might not survive, but there would be no officer of the law trying to stop you.
“I don’t like government dopes manhandling me either, but what’s your alternative?” — Private airports set policies. Or not. Constrained by the policies of private airports, private airlines set their own.
If I were running an airline, I’d ask my flight crews to determine who’s allowed on board and who isn’t, since the crews are as much potential victims as the passengers. And I’d pay the crews in proportion to how many seats are filled.
This would require repeal of Title VII which, again, is kind of hard to do when you import so many groups who benefit from Title VII’s perpetuation and expansion.
Really, just privatize everything and all will be utopia? I didn’t realize it was that simple. I thought maybe stopping sophisticated terrorists bent on killing Americans was a complicated issue. I’m glad you’ve cleared that up for me.
1) No, it won’t be uptopia. There is no such thing as utopia, and it will never be achieved. It will, however, probably be a lot better than what we have now.
2) You have a much greater chance of dying in a car wreck than from terrorism. You fall into the simple trap of wildly inflating remote fears, while ignorning common ones. This is because they are common, and so you get used to them. Your paranoia about an extremely small chance occurance does not give you the right to demand a police state that controls the rest of us. You cannot be protected by the gov’t from all things at all times. Get over it. There are over 1 billion Muslims on earth, and several millions in the US already. If they were really that sophisticated and dedicated to killing us all, a lot worse stuff would have happened by now, despite the heroic (sarcasm) efforts of the TSA.
There really is a difference, by the way, between a civil discourse and repeating platitudes that have been provided to you by the Party.
1. So you don’t think that the world of privatized security would be a utopia, but your guess is it would be better than the present. So why does your guess give you the right to control the rest of us? Or if you don’t think it gives you that right, then by all means try to get your views accepted in the market place of ideas. The next national election is November 2012. Best wishes.
2. I don’t own a car and don’t drive a car. You seem to be just repeating a sort of “I’m smarter than you” type of argument that you may like to employ, whether it applies or not. (It does not.) And your attempt to psycho analyze me is rather flawed. I’m not a big fan of the ad hominem attack. If what I said is wrong, then show me why. Even paranoid fools sometimes say correct things.
3. Actually, my paranoia does give me the right to demand a police state that controls the rest of you! Nah nah nah. There. Nah. Have you ever stopped to examine just how superficial and insignificant this sort of cant really is? Labels don’t do much. “Police state” is not a magic fetish, and waving it around doesn’t do anything.
4. Actually, I can be protected by the government from all things at all times. And I won’t get over it. I won’t , I won’t, I won’t. Nah nah nah. Do you actually think that this sort of nonsense is a response to anything I said? It’s always easier to throw out a Party Approved Slogan than to actually address the merits. But being easy doesn’t make it better.
Karl, I suggest you fly Paranoid Airlines from hereon, or better yet, found Paranoid Airlines. Will I get a discount for suggesting it?
There’s really to merit to your argument, Karl. You suggest that infringing on people’s liberties can be excused if it promotes everyone’s safety. If arguing from the U.S., you’ve got the Constitution to contend with, which empowers to government to protect people’s freedom, not their safety. No unreasonable searches and seizures without probably cause, for instance. If you think allowing people to vote on my freedoms is some kind of “marketplace” then you must be unfamiliar with the concept of theft.
Privatized security would most likely be better than government security. Private companies have the most skin in the game when it comes to the security of their goods and their customers. No private company gets to look like a hero when they fail their customers, though the government does (see the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001).
Even if you don’t own a car, you still are more likely to die from a car accident as a pedestrian or cyclist than to be killed by a terrorist. Your fear of terrorism does not merit a police state. And yes, a police state is where government agents can spy on non-violent people for supposed criminal activities, also known as political activism. Research fusion centers, they’re very real and very unnerving. If you want a police state and you want to violate people’s rights, you should expect some violent and deserved retribution.
You might want to check out the actual Constitution before trying to ridicule my positions. (Or trying to ridicule your misrepresentations of my positions.) Since you’re not paying me to teach you Con Law or History of the Constitution, I’ll leave it to you to try to puzzle out what the document actually says.
Says the man who prefers to not offer counter-arguments. Her reading is widely accepted in some legal circles, but not in others. If everyone read and interpreted the document the exact same way, there’d be almost no need for federal courts. Hell, just look at how the Commerce Clause has been read in various cases over the years. Perhaps you should offer up your own version of the limitations of the 4th and 5th amendments. For a bonus, why don’t you give us your ideas on the dead but not forgotten 9th.
“Says the man who prefers to not offer counter-arguments. Her reading is widely accepted in some legal circles, but not in others. If everyone read and interpreted the document the exact same way, there’d be almost no need for federal courts. Hell, just look at how the Commerce Clause has been read in various cases over the years. Perhaps you should offer up your own version of the limitations of the 4th and 5th amendments. For a bonus, why don’t you give us your ideas on the dead but not forgotten 9th.”
Okay, let’s play this game of dumb and dumber: I’ll bite. “What legal circles would those be, pray tell?”
The Preamble notes that the constitution was established for, among other things, the common defense. Does that sound like the government providing for the safety of the people? How about Article I giving congress the power to raise armies and navies and also to regulate the militia? Does that sound like it is addressing my safety? How about Art II, making the president the commander in chief? Nothing to do with safety?
So the army, navy, and militia can only keep me free, not safe? How exactly are they to do that?
The Framer’s of the Constitution had a profound, perhaps unique, perspective on the problem of liberty and security: They had experienced both an actually tyrannical government and also suffered under the problems caused by a too weak, too ineffective central government. In response to those two concerns they created a system of limited government with checks and balances, but not a powerless government. We, their descendants, have not remained vigilant in guarding our liberty, and we are suffering the consequences of it. The remedy is to become vigilant in the defense of liberty, not to reject the whole notion of government.
You may think that having no government would make you more free. As I understand it, the Framers would have utterly rejected that idea. Are you surprised that I have more faith in their understanding than in yours?
The 9th Amendment is a tautology: powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states or the People. That was obvious from the structure of the original document, but someone thought spelling it out would help. The actual limits on federal power are not found there, they are found in the enumeration of the federal government’s delegated powers. Is that clear?
Among other things, the Fourth Amendment requires the federal government to obtain a warrant, presumably from a court, but that is not specified, based on probable cause — a legal term the Framers assumed would be understood — before seizing me or searching my papers and so forth. Is that clear?
As regards the Fifth Amendment, I’m guessing you’re questioning my understanding of the limit on eminent domain: Private property can be taken for public use, with the limit of paying just compensation. I don’t agree with the Supreme Court’s decision interpreting “public use” to include taking private property and giving it to another private person. Anything else in there you want me to clear up for you?
Ah, of course my description of the 9th Amendment was actually a description of the 10th. My bad. That’s what I get for blogging while tired, annoyed, and talking to my wife.
The 9th Amendment, of course, states that the enumeration of some rights does not disparage other (unenumerated) rights, held by the people.
I fear people who wave their unenumerated rights much more than you fear the TSA. And the unenumerated rights are a surer and faster road to slavery. Whatever the existence of these unenumerated rights may have meant to the Framers, what they have come to be in the our time is a means for people who have lost in the political process to use unelected judges to impose their will on the rest of us. That is how we got a “constitutional” right to abortion, sodomy, and other things. Obviously the libertarian and the leftist catalog of unenumerated rights would have some overlap and some differences, but they all have the same result: we cease to rule ourselves and become ruled by that eminent tribunal (the Supreme Court). [That is a paraphrase of Lincoln's comments after the Dred Scott decision.]
If I had a choice, I would not be a slave, but unfortunately for those of us who love freedom, the few foolish and short-sighted people who worship the “individual” more than they love freedom have reduced me to that unenviable status. But one man’s slavery is another man’s freedom, as Orwell taught us.
Not everyone who loves freedom thinks the way you do. You seem to view the individual as wholly cut off from society and so define freedom as simply an autonomous exercise of WILL — the sort of thought that leads someone to say that voting to limit her freedom is theft. For you, the government apparently is “OTHER” and something for which you have no responsibility and with which you are essentially at war. On the other hand, I see the individual as fundamentally a part of society and so would define freedom much more in terms of what process is used to set limits on the actions of individuals. For me, the People are responsible for the government and to the extent that the government is bad, it’s the People’s fault.
For me, a nice example of the problem with extreme individualism is the following odd quote from Marissa:
“And yes, a police state is where government agents can spy on non-violent people for supposed criminal activities, also known as political activism. Research fusion centers, they’re very real and very unnerving. If you want a police state and you want to violate people’s rights, you should expect some violent and deserved retribution.”
First, I don’t think any reasonable person could classify me as wanting a police state; in fact, just the opposite. But the “tyranny of labels” is often the biggest obstacle to discussion. So let’s ignore it.
“they are . . . very unnerving.” That means that she is made nervous by them (whatever they happen to be and for my purposes, I don’t care). And her being made nervous apparently entitles her to a veto over this activity. It’s a strange idea of liberty that someone’s emotional response dictates what others may do. And how exactly do we know which gut is entitled to a veto? If it does not make me nervous, it is in?
The best, of course, is this jewel: “If you want a police state and you want to violate people’s rights, you should expect some violent and deserved retribution.” We can translate this to be: If you desire a system of government with which I disagree, and you desire to impose limits on my autonomy with which I disagree, I and like-minded people will use force against you and we will feel justified in doing so.
“If you don’t do what I want, I will kill you.” Was there ever a clearer statement of the communist ideal? I have always been extremely unimpressed with communists, and I’m not any more impressed with libertarian communists.
For the record, fringe groups who resort to violence only worry me the way normal criminals worry me. They will inflict some harm and misery and ultimately pass away. Whether you worship the State, the Workers, the Fuerher, or the Individual, and think your religious awe justifies your trying to compel others with force, I can only say, that’s unfortunate, but I’m not afraid of you. I am afraid, of course, of the liberties that we will voluntarily give up in response to the fringe’s resort to violence. In that respect, comments like Marissa’s make me deeply sad. It’s ironic of course, that the hyper-fear of a police state would result in violence bringing that reality closer.
