Wednesday, June 19, 2019

The Weakest Argument For Throwing Undocumented Immigrants Out of the Country

By Robert Wenzel

At the post, Trump Vows Mass Immigration Arrests, Removals of Millions of Illegal Aliens’ Starting Next Week, a commenter writes:
If people are taxed, then they have partial ownership of government lands and they get to decide who is allowed on that land. Therefore when the illegals come in, the taxpayer may elect someone who will deal with the illegals as trespassers. This is the privilege that taxpayers get to enjoy if they are forced to pay taxes.
This is argument is wrong on multiple levels.

First the statement, "If people are taxed, then they have partial ownership of government lands and they get to decide who is allowed on that land." is a slippery version of the slogan "The government is here to help you."

Hell, even Ronald Reagan knew this was a scam:


The idea that the government should be expanded for any purpose should outrage any libertarian.

Where exactly do libertarians have "partial ownership of the government"?

Where exactly is the government listening to libertarians?

Only a beltarian would think this argument makes sense.

But further, the idea that all taxpayers do not want undocumented immigrants in the United States is delusional. What about the taxpaying apartment owners that rent to the undocumented? Aren't they paying taxes on their properties (and thus the illegals are indirectly)? What about employers who employ the undocumented aren't they paying at a minimum both property taxes and income taxes?

Just who the hell does this commenter think he is that he thinks he has the say on every property in the country as to who tax-paying property owners and tax-paying employers can invite on their property?

Does he realize that his claim "This is the privilege that taxpayers get to enjoy if they are forced to pay taxes." means the exact opposite of what he thinks it means?

In another comment Joshua Bennet summarized the situation correctly and powerfully:
It’s one thing I don’t understand about some libertarians that I hold in high regard.
We supposedly don’t believe in the State. But they want the State to curb immigration. So they are calling on State action. Unreal.
Do you Hate the State, or not?
But another commenter argues:
Sure. Until we dismantle the state in the proper order (and that is not open borders tomorrow), you can change the immigration laws. Or you can stand at the border and screen out the murderers, thieves, rapists, drunk drivers and free-loaders. Do you have time for that?
This commenter simply has no appreciation for how the free market works. He is calling for the shrinkage of the state "in the proper order" as if the government protects us now. It is silly to think that the government does this, in  Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person, I explain how it is not the government that protects us. Every city has safe areas and dangerous areas patrolled by the same city police.

It is the people in the areas that make it safe or unsafe.

Further, the idea that the undocumented are murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. is simply untrue (SEE: Does Undocumented Immigration Increase Violent Crime?). This is just buying into low-level Trump propaganda of the type that is as old as the masses themselves.

As Hayek put it in The Road To Serfdom:
It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skillful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body and supporters that...It seems to be almost a law of human nature that is easier for people to agree on negative programs--on the hatred of an in 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 unite together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek not really support of a policy, but the unreserved legions of huge masses. From the point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than in on almost any positive program. The other enemy, whether they be internal like the "Jew" or the 'kulak" or external seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.
 Hayek discussed the masses who fall for this stuff:
Is probably true that, in general, the higher education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity in outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and "common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people. If a numerous group is needed, strong enough to impose their views on  the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes - - it will be those who form the "mass" in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and the independent, who will be able to put the weight of the numbers behind their particular ideals.
The sooner we stop thinking in the massive aggregate, The United States of America, the better. The solution as far as immigration is concerned is simple: People who want to live, rent and employ immigrants should be allowed to do so. Those who do not want to be around immigrants should live where there are like-minded "thinkers" and no immigrants.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of and Target Liberty. He also writes EPJ Daily Alert and is author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank and most recently Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics and on LinkedIn. His youtube series is here: Robert Wenzel Talks Economics. More about Wenzel here.


  1. They're just schmucks. They're being tricked, and they don't get it.

    1. Donxon: They're just schmucks. They're being tricked, and they don't get it.

      I’m proud to be counted among some other schmucks that don’t get it: Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe.

      Donxon: It sounds like Mister Spock is afraid and he wants the government to initiate violence against people because he is scared. So I guess that makes him a schmuck and a coward.

      Yeah, like Dr. Paul, Rothbard and Hoppe, right? You’re a moron.

    2. I don't think that Rothbard was in favor of state-managed borders.

  2. Also, limelemon proved he's no libertarian. He afterwards went on a racist rant, claiming that immigrants are low IQ individuals, rehashing the old early 20th Century attack used by Progressives. Very quaint. The guy is not even a beltarian, just another obnoxious low-IQ Trumpist.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. If immigrants, in fact, are low IQ on average, then you are racist for stating otherwise. Research it, then state the truth -- that Mexicans and South Americans are low IQ.

    3. Hello, limelemon,

      I'm not the one making blanket statements about immigrants, limelemon. We all (you, I, Robert, everyone) are individual humans, with a unique will and a unique soul. There has to be some immigrants with low IQ just like there are some white dudes with low IQs and some Eskimos with low IQs. YOU are the one making the claim that "they" (i.e. all) are people of low IQ. Therefore, I am correct in calling you or anyone else making such a claim a RACIST.

      And I'm not 'researching' anything to prove your point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof by the person who makes the claim. The burden is on you to prove the claim. Let me make it clear: I am not going to click a link that takes me to the Daily Stormer or any other of the other cesspools.

