I have been giving some thoughts regarding immigration and the NAP. Most hardcore and ideologically pure libertarians oppose inmigration restrictions based on the NAP. When it comes to social policy, libertarians don't live in the real world. The reality is that the immigration policy in the U.S. and the West in general is designed to demographically displace White people. Furthermore, the presence of government is a reality. Due to universal democracy, once 10s of millions of immigrants and their posterity achieve voting status, they can use government (ie force and agression) through the ballot box to further their group interest. Most people's opposition to mass immigration is a means of defense. For example, poor immigrants generally seek and demand more government social services, which results in higher taxes. Wouldn't opposition to mass immigration be consistent with the NAP if it is a means of defense from additional government agression in the form of higher taxes? Also, culture determined politics; politics does not determine culture. Mass immigration of a people from a highly authoritarian culture will impact the politics of a people from a less authoritarian and/or freedom culture. For example, mass immigration of a people who come from a culture that doesn't recognize free speech could affect the free speech laws of the host country. As we all have seen, the more diverse a culture is the more oppressive it becomes. Many countries have implemented hate speech laws to punish those who engage in so call hate speech against immigrants. In addition, some Muslim communities seek to impose Sharia Law on their host country. With demographic replacement levels of immigration and the disparity in birth rates, Muslims will attain the numbers to politically implement the laws of their native countries to their host countries. Would opposition to mass immigration be consistent with the NAP if it based on a defense of the social and political culture of the native country and as a defense of free speech?
─ Most hardcore and ideologically pure libertarians oppose inmigration restrictions based on the NAP. ─
We oppose immigration restrictions based on Natural Law and the NAP. We have a right to migrate and we don't have a right to aggressively-oppose the movement of a person traveling peacefully.
─poor immigrants generally seek and demand more government social services─
Then the problem (if that were true, which is not) is the government, not people.
─Mass immigration of a people from a highly authoritarian culture will impact the politics of a people from a less authoritarian and/or freedom culture─
Do you mean it was all those German and Italian immigrants who turned America into a fascist country and not the Protestant Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th Century?
─the more diverse a culture is the more oppressive it becomes─
That would mean North Korea is the *least* oppressive place on earth. You can't have a more homogeneous culture than that.
Give it up, Jeff. You're making a mockery of your own self.
Old Mexican, try to immigrate into my property without my permission. How many illegals are trespassing into private property on order to immigrate? Do the property owners have a right to stop the trespassers? How about the destruction of private property by those trespassers. Do the property owners have a right to protect their property? Go back to Mexico and remove the log on your eye.
"... they can use government (ie force and agression) through the ballot box to further their group interest" You don't live in the "real world" if you don't already see this happening and its not just from recent immigration. The problem is not immigration but government handouts. Politicians are clearly buying votes by stealing from many and enriching a relative few. This is what needs to stop. But the politicians will continue stealing whether or not you implement immigration restrictions. The cultural acceptance of using force proactively just because 51% of the people voted yes at one time or another is what needs to be changed. That's what NAP should be about. . NOT "...defense of the social and political culture of the native country and as a defense of free speech." Particularly when the native culture is part of the problem. Going along to get along with "universal democracy" is a hopeless strategy. We need something that has never existed. Recognition of individual rights for everyone
Open borders ‘libertarians’ don’t want to face the contradictions of their ideology.
Imagine for a moment a libertarian utopia. In this utopia there is no or very limited government. People are free to do as they wish, as long as they do not steal or use violence or coercion against others. Because of this the libertarian utopia is very prosperous. Many people would like to live there.
One day the libertarian utopia decides to open it’s borders to newcomers. They flood in. Some of them fit in, but some of them do not. For whatever reason some of them are unable to find employment. Reasons are given such as ill physical or mental health, poor skill set, racism of employers in libertarian utopia, and so on.
Some of these migrants engage in crime, overburdening the hitherto light police force. Charities are overburdened, and many migrants are refusing to pay hospital bills. Social problems increase, leading to unhappiness among the new migrants and the people that were there in the first place.
Soon enough the migrants are enough in number that they are able to gain some special privileges in some areas. They demand democracy and social justice, and they get it in the form of welfare benefits, housing, and other government services unknown in the former libertarian utopia until now.
To the regret of the original residents of libertarian utopia, it turns out that most of the migrants were in fact statists, and did not follow the culture of libertarian utopia at all.
And thus ended the libertarian utopia experiment. Those liberties, so hard won, were lost in open borders foolishness. The leadership of libertarian utopia believed that the migrants were blank slates they they could mold to their liking. They were wrong.