Karl, if you violate my private property rights, yes I will use deadly force to protect myself. Texas calls this “castle law”. I’m not threatening you until you decide to violate my rights (threaten me). The fact that you call this self-defense and protecting of property rights “communism” shows how truly ignorant you are of rights. You then, of course, go on to ridicule those who worship the state–which is exactly what you’re doing. You want the State to define freedom (was there ever a bigger mistake?) when its greatest incentive is to limit and violate it. And yes, when people vote against freedom, they are stealing it from everyone. Do you think if ten people vote to take your fortune that it is not theft?
Here’s why I call fusion centers unnerving: it allows government officials (already working on my dime–theft) to collect information about you like what church you attend and what political activism you engage in. This Stasi-esque information-gathering against private, innocent people doesn’t make me comfortable in the least nor do I see any power granted to the government to do so.
And if you think the government has the power to raise armies to protect our safety instead of our freedom, then I think you’ve got it all backwards.
Karl,
I have been following your comments closely, and find, gratefully, I have little to add. I find myself just nodding my head and admiring your ability to articulate my sentiments exactly.
As you no doubt know, those who are most radicalized by an ideology are likely also to be the most vocal, so representation by those like you with what I consider a balanced point of view is most often numerically underrepresented here at Mises.
I have commented numerous times here on the issues you raise regarding hyper-individualism and what I consider a more balanced view of social liberty, one that acknowledges our cooperative nature as social beings. I have occasionally debated the issue here in the context of natural rights, and have reached the following opinion of where, for those who espouse this viewpoint, it derives its fundamental origins.
Murray Rothbard is the philosophical hero for the self-described Anarco-capitalists here who believe as Marissa does. He derives his theory of natural rights by using the Caruso device, man alone on a desert island, as the launching point for justifying his theories of natural rights. The theory of homesteading, for example, is supported by this theoretical model.
The errors that this model introduces has been discussed brilliantly by Kathleen Touchstone, who argues that the primary social unit is not man alone, but mother and child, and when viewed from this perspective natural rights are necessarily derived from a theory of cooperation, and participation in society (defined as two or more humans in a cooperative relationship) and therefore is not voluntary, but a universal natural state for humans. Every human begins as a child, without exception, and does not long survive without the cooperation of mother, who in turn must cooperate with others.
When you apply this insight to the way ancaps respond to the topic of social liberty and the Constitution, the fundamental view appears to be that each of us is a “man alone”, and anything that interferes with that ideal state of liberty must be opposed. I hold the view, as apparently do you, that we are not naturally “man alone” but part of a society in which individual liberties are circumscribed by the liberties of other humans with whom we wish to cooperate, and who wish to cooperate with us. That attitude in my view is the basis for true liberty, not some theoretical ideal that has never existed and can never exist without a radical transformation to the nature of mankind. To use your analogy, we would have to become more like Orangutans to pull it off.
In this context, the disdain for the Constitutional design that is often expressed here seems completely misplaced to me. It is a wholly negative view of what can otherwise be more powerfully and productively understood in a positive light, where contemporary failures are seen in contrast to the expressed ideal, not, rather, that the ideal is nonexistent, unattainable and/or unsustainable.
It reminds me of those who do not appreciate the bioengineering brilliance of the human body, or the awesome beauty of the visible universe. As you have articulated to considerable effect, the ideal of liberty is there for the taking, and it is only our lack of understanding and appreciation that is preventing us from returning to the ideals embodied in its design and structure.
Without intending hyperbole (too late?), it is one of the great accomplishments of human kind. Like any great work, it cannot be appreciated without applying some considerable effort to understanding what it really is, what it has been responsible for, and the promises it still holds in anticipation of our rediscovery of our social responsibilities for continual vigilance.
Marissa — You don’t seem to understand what I have been talking about or don’t seem interested in trying to understand. That’s fine.
As far as what you’re saying, you seem to be just repeating the same few conclusions over and over. The way you formulate things does not suggest to me that your beliefs are based on any sort of sophisticated or more-than-superficial understanding of the issues. Your failure to ever address the points I actually make or to offer anything resembling an actual argument, makes your contribution basically worthless to me, although it may make you feel better to repeat your statements. That, of course, does not mean that I hold you, as a fellow human being, to be worthless. I would assign infinite worth to you. For the reasons I noted before, however, I do think you are essentially harming the cause of freedom.
Out of human charity, I will suggest to you that “armchair commandos” make a lot of blustering threats about righteous violence and how much ass they will kick. Maybe you are an extremely dangerous person, I have no idea. There are times, however, when one’s alligator mouth writes checks that one’s parakeet ass cannot cash. For that reason, as a general policy, I try to keep my blustering threats to a minimum. If nothing else, it tends to make me look at least a little less foolish.
Wildberry — Cheers! Thanks for the heads up on the Rothbard-Touchstone differences. I will delve into that and with luck learn something helpful.
I’m frankly pretty disappointed at the substantive (or non-substantive) discussion here. The amount of sometimes basically mindless anger certainly makes me more convinced that there’s at least some level of fundamental anti-social feeling underlying some of the positions. You’re right to note, however, that you can’t take the sampling of the Internet posters as necessarily representing the norm.
Karl,
I found her analysis helpful and informative. She gives generous references. Her book is Then Athena Said.
She has a shorter paper here on Mises.org: http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=1507
Despite the fire you draw from the Ancaps, there are many others who read and post here that came for the economics and are entertained by the folly. The problem is that quality posters like yourself soon tire of the banality.
In any case, I am enjoying your posts while they last.
Good on you.
Ah yes, I’m a “dangerous person” because I will defend my property from those who want to expropriate it. That’s not bluster, as I’ve done it before and will do it again without hesitation. If you think that’s a bad thing, or that it implies muddled or superficial thinking, that says more about your character than anything else you’ve attempted to express. All I’ve seen you do is obfuscate your position, call other people “‘Merrrka-haters” and devolved into insulting people and using swear words. Good for you and your “substantive” discussion.
“I thought maybe stopping sophisticated terrorists bent on killing Americans was a complicated issue.” — If it is as complex as you suggest, why would you rely on governments to solve it?
The Party would be proud of this post.
Are you volunteering to supply the booze?
What “Party” do you keep referring to? I don’t belong to any political party.
Additionally, you asked for “proof” further upthread. There are already some excellent articles on this website about the relative chances of dying from terrorism v. some mundane daily activity (just use the “search” function), but if you really want, I’ll do the work and post links.
I’m sure that research was completely unbiased and is totally reliable. But it’s also pretty irrelevant. I did not actually ask for proof.
You are more concerned with the loss of freedom represented by government efforts to prevent terror attacks. I’m more concerned with the possibility of attacks if the government does nothing to try to prevent them. How do we choose between those two positions? You just win because you . . . well, you just win because? Why don’t I just win?
You don’t understand my mean-spirited sarcastic reference to the Party? You’re probably not much worse off.
Jim, don’t bother trying to use proof (basic mathematics) that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist. Karl is more concerned with violating people’s liberty to keep his own safety.
Karl, you position is amusing because:
1. the US government is a force for terrorism
2. the US government is the catalyst for more terrorism
Marissa — I admire the hardihood you show in continuing to make unresponsive and muddled comments. If inventing positions for me which I do not hold and then ridiculing me for them gives you a thrill, by all means don’t let the mere fact that it makes you look foolish stop you from continuing. I’m glad I can be of service.
Daniel — You amusing me to.
Karl, you look foolish because you’re attempting to make the argument that government must violate liberty and private property in order to save it–a very George W. Bush-esque remark. If you are wetting your pants over terrorists, you should be positively hysterical over the chance of dying from actually riding an airplane (from which you are more likely to die than a terrorist attack). Keep obfuscating and pretending like you’re the only person who knows what they’re talking about, because you apparently can’t even grasp the insignificant threat of terrorism compared with other forms of death and violation of private property. I’ll have to dig around my Radley Balko statistics, but you’re probably more likely to die or be injured from a wrong-house raid than die in a terrorist attack.
The fundamental point – which is totally ignored by the anti-immigrant crowd – is that there is NO way to “control immigration” without controlling the rest of us. If it OK to ask a “suspected immigrant” for his papers at any time, then all of us must also carry papers at all times. You think your low melanin content protects you from harassment? Don’t you know that there are illegal Canadians in the U.S. of A?
If ever the “total control” crowd wins, immigration won’t be the problem – emigration will be the dominant trend. Who would want to live in a police state where one’s privacy is constantly invaded? If that is your dream of an “ideal society”, build your gated community and staff it with snooty police officers who are trained to throw you to the ground and tase you if you should ever hesitate to present your papers. Or hire somebody at a Nevada brothel to put on a uniform and abuse you. Leave the rest of us alone.
Employers screen their employees with background checks, even psychological testing, and give them a company ID and key card in order to gain access.
If strangers walk on to your property, you’ll ask them who they are and what their business is. If their explanation doesn’t suffice, you’ll tell them to leave. If they don’t leave, you presumably have a firearm around to convince them they need to move on.
Like I said, it is the State’s public access and civil rights which enable immigration. Otherwise, all movement off your own property requires permission and/or some show of credentials. You or someone on your behalf will also have to purchase sojourners’ rights from intervening property owners. This can be very simple: stonemasons in medieval times developed a secret handshake and other totems known only to their guild so they could vouch for themselves during their travels.
“Employers screen their employees with background checks, even psychological testing, and give them a company ID and key card in order to gain access.”
That’s why I no longer wish to be part of the employment force. All those proceedings are an assault against my dignity, my freedoms and self-respect. Given how bosses can be complete jerks and outright violent in their relationship with employees, maybe they should go through all those proceedings as well.
A job contract is a business contract. Therefore both parties of the contract should be treated as business equals. When the system and the environment arranges employment so that one is above and the other is below and the one below is me, I then refuse to submit myself to this environment of those procedures. It really feels like a parole committee or a master-slave relationship, I will no longer accept such treatments.
Then why don’t you start your own business?