    4. It is correct to make blanket statements about groups. That is what statistics is all about. Generalizations and collective statements about groups are correct and should be made. The bell curve shows us that there are a very low percentage of individuals who fall outside the norm. You are racist for claiming that Mexicans' IQ are higher than they actually are.

    5. OM to limelemon: YOU are the one making the claim that "they" (i.e. all) are people of low IQ.

      Here the OM (not the only post, either) becomes the Lying Old Mexican. In addition to ad hominem when he is incapable of a cogent argument, he accuses limelemon of saying ALL Mexicans are low IQ. In fact, LL said, “If immigrants, in fact, are low IQ on average…” LL says ON AVERAGE, LOM changes that to ALL. Dishonest as the day is long.

  3. Hello, Robert!

    During yesterday's re-election campaign rally, the president turned the rhetoric up by claiming that the Democrats were "morally reprehensible" for supporting so-called "open borders" and made the outrageous claim that the Democrats were out to "destroy" them (his supporters, ostensibly). This sounded too close to the white supremacists' chant "they shall not replace us" which, shouted during the infamous Charlottesville march that night of August of 2017. This anti-immigrant sentiment is not born from a specific preoccupation with taxation as limelemon claimed since, as you accurately pointed out, Trumpists are as statist as they come. Instead the sentiment springs from pure racial animus and a collectivist mentality, an "us" versus "them" binary thinking, a siege mentality, fostered and fomented by opportunists like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and, of course, Trump.

    As it was correctly put by Hayek, what is common with these crowds is the lowest possible denominator, the basest of emotions. Reason, insight, critical thinking, is thrown out the window. Some of these haters do make a tepid attempt at justifying their feelings by appealing to victimhood: *I* am a taxpayer, therefore *I* have some privileges. They eschew the fact that victims don't possess any special rights because it is easy for them to do so. That's why they mock and even despise true libertarians: because of our unwavering commitment to the moral principle of voluntarysm, to the Non Aggression Principle.

  4. I'll have to do this in two parts. This is part 1.

    Wenzel: “The idea that the government should be expanded for any purpose should outrage any libertarian.”

    Strawman. Who said that? No one here.

    “But further, the idea that all taxpayers do not want undocumented immigrants in the United States is delusional.”

    Strawman. Who said that? No one here.

    “Just who the hell does this commenter think he is that he thinks he has the say on every property in the country as to who tax-paying property owners and tax-paying employers can invite on their property?”

    Yeah, only Bob is allowed to have an opinion on illegal trespassers.

    “This commenter [referring to me] simply has no appreciation for how the free market works.”

    Mind reader, eh?

    “He is calling for the shrinkage of the state "in the proper order" as if the government protects us now.”

    I said nothing of the kind. What I said, and you did not quote, was in response to OM: “If you [OM] are saying we are not going to be able to dismantle the state, then taking the minarchist position that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property, I have no problem with keeping the illegals out.”

    I said nothing about whether the government is or isn’t protecting us now. What I said was about the proper role of government (if we are going to have one) - nothing about what it is doing currently.

    “Further, the idea that the undocumented (note how Bob uses the leftist term “undocumented”) are murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. is simply untrue”

    That has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard yet on this subject. You claim I have no appreciation for the market, I claim you have no understanding of English. Notice that in this paper the constant use of the word “rate.”

    “we use fixed‐effects regression models to examine the effect of increased unauthorized immigration on violent crime rates.”

    “Furthermore, trends in illegal drug activity are associated with changes in crime rates”

    "Consequently, unauthorized immigrants may increase crime rates by shifting the age composition toward a more “violence‐prone” age profile."

    "have been identified as major contributing factors to higher rates of violent crime"

    "both lawful and undocumented immigration may contribute to lower rates of violent crime"

    "Throughout the analysis, we first examine the overall violent crime rate"

    "the use of year fixed effects accounts for any unmeasured trends that influenced crime rates nationally"

    "Crime rates expressed on a logarithmic scale"

    And it goes on - I stopped about half-way through the article. You will see this over and over again: every article that tries to justify illegal immigration plays with the numbers, makes excuses, and talks about rates rather than actual numbers. And since they don’t have precise numbers, they excuse all the crime that is committed – “Well, we just don’t know the real numbers, but we’re sure the rates are lower so shut up.” Bob tried to do the same thing by linking to a paper that supposedly proved what I said was “simply untrue.” It did not. (end of part 1)

  5. part 2

    The rates illegals are committing violent crimes is irrelevant. I don’t care if the rates are higher or lower or exactly the same as the rates that citizens of the US commit those same crimes. It’s the NUMBER of murders, rapes, etc. Those numbers would be ZERO if the illegals had been kept out of the country. Note you never hear about the numbers, you hear about the rates because that’s a way of getting around the fact that thousands – THOUSANDS – of people wouldn’t have been murdered, raped, crippled, etc. if the illegals had been turned away at the border. It’s sad you have no compassion for the victims and families of victims that are documented in the links below. For you to say these crimes never happened (“simply untrue”) is mind-boggling.

    Additionally, it may be that some of the rates are bogus and illegals DO commit some crimes at a higher rate. To say nothing of them being a disproportionate number of inmates in our prisons. No time for that now – the issue is still the number of crimes committed that could have been prevented.

