Monday, December 7, 2009
Thoughts on Libertarians and Immigration
By Robert P. Murphy
Immigration is one of the most hotly contested areas in libertarian theory and politics. In a short article like this I couldn’t hope to address all of the different arguments. For a start in that direction, I point the reader to Anthony Gregory and Walter Block’s Journal of Libertarian Studies article [.pdf] on the subject, which comes down in favor of “open borders” but gives serious attention to the arguments of Hoppe and the later Rothbard.
I personally agree with Gregory and Block on the technical issues of libertarian theory. Yet in the present essay I just want to make some practical observations on topics that puzzle me when I hear them discussed in the typical debates.
Using the Term “Illegals”
In my opinion, the oddest practice in American political discourse on immigration is to refer to the people in question as “illegals.” Out of all the groups in the country who violate legislation enacted by a few hundred people in D.C., why is the term “illegal” reserved for those who violate immigration laws?
On the one hand, I think it’s because the term “criminal” would be too harsh. In other words, people don’t call murderers and rapists “illegals,” they call them criminals. Yet if people were to refer to all illegal immigrants as criminals, it would make it difficult to distinguish the otherwise-law-abiding immigrants from those that were actually committing violent crimes and committing individual acts of theft.
On the other hand, I think it’s inconsistent to use the pejorative term “illegal” to classify an entire group of people. The term might make sense for law-and-order Republicans to use, but not for libertarians, especially for libertarian anarchists. After all, most libertarians don’t refer to pot smokers or tax evaders as “illegals,” even though they are breaking the laws of the United States too. Indeed, I bet there are a higher fraction of “illegals” at most libertarian conferences than there are at most construction sites!
Focus on Government Cash Flows
Besides the term “illegal,” another thing odd about the typical immigration debate—at least when conducted among self-described libertarians—is the focus on tax payments and government expenditures. The opponents of unrestricted immigration point to evidence showing how much more the government has to pay in terms of welfare, schooling, hospital visits, and so forth, to people who aren’t “on the books” and don’t pay any income taxes. The defenders of immigration counter with studies showing how much they pay in sales taxes, how they are net contributors to Social Security if they work under a fake name, and so on.
Although these empirical studies are interesting, they largely miss the point. My contribution to society is not gauged by my net payments to the government. On the contrary, I serve people (and they serve me) in the voluntary private sector. My paycheck is the best measure of how much I’ve contributed to others, at least in terms of tangible wealth. (Personally, my stunning good looks are also a huge positive externality I shower on those in my community, but I don’t charge them for this.)
A large, bustling city like New York or San Francisco couldn’t survive without millions of low-paid people performing all sorts of mundane yet crucial jobs. If all the illegal immigrants suddenly disappeared tomorrow, my hunch is that most Americans would find themselves poorer—and especially those who live in areas with a high population of illegal immigrants. It’s true that the city or state governments might see an improvement in their bottom lines (though maybe not), but again, that’s hardly the decisive consideration. The real benefit of immigrants, whether approved or not by the politicians, is that they are people with skills who can raise the productivity of everyone through enhancing the division of labor. The United States is very thinly populated, and every new baby born here represents not just a belly to feed but a brain that can create. For libertarians who can see the absurdity of China’s birth control policies, it should be clear that more immigrants won’t spell economic disaster either.
Again, it might make sense for the standard Republican to care about tax payments, but I don’t see why a libertarian would get worked up about immigrants failing to fund the government. I conduct my own consulting business in full compliance with tax laws, if only because I am a worrier and want to be able to sleep at night. But I know many libertarians who celebrate tax dodgers, at least when it comes to tax dodgers who hold American citizenship. Why then should this be a strike against people who also broke an arbitrary immigration rule laid down by the people collecting the unjust taxes?
Related to this, I don’t understand why the biggest objection to government-run health care for so many people is that, “I’ll be paying for illegals to get medical treatment.” This popular hostility was epitomized when Joe Wilson famously called out Obama’s statement that illegal immigrants would not receive taxpayer-funded medical coverage. Yes, of course Obama was lying, but that speech must have had a few dozen lies in it. I don’t think the part about illegal immigrants receiving funding was the most important. No, I think it’s far more significant that the more government controls health care, the more leverage it will have over its opponents. A critic of a future Administration will be a lot less likely to speak out if his daughter is in the queue for a kidney transplant.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that it is unjust for foreigners to move into my neighborhood and (indirectly) take money out of my pocket by receiving government services. But in the grand scheme of things, I am quite sure that military contractors and investment bankers ripped me off far more than illegal immigrants in the past year.
What Other Problems Do We Trust the State to Fix?
Finally, even if we think that unrestricted immigration is a problem, why would we trust politicians to fix it? Illiteracy, drug abuse, malnutrition, dangerous roads, and terrorist attacks are all potential problems too, yet most libertarians recognize the problem with giving the government more money and power in exchange for promises to solve these social ills. Why then do so many critics of the government constantly hope that finally a certain candidate will “get tough and protect the border”? Isn’t that a bit like hoping for a politician who will “end corruption”?
Just look at the perversity of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In the Saturday Night Live-inspired movie The Coneheads, the INS agent played by Michael McKean explains that he is pursuing Beldar not because he is an alien (literally!) but because he’s trying to get a job. In the end, Beldar can remain on Earth only if he can demonstrate that he has a skill no human has (and hence isn’t “stealing one of our jobs”).
Although the McKean character is a caricature, it’s pretty accurate. I never read of large-scale “busts” of illegal immigrants who are collecting welfare checks. No, I only read of INS agents swarming into a factory where dozens of people were busting their foreign buns cranking out goods at low prices for American-born consumers. So not only does our federal government spend lots of money going around burning pot plants, it also spends lots of money going around shutting down productive factories.
My only personal experience (secondhand) with the INS certainly left a bad taste in my mouth. When I taught at Hillsdale College in southern Michigan, my wife and I joined a cooking club. One of the other couples had just moved from Canada, because the husband had gotten a good job in Hillsdale (not with the college). In January that couple stopped coming to the dinners, and it turned out that the mother had taken the kids back to Canada to visit her family for Christmas, and then the border authorities wouldn’t let them back in the country. Even though the father had a proper work visa, because they had a common law marriage in Canada, the U.S. government didn’t recognize the woman and kids as part of his family. So the young kids had to start at a new school in Canada in the middle of the year, because it was clearly going to take months before the U.S. government decided they didn’t pose a threat to the country.
Finally, there is the very sobering point that I first saw Anthony Gregory make: If you give the government the power to keep people out, they just might use those fences and guns to one day keep people in. I’m a lot more worried about government agents than I am about immigrants stealing some of my money (with the help of government agents):
Robert P. Murphy holds a Ph.D. in economics from New York University. He is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal (Regnery, 2009), and is the editor of the blog Free Advice.
Comments:
This is an excellent piece, Bob. I can't even think of any real comment to add because you hit so many points perfectly on the head.
"If you give the government the power to keep people out, they just might use those fences and guns to one day keep people in".
Or they just might use their power to kick people out, as Barry Loberfeld argued in his piece "Keep 'Em Out? Kick 'Em Out!" - http://www.abcdunlimited.com/ideas/immigration.html
Or they just might use their power to kick people out, as Barry Loberfeld argued in his piece "Keep 'Em Out? Kick 'Em Out!" - http://www.abcdunlimited.com/ideas/immigration.html
# posted by 
: December 7, 2009 at 5:23 AM
: December 7, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Great piece! I've had many of the same contentions with several family members and friends over the years. A lot of this stuff is so common-sense; you almost wonder how it escapes the grasp of so many people.
Bob,
I assume this is in reaction to Tyler's linkage of Lew Rockwell and anti-immigration fervor.
All your points are cogent from a short-term dollar perspective on illegal immigration, but I have some concerns about freedom and immigration in general (although I am for open borders).
Tyler points out how freedom is much more intensely intwined with Anglo-Saxon culture than any other throughout the world. He also states that culture is "sticky" (I think he used that term.) Any immigrant brings himself and his traditions with him.
If we are receiving immigrants from countries without strong traditions of personal freedom we are diluting the traditions of freedom here in our own country. It also intensifies the lack of preferences for freedom in their country of origin. The immigrant gains at the expense of both countries.
Futhermore, given that many are poor they now have a vested interest in maintaining the welfare state unless they rather quickly move up the economic ladder.
Whites in the South are overwhelmingly for small government (ignoring their pro-war sentiments) and overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon. In the North, whites are more mixed, as we see far more post socialist era immigrants from Germany, Poland, etc... Culture does seem to be sticky. I can sympathize with family members expressing some anti-immigration fears based on the voting patterns of immigrants.
That being said, I think these effects are small. After seeing some of Robert Higgs analysis on the growth of government during wars and economic calamities, I consider war-mongers and the Fed to be the greater villains. On a money basis, the xenophobes are just wrong, but fear of losing their freedom through the dilution of a pro-freedom population is a reasonable argument.
I assume this is in reaction to Tyler's linkage of Lew Rockwell and anti-immigration fervor.
All your points are cogent from a short-term dollar perspective on illegal immigration, but I have some concerns about freedom and immigration in general (although I am for open borders).
Tyler points out how freedom is much more intensely intwined with Anglo-Saxon culture than any other throughout the world. He also states that culture is "sticky" (I think he used that term.) Any immigrant brings himself and his traditions with him.
If we are receiving immigrants from countries without strong traditions of personal freedom we are diluting the traditions of freedom here in our own country. It also intensifies the lack of preferences for freedom in their country of origin. The immigrant gains at the expense of both countries.
Futhermore, given that many are poor they now have a vested interest in maintaining the welfare state unless they rather quickly move up the economic ladder.
Whites in the South are overwhelmingly for small government (ignoring their pro-war sentiments) and overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon. In the North, whites are more mixed, as we see far more post socialist era immigrants from Germany, Poland, etc... Culture does seem to be sticky. I can sympathize with family members expressing some anti-immigration fears based on the voting patterns of immigrants.