Open borders libertarianism is a contradiction in itself. One destroys the other.
Matt, open immigration libertarianism is indeed contradictory, but precisely for reverse reasons. It would not lead to a state. It would simply be so restricted as to not be called immigration - much less open - at all. In a libertarian society all property would be private, therefore only immigrants that were INVITED would come; the others would be expelled, with force if necessary. In so far as any immigrant remained, what goes for everyone also goes for them; they would only be able to stay either on someone's premises by invitation, or because they had amassed a level of private property. It is an assumption that police services would be "overburdened" and there is no case to be made that immigrants could just get health services without there being some guarantee up front that payment would be forthcoming. The hospital system would not work similarly to the way it does now. Crime by the way, would be dealt with in far harsher ways than it is now, and everyone would have the right to use defensive force against a criminal. The right to use force would not be delegated to the police. Also, how would immigrants be granted "special privileges" without a government? And a small government that would do so would immediately be devoid of tax funds because nobody would continue to pay taxes. All of the things you mention, including democracy and social justice, require a government in the first place. But a small libertarian government would not get far enough to do these things without a massive revolt. This requires centuries of slow creep; slow law changes, indoctrination and education to change public perception of their nation.
In short, your story is based on a large number of fallacies. You are mixing how governments operate NOW with how they would in a libertarian society (if there would even be a government), without taking the time to explain how they would get away with it.
Open border immigration is not a contradiction because it would lead to the destruction of libertarian society; it is a contradiction because it is simply not *possible*, because it would deny private property rights, which is the opposite of libertarianism. Government would not "own" the roads, therefore open immigration would not be possible. Only immigration by invitation, and which only lasts as long as the invitation, or until the immigrant amasses his own private property.
─ Anne Williamson says the mad plot is in operation and that Hillary Clinton must surely know about it. ─
If that were the intent, it would be the very first time central planning works anywhere.
─Lew Rockwell is featuring Williamson's thesis here: Weaponizing Migrants.─
I'm starting to think that good ol' Lew is off his rocker. Migrants are still individuals who act according to their self-interest. Not everybody wants to migrate out of their homeland.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI have been giving some thoughts regarding immigration and the NAP. Most hardcore and ideologically pure libertarians oppose inmigration restrictions based on the NAP. When it comes to social policy, libertarians don't live in the real world. The reality is that the immigration policy in the U.S. and the West in general is designed to demographically displace White people. Furthermore, the presence of government is a reality. Due to universal democracy, once 10s of millions of immigrants and their posterity achieve voting status, they can use government (ie force and agression) through the ballot box to further their group interest. Most people's opposition to mass immigration is a means of defense. For example, poor immigrants generally seek and demand more government social services, which results in higher taxes. Wouldn't opposition to mass immigration be consistent with the NAP if it is a means of defense from additional government agression in the form of higher taxes? Also, culture determined politics; politics does not determine culture. Mass immigration of a people from a highly authoritarian culture will impact the politics of a people from a less authoritarian and/or freedom culture. For example, mass immigration of a people who come from a culture that doesn't recognize free speech could affect the free speech laws of the host country. As we all have seen, the more diverse a culture is the more oppressive it becomes. Many countries have implemented hate speech laws to punish those who engage in so call hate speech against immigrants. In addition, some Muslim communities seek to impose Sharia Law on their host country. With demographic replacement levels of immigration and the disparity in birth rates, Muslims will attain the numbers to politically implement the laws of their native countries to their host countries. Would opposition to mass immigration be consistent with the NAP if it based on a defense of the social and political culture of the native country and as a defense of free speech?
Re: Jeff Davis,
Delete─ Most hardcore and ideologically pure libertarians oppose inmigration restrictions based on the NAP. ─
We oppose immigration restrictions based on Natural Law and the NAP. We have a right to migrate and we don't have a right to aggressively-oppose the movement of a person traveling peacefully.
─poor immigrants generally seek and demand more government social services─
Then the problem (if that were true, which is not) is the government, not people.
─Mass immigration of a people from a highly authoritarian culture will impact the politics of a people from a less authoritarian and/or freedom culture─
Do you mean it was all those German and Italian immigrants who turned America into a fascist country and not the Protestant Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th Century?
─the more diverse a culture is the more oppressive it becomes─
That would mean North Korea is the *least* oppressive place on earth. You can't have a more homogeneous culture than that.
Give it up, Jeff. You're making a mockery of your own self.
Old Mexican, try to immigrate into my property without my permission. How many illegals are trespassing into private property on order to immigrate? Do the property owners have a right to stop the trespassers? How about the destruction of private property by those trespassers. Do the property owners have a right to protect their property? Go back to Mexico and remove the log on your eye.