    Take a look at some of these (a handful of what’s available) and tell me it’s “simply untrue” that illegals haven’t murdered, raped and committed all kinds of violent crime in this country. And ask yourself why you have no compassion for the ruined lives of the people documented below.

    1. The rate vs absolute number is an interesting argument here and most places it comes up.

      How many times have we heard "If it only saves one life" then the new law, regulation, fine, tax, whatever is worth it? Thousands I would guess. But when absolute numbers stand in the way of government expansion then suddenly it is all about the rates, distributions, and odds.

      For instance a new traffic law is under 'if it only saves one life' but someone killed by a cop who pulled him over for violating that new traffic law goes into a rate. It's a very small percentage of traffic stops that result in a fatality. Just sucks to be you if you're the one caught up in that very small rate.

      It all makes sense to me since I started seeing government as a manager of a herd of humans for maximum productivity and profit at the lowest net cost to the owners. If we do the math, it probably works for the subject at hand.

    2. Fact check──from Breitbart, of all places.

      Fact check──yes, thousands of Americans have been killed by running vehicles. Deport all vehicles!

      There's no difference between the way you argue your case, Mr. Spooky, and how leftists argue against guns where you link to your favorite rags that offer spot anecdotes or meaningless statistics to bolster the claim that "X" is bad, therefore it must be banned.

      Saying that THOUSANDS of people wouldn't have suffered "X" or "Y" if we only stopped "illegulz" at the border is the functional equivalent of what the Freakanomics authors argued which was that abortions contributed to less crime because less undesired babies were born. You can certainly argue that, but it doesn't justify closing the border to immigrants. There are around 11 million undocumented immigrants and very few of them commit crimes, at a much lower rate than the native born.

      ──"it may be that some of the rates are bogus and illegals DO commit some crimes at a higher rate. "──

      Texas is perhaps the only state that keeps careful records of an arrested person's national origin, and thanks to those records, the rate of incarceration and criminality of undocumented immigrants is much less than the crime rate among native-born Texans. Perhaps you want to claim that Texas is a special place - you tell me.

    3. I'll probably have to split this into two parts.

      LOM (Lying Old Mexican): Fact check──from Breitbart, of all places.

      No refutation of any of the many links I posted – just ridicule one and hope people don’t notice he can’t dispute the facts.

      “Fact check──yes, thousands of Americans have been killed by running vehicles. Deport all vehicles!”

      What an idiot. Cars (like guns) don’t kill people – people kill people. But I don't want illegal drunk drivers deported. I want them executed.

      “Saying that THOUSANDS of people wouldn't have suffered "X" or "Y" if we only stopped "illegulz" at the border blah, blah, blah…”

      “"How many thousands? Thousands upon thousands!" and other paranoid fantasies.:””

      “You hear one or two stories promoted on Fox News and you extrapolate that to mean "thousands and thousands" in your mind.”

      Again no refutation, just moronic arguments. LOM says there’s no evidence of the thousands upon thousands of violent crimes committed by illegals (which he can’t even spell – maybe he’s one of those low IQ people) and there are only one or two. And he refuses to look at the evidence.

      “and very few of them commit crimes, at a much lower rate than the native born… much less than the crime rate among native-born Texans.”

      There it is twice – arguing about the rate. The rate is irrelevant as I have already pointed out, the “rate” issue is bogus and is continually used by those that want to justify the invasion.

      E.g., the Cato Institute says in an article on the internet,

      "It is difficult to know whether illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans are." Once again, who cares about how likely? The bottom line is they have committed crimes. Crimes that could have been prevented. Dead people that would still be alive. Women that wouldn't have been raped. Etc. But LOM and Donxon don't care about them. Zero compassion. But how can there even be a rate if the illegals have committed only one or two crimes? You can’t have it both ways, LOM.

      If the illegals have only committed one or two crimes, why did all those families buy coffins, hold funeral services and bury their loved ones? What is wrong with them? Maybe LOM is saying that those people really died but weren’t killed by illegals. Maybe he can get OJ to help him find the real killers. With LOM’s attitude, we can expect him to tell us that it was straight white Christian males that really did it.

      And just so we know that LOM’s idiotic claim that aliens have only killed one or two people as opposed to thousands, let’s take a quick look at just two websites that show he’s lying through his teeth, as usual. (to be continued)

    4. (continued)

      The Texas Department of Public Safety tells us

      "Between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2019, these 197,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 309,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 561 homicide charges; 34,206 assault charges; 5,930 burglary charges; 39,034 drug charges; 439 kidnapping charges; 16,523 theft charges; 24,653 obstructing police charges; 1,730 robbery charges; 3,657 sexual assault charges; 4,878 sexual offense charges; and 3,120 weapon charges."