That being said, I think these effects are small. After seeing some of Robert Higgs analysis on the growth of government during wars and economic calamities, I consider war-mongers and the Fed to be the greater villains. On a money basis, the xenophobes are just wrong, but fear of losing their freedom through the dilution of a pro-freedom population is a reasonable argument.
Bob, great piece.
"If you give the government the power to keep people out, they just might use those fences and guns to one day keep people in."
I would note that the government already does this in various ways, including restrictions on travelling to various countries, including Cuba - which is such a threat to the US!
"If you give the government the power to keep people out, they just might use those fences and guns to one day keep people in."
I would note that the government already does this in various ways, including restrictions on travelling to various countries, including Cuba - which is such a threat to the US!
Brian,
I realize you are not coming down necessarily in favor of government policing the borders, but if someone did do that (for cultural/voting reasons), the argument would have to go like this:
"(1) Those politicians just want to get a bunch of welfare recipients in the country to vote for bigger government.
(2) I want to give those politicians the power to decide who gets deported and who gets to stay here illegally because of lax enforcement of the statutes."
Let me put it this way: If the US truly had open borders, businesses would spring up, transporting hard workers from Africa to the US in exchange for a portion of their first year's wages. It's not going to be nearly as profitable to transport lazy people from Africa to the US, in exchange for a cut of their welfare checks.
I would much rather have a community built up of hard working people who were willing to cross an ocean, than of locally-born people with the current distribution of US political attitudes.
I realize you are not coming down necessarily in favor of government policing the borders, but if someone did do that (for cultural/voting reasons), the argument would have to go like this:
"(1) Those politicians just want to get a bunch of welfare recipients in the country to vote for bigger government.
(2) I want to give those politicians the power to decide who gets deported and who gets to stay here illegally because of lax enforcement of the statutes."
Let me put it this way: If the US truly had open borders, businesses would spring up, transporting hard workers from Africa to the US in exchange for a portion of their first year's wages. It's not going to be nearly as profitable to transport lazy people from Africa to the US, in exchange for a cut of their welfare checks.
I would much rather have a community built up of hard working people who were willing to cross an ocean, than of locally-born people with the current distribution of US political attitudes.
Bob,
I think that there is a lot of truth to #1. I think the Democratic party is pro immigration because they believe this is shifting demographics towards support of their policies.
"I would much rather have a community built up of hard working people who were willing to cross an ocean, than of locally-born people with the current distribution of US political attitudes."
I think you are missing my point. Plenty of people on the left are hardworking. They just don't believe in freedom. Most immigrants are very hard working for various reasons, but the data I've seen is that they tend to be more statist than the average American. They tend to vote for statist politicians and support statist economic policies.
From my perspective, the anti-immigration sentiment is not born out of dogmatic adherance to law and order. The private comments I hear deal with the false money arguments you dissect, but also with the dilution of culture. "They don't speak English" "They aren't patriotic to America" Obstensibly, "They don't share our values", which include a love of economic freedom. I think most fears about immigration are born out of the large numbers and influence on culture, not just the money issues.
The illegal immigrant draws their fiercest ire because this is seen as the ugliest excess. Being against immigration entirely is akin to racism in most people's eyes, and historically this is true. Most xenophobes are loathe to publicly admit their base fears. The money/law & order arguments are the PC outlets for these base fears.
I think that there is a lot of truth to #1. I think the Democratic party is pro immigration because they believe this is shifting demographics towards support of their policies.
"I would much rather have a community built up of hard working people who were willing to cross an ocean, than of locally-born people with the current distribution of US political attitudes."
I think you are missing my point. Plenty of people on the left are hardworking. They just don't believe in freedom. Most immigrants are very hard working for various reasons, but the data I've seen is that they tend to be more statist than the average American. They tend to vote for statist politicians and support statist economic policies.
From my perspective, the anti-immigration sentiment is not born out of dogmatic adherance to law and order. The private comments I hear deal with the false money arguments you dissect, but also with the dilution of culture. "They don't speak English" "They aren't patriotic to America" Obstensibly, "They don't share our values", which include a love of economic freedom. I think most fears about immigration are born out of the large numbers and influence on culture, not just the money issues.
The illegal immigrant draws their fiercest ire because this is seen as the ugliest excess. Being against immigration entirely is akin to racism in most people's eyes, and historically this is true. Most xenophobes are loathe to publicly admit their base fears. The money/law & order arguments are the PC outlets for these base fears.
Expanding on your second point about government cash flows, some conservatives (and libertarians) are fond of pointing out that something like 1/3 of U.S. adults don't pay any federal income tax (in a given year). But they don't go the next step of suggesting that these 1/3 should be removed from the country.
Let me rewrite what I am trying to say to clear up any confusion.
I am pro-immigration. I believe in open borders. The best way to ensure freedom is to allow people to choose their government. Competition will shrink the size of the state.
However, I have seen noone make a good argument against nativism. Not that I subscribe to the argument, but I don't have a slam dunk reason against it.
My basic nativist argument is this:
You have a democratic minarchist state. The country flourishes economically. Millions of people around the world want to come and enjoy the economic benefits. The minarchist state opens its borders, letting in millions of hard working people who happen to be statists. The minarchist state slowly disappears as the statist immigrants become an increasing part of the voting population.
Where's the flaw?
I am pro-immigration. I believe in open borders. The best way to ensure freedom is to allow people to choose their government. Competition will shrink the size of the state.
However, I have seen noone make a good argument against nativism. Not that I subscribe to the argument, but I don't have a slam dunk reason against it.
My basic nativist argument is this:
You have a democratic minarchist state. The country flourishes economically. Millions of people around the world want to come and enjoy the economic benefits. The minarchist state opens its borders, letting in millions of hard working people who happen to be statists. The minarchist state slowly disappears as the statist immigrants become an increasing part of the voting population.
Where's the flaw?
Brian Shelley,
I think the Democratic party is pro immigration because they believe this is shifting demographics towards support of their policies.
How do you reconcile that with their support of unions? Or do unions like cheap labor competing with their workers?
Where's the flaw?
The flaw is your various premises in the nativist argument. You're dealing in aggregates, you're dealing in majoritarian-utilitarianism. You're completely ignoring individuals, subjective value and the possibility that maybe not every person moving into the "minarchist state" is a statist. Is it also possible that these statists, once they arrive and are saturated by a non-statist society, will begin to adopt different principles, rather than the other way around?
Either way, the problem is clearly with govt and the incentives govt provides, not immigration.
This is the nativist logic:
If a statist immigrates here --> then he will vote statist --> therefore politicians and their policemen will increase oppression against me --> therefore, in self-defense, I am just in using violence to keep this statist-minded person out.
Buh.... huh? Sounds to me like the nativist is a... how you say... PUSSY, and doesn't have the gumption to go toe-to-toe with the people who are really threatening his sovereignty (the politician and the policeman), so instead he aims his angst at the actually non-aggressive immigrant and gains the psychological satisfaction of "fighting back" without actually having done so... all while playing into the politician's hands in the first place!
Brilliant! Truly brilliant stuff! Boy, let's try that with some other situations too, shall we? Okay, here goes... healthcare is socialized --> people with poor health are a burden to society --> businessmen sell people food that makes them have poor health --> therefore, let's target the businessman with the force of the law and prevent him from selling unhealthy food! That'll show those damn fatties who is boss!
It's sick, you know... we've got a real problem with statism right here, right now, in the form of our... STATE... and people are trying to keep immigrants away? How about taking care of the State first?
How come people who argue for deporting immigrants/keeping them out don't talk about deporting politicians and domestic welfare recipients?
I think the Democratic party is pro immigration because they believe this is shifting demographics towards support of their policies.
How do you reconcile that with their support of unions? Or do unions like cheap labor competing with their workers?
Where's the flaw?
The flaw is your various premises in the nativist argument. You're dealing in aggregates, you're dealing in majoritarian-utilitarianism. You're completely ignoring individuals, subjective value and the possibility that maybe not every person moving into the "minarchist state" is a statist. Is it also possible that these statists, once they arrive and are saturated by a non-statist society, will begin to adopt different principles, rather than the other way around?
Either way, the problem is clearly with govt and the incentives govt provides, not immigration.
This is the nativist logic:
If a statist immigrates here --> then he will vote statist --> therefore politicians and their policemen will increase oppression against me --> therefore, in self-defense, I am just in using violence to keep this statist-minded person out.
Buh.... huh? Sounds to me like the nativist is a... how you say... PUSSY, and doesn't have the gumption to go toe-to-toe with the people who are really threatening his sovereignty (the politician and the policeman), so instead he aims his angst at the actually non-aggressive immigrant and gains the psychological satisfaction of "fighting back" without actually having done so... all while playing into the politician's hands in the first place!
Brilliant! Truly brilliant stuff! Boy, let's try that with some other situations too, shall we? Okay, here goes... healthcare is socialized --> people with poor health are a burden to society --> businessmen sell people food that makes them have poor health --> therefore, let's target the businessman with the force of the law and prevent him from selling unhealthy food! That'll show those damn fatties who is boss!
It's sick, you know... we've got a real problem with statism right here, right now, in the form of our... STATE... and people are trying to keep immigrants away? How about taking care of the State first?
How come people who argue for deporting immigrants/keeping them out don't talk about deporting politicians and domestic welfare recipients?
The Blackadder Says:
You're completely ignoring individuals, subjective value and the possibility that maybe not every person moving into the "minarchist state" is a statist.
The issue isn't whether every immigrant will be highly statist, but whether immigrants are likely to be more statist on average. That immigrants are likely to be more statist (and that this effect can last generations) is, I think, amply demonstrated by history.
You're completely ignoring individuals, subjective value and the possibility that maybe not every person moving into the "minarchist state" is a statist.