Sadly, the present administration seems committed to prosecuting the War on Immigrants in much the same way as it prosecutes the War on Drugs. Cities all over California are mulling their participation the Obama DHS’s “Secure Communities” program, which implies/recommends/mandates local law enforcement’s cooperation with DHS’s anti-immigration efforts. If local cops come across anyone with uncertain immigration status, they have to fingerprint them and, if necessary, detain them until they can be turned over to ICE agents. As you might guess, an awful lot of entirely peaceful (and entirely legal) immigrants have been harassed through the program.
This might be the one War On A Concept that just might work.
Keep making the US such an undesirable place to live, and there will be no more immigrants.
The Arab Emirates are pretty buttoned-down places, and if you don’t have skills or the proper paperwork, they won’t let your feet touch the ground. Commit a crime, and your welcome is over.
People apply from all over the world to work in the UAE.
Here is a political spin on the issue.
Why are immigration laws not enforced – because both Republicans and Democrats have a vested interest in it.
Democrats benefit from the fact that the Hispanic Community votes democrat as do illegal immigrants. This, in the past has give the Democrats a stranglehold in states with large Hispanic population.
However, in the last election, the Democrats won marginal seats by using organized labor to bring out the vote. The Democrats no longer need to illegal votes. Moreover, rank on file Trade Unionists do not like illegal immigrants, who the perceive as taking away union jobs and driving down wages.
What are the key polarizing issues for the next presidential election? High gas prices, high food prices,jobs and illegal immigration.
A republican candidate who is prepared to run on these issues would take the swing vote and beat Obama.
Can the border be protect. Yes – just do what what East Germany did. A barbed wire fence and a soldier every 100 meters with orders of shoot to kill. The cost of this would be several billion dollars.
Yes, because East Germany should be the political example we strive to imitate.
“Yes, because East Germany should be the political example we strive to imitate.”
Hardly – do you want to work for the Stazi?
However, as the country becomes more socialist/fascist, the gap between what is promised and what is actually delivered grows. As people’s standard of living drops and expectations of something better in the future dwindle, people will become more and more angry. Illegal immigrants (have already) become convenient scapegoats.
However, the real problem is the uncontrolled growth of government, and the corresponding shrinkage of the private sector. Illegal immigration is just a side-show.
Without immigration we wouldn’t get beautiful women like Charisma Carpenter and Maggie Q.
So there.
Being a long-time defender of “open borders,” I have a question I’ve been fairly dying to ask those on the opposite side of the divide: Do the reasons that grant government the power to identify and repel foreign “undesirables,” also grant it the power to identify and expel domestic ones? Simply put: If you are anti-immigration, are you also pro-expatriation?
Citizens are entitled to greater deference than immigrants but yes, expatriation would be appropriate in some instances.
The members of AIPAC, for example, should be expatriated to Israel, as should the Armenian and other foreign lobbies.
Here’s a question I’m dying to hear your answer to: Does your inability to distinguish between fundamentally different types of government action support your position, or simply make you look out in left field?
A similar question: Does your inability to distinguish someone who is opposed to “open borders” and someone who is “anti-immigrant” support your position, or simply make you look out in left field?
I think the world is much less simple than you seem to think. There are complexities and degrees that you don’t seem to acknowledge.
Here’s a question I’m dying to hear your answer to: Does your inability to distinguish between fundamentally different types of government action support your position, or simply make you look out in left field?
The former: I don’t see putting a gun to Peter’s head and telling him to stay out and putting a gun to Paul’s head and telling him to get out — especially when both are being done for the same purpose — as constituting “fundamentally different types of government action.”
A similar question: Does your inability to distinguish someone who is opposed to “open borders” and someone who is “anti-immigrant” support your position, or simply make you look out in left field?
A similar answer.
“Why are immigration laws not enforced”
They are enforced. Maybe not as much as you want them to be, but tell anyone awaiting deportation that the laws aren’t enforced.
The problem is the laws themselves. Immigration restrictions, and more specifically labor and residency restrictions against foreigners, are an affront to individual freedom. We as a nation are using force against some humans to limit competition with other humans, when what we should be doing is treating all people as individuals with self-evident rights.
Property itself is an affront to individual freedom. In libertarian society, all movement off your own property would require the permission of any adjoining and intervening property owners.
Private property just means no one can take from you without your permission and you can use that property as you see fit. In this sense it is a natural consequence of individual freedom. We do have right-of-way laws to compensate for your movement example. It may not be “perfectly” private property but the combination of private property with easement rights promotes individual liberty better than if either of those two rights were absent.
“We do have right-of-way laws to compensate for your movement example.”
“We” have no such thing. Laws are creatures of the State. In the absence of the State, if you want a right-of-way you will have to pay the owner for one.
What is your point?
That there is no such thing as freedom of movement. That is a made-up right granted by the State.
Um, if there’s no state, then what exactly is the “owner”? Property rights exist only in the context of a state that would enforce your rights. If there’s no state, and I just kill you and take your land for myself, how could you possible claim this was “wrong”? I would have as much right to take and maintain a piece of land as you did.
Rights, such as the right of self-ownership or the right to be let alone, pre-exist the State. You may be too weak or too poor to protect them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist in the absence of the State.
as long as the concept of money persists, civilization will continue in the absence of government. i find it amusing that people think the world would devolve into chaos without our political overlords. there would be private police and private courts. in the case of you murdering me, my life insurance provider would sue you in order to seek financial compensation for paying out my policy.
Karl, you are a coward who refuses to engage in the conversation at hand and then whines at those who do.
Okay. Thanks. I was curious what I was. I appreciate you letting me know.
Contradiction!
You are a child.
And I find it amusing that someone would think that his insurer’s ability to sue someone who murders him is a comfort.
What is a private police and a private court? For whom do they work? And by what right do they compel the unwilling to comply with their demands? The magic word “private” makes these people less likely to exercise force to take away my freedoms? Exactly how would that be arranged?
Suppose I kill you and your insurer sues me in some place called a “private court.” I say, screw that, you’re not my boss and I did not agree to be sued. I’m not paying. What happens? Someone forces me to pay? Wow, that sounds so much less like coercion than if a government court forced me to pay.
Suppose I want to steal your car, and the private police say, stop, thief. Why should I? What right does some private organization have to force me to do what it wants? I did not agree to do what they order, so why should I?
Spend a few minutes trying to sort out what a private court or a private police would actually be and how they might function. You might find that it’s not as simple as just mouthing Party Approved Slogan.
@Karl- I too find that amusing.
Nelson, cheers. Comments like that make me think the person is not a serious thinker.
What is a private police and a private court? For whom do they work? And by what right do they compel the unwilling to comply with their demands? The magic word “private” makes these people less likely to exercise force to take away my freedoms?
The fact that you would have a choice of solutions is what would make them better.
A single political system that is ‘private’ is not going to be any improvement over a single ‘public’ political system. There is nothing there that will force a private court system to be better ran and be more just then a public one.
We would just end up with the same monstrous loss of freedoms, massive increases in taxes, systemic corruption, and abuse of the system that we are currently seeing with our monopolized public systems now.
Exactly how would that be arranged?
Hopefully better then the current system which is:
“Do what you are told or we will send gangs of armed men to your house that will either imprison you in a corrupt penal system or kill you if you resist”
Our current system is involuntary one with a monopoly over the right to use force. As such it is massively corrupt and will use force to enrich it’s members and their ‘fellow travellers’ at the expense of everybody else. Taxes are taken, under penalty of imprisonment, and is used to enrich the businesses that do business with the government and to grant real power to the people in charge.
The vast majority of laws have nothing to do with preventing crime or protecting the people. Instead it’s all about pushing political social agendas that are thinly veiled schemes designed to benefit the individuals involved.
What amazes me is that people like you simply assume that it’s better to give monopoly control of violence to a group of individuals (aka state government). That this monopoly control of violence is going to result in anything other then fraud and abuse of that power.
Because they will kick your ass and retrieve my car.
If you initialize the aggression against another person’s private property then that gives the other person the right to defend their property.
It’s quite easy to point out how a private police force has easy potential for abuse… but I’d like to point out that the public one is no better and no more legitimate.
The major difference here is:
That my private security is being paid by me and my neighbours to protect our property from aggression. If they do not do a good job in protecting us then we would simply hire a different security company to protect our property. Hence they would probably spend more time patrolling our neighbourhoods and investigating potential issues then…
The current system were the security forces spend the majority of their time threatening and terrorizing me and my neighbours in as we drive our cars around for our daily business. Seeking to dish out fines in order to enrich the government’s coffers. They are more concerned about enforcing immoral anti-drug laws rather then protecting property and keeping individuals safe .
That is not to say that the police are evil. They are simply part of a corrupt and evil system and probably are mostly honest and upright people who really do seek to ‘protect and serve’. Private security employment would provide them a way to actually accomplish this lofty goal.
Hrm. .Sorry I screwed up on the quotes.
I guess one could just say that you have a hope that living in the middle ages would be better than living in modernity. Okay. But why are you surprised that I (an presumably most people) don’t agree?
The legitimacy of your private “police” is simply their thuggish force coupled with your assertion of a right to private property. Why can’t I assert a right to private property of “your” car, and have my private thugs kill you and your private thugs? Private property in the abstract is great, but what you propose is just having armed groups take and hold certain resources. Doesn’t your reliance on the free market disappear in a pre-modern world like that? There’s no market, just force. So what, exactly, is the “libertarian” justification for eliminating the market and reverting to the middle ages? (Obviously the emotional justification is just your peculiar hates and hopes.)
Because I have a choice of solutions, they are better than having a government police force and court. Forgive me for being skeptical but that just sounds to me like an assertion of religious belief: Choice is always better than government monopoly (article of faith), therefore a “private court,” which I cannot describe or articulate must necessarily be better than a government court.
I have somewhat different articles of faith. One of them is that any position that cannot be defended is not worth having. If you can’t even articulate what your proposed solution would look like or how it would function, I don’t think you’ve defended it. At least not to my satisfaction.
Your belief that your private thugs killing me is as legitimate as the government agents killing me simply flows from an apparent rejection of government as such. Since I accept the Framers’ premise that the People acting through their representatives can legitimately exercise force where private people can not, we just disagree on the basic notion of what connection, if any, a person has to others living with him. I gotta go with Madison on this one.
One could say that, but they would be wrong. I am hoping to eventually live in a age of civility and freedom rather then the age we live now were social agendas are pursued by corrupt individuals in order gain personal power and wealth.