      It's a lengthy article - read it all. Later in the report, we are told

      From 2011 to date, the Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has provided DPS with information on more than 27,000 individuals who were identified by DHS as in the country illegally while they were incarcerated at TDCJ. 10,348 of these individuals were not identified through the PEP program at the time of their arrest. DPS does not know the current incarceration status of the individuals identified while they were incarcerated nor when their alien status was initially determined. Over the course of their entire Texas criminal careers, these 10,348 individual identified as illegal aliens while in prison, were charged with more than 47,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 1,931 homicide charges; 5,562 assault charges; 3,643 burglary charges; 6,717 drug charges; 339 kidnapping charges; 2,676 theft charges; 3,701 obstructing police charges; 2,433 robbery charges; 2,959 sexual assault charges; 1,152 sexual offense charges; and 1,577 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 25,000 convictions including 1,141 homicide convictions; 2,813 assault convictions; 1,973 burglary convictions; 3,930 drug convictions; 147 kidnapping convictions; 1,268 theft convictions; 1,683 obstructing police convictions; 1,638 robbery convictions; 1,892 sexual assault convictions; 704 sexual offense convictions; and 622 weapon convictions.

      There's 1141 CONVICTIONS just for homicide in Texas alone for about 8 years alone.

      The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released its annual report on deportations for Fiscal Year 2018. Look at the chart - there were 1,641 convictions for homicide. One year.

      When LOM dies, we could give him an enema and bury him in a shoebox.

    5. P.S. A slight clarification. When I said, "But I don't want illegal drunk drivers deported. I want them executed," I was referring to illegal drunk drivers that killed someone while driving drunk, not just drunk drivers. And I want the same for all drunk drivers that kill someone; legal, illegal, citizen, non-citizen, black, white, young, old, whatever.

  6. Open borders exist because government crowds out private property by creating "public property" which prevents people from becoming property owners of the government lands. Therefore this invasion only happens because of government. In a libertarian society, the invading Mexicans would be trespassers.

    1. limelemon, in a libertarian society, Mexicans who receive the permission of private-property owners -- employers, friends & family, landlords, churches, etc. -- would not be trespassers. You might decide not to associate with them, but that is unlikely to be true of everyone here.

    2. Yes agreed, but the incentive to come here will be much lower because they can't mooch off the taxpayer.

    3. Hello, limelemon,

      ──"In a libertarian society, the invading Mexicans would be trespassers."──

      National borders are a political construct, not a property line. Besides this, you assume property owners would ipso facto insulate themselves from the rest of the world because otherwise your conclusion would be absurd. You really think property owners would not agree to build roads that lead to each of their properties and make those ways public? Please.

      You haven't given your BS much though, have you?

    4. limelemon, it's impossible to know if we'd have more or fewer immigrants, but I could make a strong case that once US private-property owners and immigrants no longer have to worry about ICE, we may see a lot more opportunities to engage in personal and commercial relationships come to fruition.

  7. Rothbard always said to use the government in order to advance libertarianism. Well since we know that the invaders at the border vote for socialism then we can't allow them in. Low IQ people can't compete well in a free market, so they vote for socialism. Also they don't understand freedom and they will vote against libertarian principles. These statistics are known, they are not conjecture.

    1. It doesn't advance libertarianism to use force to prevent consensual personal and commercial relations between individuals.

      If by "low IQ" you mean "low skilled," then your proposition that they can't compete well in a free market is not correct. They compete by offering to work for lower wages. Which is, I suspect, one of the key reasons that some locals want to keep them out, meaning that such locals are in fact the ones who have trouble competing in the free market.

    2. Hello, the NAPster,

      No, he is really, seriously saying that Mexicans and South Americans are low-IQ morons. Just read his last comments in the previous post.

  8. Why are the Democrats for open borders? Could it be that the track record of Mexicans and South Americans is that most of them vote Democrat, therefore they want to import more people who vote Democrat? Hello people.

  9. You shrink the government in the proper order or you don't get to shrink it at all. It is not as if the government protects us now, it doesn't, it's about having large enough proportion of hearts and minds to shrink it meaningfully. Government is acting to make that impossible.

    It's one thing not to have a program, service or wealth transfer, but it's considered cruel and even racist to get rid of it once it does it exist. The more people dependent on these things the harder it is to get rid of them, the more difficult it becomes to ween people off them. We can't even ween corporations that profit from war off of taxpayer wealth how will it be accomplished when its feeding even more women and children?

    Will the people receiving our wealth through government be satisfied with what they get? No, they will want more and will be agitated to want more by government office holders. The warfare corporations can't even be satisfied with what they get. And even trading warfare consumption for feeding women and children is a difficult if not impossible political sell.

    Think about it for a moment, if a majority of the legal or illegal immigrants were Rothbardian in mindset do you think there would even be a debate in government about changing laws or rounding them up and deporting them? No, it would get done at great speed. The government would do everything possible such that those people would not have an influence in elections, people's views, etc. The media wouldn't even cover the government actions against them.

    Show me the path that anyone who shows up immigration policy takes to more liberty. The only one I see is that the political results crash the economy (sooner rather than later?) and the government collapses from its own weight as a result and then we hope something with more liberty rises out of the ashes. I don't think that's a viable path.

    How does unfettered immigration lead to more liberty under the present statist conditions? How does unfettered immigration diminish the state from the present conditions? Explain it to me.

    1. JJM:

      We cannot reform the federal government; it is too big, and too powerful (thanks to so many statists of western European heritage voting in favor of this over the last 100 years). The route to liberty is for more decentralization, nullification, secession, etc., where liberty-oriented people turn their backs on the federal government.

    2. Hello, Jimmy Joe Meeker,

      You claim that "You shrink the government in the proper order or you don't get to shrink it at all". This prescription is nonsensical. What do you mean by a proper order? Who decided the order? What you're doing is coming up with increasingly absurd excuses to stop people from migrating in.

