Adam Kokesh: Did the Trump/Johnson Effect destroy libertarianism?

190 thoughts on “Adam Kokesh: Did the Trump/Johnson Effect destroy libertarianism?

  1. Andy

    I agree with most of what Adam said here, and I have had similar thoughts myself, but there are a few things he said that I disagree with or where I think that he was inaccurate.

    I think that he took it too easy on Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. He admits that they are not real libertarians, and he calls them libertarian leaning moderates, but then he says that’s OK even though it does not win people over. I can’t say that I agree with him here. I don’t think that Johnson/Weld were really libertarian at all. I think that they were establishment hijackers who came in to squash any kind of real libertarian movement from taking off. Bill Weld is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He’s about as establishment as you can get. It should not have been a surprise when he started shilling for Hillary Clinton (or at least it was not surprising to any of us who know what is going on and don’t have our heads shoved up our asses).

    I don’t know if Adam is taking it easy on Gary Johnson because he’s originally from New Mexico, and he’s met Gary Johnson several times and developed a friendly rapport with him (although I recall another video where he commented about how Gary Johnson never endorsed him when he ran for US House in New Mexico back in 2010), or if he does not want to make waves in the Libertarian Party, and is trying to act as a person who can unite different factions in the Libertarian Party, which would be helpful for his 2020 presidential run, or what.

    I do not agree with his comments about borders and immigration, and I do not think that he is accurately stating the position held by some in the libertarian movement who are not going along with the mass immigration into a democratic welfare state agenda. Speaking for myself, and I’m sure that plenty of others agree with me, I do not really believe in government borders anymore than I believe in government fire departments or government roads or coercive government in general. Adam correctly points out that the only borders that matter are private property borders (Note that Adam does NOT have an “open border” on his property in Arizona, he’s got a fence around it. Hey Adam, if “open borders” are such a great idea, why don’t you tear down your fence and allow anyone to just waltz on to your property?), however, what he fails to address is the fact that we currently live under a situation where an institution known as government controls much of the land in this country. They tax people known as “American citizens” to pay for the the upkeep of much of this land, and the infrastructure that exists on some of this land (roads, water and sewers, parks, public libraries, public schools, etc…). When people enter the land territory known as the United States of America, they gain access to all of the government held common spaces/infrastructure, which means they are sharing it with the people who rightfully own and paid for it, as in the American tax payers. They are not just flying in on helicopters and landing at Adam Kokesh’s house, and only staying on his property, they are entering all of the common spaces that are controlled and operated by the government. So this is NOT just a private property issue, it is also an issue of access to common spaces and infrastructure paid for by the American tax payers issue. Adam acts like the existence of the welfare state is no big deal, even though the statistics clearly indicate that immigrants consume welfare at a higher rate than does the native born population, which indicates that the welfare state acts as a magnet to draw the wrong kind of people to this land territory known as the USA, and this is further backed up by the fact that after gaining citizenship, the statistics indicate that immigrants vote in super-majority numbers to increase the welfare state, and to enact more gun control laws. The statistics also indicate that certain immigrant groups are more prone to committing crime, like rape. There is also the issue of forced integration, which is NOT libertarian. Adam may want to integrate with everyone from around the world, but this does not mean that everyone else in this land territory wants the same thing, so opening up the common spaces/infrastructure which is held and operated by the US government to everyone on the planet mean forced integrating people against the will of many in this country, and on top of this, we live in a society that has anti-discrimination laws which force private businesses and landlords to do business with or hire or rent to people with whom they may not wish to associate. This is NOT libertarian. There are also Affirmative Action laws on the books where people who are in certain “protected classes” can get jobs or admission into colleges over people who are not a part of the protected classes, even if the people who are not part of the protected classes have better test scores and are better qualified. So immigration to America today is not a simple matter of people traveling from one place to another, and you can’t compare this to the 1500’s-early 1900’s because there was no welfare state back in those days, and there were a lot less people (the USA is now the third most populated country in the world with 325 million people).

    What Adam fails to recognize is that there are in fact enemies of liberty, who have an agenda to flood this country with as many foreign people as possible, particularly from third world countries, so they can use them to destroy what is left in this country of having any concept of a limited government, a right to keep and bear arms. They want to destroy national sovereignty, not in favor of individual sovereignty, as I’m sure that Adam would like to do, but rather in favor of a global government, and not some kind of global government that would expand individual freedom as compared to what we have now, but rather one that would be more along the lines of a global socialist police state.