The issue isn't whether every immigrant will be highly statist, but whether immigrants are likely to be more statist on average. That immigrants are likely to be more statist (and that this effect can last generations) is, I think, amply demonstrated by history.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 2:25 PM
@Taylor
Not be antagonistic, but internet invective literally makes me laugh out loud.
To your points -
"Is it also possible that these statists, once they arrive and are saturated by a non-statist society, will begin to adopt different principles, rather than the other way around?"
Sure, that's possible, but I lean towards Tyler Cowen's comment that culture is "sticky". Voting patterns amongst certain demographics tend to change very slowly over time. I see a lot of "Social Justice" rhetoric coming out of the mouths of hispanic leaders who brought their 20th century Catholic traditions with them.
I'm not saying that all the nativist assumptions are true, but skepticism alone doesn't suffice to counter the argument.
Not be antagonistic, but internet invective literally makes me laugh out loud.
To your points -
"Is it also possible that these statists, once they arrive and are saturated by a non-statist society, will begin to adopt different principles, rather than the other way around?"
Sure, that's possible, but I lean towards Tyler Cowen's comment that culture is "sticky". Voting patterns amongst certain demographics tend to change very slowly over time. I see a lot of "Social Justice" rhetoric coming out of the mouths of hispanic leaders who brought their 20th century Catholic traditions with them.
I'm not saying that all the nativist assumptions are true, but skepticism alone doesn't suffice to counter the argument.
The Blackadder Says:
A major problem with current immigration laws is that they are much better at keeping out high skill immigrants than low skill immigrants. If you are a doctor in India, chances are you aren't going to be able to sneak into the U.S. illegally and open up your own practice (maybe you could sneak in and drive a cab or something, but that's not quite the same). Since high skill immigrants are more valuable (and probably are less susceptible to the statism argument) this is a somewhat perverse result.
A major problem with current immigration laws is that they are much better at keeping out high skill immigrants than low skill immigrants. If you are a doctor in India, chances are you aren't going to be able to sneak into the U.S. illegally and open up your own practice (maybe you could sneak in and drive a cab or something, but that's not quite the same). Since high skill immigrants are more valuable (and probably are less susceptible to the statism argument) this is a somewhat perverse result.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM
@ Blackadder
"Since high skill immigrants are more valuable (and probably are less susceptible to the statism argument) this is a somewhat perverse result."
I just don't equate intelligence with a lack of statism. Most physicists depend on gov't grants, how could they be minarchists? The AMA "represents" doctors and supports gov't health care.
"Since high skill immigrants are more valuable (and probably are less susceptible to the statism argument) this is a somewhat perverse result."
I just don't equate intelligence with a lack of statism. Most physicists depend on gov't grants, how could they be minarchists? The AMA "represents" doctors and supports gov't health care.
BlackAdder,
Holy cow... where to begin with this one?
but whether immigrants are likely to be more statist on average.
Okay. So let's say there are two immigrants. One immigrant is 10% statist and the other is 90% statist. On average, immigrants are 50% statist. Let's say the prevailing average amongst Americans at the time is 40% statist. However, in this case, although the average immigrant is more statist than the average American (even though he doesn't exist), the effect on culture/voting patterns/what have you will be null.
Yes, I goofed the numbers so my point is supported. Do you have any non-goofed numbers that substantiate your claim?
Does it matter if you do? Do individuals matter, or should non-statist immigrants be forcibly barred from enterting the country just because some of the other immigrants are statist? And to Bob's point, if you think there should be a "smart" immigration policy, do you actually trust the govt to be that intelligent in practice?
Why should this practice be contained to international borders? Black people have higher rates of crime incidence and incarceration than other races... shouldn't the government be justified in preventing black people from moving around inside the United States and spreading their criminal culture?
is, I think, amply demonstrated by history.
Sure, when you cherry-pick history it is. Or were you including all the good ol' liberty lovers who initially immigrated to this country and suffused it with it's tasty, liberty flavors and aromas in the first place?
Brian Shelley,
Not be antagonistic, but internet invective literally makes me laugh out loud.
Glad to provide a laugh!
I lean towards Tyler Cowen's comment that culture is "sticky"
Gee, that's weird Tyler/Brian... culture seems to be sticky only in the direction of statism. But when it comes to culturally stickiness and freedom, well it looks like everyone just up and changed their minds!
Wha... how does this make any sense? Minority immigrant voters can somehow overcome cultural stickiness against majority non-immigrant voters, but majority culture can't overcome the stickiness of minority culture?
I see a lot of "Social Justice" rhetoric coming out of the mouths of hispanic leaders who brought their 20th century Catholic traditions with them.
You see what you want to see, clearly, and I'm not saying they don't. Regardless of what you see, does this thereby entitle anyone to use force to prevent these people from exchanging with others here?
Do you understand that the potential immigrants aren't the only victims... so are the non-immigrants who would've willfully exchanged with these people but have had that opportunity forcibly denied to them? "We're doing this for your own good" riiiiight suuuure.
I'm not saying that all the nativist assumptions are true, but skepticism alone doesn't suffice to counter the argument.
The entire nativist argument is not an argument but a skeptical hunch.
Do you have anything to say in regards to my question about why nativists don't call for the deportation of domestic politicians and welfare recipients, who are equally, if not worse, abusers of statism in this country than "immigrants" taken in toto?
Holy cow... where to begin with this one?
but whether immigrants are likely to be more statist on average.
Okay. So let's say there are two immigrants. One immigrant is 10% statist and the other is 90% statist. On average, immigrants are 50% statist. Let's say the prevailing average amongst Americans at the time is 40% statist. However, in this case, although the average immigrant is more statist than the average American (even though he doesn't exist), the effect on culture/voting patterns/what have you will be null.
Yes, I goofed the numbers so my point is supported. Do you have any non-goofed numbers that substantiate your claim?
Does it matter if you do? Do individuals matter, or should non-statist immigrants be forcibly barred from enterting the country just because some of the other immigrants are statist? And to Bob's point, if you think there should be a "smart" immigration policy, do you actually trust the govt to be that intelligent in practice?
Why should this practice be contained to international borders? Black people have higher rates of crime incidence and incarceration than other races... shouldn't the government be justified in preventing black people from moving around inside the United States and spreading their criminal culture?
is, I think, amply demonstrated by history.
Sure, when you cherry-pick history it is. Or were you including all the good ol' liberty lovers who initially immigrated to this country and suffused it with it's tasty, liberty flavors and aromas in the first place?
Brian Shelley,
Not be antagonistic, but internet invective literally makes me laugh out loud.
Glad to provide a laugh!
I lean towards Tyler Cowen's comment that culture is "sticky"
Gee, that's weird Tyler/Brian... culture seems to be sticky only in the direction of statism. But when it comes to culturally stickiness and freedom, well it looks like everyone just up and changed their minds!
Wha... how does this make any sense? Minority immigrant voters can somehow overcome cultural stickiness against majority non-immigrant voters, but majority culture can't overcome the stickiness of minority culture?
I see a lot of "Social Justice" rhetoric coming out of the mouths of hispanic leaders who brought their 20th century Catholic traditions with them.
You see what you want to see, clearly, and I'm not saying they don't. Regardless of what you see, does this thereby entitle anyone to use force to prevent these people from exchanging with others here?
Do you understand that the potential immigrants aren't the only victims... so are the non-immigrants who would've willfully exchanged with these people but have had that opportunity forcibly denied to them? "We're doing this for your own good" riiiiight suuuure.
I'm not saying that all the nativist assumptions are true, but skepticism alone doesn't suffice to counter the argument.
The entire nativist argument is not an argument but a skeptical hunch.
Do you have anything to say in regards to my question about why nativists don't call for the deportation of domestic politicians and welfare recipients, who are equally, if not worse, abusers of statism in this country than "immigrants" taken in toto?
I just don't equate intelligence with a lack of statism. Most physicists depend on gov't grants, how could they be minarchists? The AMA "represents" doctors and supports gov't health care.
Ha! Yes, exactly! See, this is where BlackAdder is engaging in objective-value-theory based utilitarianism and hoping no one calls his fib.
BA wants this "smart" immigration policy whereby immigration patterns fulfill his personal values, which he then admits, casually, are the best values around and everyone should agree with them and if they don't, they should be forced to do so.
Ha! Yes, exactly! See, this is where BlackAdder is engaging in objective-value-theory based utilitarianism and hoping no one calls his fib.
BA wants this "smart" immigration policy whereby immigration patterns fulfill his personal values, which he then admits, casually, are the best values around and everyone should agree with them and if they don't, they should be forced to do so.
To all,
Honest, "I really don't know I am asking you" question here about "Stickiness":
Have you ever heard the stickiness doctrine, applied to any economic/social concept, used to support liberty or provided as evidence for why there should be more liberty?
I have only ever heard it used as an excuse for authoritarianism. For example, labor rates are "sticky downward" so if the government doesn't boost aggregate spending we face a total deflationary collapse/death spiral resulting in massive unemployment because workers won't adjust their wages downward as the economy falters.
And now, immigrant culture is sticky, so therefore someone needs to keep these stubborn immigrants with their statist culture out, via statism (ouch, oops!), or else they'll make us even more statist!
Seriously, seems like the only thing that's "sticky" is the underside of these interventionists desks after they came up with these brilliant pro-statism arguments!
Honest, "I really don't know I am asking you" question here about "Stickiness":
Have you ever heard the stickiness doctrine, applied to any economic/social concept, used to support liberty or provided as evidence for why there should be more liberty?
I have only ever heard it used as an excuse for authoritarianism. For example, labor rates are "sticky downward" so if the government doesn't boost aggregate spending we face a total deflationary collapse/death spiral resulting in massive unemployment because workers won't adjust their wages downward as the economy falters.
And now, immigrant culture is sticky, so therefore someone needs to keep these stubborn immigrants with their statist culture out, via statism (ouch, oops!), or else they'll make us even more statist!
Seriously, seems like the only thing that's "sticky" is the underside of these interventionists desks after they came up with these brilliant pro-statism arguments!