      You then say "[...] if a majority of the legal or illegal immigrants were Rothbardian in mindset do you think there would even be a debate in government about changing laws or rounding them up and deporting them?"

      That's not why Trumpists want the state to purge immigrants from this country. Those who try to make a pseudo-intellectual case against immigration by alluding to a generous welfare state make a tiny fringe element of the already-fringy Trumpist camp. Trumpists don't make those arguments, they just hate immigrants, especially the ones coming from south of the border. Read some of the comments here and in the previous post and you will see this. Limelemon makes the claim that Mexicans and South Americans are all low-IQ morons. That's a lot of human beings sharing the same fundamental characteristic in that racist's mind.

    3. Old Mexican, I have quite clearly and have repeatedly stated what the proper order with regards to this topic is and why. If you cannot grasp it after this many attempts then that is on you sir.

      I have come up with no excuses to stop people from migrating in. I have simply told you that unfettered immigration is a feature, a benefit of liberty not something that brings liberty about. You sir sound like a central banker who thinks that juicing the stock market with low cost money makes a good economy. What makes a good stock market is a good economy. Like the central banker you have cause and effect backwards.

      I don't care about Trumpists. Tell me how unfettered immigration gets us to liberty given the present statist conditions. Explain it to me, step by step without skipping any. How does unfettered immigration get us from A, the present conditions, to B, liberty (be it a PPS, early 19th century USA, or something of that order). That's all you need to do, convince me. Instead you want to label me a Trumpist. That's how leftists argue Mr. Torres er Old Mexican. The ball is in your court.

      NAPster: I agree, reform is impossible therefore there is only collapse. That said I also agree with RW, what comes out of collapse or revolution usually isn't liberty.

    4. JJM, I don't see secession necessarily as "collapse." When the American colonies seceded from Great Britain, the latter continued to exist; when the Confederate States seceded from the Union, the latter continued to exist (and there are countless other examples too).

    5. NAPster, The state and local governments are often worse than the feds and usually no better. Secession thus can't fix it.

    6. JJM:

      First, even if I agreed with your conclusion (which I don't), you missed my point. You were arguing that there is only reform or collapse; I suggested secession as a third alternative to the status quo.

      Second, your conclusion is quite definitive! Not sure how you can be so certain that secession could never bring more liberty. You might not like your current state and local governments, but (a) I wasn't limiting secession to one's current state or local government (secession can be any sub-group with common objectives that wants to bring power closer to home, and secession could be a continuous process, down to ever-smaller groups over time), (b) it is a lot harder for politicians to get away with crap when they have to see their constituents on a daily basis in the local community, and (c) the federal government taxes us at much higher rates than do state and local governments, and engages in mass murder abroad which endangers our safety, and leads to infringements on our liberty, here at home.

    7. Napster, you did well knocking down what I did not state.

      "You were arguing that there is only reform or collapse;"

      Where? That is not what I argued. I clearly stated reform is impossible therefore there is only collapse. Reform is not possible. Furthermore a breakup is a form of collapse.

      "not sure how you can be so certain that secession could never bring more liberty."

      I clearly wrote:
      The state and local governments are often worse than the feds and usually no better. Secession thus can't fix it.

      That's not a never. It's an unlikely. I see the same attitudes from all levels of government, the same mentality. They may break off but they will probably follow the same path.

      On accountability I watched politicians of the small town I grew up in get away with a great deal. Some got criminally charged and penalized most got away. The first to be charged was when I was about 12 years old. The behavior only grew worse in the decades after. So again, it's only more likely that they are held accountable, maybe, theoretically.

  10. It sounds like Mister Spock is afraid and he wants the government to initiate violence against people because he is scared. So I guess that makes him a schmuck and a coward.

    "How does unfettered..... lead to liberty?"

    What exactly do you think it means to fetter something? Can we fetter ourselves to liberty? You are locking your own chains by asking the feds to chase away the browns.

    You sound like a pansy liberal who wants to threaten his neighbors because of his anxiety over the weather.

    1. Insult is not an argument nor an explanation. Please explain how the current statist conditions are moved towards liberty through eliminating state restrictions on immigration first. No word play, insults, etc, simply explain.

      Explain why the government for decades has deliberately failed to use the powers it has had over immigration to such a large degree if such an approach leads to smaller government. Can you show it leading to smaller government? All I see is more government this and that to take care of the 'demand' and 'need' for government services.

      By unfettering immigration with the current conditions you must then fetter other people to pay for a variety of services, wealth transfers, etc. Like you wrote, we can't fetter ourselves to liberty.

    2. Please explain how the current statist conditions are moved towards liberty by turning the feds loose on millions of peaceful people?

      By fettering immigration you must then fetter other people to pay for a variety of services, wealth transfers, etc. Like you wrote, we can't fetter ourselves to liberty.

      Drugs. Terrorists. Immigrants. Global Warming. Abortion. Healthcare. Religion. Roads! Whatever keeps you awake at night, that's what they will offer to fix. All it will cost is your freedom. They've groomed you so well you just can't help but beg for them to screw you.