Nope. I am not surprised at all. Most people lack the ability to see the world for what it could be and simply assume that the current state of affairs is the only way it could ever possibly be.
A significant number of people learn to live in the system and profit from it and thus end up having a extremely biased view. The system works for them and they are blind to the suffering and corruption that it causes. So therefore they are going to be blind to any arguments by those people who seek improvement and liberty.
That’s clearly how it works now.
The world is governed through the aggressive use of force and as Americans we have become very used to sending our armed men to ‘thug’ the rest of the world into complying with our agendas. Right AND wrong.
People also regularly have their property taken by force by the state for the profit of the state and the individuals involved in it. Taxes is one example (and the most obvious), but there are significant number of others were local laws are abused to benefit one party at the expense of another and property is regularly seized and sold off with no crime ever being charged to the person whose property is being seized.
The belief that somehow we can ever make state government behave civilly and for the general welfare when individuals (who make up the state apparatus) will always work for their own self interest is the religion being discussed here.
This is a religious viewpoint, that a piece of paper with writings that date from 200 years ago, is a effective defense by a individual against the corruption of the largest, most expensive, and the most powerful single group of people that the world has ever known?
Why is it reasonable to assume that giving a group of individuals the sole ability to use violence, giving them the ability to decide what that violence is used for, and letting them decide what their liability should be if they use that power in a unjust manner is going to result in anything good in the long run?
Your working off of ‘the appeal to authority’ logical follicy here and your belief in a constitution system is just that: A belief.. a ‘faith’ that somehow it’s all going to work out ‘ok’ just because.
just because… just because why? Because George Washington says so? Because the constitution says so? Since the earliest emergence of democracies intelligent people have been more then aware of the severe limitations and problems with this system. And knowing this the framers put severe institutional inefficiencies into the design of this government in a attempt to cripple it and limit it. But it’s obvious that the this was not good enough. That despite the limits placed on it the federal government has worked around it and is growing in size, scope, and corruption at a ever increasing rate.
Why do we have the largest percentage of population rotting in jail then any ‘civilized’ nation?
Why are we now involved in no less then 3 foreign wars?
Why are we forced to pay 40-70% of our wages in taxes (corporate taxes, local taxes, social security, medicare, sales tax, road taxes, county/city/state/federal income taxes, etc etc) ?
Why does the Federal government require 3,000,000 employees?
Does that sound like a limited government to you?
Does that sound like what the framers intended?
You know how North Korea is able to bamboozle it’s many of its citizens into assuming that it’s the best government around when it’s obviously not… don’t you get the feeling that this is happening to us, right now, in the USA?
Very obviously the system that was put in place by the constitution was a failure. The fact that it lasted about a hundred odd years before starting the death spiral of liberty means that the constitutional republic was not that bad and they were geniuses, but it’s not good enough.
What we need is MORE limits. Far less government then even the constitution envisioned.
I think that anarchy is the ideal. That is a just and civilized nation does not need a state apparatus and does not need laws of this nature because individuals are capable of self governing. However this is obviously extremely idealistic and probably unrealistic. There may be a place for formal state government, but if it does have a place… then it is going to be _extremely_ limited if we want to have freedom.
The point for much of this website is a attempt to show people how liberty and freedom can actually work in a economy.
You have a high level of confidence that anarchy would be a freer system than one of limited government. I think limited government would be freer than anarchy. It’s pretty unlikely that either of us will see our preferred system any time soon than if ever. (Of course, if you want anarchy, there is Somalia.)
I also have a belief that reasonable people can disagree, but debate fundamental issues in a civil and productive way. If ranting at me makes you feel better, so be it. It certainly doesn’t show you’ve been paying attention to what I’ve said or that you’ve tried to address it. Asserting arguments I would never make — like that the current government reflects the views of the Framers — and then “defeating” them accomplishes what? It doesn’t prove anything.
In fact, your reliance on North Korea makes some of my points better than I ever could: Do I think that what is happening in America today is similar to what is happening in North Korea? No. Because I’m not so consumed by hatred for America that I blind myself to reason. When you make arguments like this, you reveal yourself to be donning the cap of the leftists who so hate America they can’t say enough bad things about it and always negatively compare it to some dictatorship. I don’t see much difference between your argument and similar ones made by Michael Moore.
Much of what you said in that rant doesn’t even make sense. Saying that I only want to hold positions that can be defended is the fallacy of relying on authority? What? I get the impression that you heard someone use that term at some point but don’t really understand it and so use it in inappropriate places. The fallacy of authority would be something like “If Mises wrote it, it has to be correct, and is not subject to question.” Or is if wrote something like “Because Madison said it, it has to be correct, and is not subject to question.” What I actually said would be pretty close to the opposite of that fallacy.
“The point for much of this website is a attempt to show people how liberty and freedom can actually work in a economy.” Great. I’d love to discuss issues like that at some point. But angry rants are a personal catharsis: GOD I’m so much smarter than all these stupid people! Catharsis is just about you, it’s like masturbation. I just don’t enjoy other people masturbating very much.
I
f you think I am ranting then you have a extremely low tolerance for discussion.
We are discussing things in the comments section of a article. If I had to pick apart everything you said then my comments would be pages long. I have to make jumps and hope you follow the logic.
You brought up constitution here many times and seem to favour it. Also you mention framers many times and your a big fan of limited government. I thought I was seeing a pattern to your thoughts on the subject.
It’s a rather common thought among many ‘conservative’ people that somehow we lost our path and that we just need to get back to what the framers intended. The problem with that thought is that many framers did actually intend this… not the Jeffersonian types, but their opponents that were also drafters..
Pointing out how the experiment in limited government via constitution republic has failed is sometimes useful in waking people up to the reality of the current system.
So I suppose this is your way of saying that you think that the constitution is a failure and you see no benefit to the current approach of our constitutional republic.
Hardly.
I love this country and the people in. What makes this country great is not the government, nor the democracy. What is made this country great is liberty and capitalism. It is people seeking out self-interest and living their lives by their own rules.
If you think my ‘North Korean’ argument is the crux of what I am saying then your just wrong. It’s my way of pointing out that we live in a society were we are constantly bombarded by stateist propaganda. Not just by the state, but by the media companies that have the state regulatory apparatus to thank for their profits. On top of that we have a educational system built and controlled entirely by the state. We have people with a vested interest in justifying their own existence.. after all their owe their entire livings to taxation and a involuntary educational system.
It’s just a little bit odd and I don’t think pointing this little factoid out is me being angry or straying from the point.
You need to relax or get back on the medication or something.
Here. I’ll try to comment again on your comment. Just to try to nice as I seem to have gone off on the wrong track. Consider a attempt to ‘rewind’ the discussion.
I forget that most people are not aware of this sort of stuff and take it for granted. It’s really just ancap 101 stuff I am going to mention below. It gets very complicated to be sure, but this is just a high level overview:
A private police is a security force you pay out of your own pocket to guard your property.
A private court system is business that specializes in providing impartial judgements between two parties. This is based on a particular theory on how a ‘state free’ judicial system can work in a modern society.
Going back to the theory on how a private court system could work (which I am not convinced of, btw, and only have a loose grasp of the theory) it depends on insurance companies.
Insurance is there to cover you in case of some sort of catastrophic or hugely expensive event. Engaging in legal conflict is one of those things that is hugely expensive, so therefore it is logical to have insurance to cover it. Otherwise the legal costs are going to come out of own pocket, since there is no taxation to pay for it. And since insurance companies will be the only ones dealing this sort of thing in a regular basis, generally, then you’re going to have to rely on the services they provide.
So…. this is a example on how it could possibly work in the case of accusation of car theft:
I am walking through a neighbourhood at night and I get jumped by the local police. They haul me in to their jail and claim that I stole a car. (This is just one of those risks that you have to take when wondering around on another person’s property. If you want to avoid this then it’s best to not to trespass. No public roads in neighbourhoods in libertarian-land)
Since I have my own police force that I hire (in some fashion) to protect my own property (in this case my body) it’s in everybody’s best interest that we decide how to resolve this peacefully.
So our insurance companies get together and negotiate on what court system is best to decide who is the wronged party here. They will pick one based on their own self interest (they don’t want to pay out money to the other party). Reputation of the court system would be very important. Reviews of the court system by other third parties would play a important role. Likelihood of ruling in the favour of one party or the other will play a huge role and will more often then not pick a court system that is impartial.
After the court system is agreed apon then the adjudication will proceed.
If the court system rules in my favour then I will be compensated for my time and loss of income minus any fines I have to pay for trespassing. If the court system rules against me then my insurance company will have to compensate the other for the cost of the cart and whatever else the court decides. I wouldn’t be surprised if the standard amount awarded by the insurance company to another would be roughly 300% the cost of the lost item. If I lose to the other person gets a new car and my insurance company would probably dump me or raise my rates accordingly.
A person who regularly engages in criminal (or other legally risky) behaviour would soon seem themselves in a severe disadvantage in any court proceedings. So therefore it is imperative to avoid criminal behaviour if you want to remain a free person.
Extending this further I hope that it becomes obvious how this would work in a more public situation. Like… say… a shopping mall. In order to entice people to shop there versus other venues the mall owner will have to provide adequate security to protect the property of it’s patrons .They would probably agree to some portion of liability if something like a car is stolen. A thief that is caught would then face the legal system provided by the mall owner which would then negotiate with the thief’s own legal system for court venue and such things.
‘Open To the General Public’ would probably not be nearly as common in this situation as it is now. Most places would probably require some sort of membership in order to take advantage of their services. This way they can avoid the situation were they run into individuals on their property that engage in criminal behaviour, but lack the means to compensate themselves or their patrons.
Depending on the type of death that was caused it may simply be more cost effective to go to a court system to argue your innocence.
If it’s the death is simply a accident… a form of ‘manslaughter’ or ‘crime of passion’ (ie you get into a bar fight) then compensation would be in the form of financial. You would have to cover the costs of their wrongful death if you lost. If you are guilty then the insurance pays out, if you are innocent then you go free. It would be insane to run away.