The Blackadder Says:
@Brian,
If you read Bryan Caplan's work, it's clear that people tend to have more libertarian beliefs the more educated they are. To say this is, of course, not to say that intelligent people are all minarchists.
@Taylor,
If half of immigrants were less statist than the average American then your point would have some force. Sadly this is not the case. Here, for example, is a brief description of the effect on politics of Irish and Scandinavian immigration. I see no reason to think that immigration from Latin America wouldn't also have an effect.
@Brian,
If you read Bryan Caplan's work, it's clear that people tend to have more libertarian beliefs the more educated they are. To say this is, of course, not to say that intelligent people are all minarchists.
@Taylor,
If half of immigrants were less statist than the average American then your point would have some force. Sadly this is not the case. Here, for example, is a brief description of the effect on politics of Irish and Scandinavian immigration. I see no reason to think that immigration from Latin America wouldn't also have an effect.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM
The Blackadder Says:
Have you ever heard the stickiness doctrine, applied to any economic/social concept, used to support liberty or provided as evidence for why there should be more liberty?
If it's too that immigrants tend to be more statist than natives, then granting citizenship to anyone who wants it will result in less liberty, not more.
Have you ever heard the stickiness doctrine, applied to any economic/social concept, used to support liberty or provided as evidence for why there should be more liberty?
If it's too that immigrants tend to be more statist than natives, then granting citizenship to anyone who wants it will result in less liberty, not more.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 3:07 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 3:07 PM
BlackAdder,
Did you seriously expect me to read that and say, "Wow, you sure proved your point?" That piece loosely tied together various historical facts and then hoped the reader would conflate these loosely related correlations with causation.
Where was the discussion of non-immigrant American reactions to the Irish and Scandinavian influxes? Were these responses typically "Get these mongrels outta here!" or were they closer to "These poor, starving people, 'we' (the govt) must help them!"
Here is what you're asking everyone to believe: the US was primarily libertarian/non-statist. Then a minority group showed up. This minority group changed everyone's mind, and where they couldn't change minds, they just used force and fraud and... this is a problem with open immigration, not a problem with the existence of an institution (govt) by which force and fraud can be used to manipulate others.
Okay bud... I'm sold. Now, let's deport all the domestic statists too, right? Because lord knows they're changing the culture in this country as well.
Right? "We" should deport them too, right?
Answer me.
Did you seriously expect me to read that and say, "Wow, you sure proved your point?" That piece loosely tied together various historical facts and then hoped the reader would conflate these loosely related correlations with causation.
Where was the discussion of non-immigrant American reactions to the Irish and Scandinavian influxes? Were these responses typically "Get these mongrels outta here!" or were they closer to "These poor, starving people, 'we' (the govt) must help them!"
Here is what you're asking everyone to believe: the US was primarily libertarian/non-statist. Then a minority group showed up. This minority group changed everyone's mind, and where they couldn't change minds, they just used force and fraud and... this is a problem with open immigration, not a problem with the existence of an institution (govt) by which force and fraud can be used to manipulate others.
Okay bud... I'm sold. Now, let's deport all the domestic statists too, right? Because lord knows they're changing the culture in this country as well.
Right? "We" should deport them too, right?
Answer me.
BlackAdder,
Are we talking about granting citizenship, or controlling immigration?
They're two different concepts.
Are we talking about granting citizenship, or controlling immigration?
They're two different concepts.
The Blackadder Says:
Here is what you're asking everyone to believe: the US was primarily libertarian/non-statist. Then a minority group showed up. This minority group changed everyone's mind.
Immigrants don't have to change anyone's mind to have an effect on the political culture of a society. Suppose that you and Bob Murphy form your own country, with the law decided by a majority vote of the citizens. One day I immigrate to the country, along with two of my friends. I then propose that what we really need is a progressive income tax. You and Bob are opposed, but my two buddies agree with me, and so the vote is 3-2 in favor. You lose. The country gets a progressive income tax. Nobodies mind was changed in the above scenario, but the fact that my friends and I immigrated to your country did shift the politics in a more statist direction.
[T]his is a problem with open immigration, not a problem with the existence of an institution (govt) by which force and fraud can be used to manipulate others.
You're right that open immigration is only a problem when you have government, particularly democratic government, where new immigrants (or at the very least their decedents) get to decide what the laws governing a society is going to be. If you can replace the U.S. government with an anarcho-capitalist paradise, then I'll be all for open borders. Until then, however, my argument stands.
Okay bud... I'm sold. Now, let's deport all the domestic statists too, right?
Whether or not this would be a good idea in principle, it ain't gonna happen. Whereas maintaining some form of immigration restrictions is politically feasible.
Here is what you're asking everyone to believe: the US was primarily libertarian/non-statist. Then a minority group showed up. This minority group changed everyone's mind.
Immigrants don't have to change anyone's mind to have an effect on the political culture of a society. Suppose that you and Bob Murphy form your own country, with the law decided by a majority vote of the citizens. One day I immigrate to the country, along with two of my friends. I then propose that what we really need is a progressive income tax. You and Bob are opposed, but my two buddies agree with me, and so the vote is 3-2 in favor. You lose. The country gets a progressive income tax. Nobodies mind was changed in the above scenario, but the fact that my friends and I immigrated to your country did shift the politics in a more statist direction.
[T]his is a problem with open immigration, not a problem with the existence of an institution (govt) by which force and fraud can be used to manipulate others.
You're right that open immigration is only a problem when you have government, particularly democratic government, where new immigrants (or at the very least their decedents) get to decide what the laws governing a society is going to be. If you can replace the U.S. government with an anarcho-capitalist paradise, then I'll be all for open borders. Until then, however, my argument stands.
Okay bud... I'm sold. Now, let's deport all the domestic statists too, right?
Whether or not this would be a good idea in principle, it ain't gonna happen. Whereas maintaining some form of immigration restrictions is politically feasible.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 3:19 PM
The Blackadder Says:
Are we talking about granting citizenship, or controlling immigration?
They're two different concepts.
They are related in contemporary America, and that's not going to change any time soon.
There is a Neverneverland quality to a lot of libertarian discussion regarding immigration. Sure, you can imagine circumstances where open borders would be hunky-dory. It doesn't follow that open borders would be hunky-dory in present circumstances.
Are we talking about granting citizenship, or controlling immigration?
They're two different concepts.
They are related in contemporary America, and that's not going to change any time soon.
There is a Neverneverland quality to a lot of libertarian discussion regarding immigration. Sure, you can imagine circumstances where open borders would be hunky-dory. It doesn't follow that open borders would be hunky-dory in present circumstances.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 3:22 PM
BlackAdder,
Freedom isn't politically feasible. Let's call it quits already.
I've never seen someone so self-assuredly contradict themselves over and over again until I met you. Thanks for expanding my horizons.
I leave the rest of the discussion to individuals who are not so challenged by inanity as I am.
For the record everyone, this discussion has shifted from what's right in theory, to what might be "practical", the minarchist's favorite soothing balm. Because ideas matter and people who concede the existence of the state become unwitting supporters of it, you may find the discussion to be an entirely pointless voicing-of-opinion-purported-to-be-reasoned-discussion-of-objective-right-and-wrong.
If anyone is looking for me, I'll be over here agreeing with people who make similarly profound observations of reality as it currently exists, such as "The sky is blue" and "Water is wet."
Freedom isn't politically feasible. Let's call it quits already.
I've never seen someone so self-assuredly contradict themselves over and over again until I met you. Thanks for expanding my horizons.
I leave the rest of the discussion to individuals who are not so challenged by inanity as I am.
For the record everyone, this discussion has shifted from what's right in theory, to what might be "practical", the minarchist's favorite soothing balm. Because ideas matter and people who concede the existence of the state become unwitting supporters of it, you may find the discussion to be an entirely pointless voicing-of-opinion-purported-to-be-reasoned-discussion-of-objective-right-and-wrong.
If anyone is looking for me, I'll be over here agreeing with people who make similarly profound observations of reality as it currently exists, such as "The sky is blue" and "Water is wet."
Blackadder wrote:
If it's [true] that immigrants tend to be more statist than natives, then granting citizenship to anyone who wants it will result in less liberty, not more.
It depends what the alternative is. If it's a situation where the government actually keeps out all immigrants, then yes. But if it's a situation where there is a statutory limit on immigration, but it is arbitrarily enforced, then we don't know.
Try this for an analogy:
If it is true that using cocaine is bad for you, then legalizing drugs will reduce public health.
If it's [true] that immigrants tend to be more statist than natives, then granting citizenship to anyone who wants it will result in less liberty, not more.
It depends what the alternative is. If it's a situation where the government actually keeps out all immigrants, then yes. But if it's a situation where there is a statutory limit on immigration, but it is arbitrarily enforced, then we don't know.
Try this for an analogy:
If it is true that using cocaine is bad for you, then legalizing drugs will reduce public health.
The Blackadder Says:
@Bob,
That's a good point. As I noted earlier, the way immigration laws tend to be enforced skews in favor of immigrants who hold more statist views.
@Taylor,
You need to take a chill pill or something.
@Bob,
That's a good point. As I noted earlier, the way immigration laws tend to be enforced skews in favor of immigrants who hold more statist views.
@Taylor,
You need to take a chill pill or something.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 3:38 PM
As an anarchist supporting America to not police it's border isn't very clear cut at all. I find one aspect to allowing immigration is not the cash flow imbalance, but simply, if more immigrants come here, in our country, the government will need to steal even more wealth. Conversely to police immigration also requires stealing, meaning anarchist are screwed taking either position.
Personally i would want open borders and no government, but it doesn't seem both will come at the same time, and our parties tend to either support open borders and more theft, or sorta closed borders and possibly less theft. Ethics related to right violations are completely useless since both sides are illegitimate. The question is, will government be smaller with open or closed borders, not an easy answer at all.