    3. Doxon That's a lovely non-answer. An attempt at diversion. A rather dishonest one at that.

      Where did I mention turning the feds loose on "millions of peaceful people"? I didn't. But are they "peaceful people"? Some are, some aren't. Many of these "peaceful people" are advocating that the state take from me to provide them wealth transfers and services. How is that peaceful? All I asked is that government, federal, state, county, city, not be turned on me. You apparently consider that notion objectionable. To consider it so you must want to turn the government on me. Why do you want to turn government loose on me for their benefit?

      I have no personal fear of immigrants. I fear the state. The state which demands ever greater financial tribute to take care of others. I live and work among many immigrants to the point where I am often the only native english speaker around so this is not some ivory tower exercise for me. It is the state that raises taxes on me to pay for a variety of programs for immigrants. Because of my proximity I have a fair understanding of the financial cost through the state and the ongoing agitation for more wealth transdfers and services.

      Furthermore I have not requested that state gain power. It took power over immigration a long time ago. It has simply decided not to use those powers. You won't even ask why. I do. Why has the state decided not use this power to its full extent? Obviously the reason is that the state sees it beneficial not to.

      The state is using immigration to increase its power and its theft.

      Explain how immigration leads to liberty under the present statist conditions and why you are not demanding that the state's power to tax others to provide for those arriving be dismantled?

      I didn't ask for the state's protection, but you are asking or at the very least enabling the state to steal from me.

    4. The entry itself isn't peaceful, regardless of intentions of the migrant. Mass migration is akin to conquest.

    5. JJM:

      When you say "I have no personal fear of immigrants. I fear the state," shouldn't that lead you to the conclusion that the enemy is the state, not immigrants, so that you shouldn't support asking the state to exercise more power?

    6. Sherlock:

      In what way is the entry not peaceful? If you walk across an arbitrary state-imposed border, what violence have you done to anyone?

      I'm not sure what you mean by "Mass migration is akin to conquest," but I would suggest that this a problem with the state, not with immigrants. Couldn't you say that, as those statists with western European heritage have gained control of the federal government, libertarians have been "conquered"? Our problem is the 300+ million statist citizens, not would-be immigrants.

    7. NAPster, the state is using immigration as a tool to increase its size and scope and send the bill to people such as myself. I haven't called on it to exercise more power. I've called on libertarians to at least support ending the state's aggression upon me and others financially before pushing their immigration wishes in order to prevent the state's growth. But this they will not do. Why? The answer is that unfettered migration promotes liberty, but in practical experience from the way things are now, it does not. I asked for an explanation, instead I get parlor tricks.

      Open migration is a feature of liberty, it does not as any sort of rule bring it about. These libertarians have cause and effect backwards.

    8. The police state will definitely do in 5 years what you fear immigrants might do in 50.

      It's a trick.

    9. NAPster:

      Thanks for the reply. No I'm looking at it a bit differently, less of a political sense and more of a tribal/cultural sense.

      Military invasion and mass migration have the same effect in the end, which is the replacement / destruction of the "host" culture. There are actually examples in history of more death resulting from well intentioned migration than military attack. One example is Israel, beginning in the late 1800s.

      My motivation is a love of my nation (ethnicity) and my culture, which is no vice. It is also a love of other cultures, not hate (you'll just have to believe me here). This type of diversity (+ proximity) has often led to violence, and I see no reason why it won't again. I also would like to see the worlds different good cultures preserved, rather that diluted.

      To be transparent, I have been influenced by Vox Day. I'd like counterarguments to him (that lack name calling). He's an arrogant cuss, but the arguments and evidence he provides seem sound.

      Fun stuff. I would enjoy being swing back to the Ancap camp, maybe. Or maybe I'll read too much Gary North and become a dominionist. Who knows?

    10. Sherlock:

      I'm not familiar with Vox Day's arguments.

      I get why you could love your culture, but what does it mean to love one's "nation" if that is different from one's culture (you seemed to suggest that they were two different things)? My definition of "nation" is just land and people given permission to live inside an arbitrary set of lines as dictated by the state. Who can love what the state creates?

    11. NAPster:

      I use "nation" in the way more like it's etymology. "Nasci" is Latin for "born of", the Greek version is "ethnos" where we get the word "ethnicity." "Ethnic nationalism" is a tautology.

      States don't create nations. What you describe is a "civic nation." I don't much like those either. Trump can be labeled a flag-hugging "civic nationalist."

      Vox Day speaks against Ricardo and free mobility of labor. It's interesting.

    12. Oh, also:

      I separated culture, as it's more the character of a nation (which can be imagined as a larger version of family).

    13. JJM:

      "I haven't called on it to exercise more power. I've called on libertarians to at least support ending the state's aggression upon me and others financially before pushing their immigration wishes in order to prevent the state's growth."

      I'm not sure of which libertarians you speak. I am certainly not pushing for any particular immigration flow, but am simply saying that the state should not be in charge of saying who comes here. I am also against all other state actions, including robbing taxpayers to distribute money to others (citizens and immigrants). I see my position as being logically consistent, in opposing all state power.

      I can only think of one way to interpret your position of "ending the state's aggression upon me and others financially before pushing their immigration wishes": the state should keep immigrants out until it ends the welfare system. That seems quite inconsistent with your claim that "I haven't called on it to exercise more power." How can the state keep out immigrants for now without exercising more power?