If the death is believed by the wronged party (associates of the person you may have killed) to be caused by a form of criminal homicide (you kill somebody with malicious intent and deception) then it gets complicated.
Very likely the wronged party, the family or associates of the murdered man, will not be happy with financial compensation (unless you’re lucky). They will probably want you dead. They may seek to kill you themselves or hire somebody to do it for them. Killing you prior to a court case is likely to be construed as murder also… so most people will want to do it ‘right’ via the court system. That way they can take out their revenge without liability.
You may be forced to seek sanctuary until the court decides your guilt. Your insurance may provide compensation for sanctuary or you may just have to depend on your own private police force. Or even the charity of other people. If the wronged party is reasonable and you can avoid the need to hide in sanctuary then this will help you save costs and inconvenience.
If you are found guilty (or you skip out on court completely) then this means you’ve probably violated your insurance policy. You are essentially thrown to the wolves and are at the mercy of the associates of the wronged party. If you have very good insurance maybe you can be whisked away and placed in protective care or whatever. It would amount to just about the same thing as a life long prison sentence.
If you are declared innocent then you should be allowed to continue your life. A reasonable person would then stop trying to attack you for the death of their associate and find the guilty party. Obviously many people are not that reasonable, but then you insurance company would be obligated to provide for your safety since the courts decided that you never violated your policy.
In this sort of reality you have to be very careful on what type of insurance you choose. Reputations of insurance companies will be critical to their profitability. Cut-rate insurance means that your taking huge risks. If they decide that it’s cheaper to throw you to the wolves then you’d be a world of hurt so who to pay to provide police services and such will be very carefully considered.
Avoiding state government is not looking for a free ride here. Life will continue to be full of legal costs. The difference here is that they will be working directly for you rather then be part of a state apparatus with no liability or competition. Working in your favour most of what described above is going to be fantastically rare. It’s not usual to be accused of car theft or murder. The vast majority of people will be able to spend the vast majority of their time paying very low premiums for insurance that offers such benefits since chances of needing those benefits is extremely low.
People who engage in criminal activity, risky behaviour, or career choices were chances of accusations are much higher will have to pay considerably higher premiums. People who engage in criminal activity and are found guilty many times will probably lose all legal and police protections since no insurance company in their right mind will want to do business with them and they would be forced to exist outside of society. Very few people will be willing to do business with them and they would not be allowed to go most places and do most things. Most people are not going to allow such a high liability person to exist on their property and thus they would be driven away from population centers.
Exile amounts to the same as a prison sentence then. If your crimes are not too bad then probably given enough time of good behaviour you will find that you are insurable again and will be able to allowed back into society and back into populated, civilized areas.
To save me having to read through your entire post, let me jump to a first question that needs to be answered: is there in your post an explanation of why Ancap is correct, or just a discussion based on the assumption that it is correct?
I have no empirical basis to conclude that the basic assumptions in Ancap are correct. A lecture about what would follow if those assumptions were correct is not helpful to me. If I don’t agree with you on what the basic contours of reality are, it’s unlikely that we have a basis for a meaningful discussion, other than a discussion of what those contours are.
nate-m: Because I want to be generous and charitable to you, let me be a little more specific and “technical” about why I don’t think we will have anything useful to say to each other.
I suspect that the basic problem preventing you and I from having a useful discourse is that your thinking on Ancap is an example of what Karl Popper called “Epistemological Optimism,” even to the extreme version of “Truth is Manifest.” Popper described this as: “Truth, if it does not reveal itself, has only to be unveiled, or discovered. Once this is done, there is no need for further argument.” (Sorry, but I don’t have the cite for this quote handy.) I suspect that many people who blog here have essentially this sort of thinking about Ancap and/or some other issues.
If someone is convinced that Truth is Manifest, when he finds that another person does not agree, he can either assume the fault is his own or the other person’s. Because the person thinks that the Truth is obvious for all to see, frequently the reaction is to assume the other person is operating in bad faith or is stupid. I’m assuming that many of the postings here are an expression of this feeling.
So if you think the truth of Ancap is Manifest, you might, if you assume someone else is just stupid to not see them, try to give him a lecture titled Ancap 101. If you think the other person is acting in bad faith, you might say something like “you want a Police State.” I hope you can see why, if the person has reason to think himself neither stupid nor acting in bad faith, either approach can be offensive.
Because of some unusual professional situations I have found myself in, I have had opportunities to actually interact with numerous people who were clearly evidencing beliefs flowing from an assumption that Truth is Manifest. Based on that first-hand experience, I have an assumption that people who believe Truth is Manifest frequently fall into one of two categories:
(1) people who are of normal or above-average intelligence, who, generally or in some particular case, analyze something superficially and so see the situation and its solution as “obvious” and simple, where most people, including extremely intelligent people, would see not simplicity but complexity; or
(2) people of below-average intelligence, who because they cannot see the complexities, view a particular issue as “obviously” simple, but who greatly over estimate their own intelligence, and so assume that this conclusion would be obvious to anyone.
(Of course this is painting with a broad brush and doesn’t describe everyone who evidences the doctrine of Truth is Manifest.)
I can’t make people think critically or deeply, and I certainly can’t make people who have a very unrealistic view of their own intelligence more realistic. So normally when I run into someone who, like you, seems to be discoursing from the perspective of some variation of Truth is Manifest, I try to say something along the lines of “don’t you see that you and I fundamentally disagree on a particular assumption?” If the person doesn’t agree or even recognize that this is the case, I tend to just move on.
If you want to see an actual example of the how futile it would be to actually discuss the details of an issue with someone who is thinking this way, look at the number of times Marissa has made a post simply repeating the fact that I’m more likely to be killed by lightning/car crash, or whatever, than by a terrorist attack, even after I told her that that “fact” is not determinative of the issue as I see it. (You can see how this sort of person thinks things are simple and obvious so just repeating the same single fact is expected to convince the other person, even if the other has said “it’s not the simple to me.”)
I sometimes characterize “conversations” like that as masturbation: I’m made to feel like I don’t exist or I don’t count; it’s just all about the other person doing his or her “thing.” Moreover, I am generally extremely annoyed when I interact with people who are extremely arrogant but who don’t manifest the sort of competence that might justify the arrogance.
Karl, you have yet to demonstrate any competence in this conversation. Asserting that the U.S. must fight a war on terror and violate 4th amendment rights because you’re scared of them as a New York resident shows how absurd your argument is and how ridiculous it is that you continue to ignore the relative threat of terrorism to other forms of violation and death.
It’s also pathetic that you ask nate-m how private courts and private police will work, he gives you a decent answer, and you wave it away based on not having an explanation of premises. Might you not have asked for that in the first place? All you are able to do here is say “well this person doesn’t debate the way I do so I’ll just give up and pretend I’m better than they are”. Typical internet wimp-out.
Marissa — You’re right about everything. I’ve finally seen the light. Thanks for being so patient with me. I’ve just been so stupid all this time. Good thing for me your patience has paid off. What a public service you’ve performed.
Bye-bye.
So treating the citizens of our country different from the citizens of another country is equivalent to not treating the others as individuals with self-evident rights?
That hardly follows. Your argument seems to be that if an individual has self evident rights, one of those rights must be the right to unlimited movement between national borders. Or perhaps to live without nations. Why must that be true?
If individuals have a right to property that they exclusively use for their benefit, including real property, why would not a group of people, acting as a sovereign, have the right to use some territory that they control for their exclusive benefit? I would not, by the way, advocate excluding all others. I’m just not sure how we could concede individuals a private right to exclude, and yet deny the individuals acting in concert the right to exclude?
I don’t think trying to reduce it to such a high level of abstraction does much work. I see this as a policy issue about how open or how closed your borders should be.
Herein lies the rub. The group as sovereign is now acting as a communist force against individual freedom rather than a protecting force that protects its citizens’ rights to do what they want with their property and interact with whom they want in mutual agreement. Specifically they are taking away their citizens’ right to rent or sell their property to foreigners to live on that property or hire them for whatever otherwise legal tasks they may perform. Plus they are also taking away individual rights of movement all men have (though you seem less interested in that part).
It reduces about as well as freedom of speech or right to due process. Sure there are exceptions but the guiding principles should generally prevail.
I can see how this flows from your positions, but I’m not persuaded that the underlining premises are necessarily helpful, or even the most accurate way to describe the human condition.
I am not persuaded by the view of freedom as being simply negative: no one can limit what I want to do. (From the Enlightenment?) Human beings are individuals who live in groups, and as far as I can tell, we always have lived in groups. So a realistic view of Freedom has to take into account that we are not isolated. For orangutans, freedom is the Enlightenment view: they live solitary lives. Since humans do not, any useful theory of freedom has to account for how individual humans interact with other individual humans singly and in groups. That is why I’m not persuaded by he usefulness of broadly stated rights that are simply negative: I have the right to go anywhere I want to (translation: no one can limit my movement). As you say, there are exceptions, which is obvious because the broadly stated right is an impossible ideal. So the important issue is not “can anyone tell me what to do?” but “what is the legitimate process by which limits on my freedom of movement are established and enforced against me?”
The fundamental difference in approach, it seems to me, is clear from the number of times one sees on this blog statements of this kind: “Your desire for X [whatever that is] doesn’t justify you [insert one of the following: controlling the rest of us, setting up a police state, etc. etc.]” Fine, but my desires are instantly translated into law. The relevant question is, how may the People impose and enforce a limit on your freedom.
If you are an orangutan, freedom as simple negation makes sense: no one can tell me what to do! (Of course not, Mr. O, there’s not another one within 5 miles of you.) But if you live with other people and interact with them in myriad ways, like we all do, then you need a somewhat more nuanced idea of freedom. My emphasis would be on issues like the form of government, proper limits on the exercise of power, and most important of all, the sovereignty of the people, which means control of and participation in the functions of their representatives. The big three marks of citizenship were traditionally voting, serving on juries, and serving in the militia, which shows that participatory self-government was the basic concept, not isolated individuals saying “no” “no” “no” to what he doesn’t like.
I see two different expressions of modern hyper-individualism: the leftists, who might be characterized as saying “I can do anything I want,” and the libertarians, who can be characterized as saying “no one can tell me what to do.” To me, both of those “attitudes,” because that is really what it is, are unrealistic and so in the end harmful to the goal of freedom. The sort of polity that I am interested in requires people to be a lot more thoughtful and a lot less selfish than they seem to be, generally speaking.