Considering you last point, do we really want the government to try to fix the problem it created. To which I believe is the most convincing point for me right now, as I currently don't want the government to try to fix it's own problem. I believe Utilitarian arguments can be valid, but also mention is the size vs scope of government, and restriction of borders is just widening the power of the state and probably creating more and new problems.
Personally i would want open borders and no government, but it doesn't seem both will come at the same time, and our parties tend to either support open borders and more theft, or sorta closed borders and possibly less theft. Ethics related to right violations are completely useless since both sides are illegitimate. The question is, will government be smaller with open or closed borders, not an easy answer at all.
Considering you last point, do we really want the government to try to fix the problem it created. To which I believe is the most convincing point for me right now, as I currently don't want the government to try to fix it's own problem. I believe Utilitarian arguments can be valid, but also mention is the size vs scope of government, and restriction of borders is just widening the power of the state and probably creating more and new problems.
# posted by : December 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM
: December 7, 2009 at 11:23 PM
I'll throw my two cents in (wanted or not ... that's the downside of having an argument in a public forum).
I've never met a group of people that are more anti-government (on average) than NYC cab drivers. These people are almost exclusively immigrant and are very skeptical about government interference in their lives.
Take a minute and ponder the interactions that an Arab cabbie has with government on a (probably frequent) basis. He gets harassed at the airport, he gets screwed by the medallion cab laws in NYC, he gets screwed by city taxes. He's barely scraping by and has to cater to a bunch of limousine liberals all the time. Believe me, I realize that this is anecdotal but not all immigrants are pro-state. (The Cuban immigrants from the 50's would be another prime example.)
But, let's assume that allowing an open border to our south and north will allow an influx of hispanics and canadians that believe in big government. Obviously our politicians will cherish the opportunity to cater to their wishes.
However, we all believe that big government and socialism is ultimately unsustainable. Even if free immigration leads us toward totalitarianism faster, that just means that we're even closer to a failed state and the opportunity to start over again. :)
I tend to agree with Taylor that either you're a supporter of pro-liberty policies or not. You can't use the state to enforce or maintain libertarianism. It's a contradiction in terms.
I've never met a group of people that are more anti-government (on average) than NYC cab drivers. These people are almost exclusively immigrant and are very skeptical about government interference in their lives.
Take a minute and ponder the interactions that an Arab cabbie has with government on a (probably frequent) basis. He gets harassed at the airport, he gets screwed by the medallion cab laws in NYC, he gets screwed by city taxes. He's barely scraping by and has to cater to a bunch of limousine liberals all the time. Believe me, I realize that this is anecdotal but not all immigrants are pro-state. (The Cuban immigrants from the 50's would be another prime example.)
But, let's assume that allowing an open border to our south and north will allow an influx of hispanics and canadians that believe in big government. Obviously our politicians will cherish the opportunity to cater to their wishes.
However, we all believe that big government and socialism is ultimately unsustainable. Even if free immigration leads us toward totalitarianism faster, that just means that we're even closer to a failed state and the opportunity to start over again. :)
I tend to agree with Taylor that either you're a supporter of pro-liberty policies or not. You can't use the state to enforce or maintain libertarianism. It's a contradiction in terms.
# posted by : December 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM
: December 8, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Wouldn't it be easier and more efficient for statists to simply cultivate more native statists than import them? Even if immigration laws were changed substantially, it's not as if new immigrants would be given a vote the day after they get here.
I'm also having a hard time believing in the alleged commitment to statism of immigrants. For one, the reason they are immigrating is presumably because they believe the social/political/economic environment of the US is better than that of the country they are leaving. Cubans, for example, largely vote Republican precisely because they know from first-hand experience the problems of a statist government. Likewise, Vietnamese have long been part of the Republican-party constituency.
The idea of "sticky" culture doesn't hold up very well either, imo. Commitment to a particular political ideology is probably not as strong for most of us as say, commitment to beliefs regarding gender roles, homosexuality, etc. This would be even more true of persons coming from a place where merely surviving is a struggle. Passionate debate over the nuances of political theory are generally reserved for those with nothing better to do. People like us, for example.
Lastly, the idea that immigrants are coming here for welfare checks is a fiction. Most of them are coming here to work. People who value hard work and self-sufficiency will be more likely to resent the rent-seekers and free-riders. The only reason immigrants from South and Central America tend to side with Democrats is because Republicans/conservatives go out of their way to let these folks know how much they aren't wanted here. It's not hard-working immigrants who are asking for socialized healthcare. It's fat, lazy, entitled Americans who wish they could work 35-hour weeks like the French and get 6-weeks vacation a year like the Germans.
I'm also having a hard time believing in the alleged commitment to statism of immigrants. For one, the reason they are immigrating is presumably because they believe the social/political/economic environment of the US is better than that of the country they are leaving. Cubans, for example, largely vote Republican precisely because they know from first-hand experience the problems of a statist government. Likewise, Vietnamese have long been part of the Republican-party constituency.
The idea of "sticky" culture doesn't hold up very well either, imo. Commitment to a particular political ideology is probably not as strong for most of us as say, commitment to beliefs regarding gender roles, homosexuality, etc. This would be even more true of persons coming from a place where merely surviving is a struggle. Passionate debate over the nuances of political theory are generally reserved for those with nothing better to do. People like us, for example.
Lastly, the idea that immigrants are coming here for welfare checks is a fiction. Most of them are coming here to work. People who value hard work and self-sufficiency will be more likely to resent the rent-seekers and free-riders. The only reason immigrants from South and Central America tend to side with Democrats is because Republicans/conservatives go out of their way to let these folks know how much they aren't wanted here. It's not hard-working immigrants who are asking for socialized healthcare. It's fat, lazy, entitled Americans who wish they could work 35-hour weeks like the French and get 6-weeks vacation a year like the Germans.
# posted by : December 8, 2009 at 11:32 AM
: December 8, 2009 at 11:32 AM
People,
You're all missing the point here. It doesn't matter if immigrants are pro- or anti-statist... you can't shoot a human being for crossing an imaginary line.
That's it.
You're all missing the point here. It doesn't matter if immigrants are pro- or anti-statist... you can't shoot a human being for crossing an imaginary line.
That's it.
The Constitution gives the power to keep people out - it's called the "Common Defense." If that isn't enough reason to keep out these Invaders- Umm, Criminal Trespassers- wait, Undocumented- I forget, what weak, mealy-mouthed, Politically Correct term are we supposed to use this week?
What you're talking about is Trespassing - and have the unmitigated GALL to think it should be ok?
Taylor said: "you can't shoot a human being for crossing an imaginary line." Let's look at that on a smaller scale. What if the "imaginary line" is the one around your house? Would you be so quick to defend some random guy jumping the fence into your back yard and setting up camp? And then informing you that you'll be required to pay for his health insurance, and for his kids to go to college? Oh, and you'll also have to learn a foreign language, since he's so special he doesn't feel the need to learn yours. Oh, and he'll work for dirt wages (since you're paying for his health insurance and to educate his kids, he doesn't need as much money to survive), which will drive down your wages as well (but not the amount you'll have to pay to help support him and his family).
If you walk up to the door and ring the bell (aka, legal immigration), you're good - come on in! If you jump the fence, you have no reason to whine if you catch a load of 00.
I'm not going to beat the dead horse of Taxes, or the Billions wasted providing social services for Criminal Trespassers. . . it has to do with the fact that they are, in fact, Criminal Trespassers - They've decided to set up housekeeping in your back yard, and thoughtfully took the choice out of your hands. . .
What you're talking about is Trespassing - and have the unmitigated GALL to think it should be ok?
Taylor said: "you can't shoot a human being for crossing an imaginary line." Let's look at that on a smaller scale. What if the "imaginary line" is the one around your house? Would you be so quick to defend some random guy jumping the fence into your back yard and setting up camp? And then informing you that you'll be required to pay for his health insurance, and for his kids to go to college? Oh, and you'll also have to learn a foreign language, since he's so special he doesn't feel the need to learn yours. Oh, and he'll work for dirt wages (since you're paying for his health insurance and to educate his kids, he doesn't need as much money to survive), which will drive down your wages as well (but not the amount you'll have to pay to help support him and his family).
If you walk up to the door and ring the bell (aka, legal immigration), you're good - come on in! If you jump the fence, you have no reason to whine if you catch a load of 00.
I'm not going to beat the dead horse of Taxes, or the Billions wasted providing social services for Criminal Trespassers. . . it has to do with the fact that they are, in fact, Criminal Trespassers - They've decided to set up housekeeping in your back yard, and thoughtfully took the choice out of your hands. . .
Reverend Draco,
You're so badass, you forgot that I presumably have a legitimate right to defend my home because it's my property, while with the imaginary line of the border of the United States of America, a fictional, false collective entity with no legitimate right to exist or exercise any ownership rights over anything, shooting a "trespasser" would be a contradiction in terms.
Say, badass, who gave the Constitution its Common Defense power? And did they have the right to do so?
Amateur mistake.
You're so badass, you forgot that I presumably have a legitimate right to defend my home because it's my property, while with the imaginary line of the border of the United States of America, a fictional, false collective entity with no legitimate right to exist or exercise any ownership rights over anything, shooting a "trespasser" would be a contradiction in terms.
Say, badass, who gave the Constitution its Common Defense power? And did they have the right to do so?
Amateur mistake.
I think the problem is, at least for me, is that, as of right now, it is a one way street. I am all for open borders and letting people freely go wherever they want to. However, we cannot do that today. Sure, the Mexicans can come here illegally, get jobs, buy property, get welfare, get free health care, gget a free education for their children, etc. On the other hand, I cannot go to Mexico and do the same. Mexico has very harsh laws against illegals and enforces them with a vengence. In order to move to Mexico, the only way is through proper channels, you have to prove you have some money and you still cannot own property. Until we get rid of government, I do not see how this is going to change, despite your flowery prose and wishes.