      Moreover, the amount of welfare paid to US citizens dwarfs that paid to immigrants, so shouldn't your fight be against the welfare system and your fellow citizens who are taking your money? The immigrants are a financial sideshow.

    14. Again, I am not asking the state to do anything. I am pointing out what the state is doing. The state is using immigration to grow, it allows people in and then says 'look at all these people' we need to grow.

      The state _IS_ in charge of saying who comes here and stays here, our being against that is rather irrelevant. The state being in charge of it is an effect of other powers of the state. You have to dismantle a building or used controlled demolition in a proper order or you get a big mess. I ask for things to be taken down in the proper order to avoid a big mess and results that are not good. If you strip the state of the power of immigration first the state will simply grow in size and scope.

      The interpretation is that all this energy going towards open borders should be going towards ending what puts people in conflict with each other in the first place, the argument over plunder through the government. Immigration is comparatively a non-issue when it doesn't impose on others. You get your open borders by getting rid of the conflict. It's about method of achieving the goal. One works, the other doesn't.

      "Moreover, the amount of welfare paid to US citizens dwarfs that paid to immigrants"

      That's the 'but it's only a little bit more' argument to justify it. That's like saying it will only cost a little bit more to bomb Iran too. And it is a lot more than simply welfare as I pointed out previously.

      " so shouldn't your fight be against the welfare system and your fellow citizens who are taking your money? "

      It's the same fight. And immigrants become citizens. The more people who depend on government services and wealth transfers the bigger and more numerous the programs get and the harder they are to get rid of. CA's government working hard to require people like RW to pay for the expensive crony medical care of anyone who can get to California from a foreign land.

      Dismantle in the proper order or watch the state grow until it collapses from its own weight. That's the choice. The problem is we'll all be impoverished by the later.

    15. Sherlock:

      Why do you have such little faith in your culture -- and those who share your culture -- that you think that it will be destroyed by those who are not from your culture coming into the US? I look around the US and see all sorts of different cultures peacefully thriving in the private sector. It's the state that engineers conflict through introducing a zero-sum game.

    16. No, NAPster. I have faith that human nature to continue to do what it always has in history. The state, evil as it is, doesn't engineer all conflicts. There are immutable characteristics in humanity, tribalism being one of them. Working against that nature has historically led to disaster.

      And I'm not necessarily condemning the migrant nation. I wouldn't be surprised if it was my hosting nation that draws first significant blood.

      As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of historical examples, from Romans to Israelis and beyond, that support this assertion: diversity + proximity = violence. There is less liberty in a PPS experiencing inter-ethnic strife than a statist one that's at peace.

      This is why I have inched away from AnCap libertarianism, it seems to remain in the ideal (which I see in your thinking, NAPster - nothing bad about that) but fails to acknowledge what nature and humanity really is. In that way, it is utopian thinking (starting with ideals rather than empirical observation).


    17. Sherlock:

      I want to comment (at length) on one, key sentence of yours: "There is less liberty in a PPS experiencing inter-ethnic strife than a statist one that's at peace."

      What that fails to recognize is that, while there might be less direct inter-ethnic strife, the state itself is a massive perpetrator of violence. Moreover, it's possible that an opposing "tribe" might have gained hold of the reins of the state, and thus in "keeping the peace" is actually criminally dominating other "tribes." Imagine the apocryphal "Mafia town," where everyone is extorted into paying tribute to the Don. A stranger walking through town might marvel at how peaceful the relations are between folks, but that completely masks the violence that the Don is visiting on everyone on a daily basis.

      Libertarianism simply holds that the initiation of violence is wrong, no matter which human engages in it. This means that the same behavioral rule applies to men both in the private sector and at the state. Since the state initiates violence in everything that it does, the libertarian opposes the state's existence as a wholly immoral entity. Someone who is not a libertarian is basically saying that individuals who work at the state get to live by a different behavioral code, and I just don't see how that can be justified.

      I think that non-libertarians see libertarianism as utopian because they struggle to imagine how the world would work without the state's violence, and conclude that it cannot be done, so that anyone who is espousing that must be idealistic. Libertarians don't have specific answers to how the world would work in all respects -- although there are very solid theories, plus historical and current examples to look at -- other than to say that this is for men to figure out among themselves; there are no bounds to entreprenurial ingenuity. I don't see how that failure of prognostication refutes the central idea that the initiation of violence is wrong and that we should seek to reduce it everywhere. Nor can I see how believing that the initiation of violence by every man is wrong makes one utopian; I would say it makes one morally consistent.

      Libertarians don't believe that there won't be individual or groups of criminals, but simply say that criminality should not be institutionalized, ruling us in between individual acts of violence.

      The bottom line is that it's important to recognize that the state is perpetual and comprehensive violence, and its violence dwarfs that of the private sector. If you're going to do an accounting, make sure that you take account of this.

    18. NAPster:

      Thank you for the reply. I know full well libertarian theory. I was an anarchist for years until very recently.

      It wasn't a lack of imagination that bid me to inch away from libertarianism, it was my realization that all I was doing was imagining. I used the word utopian because the theory is set in the subjective ideal, not the real, with "liberty" as an idol (the Target of this blog). I'm moving to shape my political opinion on observation.

      Regarding justifying different behavioral codes: there certainly is a way. Let's say the Creator of the Universe ordained offices specifically for the purpose of keeping peace between creatures prone to evildoing; and in the hands of that office-holder He placed a sword. Imagine that.:)

    19. Sherlock:

      Very interesting.