As far as abstraction goes, I don’t see due process as a particularly abstract idea, at least not as understood by the people who drafted and ratified the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It is, arguably, the single most important right/freedom that we have: it prohibits arbitrary action by the executive. So if the executive wants to kill me or take my property or liberty, he has to use “due process of law,” which in the 14th century (?) was described in one context as involving a “writ original of the common law.” I think more generally now, it should be understood as an individual adjudication in a court that involves the basic safeguards known at common law (and there were plenty of them). That’s fundamental, amazing, and makes me tear up when I think about it, but I don’t see it as abstract.
To the extent the modern worshipers of hyper-individuality have made due process a substantive fount of unenumerated rights, they have foolishly traded freedom as I understand it — most importantly about self-government — in exchange for “winning” political battles they otherwise lost (private schools, abortion, sodomy) and in the process have become ruled by the Supreme Court. I don’t think any particular unenumerated right is important enough for me to accept slavery to get it, but you can’t make people value freedom the way you do. It’s an individual feeling.
Karl for President!
“If nominated, I will not run. If elected . . . ” For get that, $400,00 is a nice salary. Just don’t expect too much work from me.
Given that most native-born Americans support tyranny, what’s the difference? How much more tyranny would immigrants vote for than we already have?
“Tyranny,” I’m assuming, is defined as any law with which you disagree? Or is there some more specific definition that you were thinking of?
Actually, I do wish that people who think we currently live in a tyranny would have a chance to live for a few years in a real tyranny — the PRC is my favorite one, but there are so many others. Perhaps at that point we could start to distinguish things like “less freedom than I want” and “no freedom.”
A Rumanian friend who is 66: “Your future is my past.”
What does your friend say about the Roma? Is he glad that thanks to the EU they can all emigrate to France?
Not sure. She did say this, however: “I became a Rumanian when I emigrated to Israel.”
The impression I get from other Rumanians is that they despise the Roma.
The PRC has fewer of it’s people behind bars than we do.
Not saying that they’re “more free” than we are, but the lowest common denominator argument has been tried on here before, and usually fails to sway. It doesn’t matter if other places are less free, because we shouldn’t judge ourselves by that standard. There will always be someone in the world worse off than you. I think the last time it really came up was in the ground zero mosque debate, when otherwise intelligent people threw out, “Well you can’t build churches in Saudi Arabia, so we shouldn’t let them build here!”, as if the determination of how free we should be should be based off of the behavior of some other foreign land.
but China also has higher capital punishment rates.
Thanks for your advice on the “lowest common denominator” argument. Since it has nothing to do with the point I was making, it’s not particularly relevant. But I’ll keep it in mind for the future.
First of all, shill much?
Second, if I have title to land abutting a “border”, then either I DO have property rights and freedom and I can choose to let 50 Chinese cross onto my property and commence manufacturing shoes; or, I DON’T really have property rights and freedom. I don’t think the question can be posed much more simply.
You don’t own the entire country and your property does not cover the entire border, so your logic is flawed. You have the right to keep your property safe and use it for your own purposes, but you do not have the right to control the entire nation.
If the illegals are here to work and they are provided gainful employment then they are a valuable resource for our country. They are paid because they provide value and enhance this nation. People want them here and they are exchanging their own property voluntarily for the services offered by illegal aliens.
If they are here to take advantage of social programs, laws requiring social services from private institutions, and welfare then they are benefiting from legalized theft. Get rid of the legalized theft and you solve the problem of illegal immigration.
The fact that a worker is illegal means that he is not able to participate in the market in the same way that others who have labor to offer can. I’m sure many people want the illegals here because it’s beneficial to them to be able to get more than what they could get from the labor market: that is, better work than they are paying for. With a wink and a nod from the complacent government, in effect you’ve got a large pool of labor that can be had at below market rates. Letting those workers in the country legally would not serve this purpose, because they would then be able to benefit from the labor market just like everyone else. I don’t see how a libertarian can praise a system in which government action (prohibiting the alien from coming) and inaction (not doing anything to keep him out) serves to benefit some private individuals by making below market labor available to them. Why is that not legalized theft? That is, the private employers benefit from the government to deprive the laborer of the market rate for his labor. And is the employer willing to violate the law such a deserving recipient of government largess?
(I’m sure that many people from other countries, if permitted to work in the US legally, would be willing to offer their labor for less than many similarly situated (education, skill, etc) Americans. But that is his free choice in the market. His taking less than he could otherwise demand because of fear of government action is not a free choice in the market.)
You could, of course, define the market rate for labor to include a premium enjoyed by some employers for employing illegals, but then it seems you would have to accept that every government manipulation of the amount paid for work was simply part of the market rate. That would be more than I would be willing to swallow.
Which gets to the crux of the matter.
The laws around illegal aliens often have less to do with stopping illegal entry into this country, but it is to create a situation were major low-skilled labour is available at near-slavery prices with no worker rights. Major agricultural industries, meat packing plants, and a whole host of employers use immigration laws as a weapon to control people and limit wages.
…And avoid the regulatory burden of hiring citizens…
That is to say: These industries WANT their employees to stay illegal. They WANT the immigration laws to stay in place. It is effectively a form of corporate welfare.
Of course this does not mean that we should punish people for seeking employment.
It’s not market failure here, it’s regulatory failure and corruption. All the more reason why we need to get rid of these laws and make it massively easier to import labour.
I’m not so sanguine about simply opening up the borders partly because I don’t think that market forces will be the primary regulator of the movement of people. I don’t see the issue being whether someone “imports labour.” Because of the great disparity in the distribution of wealth, opportunity, and basic freedom around the world, people invest enormous resources (like incurring a huge debt to violent smugglers) based on a hope of finding a job, rather than having one lined up. This seems to have been historically true as well. In the early modern era in Europe, large numbers of people moved to the cities from the countryside in the hope of finding work. Because the market was not controlling the movement of people, an oversupply of labor resulted. The American experience with immigration in the 19th century also saw huge numbers of people immigrating based on a hope of finding work.
This “hope immigration,” if I can use that term, would seem to thwart to at least some extent and maybe a great extent what would otherwise result from a perfectly working market. As a made up example, you might have workers from Nigeria moving to Germany on the hope that they could get work, when a perfectly functioning market would instead have them move to Greece. And I would assume that this distortion of the market forces would be even more pronounced if only one of the most desirable countries (like the US) opened its borders. (Think back to all the East Germans pouring out of the country not because of the pull of the labor market but simply based on the understandable desire to get the hell out of that miserable crap hole.)
So in short I’m not convinced that anything like market forces would be controlling the movement of people if the US unilaterally opened its borders. And if the market is not going to dictate people’s movement, then I’m not sure I see an economic justification for opening the border. It might, in fact, be an economic justification to not open the borders.
…. and what?
Your acting like one of the best things to happen to this country (large influx of immigrants in 19th century) is now a argument against immigration in this century. The argument doesn’t follow.
This is 100% due to immigration laws. If it was legal to come into the country why the hell would people go and pay smugglers? Why wouldn’t they just use the internet to look for a job and then take a bus or ride a bicycle across the border?
The only reason they would need to pay smugglers then is if it was illegal for them to leave their own country and they are attempting to escape a despotic government. This is clearly not the case for our disccusion currently. Having a open border with Mexico would eliminate all profit motivation for being a human smuggler.
What we would have to contend with then is the criminal element such as militaristic drug cartels.
Most of that can easily be eliminated by simply getting rid of prohibition and legalizing the sale and use of recreational drugs. Just as legalizing alcohol eliminated the majority of organized crime that was created by prohibition laws then. We would be just left with the vestiges of these gangs with their profit motivation gone. Without the profits from their trades they would be just common criminals and be far less of a threat and be far easier to deal with then what they are now… even with a ‘closed border’ policy.
Well lets examine your example a bit closer then..
So say that we had a significant portion of the population from Nigeria go to Germany and found out that the jobs were not there. What do you think that they are going to do? Just give up traveling for work and go homeless and starve to death? Why would they stop in Germany and not go to Greece?
The only reason why that would not happen is because of the German welfare state removing all motivation to continue to travel to seek employment and/or Greece itself having a closed border policy. However it would profit Greece to have a open border also so that they can benefit from the labor force.
Also your example ignores several important economic realities. The large influx of cheap labor would free up capital resources for other pursuits and cause more jobs to be created. Capital resources are a substitute for labor and when labor costs are higher then savings must go up to finance the loans to create capital to create economic growth. When the labor is cheap then it becomes a effective substitute for capital investment. Then capital investment that is freed up by cheap labor can be redirected towards other more profitable ends.
That is cheap labor costs free up other resources and stimulate economic growth. The population also increases the consumption of consumer goods, which also raises profits and increase wealth.
“Your acting like one of the best things to happen to this country (large influx of immigrants in 19th century) is now a argument against immigration in this century. The argument doesn’t follow.”
That may be how it appears to someone who does not understand what I wrote. But your inability to understand my comments does not necessarily demand further explanation on my part.
“In the early modern era in Europe, large numbers of people moved to the cities from the countryside in the hope of finding work. Because the market was not controlling the movement of people, an oversupply of labor resulted.”
And by “oversupply of labor” you mean a shortage of jobs or reduced wages?
When this happened, did people continue moving to the cities?
In what way did the market not “control” the movement of people?
My understanding is that the economy in US is so bad that some immigrants are leaving just to get away from it. I guess the best way to get rid of immigrants is to have greater amounts of socialism and an even worse economy; no one will want to live here!
That’s assuming they came because they admired America, its values and its institutions. In fact, many immigrants from poor countries think it’s all America’s fault, for being a neocolonialist power or some other garbage like that. They just come to take (or “take back”) the money while it lasts. If most immigrants had such a clear vision about what it takes to build a prosperous society, their countries wouldn’t be in such a wretched state to begin with.