# posted by : December 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
: December 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Bill,
so what you are saying is that until thE mexican government (which is not representative of its people) stops aggressing against you, the US govt shouldnt stop aggressing against mexicans? what about non-mexican immigrants?
also, would you agree with this logic?:
robber guy: "you are asking me to unilaterally stop robbing people? no, i don't think so. get back to me when all the other robbers stop robbing people. then i might consider your offer."
so what you are saying is that until thE mexican government (which is not representative of its people) stops aggressing against you, the US govt shouldnt stop aggressing against mexicans? what about non-mexican immigrants?
also, would you agree with this logic?:
robber guy: "you are asking me to unilaterally stop robbing people? no, i don't think so. get back to me when all the other robbers stop robbing people. then i might consider your offer."
No, I am not saying that. I am saying I long for the day when everyone all over the world realizes government is the cause of most of their problems, not the solution, and we see it fade into the ashcan of history.
OTOH; Why should we be the only ones to allow this unbridled immigration? Why should I be forced to pay for it at the point of a government gun? What happened to my rights to my property? How can you justify people coming here, taking advantage of all the free government give - aways, contributing to the crime rate via the government's "war on some drugs", closing hospitals in border areas, etc? Everything I have read on this subject says the illegal immigrants are a net drain on our economy and society.
This is a thorny question and I certainly don't have the answers, but it is yet another government created problem. I welcome this open discussion, because as a anarchist, this issue is one I have a hard time wrapping my head around
OTOH; Why should we be the only ones to allow this unbridled immigration? Why should I be forced to pay for it at the point of a government gun? What happened to my rights to my property? How can you justify people coming here, taking advantage of all the free government give - aways, contributing to the crime rate via the government's "war on some drugs", closing hospitals in border areas, etc? Everything I have read on this subject says the illegal immigrants are a net drain on our economy and society.
This is a thorny question and I certainly don't have the answers, but it is yet another government created problem. I welcome this open discussion, because as a anarchist, this issue is one I have a hard time wrapping my head around
# posted by : December 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
: December 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
As noted in Ernest Becker’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, “The Denial of Death,” Mr. Becker often pointed to, “The things we do till we die.” The cause célèbre posted by Dr. Murphy is just one more issue to focus on, “till we die!” Might I suggest, as often pointed out by the venerable Dr. Robert Higgs, Leviathan grows, the dogs bark as the caravan passes (life); and the very freedom, liberty, privacy and private property rights you might think you have, continue to fade away, “till you die.” So, the causes célèbres are unending and yet the American “puking-dog democracy” grows ever more powerful. Don’t worry about the mule – just load the wagon! Do you want REAL freedom, liberty, privacy and private property? It has not and will not ever exist living in the United States, as you know it. The only way to obtain such attributes is to create the “circumstances necessary.” Leave the country. Pick a venue for your freedom. They do exist.
Why anyone would want to live the “only” life you will ever have living in any country, especially a growing police state, hoping—is way beyond my thoughts. Maybe that’s because I no longer live in the U.S. I just stopped talking and did what three very good personal friends, Messrs. Harry Schultz, the late Harry Browne and Frank Chodorov recommended years ago (1958): I left the country, its jurisdictions and exonerated myself of its citizenship. The American police state, its “legalized plunder” always keep me remembering, “Freedom in America is feeling free and easy in your harness ... but the government ALWAYS maintains CONTROL of the reins,” was enough for me to “vote” with my feet! (That’s the ONLY way to vote!) Leaving produced the absolute most exhilarating, life changing event I’ve ever experienced! I never looked back. The very best to you Dr. Murphy and each of the commenters here at this blog site, this holiday season.
Love the fractal!
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." ~ George Bernard Shaw
Why anyone would want to live the “only” life you will ever have living in any country, especially a growing police state, hoping—is way beyond my thoughts. Maybe that’s because I no longer live in the U.S. I just stopped talking and did what three very good personal friends, Messrs. Harry Schultz, the late Harry Browne and Frank Chodorov recommended years ago (1958): I left the country, its jurisdictions and exonerated myself of its citizenship. The American police state, its “legalized plunder” always keep me remembering, “Freedom in America is feeling free and easy in your harness ... but the government ALWAYS maintains CONTROL of the reins,” was enough for me to “vote” with my feet! (That’s the ONLY way to vote!) Leaving produced the absolute most exhilarating, life changing event I’ve ever experienced! I never looked back. The very best to you Dr. Murphy and each of the commenters here at this blog site, this holiday season.
Love the fractal!
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them." ~ George Bernard Shaw
# posted by : December 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM
: December 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Bill,
You first said:
it is a one way street. I am all for open borders and letting people freely go wherever they want to. However, we cannot do that today. Sure, the Mexicans can come here illegally, get jobs, buy property, get welfare, get free health care, gget a free education for their children, etc. On the other hand, I cannot go to Mexico and do the same.
Now you say:
No, I am not saying that. I am saying I long for the day when everyone all over the world realizes government is the cause of most of their problems, not the solution, and we see it fade into the ashcan of history.
Pardon my confusion, which arose when you contradicted yourself.
I don't know if it's telling or merely coincidental that a generalized talk about immigration and libertarian principle always becomes a specific discussion of the costs and merits of MEXICAN immigration.
Either way, Bill, you seem confused. You ask,
Why should we be the only ones to allow this unbridled immigration? Why should I be forced to pay for it at the point of a government gun?
I'm sorry, what do you mean "we"? Or are you a member of the government now? Or are you some kind of "anarchist" who believes government actually does represent him, therefore you feel comfortable using the plural?
Two points here:
1.) The immigration is not currently "unbridled", so before you argue for more government immigration regulation you must first acknowledge and admit that existing efforts have failed, if their goal is to allow immigration only via official, documented border-crossings.
2.) You are confusing "a person crossing a border" with "being forced to pay for a person's welfare at the point of a government gun."
The immigrant isn't robbing you. The government is. Attempts to paint the picture the other way are confused attempts to misdirect hate and anger in order to make a "self-defense" argument when it's CLEAR that the only person you could actually defend yourself from is the government tax collector/politician. If you're upset about government coercion, you should be calling for an end of it at home, not a projection of it onto others.
What happened to my rights to my property? How can you justify people coming here, taking advantage of all the free government give - aways, contributing to the crime rate via the government's "war on some drugs", closing hospitals in border areas, etc?
Every problem you describe is a problem with government and government redistribution/laws. It is not a problem of people moving across borders. Precluding "illegals" from making use of free things won't stop "legals" from making use of free things, contributing to the crime rate, over-using hospitals, etc.
This is a thorny question and I certainly don't have the answers,
To quote the Office... "It's not. It's officially... not."
It couldn't be a clearer issue. The issue is this: does any individual have the right to initiate force against any other individual?
The answer, clearly, is no. Therefore, it is, clearly, wrong to call for the governmental initiation of force of individuals crossing borders.
Simple as pie.
You know those street thugs who say they rob to feed their babies? What you want to do when you call for the pointing of a government gun at immigrants is you want the gun pointed at the baby, not the street thug (the government). Twisted, twisted logic.
You first said:
it is a one way street. I am all for open borders and letting people freely go wherever they want to. However, we cannot do that today. Sure, the Mexicans can come here illegally, get jobs, buy property, get welfare, get free health care, gget a free education for their children, etc. On the other hand, I cannot go to Mexico and do the same.
Now you say:
No, I am not saying that. I am saying I long for the day when everyone all over the world realizes government is the cause of most of their problems, not the solution, and we see it fade into the ashcan of history.
Pardon my confusion, which arose when you contradicted yourself.
I don't know if it's telling or merely coincidental that a generalized talk about immigration and libertarian principle always becomes a specific discussion of the costs and merits of MEXICAN immigration.
Either way, Bill, you seem confused. You ask,
Why should we be the only ones to allow this unbridled immigration? Why should I be forced to pay for it at the point of a government gun?
I'm sorry, what do you mean "we"? Or are you a member of the government now? Or are you some kind of "anarchist" who believes government actually does represent him, therefore you feel comfortable using the plural?
Two points here:
1.) The immigration is not currently "unbridled", so before you argue for more government immigration regulation you must first acknowledge and admit that existing efforts have failed, if their goal is to allow immigration only via official, documented border-crossings.
2.) You are confusing "a person crossing a border" with "being forced to pay for a person's welfare at the point of a government gun."
The immigrant isn't robbing you. The government is. Attempts to paint the picture the other way are confused attempts to misdirect hate and anger in order to make a "self-defense" argument when it's CLEAR that the only person you could actually defend yourself from is the government tax collector/politician. If you're upset about government coercion, you should be calling for an end of it at home, not a projection of it onto others.
What happened to my rights to my property? How can you justify people coming here, taking advantage of all the free government give - aways, contributing to the crime rate via the government's "war on some drugs", closing hospitals in border areas, etc?
Every problem you describe is a problem with government and government redistribution/laws. It is not a problem of people moving across borders. Precluding "illegals" from making use of free things won't stop "legals" from making use of free things, contributing to the crime rate, over-using hospitals, etc.
This is a thorny question and I certainly don't have the answers,
To quote the Office... "It's not. It's officially... not."
It couldn't be a clearer issue. The issue is this: does any individual have the right to initiate force against any other individual?
The answer, clearly, is no. Therefore, it is, clearly, wrong to call for the governmental initiation of force of individuals crossing borders.
Simple as pie.
You know those street thugs who say they rob to feed their babies? What you want to do when you call for the pointing of a government gun at immigrants is you want the gun pointed at the baby, not the street thug (the government). Twisted, twisted logic.
Capt. A,
I think I understand where you are coming from and I also agree. My question is, why Monaco? Not ridiculing, just trying to understand how Monaco was the right alternative for you?
I think I understand where you are coming from and I also agree. My question is, why Monaco? Not ridiculing, just trying to understand how Monaco was the right alternative for you?
First, Taylor, I have stated from the beginning this is one issue that is very confusing for me, so please bear with me and help me understand.