    So it is not as though I, and others who agree with me, really so much give a damn about government borders, or government in general, it is more a case where we do not like being invaded by foreign born socialists, communists, and theocrats, and we don’t like being forced to subsidize the lifestyles and breeding habits of these people, nor do we like them becoming “American citizens” and voting in large blocks to strip us of what is left of our rights. We have seen what has is happening in Europe as a result of mass immigration, and we see what is happening here, and we are not thrilled with the idea of committing cultural suicide, which is what happens when you import large numbers of people who hold hostile ideologies.

    There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between peaceful people crossing borders (as in libertarians), and non-peaceful people crossing borders. It is NOT libertarian to support NON-peaceful people crossing borders.

    The fact of the matter is that “open borders” WOULD NOT EXIST in an anarcho-capitalist society, and Adam himself has basically admitted this. So given that this is the case, the real issue with borders is government control over borders vs. private property owners controlling borders.

    I will give Adam credit for this, his platform for his presidential campaign is to shut down the federal government. He is trying to come up with a plan to shut down the federal government, but he does not have all of the details worked out as of yet. I don’t know if this is something that could realistically be accomplished during a four year term as President, and I doubt that he’ll have any realistic chance of getting elected, but I give him credit for trying.

    Shutting down the government, liquidating all of its assets, and privatizing all of the land and other resources would be a lot more complicated than most people realize, especially if you tried to do it in as fair a manner as possible, and Adam is only talking about shutting down the federal government as President, so there’d still be the state and local governments to contend with even in the unlikely scenario that he were elected President and got to enact his shutdown plan for the federal government.

    Sorting out the liquidation of government assets, paying out entitlements, and privatizing land and other resources would be difficult enough as it is, but doing this while being hit with a tsunami of immigrants at the same time does not strike me as making the situation easier.

    The fact of the matter is that we have to operate within the world in which we live as it is, not the way we want it to be. We can work to change things, but since the government currently operates most of the fire departments in this country, if there is a fire, we are going to call the government fire departments, and doing so does not make anyone a statist. Adam is running for President, which is a government office, and he apparently voted for the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ticket, even though he said that they are not real libertarians, so does this make Adam a statist? I would say no, but I tend to operate within the real world.

  2. Andy

    I think that the situation that happened over the last election in regard to the libertarian movement becoming more divided is a result of two things:

    1) Rand Paul being too “watered down” and therefore losing most of the momentum that his father had built up from 2007-2012. If Rand has simply continued what his father was doing, he could have made a much bigger impact in the Republican presidential primaries. I don’t think that he’d have won, but he could have been the big maverick candidate, and he may have caused Donald Trump to not get nominated. Rand did too much waffling, and he tried to appeal to both mainstream Republicans and the liberty movement, and this backfired, as the mainstream Republicans never really got behind him, and most of the liberty movement either abandoned him, or they only gave him lukewarm support. This is why Rand Paul’s campaign crashed and burned early, and this is in part what led to the rise of Donald Trump, as Trump got to be the “anti-establishment” no politics as usual candidate.

    2) The Libertarian Party nominating the awful Gary Johnson and Bill Weld ticket. It should have been blatantly apparent to all (at least to all who are not a part of the Libertarian Party’s Shiny Badge Caucus) that Gary Johnson was not a real libertarian, or a strong candidate, especially when he stumped for Council on Foreign Relations member, bill Weld, to be his running mate. This could have been a much bigger year for the Libertarian Party, and it would have been, IF the party had nominated a different ticket. Running a couple of washed up Republicans who deviated from the Libertarian Party platform on multiple issues, and who were uninspiring, and who came off as unprincipled, dull, and, at least in the case of Johnson, unprepared, or stupid, gave many in the liberty movement no reason to support the LP’s presidential ticket, and even among those who voted for them, a lot of them lacked any real enthusiasm, and many just voted for him out of party loyalty, or with the hopes that it would get the party ballot access in some states.

    So when the air apparent to the liberty movement in the Republican Party waters down the message and runs a lackluster campaign and when the Libertarian Party nominates a couple of Republican has beens who at best could be described as moderate Republicans, it should come as no surprise that this led to a fractured liberty movement, and that some in the movement said, “Screw it, I’ll take my chances with Donald Trump over the wicked Hillary Clinton,” while others did not bother voting, or cast a protest vote for somebody else, and others held their nose and voted for Gary Johnson.

    I hope that the liberty movement can heal over the net four years, and I hope that the Libertarian Party can get its act together, and nominate a more principled libertarian presidential ticket that is capable of running a more inspiring campaign in 2020.

  3. Andy

    One more thing here. Adam said that he spoke to Gigi Bowman, who voted for Donald Trump (I spoke to Gigi briefly at the Libertarian National Convention in Orlando, and she was furious that Johnson and Weld got nominated), and he said that she said that Tom Woods endorsed Donald Trump. This is NOT true. Tom Woods did not endorse Donald Trump, and he in fact did not endorse anyone.