Many immigrants openly despise the host country and they voice their will to destroy it. I can’t think of famous examples in America right now, but take Abu Hamza or the MAC group (Muslims Against Crusades) in Britain (I know, the article is about America, but the same logic applies). Many of them came as refugees and live on welfare. No, it’s not enough to eliminate welfare. Life would still be obviously better for them in the West, and they seem to think they have a mission to force Sharia into infidel countries through a variety of means including demographic pressure and intimidation.
Some of the most dangerous elements were born in the West, but they identify much more with their family background than with the country where they happened to be born. so you don’t just have to worry about the immigrants, also about their children and grandchildren.
Of course there are many exceptions, immigrants who understand and appreciate the core American and Western values better than most indigenous citizens. They should be, and often are, the first ones to oppose a dogmatic policy of nearly open borders.
I can’t resist to share an interesting opinion article on VDARE about the alleged leftward shift in Mises.org and LRC on immigration and related issues after 9-11. It may or may not be accurate, but it’s well worth reading:
http://www.vdare.com/misc/080514_pendleton.htm
“I can’t resist to share an interesting opinion article on VDARE about the alleged leftward shift in Mises.org and LRC on immigration and related issues after 9-11″
I can only speak for myself, but I think states’ discrimination against immigrants is incompatible with libertarianism. Some libertarians may have thought erroneously in the past, but the logic of my position will inexorably win.
No matter what imaginary lines states want to draw on the map, libertarianism simply does not give you the unlimited right to control where other people travel, live, work, or breath. If for some reason you don’t want to associate with some race or culture, say the French, then that is your choice. You have the moral right to not buy their products or sell them things or let them into your school (though you don’t have these freedoms in USA). The problem comes when you try to keep them out of your neighbor’s property. Since your neighbor’s property belongs to your neighbor, you have no valid objection. You certainly have no right to send armed gunmen to break into your neighbors property and evict people for the crime of being French. You can of course make a contractual pact with your neighbors to not let the French live or work there, if you so choose.
For those who don’t agree with me – i.e. those who want to keep immigrants out – I’d like you to at least ponder the economic damage caused by the reduced division of labor that your hateful policies lead to. Then, compensate me for the damage you have inflicted. I.e. if you are arresting Mexicans for the crime of picking fruit cheaply, then help pay for my grocery bill which was increased as a result of your immoral acts of coercion.
Dr. Acula:
When you bring in your restive, low IQ workforce and insist that nobody can discriminate against them under Title VII, and they have to have equal access to credit under the FHA and FCRA, and they get to use the public roads, the public schools, public sewers, public goodies under AFDC, a public defender in case they honor-kill their daughter, etc., then the public gets a say in whom you decide to inflict on them.
Fly them to your place on your private jet and house them in barracks on your own land, and you may have a point. Of course, people take up space and generate waste, so even in libertarian society you would need to check with your neighbors about such things as increased solid waste, additional sewer taps, water usage, runoff, communicable diseases, criminal recidivism, incompatible cultural practices, etc.
See how all this works? You don’t have a “right” just to hire someone and truck them in because of your twisted sense of responsibility for people who made a mess of their own countries.
>they have to have equal access to credit under the FHA and FCRA, and they get to use the public roads, the public schools, public sewer…
FYI the things you listed are already incompatible with property rights and freedom. If these violations on property rights and freedom are acceptable, then, no doubt, other violations are justifiable too.
They’re not, but they are on the books, and the State gets to import more beneficiaries of such laws, so good luck getting rid of them. In libertarian society you don’t get to socialize all those costs on everybody. If you want a thousand Mexicans to pick strawberries, you have to get permission of everybody between here and Mexico. Then you have to consult your neighbors about the additional water/sewer load, etc. And no Title VII/EEO/AFDC to beat everybody over the head with either.
The pro-immigration arguments being trotted out here are really no better than what I’d expect from an average public school teacher. Extremely selective, non-responsive, mostly just sentiment and emotion.
Wouldn’t water/sewer load be between the waste company (private actor) and the individual? The same with road traffic–wouldn’t the private road owners be the only permission one would need (not that it wouldn’t be difficult). What about flying the laborers in? How much of the atmosphere above your property do you own? I have to take your argument to the extreme when you mention consulting one’s neighbors: if I find out I’m having children–need I ask my neighbor’s permission to allow for a greater load on the water and sewer? I’m curious and I don’t intend for my questions to sound frivolous.
I completely agree with you that immigration (basically just movement through the “sovereign state” of each person’s private property) will look radically different from the current situation.
“Some libertarians may have thought erroneously in the past, but the logic of my position will inexorably win.”
It is nice to see someone eschew false modesty.
If most immigrants had such a clear vision about what it takes to build a prosperous society, their countries wouldn’t be in such a wretched state to begin with.
So America was doomed to fail from the beginning because she was founded by immigrants from wretched countries–it makes sense.
Wretched countries? America was founded by English people and remained overwhelmingly English for most of its history, especially before 1965. England was the uncontested superpower of the time, and English culture of freedom is indeed the driving force behind American values. My argument may not be bulletproof, but your attempted rebuttal backfired massively.
Being burned at the stake or tortured for merely believing something sounds wretched. Having one’s property expropriated for the wealth of the king, lords and state sounds wretched. Violating the rights of innocent people all over the globe sounds wretched. The “English culture of freedom”? I believe that was the English culture which many immigrants to America were desperately trying to get away from. Certainly there were a great minds discussing freedom (more Scottish than English) but “It was better than the rest of them” doesn’t cut it as an argument. Look at English culture now and you’ll see its natural progression from one form of state slavery (monarchy) to another (socialism).
You are an ahistorical idiot. People are spending blood and treasure to live in States run by Anglo-Europeans and away from their own twisted, bloodthirsty co-ethnics who have no concept of property rights or the rule of law.
Locke, Hume … ever heard of them? Can you name a single African, Asian or Meso-American equivalent?
>Locke, Hume … ever heard of them? Can you name a single African, Asian or Meso-American equivalent?
The Xeer.
The Xeer?! God how I wish it were so. I’d tell all the Somalians in my country to head back to their homeland where the wise African equivalents of Locke and Hume rule the land.
The Xeer — that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this site.
Anti-Gnostic, FYI there’s a lot of stuff about Xeer on this site.
Clearly you need to do a lot of reading.
“People are spending blood and treasure to live in States run by Anglo-Europeans”
Actually the Commander in Chief is half-Somalian, I think.
Kenyan you fool. And he’s an affirmative action baby who knows very well that his current station is due entirely to the civilization built by white people.
Are you suggesting that since I criticized English governmental practice (not her many great intellectuals), that I support the barbarism of the rest of the world? I believe you are imputing a stance to me that I am not making. The fact that there are countries in this world that have no concept of property rights does not change the fact that Anglo-Europeans countries have been and continue to violate them in their own territory and abroad.
Those people who are spending so much blood and treasure are doing so to live in a state which they are trying to turn back into their homelands (which Martin OB touched upon–destruction of the host country by its parasitic immigrants). And I think you contradict your own argument by saying that immigrants come to this country for those sweet Title XII benefits, which are in fact destroying the very concept of property rights. But I also don’t understand your belief in what motivates immigration: is it the benefits or the property rights? I realize they aren’t mutually exclusive.
Also, I don’t see why you’re calling me an idiot. I pointed out that the English practice of torturing and killing people for religious belief, taking property from productive merchants and giving it to royal leeches, and waging war on indigenous populations (all of which occurred at the time people emigrated from it) was contrary to liberty. How is that “ahistorical”?
Because outside of places like South Korea, Japan and a few others, the rest of the world is a violent, corrupt, ignorant cesspool compared to the civilizations created by Anglo-Europeans, which is why They all want to come Here. And you’re an idiot because you don’t see which way this ratchet moves.
Because English governmental practice was not as bad as other countries does not make my observation that it engaged in many activities that are contrary to liberty ahistorical. The conditions that many people lived under there were indeed wretched and were the reasons people fled it and other Anglo-European countries for a better life in the United States (before they had those stolen benefits to count on). In comparison to other countries, England was better, but that’s not the argument being made or refuted.
>the rest of the world is a violent, corrupt, ignorant cesspool compared to the civilizations created by Anglo-Europeans
Actually, AFAIK the Anglo-Europeans have perpetrated the greatest acts of violence, e.g. employing fusion weapons on civilians. And the most economically free country (as rated by the Economic Freedom Index) is Hong Kong.
Also, the entire world is economically entangled to such an extent that saying which race created what isn’t really tenable.
Hong Kong was a British protectorate for 99 years. Anti-Gnostic mentioned South Korea and Japan, both places the United States have fought wars and kept a military presence.
Marissa,
I have been following this dialogue, and cannot understand your point.
History is full of both good and bad things, as is any honest view of the present.
While it is true that England engaged in many horrendous acts, they are also one of the more civilized countries in today’s world. So what are you trying to argue? If you can’t point to a pristine history free from anything we would judge atrocious today, a country is forever tagged as an evil empire?
I can’t quite understand where you are coming from.
Wildberry, refer back to Martin OB’s post about England not being a “wretched country”. It was most certainly a wretched country for those involved with activities mentioned in my reply to him and their treatment is the reason they emigrated to the United States (or colonies if before that). The conversation has since been derailed because Anti-Gnostic accused me of saying England is bad by comparison to other countries (which I didn’t say, I was judging it objectively and using the reasons past immigrants used to leave it). He also accused me of factual inaccuracy regarding English atrocities against its own people and others when that is clearly not the case.
Is this what you are referring to?
See, I just don’t understand how you ran with this in the direction you did. History is filled with many, many complexities, so to characterize this point in history to which I assume you are referring as if it is only characterized by the atrocities committed by the Crown, is at best a GROSS generalization and a highly selective world view. What I don’t understand is what that view is.
One of the driving forces of the settlement of America was the fact that no commoner had much hope of owning land, at that time the source of most wealth and independence. In fact, most of our most prominent citizens in American during the founding period were made rich largely through land speculation.
So in this sense, I suppose you could say that one of the primary attractions for western Europeans to embark on the dangerous journey across an ocean in a sailing ship to a land that was primarily unsettled and hostile was the prospect of owning land.
That is one thread that has little to do with, say, the way the Crown treated the serfs of Scottland or Ireland, although I’m sure that was some kind of factor.
