dagblog - Comments for "Libertarians and Immigration"

"libertarians" who would

negator — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 02:27:05 +0000

In reply to Libertarians and Immigration

"libertarians" who would restrict free travel of the individual either:

1) haven't "got there" yet

2) are faking it (alan greenspan)

3) are faking it (ron paul)

Doctor

Barbara — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:31:07 +0000

In reply to Libertarians and Immigration

Doctor Cleveland,

I was recently doing some research on constutitional laws. I breifly remember reading that we could not regulate or, charge more than a $10.oo tax on persons to enter this country. If this is so, are we not violating the constitution as well as being the cause of the problem in the first place. I mean they're NOT HIRING THEMSELFS!

Many lifes &, millions of dollars is what it costs use to patrol the boarders of a country that's paying millions of dollars every year to maintain a giant statue inviting any & all to live here & welcoming them pursue a better life.

They are NOT the ones that put us in a recession or, are the culprit of our unemployement rate. WE are! WE don't want to pay Americans a decent wage out of our own pocket but, we cry about the state of the economy. And, it seems to me the more citizens we have the more jobs we create & the stronger our alliance.

Thanks!

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:28:40 +0000

In reply to from the Libertarian Party

Thanks!

Thanks! That's very

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:28:06 +0000

In reply to I am a Libertarian and I am

Thanks! That's very illuminating. (Thanks also to James Harris below.)

Between this thread and my recent cross-post at TPM, I'm getting a lot of different answers. From you and James, the answer is basically, "Real libertarians are pro-immigration."

Some of the people at TPM are answering that there's no inconsistency at all.

It's fascinating. And it clearly says something about the uneasy was libertarianism and conservatism coexist, overlap, and rival each other at the moment. And, of course, as DF says, about how many strands of libertarians there are.

from the Libertarian Party

James W. Harris — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:40:29 +0000

In reply to Libertarians and Immigration

from the Libertarian Party Platform:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

http://www.lp.org/platform

I am a Libertarian and I am

PunkJohnnyCash — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:13:04 +0000

In reply to Libertarians and Immigration

I am a Libertarian and I am completely pro immigration. In fact last week I went on a rant about this subject. On my blog. http://www.gonzotimes.com/491/a-case-against-government-part-2-immigration/

There is a conservative movement that is leaning libertarian lately that clings to government power and statist ideas in libertarianism. I oppose many of these concepts, and really they are just Republicans that are seeing things clearly after 8 years of Bush I believe.

You know, I hear you. I

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:48:43 +0000

In reply to Since I see the general

You know, I hear you. I really do. That's why I tried to make this a question, rather than an accusation.

My own take is that there are principled libertarians, but there are lots of other people who lean heavily on the rhetoric of libertarianism but don't feel especially constrained by it.

Since I see the general

freeBatjko — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:36:32 +0000

In reply to Fair enough. And that's my

Since I see the general leaning of the author and this website, I'd just like to add:

The inconsistency in interpretation and the arbitrary self-labeling we see, may be grounds to dismiss certain people's motivation. However, beware of of stereotyping the philosophy as a whole! Libertarianism as a concept has a very straight and logically sound framework, starting from the Non-Aggression principle and basic property-rights, and ending at Austrian-type free-market economics. This philosophy in itself is not inconsistent and, if thought through to its logical conclusions, much more than "get off my lawn". That people don't follow these basic principles and stop short of making the logical connections to arrive at the same end as others, is not a failure of the philosophy, but of the people who use its name to describe themselves.

It's like calling yourself a liberal because you like freedom of speech, religion etc, but supporting preventive wars otherwise. People have the freedom to call themselves whatever they like. If we judge the label on these grounds, instead of the person, we are doing the political discourse more harm than good.

I acknowledge the lack of clear hierarchy and obvious proponents to talk to, which is mostly due to their inherent aversion of grasping power or the microphone, I believe. If you'd like to find out more, within the "scene" there have been a few lifting their heads over the crowd, say Murray Rothbard, Ludwig v. Mises, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, to name a few. I would suggest reading Rothbard first, but whatever you prefer.

Online communities worth mentioning, that are not just gun-lovers or capped neo-cons, are hard to find. I can give you one if you're interested.

Fair enough. And that's my

Doctor Cleveland — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:59:39 +0000

In reply to One of the difficulties here

Fair enough. And that's my complaint, I think: the highly selective appeal to principle, without any pressure for consistency.

In the case of my friend (and of my personal hero, Megan McArdle), I think it functions as a way to call one's conservatism something more interesting. And, somewhat more vexingly, it functions as a moral rhetoric underlying conservatism. You're not simply defending the status quo; you're defending liberty. Yeah, that's the ticket! How else to get self-righteous about keeping hedge funds unregulated?

Maybe the glaring inconsistency with immigration questions, when that inconsistency appears, is because the public debate about immigration already supplies a ready-made self-righteous position ("They're illegal! They shouldn't be here in the first place!) and so the rhetoric of Lockean liberty isn't necessary.

One of the difficulties here

DF — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:21:00 +0000

In reply to Most "real" libertarians

One of the difficulties here is defining "libertarian", if even just for the purposes of discussion. Who are the libertarians? What are their values? Who, if anyone, speaks for them?

This is a question much more easily answered when we ask it about the two dominant political parties. In these cases, party members are easily identified, platforms clearly espoused and leadership (usually) likewise designated.

The same can't really be said for the contemporary American libertarian. It's a label that many people self-apply, but these same people frequently espouse rather disparate viewpoints. One might be an economic libertarian, which may mean anything from a strict adherence the Austrian school to simply having a general preference for market-based economics. One might be a social libertarian or civil libertarian and seemingly have any number of views on issues like gun control, abortion, gay rights, drug law, etc.

There are survivalist libertarians and religious libertarians. Sometimes these are the same people.

So, I don't really know who or what a libertarian is in America today. There are certain identifiable groups that either use or have been associated with the label, say Rep. Ron Paul or the John Birch Society. These people might have little in common with, say, the editors of Reason magazine. There are Objectivists who do and do not self-apply the libertarian label. Some who call themselves libertarian are minarchists. Some are vehement anti-statists, making claims that any taxation whatsoever is tantamount to robbery.

Given all of the differing opinion amongst those who self-identify as libertarian, whether it's a view on statism, economics, society or something else I haven't even discussed here, I'm never really sure what to think when I hear the term. Sometimes I wonder if the term doesn't function better as a sort of Rorscach test as opposed to a meaningful label.