      1. I don't think that it's possible, conceptually, to develop a theory of political philosophy based on observation only. You always need to start with a theory. There are an infinite number of observations that you could use as data, so you need a theory that tells you where to look for the data, which data to include and exclude, and over what time period to observe the relevant data. Thus my guess is that you had some non-NAP theory underlying your new view before you started observing data.

      2. I'm not sure that I follow how, practically, one develops a defensible political opinion based on observation rather than theory. Let's take war as an example. If you look around the world and see the US government initiating lots of military aggression, which seems to benefit the US, then based on observation, wouldn't one conclude that starting wars is acceptable? On the other hand, if one has a cogent theory, based on the NAP or religion or something else, that mass murder (the reality of war) is wrong, then one would maintain that war is wrong even though it happens and benefits some folks. But, using your terminology, you wouldn't want to be subscribing to a theory "set in the subjective ideal" and wouldn't want to be imagining a standard that says war is wrong and that we should work to try to eliminate it.

      3. Are you saying that the Creator has ordained all or only some politicians to hold the sword? To be open about my bias, I view all politicians who wield the sword (via war, taxation, regulation, etc.) as among the most morally heinous individuals in the world (at least the private-sector murderer or robber operates on a much smaller scale, and doesn't try to convince you that what he's doing is for your own good). I'm wondering what kind of God would ordain such people to rule over us (note that I don't use your phrase "keeping the peace," because the way they act is itself violent). On the other hand, if you're saying only some politicians are ordained, how are we to know which ones?

      4. Finally, I'm surprised that, as a religious person, you reject the "subjective ideal" in favor of "the real." I'm no expert in the Bible, so could be completely getting this wrong, but aren't the principles and practices that are preached intended to make people better in this life, nay, act peacefully towards their fellow men, even though this is contrary to what one observes on a daily basis? It seems to me that observant Christians, of all people, should be most enthusiastic about the NAP (Laurence Vance is very good on this stuff).

    20. 1) you're right. I clumsily worded that. The underlying theory is Christian, with a Reformed theology, which has much to say about reality as well and morality. Idealism has a habit of rejecting reality. I probably clumsily worded that as well.

      2) I reject moral subjectivity, reality is not subjective (I include Christianity as part of that reality).

      3) God is sovereign. He's ordained it all, for His ends. This is a question of theology. Government is sometimes an extension of His grace, and at other times His judgement.

      4) Lawrence Vance is good on a lot. I disagree with some of his stances. This is a theological debate on the legitimacy of government. I take the stance that God ordained the existence of that body.

      (This is probably where we should end. Good stuff,N).

  11. The immigrants are mostly disease ridden low IQ rodents from failed states and societies. But more disease and crime is great with the libertardians. If cheap labor is so great, their home countries should be prosperous.

    I never hear of one libertardian acknowledging how these people reduce social capital.

    1. And the feds, do they reduce social capital?

    2. Cheap labor is not the key to greater wealth. Labor is cheap because it is lowly productive, which is a sign of insufficient capital investment. Third-world countries have insufficient capital because their governments are not investor-friendly.

    3. Almost none of these clowns actually cares about 'freedom', they just want cheap stuff. They don't care that the citizens of China are forced at gunpoint to subsidize state run businesses that undercut US manufacturers, so long as the US government let's them enjoy the goods by not enacting tariffs. If the evil force of the state is removed by an ocean and continent and threatening someone else, what do libertarians care?

    4. Paul, are you suggesting that those in favor of tariffs are motivated by a desire to reduce the violence on Chinese citizens inflicted by the Chinese government? That would be odd, as the same pro-tariff crowd doesn't seem concerned about US citizens being forced at gunpoint to pay higher prices for imported goods or purchase from crony-capitalist US producers.

    5. NAPSTER

      I'm not at all concerned about the suffering of the Chinese because I'm not Chinese. However, I'm also not going to virtue signal that I'm concerned about state violence, and then conveniently ignore it so long as it save me a few shekels.

    6. Paul:

      Let's assume for now that you're concerned about murder as a moral wrong, and speak out about it in your local community and perhaps even more broadly in your state, even lobbying for better protection for the most vulnerable. Does the fact that you don't spend 100% of every day crusading against murder on a global scale in a similar fashion to how you conduct yourself locally mean that your concern is insincere? It may be not wholly effective globally, but that is very different from being insincere.

      One can only fight so many battles at once. I don't expect Chinese citizens to come help me fight the US government. Moreover, exactly how does it help the Chinese if you purchase less from them?

    7. I stated up front that I don't care about the Chinese, so why should I purchase anything from them?

      I quit worshipping economics after I left libertarianism. The NAP is a fine principle to have when I'm surrounded by like minded people. I don't cling to it if it means that violent third world savages will invade my homeland and threaten the safety and well being of my progeny.

  12. If the frightened and cowardly Mexiphobes were serious about their purported worries over immigration induced welfare expansion, they would be asking ICE to deport the IRS.

    The immigrants simply aren't the problem. Welfare is the problem. So what do they focus on? Immigrants! Why? Because they're mostly loser white boys who cant compete and are probably on welfare to. Only losers and schmucks are afraid of immigration.