Delete"... they can use government (ie force and agression) through the ballot box to further their group interest" You don't live in the "real world" if you don't already see this happening and its not just from recent immigration. The problem is not immigration but government handouts. Politicians are clearly buying votes by stealing from many and enriching a relative few. This is what needs to stop. But the politicians will continue stealing whether or not you implement immigration restrictions. The cultural acceptance of using force proactively just because 51% of the people voted yes at one time or another is what needs to be changed. That's what NAP should be about. . NOT "...defense of the social and political culture of the native country and as a defense of free speech." Particularly when the native culture is part of the problem. Going along to get along with "universal democracy" is a hopeless strategy. We need something that has never existed. Recognition of individual rights for everyone
ReplyDeleteOpen borders ‘libertarians’ don’t want to face the contradictions of their ideology.
ReplyDeleteImagine for a moment a libertarian utopia. In this utopia there is no or very limited government. People are free to do as they wish, as long as they do not steal or use violence or coercion against others. Because of this the libertarian utopia is very prosperous. Many people would like to live there.
One day the libertarian utopia decides to open it’s borders to newcomers. They flood in. Some of them fit in, but some of them do not. For whatever reason some of them are unable to find employment. Reasons are given such as ill physical or mental health, poor skill set, racism of employers in libertarian utopia, and so on.
Some of these migrants engage in crime, overburdening the hitherto light police force. Charities are overburdened, and many migrants are refusing to pay hospital bills. Social problems increase, leading to unhappiness among the new migrants and the people that were there in the first place.
Soon enough the migrants are enough in number that they are able to gain some special privileges in some areas. They demand democracy and social justice, and they get it in the form of welfare benefits, housing, and other government services unknown in the former libertarian utopia until now.
To the regret of the original residents of libertarian utopia, it turns out that most of the migrants were in fact statists, and did not follow the culture of libertarian utopia at all.
And thus ended the libertarian utopia experiment. Those liberties, so hard won, were lost in open borders foolishness. The leadership of libertarian utopia believed that the migrants were blank slates they they could mold to their liking. They were wrong.
Open borders libertarianism is a contradiction in itself. One destroys the other.
Matt, open immigration libertarianism is indeed contradictory, but precisely for reverse reasons.
DeleteIt would not lead to a state. It would simply be so restricted as to not be called immigration - much less open - at all. In a libertarian society all property would be private, therefore only immigrants that were INVITED would come; the others would be expelled, with force if necessary. In so far as any immigrant remained, what goes for everyone also goes for them; they would only be able to stay either on someone's premises by invitation, or because they had amassed a level of private property.
It is an assumption that police services would be "overburdened" and there is no case to be made that immigrants could just get health services without there being some guarantee up front that payment would be forthcoming. The hospital system would not work similarly to the way it does now. Crime by the way, would be dealt with in far harsher ways than it is now, and everyone would have the right to use defensive force against a criminal. The right to use force would not be delegated to the police. Also, how would immigrants be granted "special privileges" without a government? And a small government that would do so would immediately be devoid of tax funds because nobody would continue to pay taxes. All of the things you mention, including democracy and social justice, require a government in the first place. But a small libertarian government would not get far enough to do these things without a massive revolt. This requires centuries of slow creep; slow law changes, indoctrination and education to change public perception of their nation.
In short, your story is based on a large number of fallacies. You are mixing how governments operate NOW with how they would in a libertarian society (if there would even be a government), without taking the time to explain how they would get away with it.
Open border immigration is not a contradiction because it would lead to the destruction of libertarian society; it is a contradiction because it is simply not *possible*, because it would deny private property rights, which is the opposite of libertarianism. Government would not "own" the roads, therefore open immigration would not be possible. Only immigration by invitation, and which only lasts as long as the invitation, or until the immigrant amasses his own private property.
─ Anne Williamson says the mad plot is in operation and that Hillary Clinton must surely know about it. ─
ReplyDeleteIf that were the intent, it would be the very first time central planning works anywhere.
─Lew Rockwell is featuring Williamson's thesis here: Weaponizing Migrants.─
I'm starting to think that good ol' Lew is off his rocker. Migrants are still individuals who act according to their self-interest. Not everybody wants to migrate out of their homeland.
2 illegal immigrants win arizona tanch in court
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/us/2-illegal-immigrants-winarizona-ranch-in-court.html
Old Mexican, do you or do you not support the right of property owners to protect their property against trespassers?
You are tiring. Go back to Mexico.