Secondly, I didn't contradict myself, or didn't mean to. I was trying to differentiate between the way things are and the way I would like them to be; a truly free society with a truly free market.
Whether or not the immigrant is the one assaulting me is a moot point. The fact remains that because of the immigrant, the government comes to me, points a gun in MY face and demands ever more of MY money. That is the way it is today in north America.
So, what you are saying is that we should just forget about the immigrants, let them all come here whenever they want and let them take whatever they want from us. They are perfectly justified in using the feds as proxy to force us to give them our money because we personally believe in the non - aggression principle and refuse to initiate force for any reason.
Yes, every problem I describe IS a result of government and apparently your solution is to let them continue to do it to us.
Secondly, I didn't contradict myself, or didn't mean to. I was trying to differentiate between the way things are and the way I would like them to be; a truly free society with a truly free market.
Whether or not the immigrant is the one assaulting me is a moot point. The fact remains that because of the immigrant, the government comes to me, points a gun in MY face and demands ever more of MY money. That is the way it is today in north America.
So, what you are saying is that we should just forget about the immigrants, let them all come here whenever they want and let them take whatever they want from us. They are perfectly justified in using the feds as proxy to force us to give them our money because we personally believe in the non - aggression principle and refuse to initiate force for any reason.
Yes, every problem I describe IS a result of government and apparently your solution is to let them continue to do it to us.
# posted by : December 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM
: December 9, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Bill,
It might straighten out your thinking if you stop using plural nouns. You're confusing yourself by insisting on thinking in terms of false collectives.
There is no "us", "we", "them". We're not discussing competing football teams or even competing militaries.
Whether or not the immigrant is the one assaulting me is a moot point
It's definitely not moot if what you're arguing is that you are right to call for aggression against people out of "self-defense" which, according to the Non-Aggression Principle, is the only reason you could rightfully call for aggression against another person.
The fact remains that because of the immigrant, the government comes to me, points a gun in MY face and demands ever more of MY money
I think you have causation mixed up here, a "cart before the horse" situation. You are not being taxed to pay for things because the immigrant exists. You will be taxed to pay for things even without the immigrant. The immigrant is the wool pulled over your eyes to hide the reality. The reality is that some individuals have the "will to power". They will use any excuse they can find. In this instance, it is the immigrant.
Let's face it-- you fell for it. Many do. The truth remains... whether there are immigrants or not, you will be taxed, controlled and regulated by these villains.
Now what are you going to do? Play into their hands by demanding they have more power to "protect" you from the thieving immigrant? Or aim your derision at your true masters-- not the immigrants, but those who claim to act in their name.
So, what you are saying is that we should just forget about the immigrants, let them all come here whenever they want and let them take whatever they want from us.
That certainly isn't what I am saying, but that is probably how you would say what I am saying.
I am saying this: let individuals do what they want, so long as they allow other individuals the same liberty.
No immigrant has taken anything from me. The government has. I, personally, as a free individual, would never dictate terms of employment, ownership, contract, relationship, etc, between any other free individuals. All I ask is that other individuals, particularly other individuals calling themselves "a government", do the same.
I sure hope that helps, it's the best I can explain it. If it doesn't make sense, I won't bother trying any longer.
Think, "individuals" not, "labelled groups of individuals" and see if that changes your analysis. Ask, "when someone crosses a border, and I call for that crossing to be stopped, what is actually happening and what am I actually calling for to be done?" Similarly, ask, "when a person makes use of welfare, where is that welfare coming from and how does it get there?"
Good luck!
It might straighten out your thinking if you stop using plural nouns. You're confusing yourself by insisting on thinking in terms of false collectives.
There is no "us", "we", "them". We're not discussing competing football teams or even competing militaries.
Whether or not the immigrant is the one assaulting me is a moot point
It's definitely not moot if what you're arguing is that you are right to call for aggression against people out of "self-defense" which, according to the Non-Aggression Principle, is the only reason you could rightfully call for aggression against another person.
The fact remains that because of the immigrant, the government comes to me, points a gun in MY face and demands ever more of MY money
I think you have causation mixed up here, a "cart before the horse" situation. You are not being taxed to pay for things because the immigrant exists. You will be taxed to pay for things even without the immigrant. The immigrant is the wool pulled over your eyes to hide the reality. The reality is that some individuals have the "will to power". They will use any excuse they can find. In this instance, it is the immigrant.
Let's face it-- you fell for it. Many do. The truth remains... whether there are immigrants or not, you will be taxed, controlled and regulated by these villains.
Now what are you going to do? Play into their hands by demanding they have more power to "protect" you from the thieving immigrant? Or aim your derision at your true masters-- not the immigrants, but those who claim to act in their name.
So, what you are saying is that we should just forget about the immigrants, let them all come here whenever they want and let them take whatever they want from us.
That certainly isn't what I am saying, but that is probably how you would say what I am saying.
I am saying this: let individuals do what they want, so long as they allow other individuals the same liberty.
No immigrant has taken anything from me. The government has. I, personally, as a free individual, would never dictate terms of employment, ownership, contract, relationship, etc, between any other free individuals. All I ask is that other individuals, particularly other individuals calling themselves "a government", do the same.
I sure hope that helps, it's the best I can explain it. If it doesn't make sense, I won't bother trying any longer.
Think, "individuals" not, "labelled groups of individuals" and see if that changes your analysis. Ask, "when someone crosses a border, and I call for that crossing to be stopped, what is actually happening and what am I actually calling for to be done?" Similarly, ask, "when a person makes use of welfare, where is that welfare coming from and how does it get there?"
Good luck!
I'm sorry for you, Taylor, that you lack the intellect to comprehend the bigger (or smaller) picture.
That "invisible line" you so soundly dismiss delineates the boundary of ALL of our property. Nothing fictional or false about it, nothing to do with Duh Gubmint - It is EVERY CITIZEN'S back yard. Just because you're searching desperately for bandaid for your bleeding heart doesn't mean everyone with a clue should suffer. . .
You made the biggest amateur mistake of them all - you assume (incorrectly) that everyone else should accept random people jumping the fence into their back yard instead of knocking on the door, just because you accept it. You can do that with property that is wholly yours; when other people have a stake, the dynamic changes entirely.
When you see a "No Trespassing" sign posted, it means just that - No Trespassing. If you want access to the property behind that sign, you ask permission - if you take it on yourself to disregard the sign, you are a Trespasser. . . nothing more, nothing less.
If you take down the sign without the Unanimous approval of all the property owners, you're violating their property rights. . . the inverse does not apply - the sign is the first line of defense of property rights, and the load of 00 is the last line. Take away the first line, and you lose the right to all other defenses, including the last line.
To put it simply enough for you to hopefully comprehend. . .
Jumping the border is no different (aside from scale) than jumping the fence into a gated community.
Capisce?
That "invisible line" you so soundly dismiss delineates the boundary of ALL of our property. Nothing fictional or false about it, nothing to do with Duh Gubmint - It is EVERY CITIZEN'S back yard. Just because you're searching desperately for bandaid for your bleeding heart doesn't mean everyone with a clue should suffer. . .
You made the biggest amateur mistake of them all - you assume (incorrectly) that everyone else should accept random people jumping the fence into their back yard instead of knocking on the door, just because you accept it. You can do that with property that is wholly yours; when other people have a stake, the dynamic changes entirely.
When you see a "No Trespassing" sign posted, it means just that - No Trespassing. If you want access to the property behind that sign, you ask permission - if you take it on yourself to disregard the sign, you are a Trespasser. . . nothing more, nothing less.
If you take down the sign without the Unanimous approval of all the property owners, you're violating their property rights. . . the inverse does not apply - the sign is the first line of defense of property rights, and the load of 00 is the last line. Take away the first line, and you lose the right to all other defenses, including the last line.
To put it simply enough for you to hopefully comprehend. . .
Jumping the border is no different (aside from scale) than jumping the fence into a gated community.
Capisce?
Reverend Draco,
Do explain how the "United States of America" is "wholly owned", and please explain who owns it? Also, for those of us so lacking in intellect such as myself and prone to make amateur mistakes of our own, please explain what set of legal titles were created and held to confirm this ownership?
If there is a historical process involved, going back to the founding of the country for instance, feel free to include that in your explanation.
Do explain how the "United States of America" is "wholly owned", and please explain who owns it? Also, for those of us so lacking in intellect such as myself and prone to make amateur mistakes of our own, please explain what set of legal titles were created and held to confirm this ownership?
If there is a historical process involved, going back to the founding of the country for instance, feel free to include that in your explanation.
You are so dumb, please don't call yourself a liberterian.
Thankyou
Thankyou
# posted by : December 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
: December 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM
To Taylor Conant,
Taylor, I stay in Monaco, Campione, Switzerland, San Marino and Sark. I do not ‘reside’ in any of these places. Consider this: In Monaco there is essentially NO taxes of any kind (Even the dreaded VAT is avoidable in varying degrees). No income tax, no sales tax, and no ad valorem tax ... you get the picture. There is No welfare, no subsidies, no rent seeking, no immigration problems, ad nauseam, etc. The same holds true in degree with the other venues I’ve mentioned above. In other words, government without absolute just cause and trial doesn’t ever seize your wealth, money and private property. (Criminal acts.) There is no “asset forfeiture” here in Monaco, as exists in the U.S. You aren’t coerced and plundered at the point of a gun, period. Monaco, by the way is a constitutional monarchy, with Prince Albert at the helm. Having lived for nearly forty-five years in the U.S. under the constitutional republic, (puking-dog democracy) I say without doubt, the CM is absolutely superior under this prince and his late father, Prince Ranier. There is NO comparison! Plus, I have NO government telling me that I can’t “smoke a Cuban Cohiba cigar if I feel like it! Try that in America... You’ll spend many nights in crowbar hotel with your bunkmate flashing his gold tooth, saying, “You’re mine!” Why would anyone live his or her life in a venue like that? Mind-boggling!