    He also said that Gigi said that Lew Rockwell endorsed Donald Trump. Lew has engaged in what some may call some cheerleading for Donald Trump, but I don’t think that he ever officially endorsed him.

    Stefan Molyneux (who is Canadian, so he can’t even vote in this country, and he in fact lives in Canada) did endorse Donald Trump, but he did this because, 1) he thought that Hillary Clinton was worse, and there was no viable alternative, and 2) he thinks that mass immigration as it is currently happening is being used as a weapons to bring down western civilization, and that Donald Trump would slow it down, while Hillary Clinton was going to accelerate it, so he saw voting for Trump as a way to buy some time.

    I agree with Molyneux that mass immigration as it is currently happening is being used as a weapon to destroy western civilization, but I don’t trust Donald Trump, and I see the current problems associated with immigration as being a symptom of other problems, and I don’t see Donald Trump as the guy to fix those other problems, as there are certainly things wrong with him.

    I did not vote for Donald Trump. If the LP had nominated any combination of the other candidates who made the stage in Orlando, I probably would have voted for whatever that combination turned out to be. Since a majority of LP delegates decided to shoot the party in the foot once again, my choices were to either not vote in the presidential election, cast a write in vote for President (which was not likely to show up on any vote tallies), or vote for Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle, so I voted for Castle.

  4. Cody Quirk

    The L.P. is doing just fine after last year’s elections and have gained much in terms of elected office holders, ballot access, and mainstream attention.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy,

    “What Adam fails to recognize is that there are in fact enemies of liberty”

    Yes, there are.

    And for some reason, you’ve decided to let the issue of immigration make you into one of those enemies of liberty.

    Being an authoritarian on just one thing but otherwise a libertarian is like being a little bit pregnant but otherwise a virgin. It’s cognitive dissonance, not rational thought.

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    Well, thank god we have this misogynistic egomaniac’s opinion on the matter.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Andy . . . as succinct as usual.

    I stopped at “Council of Foreign Relations” because I am not in the mood for any more conspiracy theories today.

  8. Tony From Long Island

    How can Andy claim to be a Libertarian when constantly attacks immigrants and immigration?

    Maybe he’s just a Trump-paid government Troll!!!

    Oh yeah . . . that terrible candidate you keep bashing received the highest LP POTUS vote in the party’s history by miles and miles.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    I stopped at “Council of Foreign Relations” because I am not in the mood for any more conspiracy theories today.”

    So, you think the CFR is a “conspiracy theory”—why?

    Is everything a “conspiracy theory” to you? I think it means something different than you think.,

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    We don’t even have to delve into whether the CFR, as Andy describes it, is a “conspiracy theory,” (it is).

    Its just enough to know he takes the rantings of this lunatic seriously.

  11. paulie

    The CFR is not a conspiracy theory, it is an open, public organization with meetings, publication, membership lists, and so on. The conspiracy theory is that it is a sinister organization which controls the world. “Conspiracy theory” doesn’t mean that is necessarily false, just like the fact that the CFR does exist doesn’t by itself mean that this theory is true.

  12. paulie

    Its just enough to know he takes the rantings of this lunatic seriously.

    Adam isn’t a lunatic. He says a lot of things that make a lot of sense. However, he may well have some serious ego and personality problems, according to those who have worked with him closely and to some extent even according to himself. A lot of people regardless of ideology have ego and personality problems; having those says nothing about whether or not his ideas are valid.

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    “However, he may well have some serious ego and personality problems, according to those who have worked with him closely and to some extent even according to himself.”

    OK, I think you are soft-pedaling it a bit, but perhaps your statement is closer to the truth.

    It disturbs me that the Libertarian movement gives him the time of day. We got a real job ahead of us dismantling leviathan, and its not going to be accomplished by someone who’s plan is to “get elected president then abolish the federal government.”

    That’s pretty nutty to me.

  14. dL

    They tax people known as “American citizens” to pay for the the upkeep of much of this land, and the infrastructure that exists on some of this land (roads, water and sewers, parks, public libraries, public schools, etc…). When people enter the land territory known as the United States of America, they gain access to all of the government held common spaces/infrastructure, which means they are sharing it with the people who rightfully own and paid for it, as in the American tax payers.

    And that position officially makes you a collectivist, comrade. Congrats, you are making the same argument as the progressives and the commies. You have effectively destroyed any foundation of private property.