So again, I don’t get your point; are you saying that because England did bad things, that there is nothing that you can find on the positive side of their ledger? Even though you may acknowledge that there are countries much worse, you have to lump England in with the worst because the engaged in some bad things during their history?
See, I’m just not getting it.
What Martin OB said is basically true. Why don’t Mexicans, for example, shape their own country into the one they want? They have all the resources to do so. Why didn’t Iraq self-organized into a free society after Sadam was ousted?
Why did England and America, and the Western world in general, advance while places like Somalia didn’t? There must be a reason. What is it? It seems to me that you are casting all governments into the same black pot with the worst among them.
Are you unable to see any distinction between one and another? Help me out here.
Martin OB’s point was that immigrants from wretched countries are coming to the U.S. and re-making it in the image of their old, wretched countries. I observed that this has always been taking place here due to the wretchedness of the countries which former immigrants came from–they are also re-making the U.S. into the image of their former countries. Look how quickly the U.S. got a central bank due to the “Euro-philes” as Jeff Riggenbach calls them.
Many immigrants came for religious or economic freedom which a relatively empty country allows for. Those immigrants who saw a relative tortured or burned, or their own fortunes dwindle by state confiscation, didn’t really care about casting England in the same pot as more wretched countries–it was bad and they wanted out. I still don’t see what you’re so confused about. This seems pretty straightforward–atrocities committed by England impelled many immigrants to leave and yet they still could not keep from re-making the country in England’s image (or France, Portugal, Greece, Italy, etc.). The U.S. makes the incremental creep toward totalitarianism every year, though obviously I’m not saying it’s North Korea. I don’t see how this concept is so difficult to grasp unless you’re imagining or assuming something about my personal theory of history.
Marissa,
I thought you were being sarcastic, trying a reductio ad absurdum, something like “America had massive immigration from England, which is a wretched country, and yet America is not, so immigration from wretched countries is not significant”.
Now I think I see your point better, but I still think you are wrong. You actually think America was damaged by English “immigration”, deteriorating from an initial state of near-perfection into an ever worse state of corruption and tyranny. You are saying that maybe the early settlers, exceptionally enlightened people who understood the principles of freedom and how to build a successful society, should have closed the borders to all immigration, including from Britain, and relied on natural demographic growth, right?
Well, the fact is, America has been a successful country all this time, well after most citizens descended from ordinary Britons, not visionaries. And the UK lost its world leadership to America, probably because of its deeper involvement in both world wars, but it’s still an European powerhouse. Right now, the American president is far more of a socialist than the British P.M. And, as I said, polls indicate the main source of increasing leftward turn in America is immigration from third-world countries like Mexico.
You are saying that maybe the early settlers, exceptionally enlightened people who understood the principles of freedom and how to build a successful society, should have closed the borders to all immigration, including from Britain, and relied on natural demographic growth, right?
I don’t know how exceptional their enlightenment was. I would put many individuals’ understanding of freedom squarely on the necessity of self-reliance at the time. That is a whole ‘nother conversation, though. And no, I don’t think any borders should have been closed, I was just making an observation, not a policy recommendation.
polls indicate the main source of increasing leftward turn in America is immigration from third-world countries like Mexico.
It is part of the problem, though I believe a huge part of the blame should go to the congressional-public education complex. Are the immigrants (and their children) more statist before or after they are given their “free” public education–even ignoring other benefits? Imagine those other benefits that exist today existed two hundred years ago and you could also argue that the immigrants of that day were causing the increasing leftward turn because they came here for the welfare. I’m definitely not arguing with you, though, that current immigrants are far to the left of the past, I would just like to explore why.
Why not? You are ignoring the fact that English society, with all its shortcomings, was the peak of human civilization at the time, compared with pretty much all the rest. I guess that’s why The Anti-Gnostic calling you ahistorical (but I don’t endorse the namecalling).
By the way, don’t get me started on slavery:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Barbary_Corsairs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#African_participation_in_the_slave_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Abolitionist_movements
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1900.E2.80.93today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania
Besides, regardless of moral judgments, it was obviously a successful society by any measurable standard of prosperity. The English settlers (not really immigrants because there was no well-defined country to immigrate into, just nomadic Plains Indians) knew full well they would be more free as a British colony than as immigrants in any other country. Just because they decided to leave Britain, it doesn’t mean they despised British society.
They are running much faster towards Sharia, but fortunately, it looks like the tide is turning all over Europe. If you worry about Socialism, have in mind that most immigrants from poor countries vote for left-wing parties, according to the polls.
I believe that was the English culture which many immigrants to America were desperately trying to get away from. Certainly there were a great minds discussing freedom (more Scottish than English) but “It was better than the rest of them” doesn’t cut it as an argument.
I think you are taking my quote a little out of context due to my poor sentence formation (so you’re not doing it intentionally). I’m not engaging in the “America is better than North Korea but it still isn’t great and is getting worse” argument (which is legitimate, but irrelevant). The immigrants who fled the oppression didn’t buy the “England is better than the rest of the misery of the world” because of the immediacy of it to them. A similar analogy might be that slaves didn’t care about the atrocities of Lincoln or (non-slavery) principles the South was fighting for if they had just received their freedom through government fiat.
As to your last point, why do those immigrants vote in such a manner? Is it their former experience or the public benefits they know they are receiving due to the socialist parties that promise to give them out (especially public education)?
Marissa,
So what was your point? I said there’s good reason to think that immigrants from (relatively) dysfunctional countries will bring with them the social views that shaped their countries, to the detriment of the host country. I don’t see how you think Britain and the American founding fathers relate to that argument.
I’m not sure why they vote that way, it may be a combination of both factors or something else. I just pointed out the non sequitur of assuming that the fact someone immigrates into a country is proof that this person upholds the values of the host society and rejects the values of his original country.
We were originally arguing the “wretchedness” of England. It wasn’t wretched relative to other countries, but to those she oppressed in the aforementioned ways (torture, theft, lack of religious freedom, etc.) it was a wretched country and drove the oppressed to seek freedom in the U.S.
Marissa,
You brought up the alleged wretchedness of England, but I still think that’s an odd detour. The first obvious difference is that English settlers were country builders, they were not attracted by the prosperity of the host country or by its society, they made them. You can’t say they deteriorated the host society because there was none.
Which leads us to the next issue, which is the motivation to emigrate from the original country. The English settlers, the very first ones at least, were not attracted by money and material wealth, which was not there yet. What they wanted was freedom, to live their lives and their religion as they wanted. So, I don’t see why they would bring with them the (alleged) oppressive atmosphere of mainland Britain. On the other hand, present-day immigrants have a variety of reasons to immigrate, and the quest for freedom doesn’t seem to top the list.
You insist that mainland Britain, while a fairly civilized country in comparison with others at the time, was perceived as oppressive by the English settlers. I don’t have any objections to that, but how is it relevant? If some people flee one of the most civilized countries because it’s not civilized enough for their taste, and they build their own country accordingly, the expected result would be an even better country. The new country may fall short of their dreams and hopes, but there’s no loss to lament here, since you can’t preserve or deteriorate a fantasy. On the other hand, you can deteriorate a real country through the wrong kind of immigration.
Martin — I think you can even take this point further. For the most part, it’s an anachronism to talk about freedom of religion rather than escaping from people who disagree with you on the correct version of the faith. The godly were strongly against the version of the faith that the established church required them to practice, but when they set up the Massachusetts colony, they required people to practice their version of the faith. The ones who felt oppressed by that version fled south to establish the Rhode Island colony. None of that, of course, seems to be a complaint about the basic legal institutions of the motherland. I don’t think you can ascribe any single motive to everyone, and probably most people had multiple motives, just like people today.
Your basic point seems to be very important. In the 17th century, people moved from an established society to a land they saw as open for new development so that they could start new societies from scratch. Today, people are moving from one established society to another established society because they make the judgment that the one they are moving into is better for them than the one they are leaving. There’s no comparison between the two.
Martin — This actually isn’t correct: “The English settlers (not really immigrants because there was no well-defined country to immigrate into, just nomadic Plains Indians).” There were many Indians living along the east coast of the US in the 17th century and before, and at least some of them were sedentary. I’m not sure that would really change your basic analysis, but I throw it out in the interest of accuracy.
Cheers.
Karl,
Fair enough, I’m not resting my case on whether all Plains Indians were fully nomadic, but on the fact that there were no clearly defined borders and no good reason to think the Indians had a claim to the entire territory of North America. That said, according to Wikipedia they were semi-sedentary at best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_Indians
Martin — That’s correct, but the Plains are a long way from the east coast. The conflict with the Plains Indians over land was a 19th century problem as Americans were moving further and further west. Just two examples of the east coast situation would be Jamestown (1607) and Providence (1636). Members of the Powhatan Confederacy lived near Jamestown, but the settlers moved onto land no one inhabited (because it was pretty swampy). Roger Williams established Providence on land he negotiated from the Narragansett Indians. Initially there were not a lot of settlers and plentiful land.
Your comment that not all settlers shared the values of the home country is absolutely correct. The folks down in places like Virginia and South Carolina seem to have been pretty “main stream” but certainly the settlers in the northern colonies were very counter-culture. Just one famous example would be William Penn. But even the more “main stream” folks were obviously not the usual English people: their decision to uproot themselves and start a new life in itself shows they were very different from the folks who stayed home.
…not to mention what effect a declining mean iq (via demography and immigration) spells for european economic well-being.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KUz_vEc1V0&feature=player_embedded#at=473
I think by removing the incentives of the free lunch, welfare state. Free healthcare, free education, free houses and free money etc as we see in the UK. This will decrease immigration. People do not move to the UK for the weather, they move to the UK for the free education and healthcare.
“I think by removing the incentives of the free lunch, welfare state. Free healthcare, free education, free houses and free money etc as we see in the UK. This will decrease immigration”
I’m not so sure.
Perversely, decreasing the free benefits may improve your economy and increase immigration. Whereas, increasing socialist policies and turning your economy into a hellhole might decrease the number of people who want to move there.
Hm, don’t know if I like the sound of a War On Drugs And Terror. Then again, I’ve never had a bad trip.
Comments on this entry are closed.