A commenter at the post, A Comment on Strategies and Tactics Toward Advancing Liberty, has left this cute comment:
In a PPS, if a pregnant immigrant mom and her toddlers wandered off and stole some apples to eat from a private farm, the property owner could shoot them in the head on the spot. Or chop them up for the garbage disposal on live TV. Or turn them into sex slaves for life. Meanwhile, until that glorious day arrives, all 7 billion people in the world can set up makeshift plastic tents on the government street where my little driveway ends. A public relations dream for libertarians.It should be noted that this commenter is generally sound in his comments here at Target Liberty, but a fear of immigrants has apparently been triggered by Donald Trump.
Freidrich Hayek in Chapter 10: "Why The Worst Get On Top" of The Road to Serfdom warned us that the worst leaders trigger this type of fear (my bold):
It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skillful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program-on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the "they, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than most any positive program. The enemy, whether he be internal, like the "Jew or the “kulak,” or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.And thus Hayek explains how this type of leader can twist the morals of the masses:
While we are likely to think that, since the desire for a collectivist system springs from high moral motives, such a system must be the breeding-ground for the highest virtues, there is, in fact, no reason why any system should necessarily enhance those attitudes which serve the purpose for which it was designed. The ruling moral views will depend partly on the qualities that will lead individuals to success in a collectivist or totalitarian system and partly on the requirements of the totalitarian machinery.And thus we see how the supporters of pulling children from their parents believe this is somehow high moral ground.
It is Trump triggering fears about immigrants in the deep recesses of the emotional mind in a large mass of a civilized society, fears that would only make sense when a small number of homo sapiens roamed the land and the civilized respect for neighbors was non-existent.
To present an argument in the fashion as the commenter does that "all 7 billion people in the world can set up makeshift plastic tents on the government street where my little driveway ends," is an indication of enormous overflows of emotion rather than deep thinking about the civilized world.
Seven billion people are not going to flow onto his government street. This is bizarre hyperbole. None are.
In San Francisco, which is a sanctuary city and has an enormous illegal population, there are none living on the streets. Further, there are sections of the city where no illegals can be found (e.g. Nob Hill, North Beach). It is just very poor understanding of how immigrant population flows occur, and where immigrants relocate, to think they are going to move into his neighborhood. Indeed, he is doing nothing other than supporting national central planning as if that was needed to keep immigrants out of his neighborhood.
And if 7 billion people flowed to the United States then land values in the rest of the world would be bargains and those who fear immigrants could buy up property there and live like a king. Of course, this is all imaginary nonsense that ignores the basic economics of supply and demand that tells us that the entire planet is not going to move to a side street on Malibu Beach.
As for the commenter's representation of a PPS, he is simply dishonest. In my book, Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person, I make clear that the killing of a child is a horrific act and there are simple ways to avoid this outcome and the central planning alternative of overarching rules has led to hundreds of millions dead. It is the central planning which is the real threat and the great danger.
Meanwhile, while I am discussing how to limit deaths and consider alternatives, this "high virtue" commenter supports the taking of children from their parents.