In these venues, there is no USA Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, no blanket wiretapping of honest citizens and most important there is both “financial and personal privacy.” What belongs to an individual, your life’s work, is not stripped via “legalized plunder of the state.” Simple as that... And yet consider this: what I’ve learned after thirty-plus years of staying in these venues is this: people here where I stay, mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. (Violence is very rare here.) I could go on but I do believe you have the big picture.
Finally, allow me to say that long ago I placed such great value on my personal freedom, liberty, private property and privacy that I was going to live my life with the highest degree of these attributes available on this earth ... while gving value to others and receiving 100% remuneration, 100%! In this part of the world, (My venues) there is essentially no one “trying to do good with ‘other’ peoples money!” There’s no “healthcare, socialized or otherwise here...” You are considered an adult, capable of making your choices and accepting responsibilities that go along with those choices. That’s TRUE freedom and liberty! And remember, the “passport you carry determines how your life is lived or ended.”
I’m old now and in the last stage of my life. I can unequivocally state that my life lived outside of the United States has given me a true lust for life that I do not believe is obtainable in America. I speak from both knowledge and experience. Well Mr. Conant, take care of yourself and those you love and care about. Who knows, maybe someday freedom and liberty might be yours ... if you have the courage to create your “circumstances.”
Regards,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
Taylor, I stay in Monaco, Campione, Switzerland, San Marino and Sark. I do not ‘reside’ in any of these places. Consider this: In Monaco there is essentially NO taxes of any kind (Even the dreaded VAT is avoidable in varying degrees). No income tax, no sales tax, and no ad valorem tax ... you get the picture. There is No welfare, no subsidies, no rent seeking, no immigration problems, ad nauseam, etc. The same holds true in degree with the other venues I’ve mentioned above. In other words, government without absolute just cause and trial doesn’t ever seize your wealth, money and private property. (Criminal acts.) There is no “asset forfeiture” here in Monaco, as exists in the U.S. You aren’t coerced and plundered at the point of a gun, period. Monaco, by the way is a constitutional monarchy, with Prince Albert at the helm. Having lived for nearly forty-five years in the U.S. under the constitutional republic, (puking-dog democracy) I say without doubt, the CM is absolutely superior under this prince and his late father, Prince Ranier. There is NO comparison! Plus, I have NO government telling me that I can’t “smoke a Cuban Cohiba cigar if I feel like it! Try that in America... You’ll spend many nights in crowbar hotel with your bunkmate flashing his gold tooth, saying, “You’re mine!” Why would anyone live his or her life in a venue like that? Mind-boggling!
In these venues, there is no USA Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, no blanket wiretapping of honest citizens and most important there is both “financial and personal privacy.” What belongs to an individual, your life’s work, is not stripped via “legalized plunder of the state.” Simple as that... And yet consider this: what I’ve learned after thirty-plus years of staying in these venues is this: people here where I stay, mind their own business and keep their hands to themselves. (Violence is very rare here.) I could go on but I do believe you have the big picture.
Finally, allow me to say that long ago I placed such great value on my personal freedom, liberty, private property and privacy that I was going to live my life with the highest degree of these attributes available on this earth ... while gving value to others and receiving 100% remuneration, 100%! In this part of the world, (My venues) there is essentially no one “trying to do good with ‘other’ peoples money!” There’s no “healthcare, socialized or otherwise here...” You are considered an adult, capable of making your choices and accepting responsibilities that go along with those choices. That’s TRUE freedom and liberty! And remember, the “passport you carry determines how your life is lived or ended.”
I’m old now and in the last stage of my life. I can unequivocally state that my life lived outside of the United States has given me a true lust for life that I do not believe is obtainable in America. I speak from both knowledge and experience. Well Mr. Conant, take care of yourself and those you love and care about. Who knows, maybe someday freedom and liberty might be yours ... if you have the courage to create your “circumstances.”
Regards,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
# posted by : December 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM
: December 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Thanks Troy, your explanation did help to clear the fog. Although I still feel like I am being taken advantage of, at least I realize that it is my same old enemy, the parasitic State. It seems no matter what the problem is, the root cause is always the State. The reason they want to come here? The State they live under is making life unbearable and the State we live under wants to use them as another wedge to divide us.
# posted by : December 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM
: December 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Capt. A,
Visited Monaco in May of 2007 for the F1 Grand Prix. Enjoyed myself immensely and it was a beautiful little place. Wasn't there long enough to experience the full-blown freedom, etc. but I do wish I could go back sometime. I will say that for a packed, world-wide popular sporting event like the GP security was less tyrannical than your average US domestic airport!
Glad you've found a home away from home. Thank you for the information
ps. One creepy thing was the pictures of Prince Albert everywhere I went, including private businesses. Is there some law about having to display his picture? Personality cult much?
Visited Monaco in May of 2007 for the F1 Grand Prix. Enjoyed myself immensely and it was a beautiful little place. Wasn't there long enough to experience the full-blown freedom, etc. but I do wish I could go back sometime. I will say that for a packed, world-wide popular sporting event like the GP security was less tyrannical than your average US domestic airport!
Glad you've found a home away from home. Thank you for the information
ps. One creepy thing was the pictures of Prince Albert everywhere I went, including private businesses. Is there some law about having to display his picture? Personality cult much?
To Taylor Conant,
To answer your postscript, let me ask you to “think” about this: In a real sovereignty ... such as Monaco the past prince (Rainier) and the current prince (Albert) operate in a fashion so as to provide absolutely the greatest degree of freedom and liberty possible to the roughly 37,000 Monacans living here. So, I guess the tremendous respect and appreciation shown to the current prince via his picture appearing in almost all of Monaco is merely a sign... Having lived here, with notables such a screen actor Roger Moore and Beatles drummer Ringo Starr, whenever they appear on the streets of Monaco, especially the La Condamine section, I have yet to ever speak to either of these two very fine gentlemen where upon the issues of freedom and liberty from the truncheon of government isn’t brought up in confab. Both of these gentlemen abhor what both the American and British governments are doing: “Screwing the wealth,” and in doing so, many, many wealthy individuals will leave these countries, renounce citizenship and live life free from the horrid tentacles of the collectivistic imposition of redistribution. You can take that to the bank! (Preferably in a private bank that honours privacy!) That being said, Mr. Conant, yes ... I guess the people here do in fact pay homage via the pictures posted of the prince. Wouldn’t you? They do it freely with bona fide feelings and Monacans are proud that they live amongst leaders that do as I mentioned earlier above: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself. What could be better?
Most Americans have absolutely no concept of what it’s like to “control” with certainty, the acquisition of wealth, private property and privacy (Which DOES NOT exits in America, au contraire to popular opinion). By the way, here’s some cocktail info for you: “privacy” is considered a “private property right here!” You cannot violate privacy anymore than you can any other private property right. How about that! Same in America, is it? I think not!
Again, thanks for your interest! I do hope that someday you do return to Monaco and have a closer look. The only real downside is the cost to live here ... and, residents aren’t allowed to gamble in the casinos! (Just don’t become a “resident” if you like to gamble!) Well, not every place is perfect! Take care and consider what I’ve said. You only have one life to live. When you get to my age you will look back either with regret or satisfaction in the way that you’ve lived your life, either with true freedom and liberty or the angst of regret. The choice is yours.
Regards,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." -- H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, Feb. 12, 1923
To answer your postscript, let me ask you to “think” about this: In a real sovereignty ... such as Monaco the past prince (Rainier) and the current prince (Albert) operate in a fashion so as to provide absolutely the greatest degree of freedom and liberty possible to the roughly 37,000 Monacans living here. So, I guess the tremendous respect and appreciation shown to the current prince via his picture appearing in almost all of Monaco is merely a sign... Having lived here, with notables such a screen actor Roger Moore and Beatles drummer Ringo Starr, whenever they appear on the streets of Monaco, especially the La Condamine section, I have yet to ever speak to either of these two very fine gentlemen where upon the issues of freedom and liberty from the truncheon of government isn’t brought up in confab. Both of these gentlemen abhor what both the American and British governments are doing: “Screwing the wealth,” and in doing so, many, many wealthy individuals will leave these countries, renounce citizenship and live life free from the horrid tentacles of the collectivistic imposition of redistribution. You can take that to the bank! (Preferably in a private bank that honours privacy!) That being said, Mr. Conant, yes ... I guess the people here do in fact pay homage via the pictures posted of the prince. Wouldn’t you? They do it freely with bona fide feelings and Monacans are proud that they live amongst leaders that do as I mentioned earlier above: mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself. What could be better?
Most Americans have absolutely no concept of what it’s like to “control” with certainty, the acquisition of wealth, private property and privacy (Which DOES NOT exits in America, au contraire to popular opinion). By the way, here’s some cocktail info for you: “privacy” is considered a “private property right here!” You cannot violate privacy anymore than you can any other private property right. How about that! Same in America, is it? I think not!
Again, thanks for your interest! I do hope that someday you do return to Monaco and have a closer look. The only real downside is the cost to live here ... and, residents aren’t allowed to gamble in the casinos! (Just don’t become a “resident” if you like to gamble!) Well, not every place is perfect! Take care and consider what I’ve said. You only have one life to live. When you get to my age you will look back either with regret or satisfaction in the way that you’ve lived your life, either with true freedom and liberty or the angst of regret. The choice is yours.
Regards,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
"The fact is that the average man's love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies." -- H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun, Feb. 12, 1923
# posted by : December 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM
: December 10, 2009 at 1:16 PM
If you really did find a working formula that made you, say $1,000 a week online on average and it kept producing income no matter what, would you want to sell that idea to a bunch of noobs for $47 a pop and expect to retire on the proceeds? No way, man! It does not compute. It does not add up. And it does not make any sense to do that. I certainly don’t go shouting from the rooftops how I make my money online. Hell, I don’t want the competition taking a slice of my pie and neither would anyone who really does make good cash online.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]