>

Friday, January 11, 2019

The Confused Statist Mentality of Some Libertarians

I continue to appreciate commenter Sherlock's willingness to search for truth. At the post. Crime Along the Mexican Border Is Lower Than in the Rest of the Country, he comments:
2011 GAO report http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/316959.pdf 
Estimated 700k crimes convicted among the criminal immigrant population imprisoned at that time.. It's common assumption that cops don't catch a majority of crimes, so the 700k crimes is a conservative estimate (although libertarians may not call many of those crimes as NAP violations).
Given Cato's data, it would seem that this happens at a lower rate that the rest of native population. Good!
BUT. Those crimes committed by criminal aliens would not have happened at all if border security was strong, or I should say less likely to have happened.
Perhaps the 'lower rate' argument, while good, doesn't address the 'total, more preventable, crime' problem.
Help me out here.
There is great confusion in this comment. It is the thinking-style of a central planner who claims he can bring the Garden of Eden to earth.

First, as I have pointed out, immigrants who come here to work increase the standard of living overall. This is just a logically deductive fact.

That some may be criminals is a fact of life. We don't live in the Garden of Eden. Planes crash, People die in automobile accidents and on occasion from crossing the street. Deaths from these type of events "would not have happened" if we banned airplanes. automobiles and crossing of streets.

Such thinking, that these type events should be banned at the national level by government dictates, lowers the general standard of living. As it stands, in these sectors now, we have freedom. We can adopt the degree of risk we want. We don't have to fly in planes, drive cars (Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand didn't) or, for that matter cross busy streets. No government dictates are necessary, we all set our own level of risk.

The same goes for encounters with immigrants. If someone does not want to be around areas where property owners rent to immigrants and hire them for work, they should stay away from those areas. If you don't want to face the tradeoff between the risk-reward around immigrants, why would you force your risk-reward on everyone else? That is central planning type thinking. And the idea of checking immigrants at the border for "criminals" is a horrific idea. Any government rule or regulation will eventually be distorted in one direction or another. We want less government ALWAYS, not more. This position is the only thing that determines a consistent libertarian. Anyone claiming to be a libertarian but demanding government action is leaking statism.

As it happens to be, I live in one of the most diverse cities in the country, San Francisco. I interact with Hispanics all day long, in restaurants, stores, where they are doormen and cleaning people. I have zero fear of them. In fact, I marvel at their work ethic.

I consider it an absolute outrage that you want a situation where "border security was strong." There may be bad actors amongst the Hispanics but they are not in my part of town. If I want bad actors, I can find them in diverse ethnic types, white, blacks and Hispanics, in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. I just stay away from that area, especially at night. The government doesn't have to protect me on this with any kind of screening at the border or otherwise.

This is a very big country. If people have a serious phobia about Hispanics, then I suggest they move to areas where they are few and far between, I recommend Maine.

I just never want to let the government in to "help," ever, not even at the border to protect against bad actors. The private sector does a very good job of protecting me from all the bad actors and they would do even better job if more private security and development was allowed. The Tenderloin would be, for example, cleaned up in a week/

-RW 

18 comments:

  1. Well said.
    It always puzzles me how some people are so quick to ascribe, to others outside their own familiar group, negative qualities and character traits; Their own families, friends and circles of familiarity---the "PLU" folks (People Like Us)---are fine, upstanding folks, of course. But the "PNLU" (People Not Like Us)---notably, foreigners, and especially immigrants from 3rd-world nations---are, sight unseen, of lesser-quality alloy, of poor character, are lazy, dishonest, more susceptible to criminal behavior, less caring of and responsible with their own children, ignorant and stupid, etc.
    It's truly bizarre to me that so many people don't see the admirable qualities that I have seen while living in Texas, California, Chicago and now the Detroit area: Immigrants (notably Mexicans) are hard-working, kind, friendly, family-devoted people (PLU in fact); They are just like all of us, in that they want to raise families, have gainful employment, work hard and earn money to provide for their families, and live to see their children do well and have families of their own. They're not the cold-blooded, dispassionate, dehumanized beasts that some so readily and unfairly portray.
    Jacob Hornberger, of FFF.org (Future of Freedom Foundation), has over the years made the same observations about the admirable Mexican work ethic and character.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post.

    With few exceptions here, I don't think your readers that are pro border security have a Latino-phobia, as possibly implied by the second half of this post. I don't think the pro-border folks have a problem with Americans of Latino descent, giving that they are culturally American.

    I'm intrigued by the arguments by others under the "Dead Wrong" post, particularly the one that focuses on the changed nature of the host society, and what kind of magnet that is. When the Chinese and Erupoeans came, we had a very different welfare state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, these "libertarians" conveniently ignore the fact that we now have a massive government welfare system that is designed to attract immigrants who will vote for democrats. That system did not exist years ago, nor did the victim mentality that the government instills in them.

      Delete
    2. Re: Chubba Dog,

      ── Yes, these "libertarians" conveniently ignore the fact that we now have a massive government welfare system ──

      Trumpistas conveniently ignore that immigrants cannot apply for welfare and illegal immigrants are barred from applying. Before you start spewing the debunked "statistics" from the Center for Immigration Studies (the anti-immigration think tank that conflates immigrants with American citizens to over-represent their number), the number one reason a person migrates to the US is to work, which is where the nativist cry of "Dem Immigruntz Takum Er Jerbz!" comes from.

      Delete
    3. Re: Sherlock,

      ── With few exceptions here, I don't think your readers that are pro border security have a Latino-phobia, ──

      No, what they have is a southern Latino-immigrant phobia. There's a difference. They can't do much against the Latinos that are already here and are US citizens except maybe continuously harass them like former sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County used to do.

      It's cure how you obfuscate anti-immigrant zealotry by calling it "being pro-border security." That's cute.

      Delete
    4. I don't think many non-citizens are availing themselves of the Welfare State (conceived and clamored for by red-blooded, ostensibly anti-socialist Americans, mind you). But regardless, we all want the Welfare State to fail and disappear as soon as possible, and that would happen faster when over-burdened by tens of millions of "subscribers." We need to do whatever it takes to break that odious institution.

      Delete
    5. Torres, for a guy that's so anti-government, you always seem to use the government to back your rebuttals - "Trumpistas conveniently ignore that immigrants cannot apply for welfare and illegal immigrants are barred from applying"-

      According to you, the government says so, so it MUST BE TRUE! (so says the anti-government "libertarian" wannabe guy)

      Think. About. It.

      Delete
    6. Torres, Immigrants legal and illegal are only prohibited from some forms of FEDERAL welfare depending on their status. They are not prohibited from many sorts of state,county, and city welfare programs. Furthermore their US born children qualify for all welfare programs. And once they get citizenship they qualify for all programs.

      You call it "conflation" to include citizens born elsewhere but it is a cost that naturally arises as people become citizens. There's no income requirements to become a US citizen and becoming one then allows access to all the welfare state offers.

      Then beyond the welfare state there are all the socialized government services. Almost all of these are on the state,county, and city level. Of which all immigrants may utilize with a few exceptions for those here without the government's formal permission.

      Of course this is not new to you Mr. Torres for I have informed you on this subject numerous times. You choose to try and discard it for your own purposes. Which is also why you reject getting rid of the welfare state first. Government only grows by allowing in those who will or will become dependent on it.

      Delete
    7. Its an inconvenient truth Jimmy that no one wants to entertain because the born here component is sacred.

      Its been proposed even beyond the Welfare wall that unless you are born of naturalized parents then you dont get citizenship until some age of majority which makes all the other access solutions moot.

      But of course I am horrible to suggest such things

      Delete
  3. To be concerned and want to stop illegal immigration does not mean you have a phobia of hispanics or immigrants in general. This is the game the left plays by shouting racist at anyone who favors a wall or believes there is an immigration problem.

    What about:
    - Equality under the law?
    - Why do I need a passport to travel into and out of Mexico when an illegal does not?
    - Why did my son's broken arm cost me 5k when I know people who are in this country illegally are being seen at the same ER for free? Do they weigh the cost/benefit of having those additional tests run, etc.?
    - What about your recent article pointing out the poor reliability of government statistics?

    In a PPS society we wouldn't have the government controlling boarders, but we don't live in a PPS. I have mixed feelings about a wall and ultimately don't support a full wall being built, but controlling the boarder is probably one of the few legitimate things our government does under our current laws (the constitution). I agree completely that a welfare wall is the solution along with ending things like the drug war, war on terror, foreign aid (mostly used for political purposes), etc.

    Thanks for all the great articles! I probably agree with your take on things 90% of the time, but feel you turn dogmatic when it comes to immigration & crypto. Also, I think if you looked at vaccines a little more you wouldn't default to the experts so easily. Vaccines are also a serious liberty issue that are opening the eyes to some progressives to the dangers of government force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: CCLS,

      ── To be concerned and want to stop illegal immigration does not mean you have a phobia of [H]ispanics or immigrants in general. ──

      The main focus in this immigration debate has been on the southern border with Mexico. You probably haven't ben around the block much but nativists and racists aim their most vile attacks against immigrants from down south and not illegal immigrant Canadians.

      ── This is the game the left plays by shouting racist at anyone who favors a wall ──

      Mostly because they're right. The wall serves only to satisfy a fetish. It's not a real solution to a problem cause by government intrusion in what should be a process handled by the Market entirely.

      ── What about your recent article pointing out the poor reliability of government statistics? ──

      That's a good point. We've seen ho Trump and his enablers use misleading statistics to conflate immigrants with "terrorists".

      Delete
    2. ── To be concerned and want to stop illegal immigration does not mean you have a phobia of [H]ispanics or immigrants in general. ──

      The main focus in this immigration debate has been on the southern border with Mexico. You probably haven't ben around the block much but nativists and racists aim their most vile attacks against immigrants from down south and not illegal immigrant Canadians.

      > I grew up 20 miles from the southern boarder in a very poor area. Thank you for making your naive assumption about me. I don’t recall trump or any of his supporters (I’m not one of them) talk about a wall along Canada. I guess you’re out of good arguments so you create straw man ones like illegal canadians and walls along the northern boarder.

      ── This is the game the left plays by shouting racist at anyone who favors a wall ──

      Mostly because they're right. The wall serves only to satisfy a fetish. It's not a real solution to a problem cause by government intrusion in what should be a process handled by the Market entirely.

      > You’re basically doing what a racist does. You’re prescribing one negative trait to a whole group of people when you actually know that not every person (most) that supports a wall is racist. I’ll be sure to tell my hispanic family members that support a wall that they are racist.

      ── What about your recent article pointing out the poor reliability of government statistics? ──

      That's a good point. We've seen ho Trump and his enablers use misleading statistics to conflate immigrants with “terrorists".

      > thanks for conceding that one point, but why then go childish and say “well they do it too”?

      Delete
    3. This dance around the obvious is nutty. The reason there isn't a proposal for a wall on the northern border is because Canada has its own lucrative welfare state so people who come across the northern border are not looking for that. They have that at home.

      Delete
  4. "Leaking Statism" should be the name of your next book.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ── First, as I have pointed out, immigrants who come here to work increase the standard of living overall. This is just a logically deductive fact. ──

    Very often nativists and some 'libertarians' mention Milton Friedman's aphorism that "you cannot have an open border and a welfare state" to justify closing the border to most immigration. But those who defend their objection to immigration by reminding people that there's a welfare system are engaging in obfuscation, first by defining "open border" as the current state of affairs when, in fact, immigration hasn't been this restrictive since the 1920's. The very reason why you see families smuggling themselves in is because of a policy that is close to a de facto prohibition on immigration. Second, by making the assertion that having a welfare system is the deal breaker for having a more open (i.e. Market-oriented) system. This thinking is unreasonable, incongruent and dangerous, as you can call anything "welfare" or "social benefit" and use it to justify any sort of imposition or prohibition. This is the same kind of thinking that supports smoking bans and the drug war, or bans against plastic straws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Restrictive? It's at 1.125 Million people a year give or take legally. That's not restrictive at all given historic rates. It's right up there with the peak years of the past. Except now it is every year. It is not historically restrictive, quite the opposite. The only way to say it is restrictive is that it's a small percentage of what it would be with wide open borders with no controls what so ever.

      So what you're doing here Torres is implying people are bigots/racists/whathaveyou because demand for the US welfare state and what's left of its free markets is very high. If the USA was being restrictive on immigration it could use the high demand to sort for only those with the greatest likelihood of being net tax payers. Think of how an attractive woman on an online dating site sorts men. But that sort of thing doesn't happen with immigration into the USA. While the USA has a few crony corporatist serving ways for net taxpayers to get in much has more to do with reaching the front of the line than any meaningful restriction.

      If you think the real motivation has nothing to do with taxation call people's bluff and advocate for the end of the welfare state and a significant reduction in socialized government services first in exchange for less what you call restrictive immigration. But you won't do that. Because once the free stuff is no longer on the table all that will show up will be hard working people that resent collectivists stealing from them. You know, libertarian minded people.

      Delete
  6. " I interact with Hispanics all day long, in restaurants, stores, where they are doormen and cleaning people. I have zero fear of them. In fact, I marvel at their work ethic."

    But what I want to know from you is whether they are libertarian. So what if they work 'hard'? I've in South Texas most of my life. Yes, a lot of Mexicans do work. But most of them vote leftist trash EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

    I'm for building the wall. We don't need more turd world people who have low IQ and a worthless culture. Even high IQ legal immigrants are a problem and also vote left all the time.

    I want someone to show me solid stats on the number of non white libertarians.

    ReplyDelete