    NOTE: immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are tax payers, too. As soon as you buy a gallon of gasoline or a stick of gum, you are a tax payer. For some reason, the HoppeBots maintain a delusion that “taxpayer” somehow constitutes an excluded class. It does not. Interestingly, the HoppeBot argument, taken literally, goes much further than “open borders” position. The open borders position does not grant the immigrant the right to trespass on private private property nor does it give the immigrant any sharing control of your private property by virtue of merely being a “taxpayer.” But that is exactly what the HoppeBot position does. And please don’t resort to the Animal Farm, Stalinist bromide RE: taxpayers. “All taxpayers are equal but some are more equal than others” drivel.

  15. Anthony Dlugos

    This is my monthly interjection where I suggest Andy really would feel more comfortable in the Constitution Party. Not that I make it a habit of kicking people out of the LP. Just an observation.

  16. Tony From Long Island

    Jill, my response would be similar to what Paulie just said.

    The way Andy describes what the CFR does is a conspiracy theory.

  17. Tony From Long Island

    Andy . . . . ” . . . They tax people known as “American citizens” . . . ”

    Your elitist racism has become more and more apparent as time goes on.

    dL is correct that pretty much all undocumented people pay taxes every single day.

  18. paulie

    It disturbs me that the Libertarian movement gives him the time of day. We got a real job ahead of us dismantling leviathan, and its not going to be accomplished by someone who’s plan is to “get elected president then abolish the federal government.”

    That’s pretty nutty to me.

    His political position is separate from his personality issues. Some of us agree that the federal government should be abolished, some don’t. Some agree that this opinion can be shared through a political campaign to help move the window of what is acceptable political discourse and identify and organize people who agree. Others prefer a less extreme agenda for a campaign. That’s what the nomination campaign helps us sort out. But the viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not, should not be conflated with slavery contracts or alleged abuse of ex-fiancee and campaign staffers. Those are two separate issues altogether.

  19. paulie

    Your elitist racism has become more and more apparent as time goes on.

    Knowing Andy personally, I have never observed him to be racist on a personal level. I’ve never heard him use racial slurs, for example. He works in and stays in a lot of different kinds of neighborhoods, and I’ve never seen him treat anyone as a lesser person due to race or ethnicity. However, he’s filled his head with a bunch of crap from right wingers, many of them indeed outright racists (Molyneux, Hoppe, Cantwell, etc). It’s very unfortunate.

    dL is correct that pretty much all undocumented people pay taxes every single day.

    Yes. Additionally they vastly overpay FICA/SS tax and rarely ever collect.

  20. AMcCarrick

    What destroyed libertarianism is the media. Just head over to the CNN opinion site to see the opinion piece conflating libertarians with Trump.

  21. paulie

    should not be conflated with slavery contracts or alleged abuse of ex-fiancee and campaign staffers.

    And I should also add that those two things should not be conflated with each other. Voluntary BDSM relationships are not the same thing as domestic abuse. Adam’s former relationship may have blurred that line excessively, however.

  22. Anthony Dlugos

    “His political position is separate from his personality issues. ”

    In his case at least, I’d say they are not.

    “But the viewpoint..should not be conflated with slavery contracts or alleged abuse of ex-fiancee and campaign staffers. Those are two separate issues altogether. ”

    The viewpoint that we can live without the state is a legitimate position, one I subscribe to from a philosophical perspective.

    The Kokesh viewpoint that he can get elected President to make that stateless society come about is the most dangerous form of egomania, and is a red flag for lunacy.

  23. Anthony Dlugos

    My parents are not racists. As Faux News loving conservatives, they are adamantly in favor of the drug war.

    For all practical purposes, what’s the difference?

  24. Andy

    The Council on Foreign Relations is one of several groups of which various members of the ruling establishment belong. Groups like the CFR direct public policy from behind the scenes of government.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    While it’s possible to get overheated about what the Council on Foreign Relations is and what it does, I have to agree with Andy that CFR membership is a negative for a prospective Libertarian presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

    Even if it’s nothing else, CFR is first and foremost a club of, by and for members of the American political establishment. Pretty much by definition, an invitation to join CFR is a statement that the people who comprise, and who want to perpetually maintain and empower, the existing system and especially the post-WWII American foreign policy norm, have looked at you and concluded “he’s one of us.”

    For a Republican or Democrat, CFR membership is a credential. In an anti-establishment party, it’s the opposite of a credential.

  26. Andy

    Anthony, I think you would be more comfortable joining Mitt Romney in the Republican Party.

  27. Anthony Dlugos

    But why? I’m an open borders guy and that is a vehemently xenophobic, nativist party now.

  28. Andy

    Open borders is not in the libertarian party platform. Also, the purest libertarian position on the issue is NOT open borders, it is private property borders. So the real heart of the issue from a libertarian perspective is to privatize all land and then migration/immigration policies would be set by land owners.

    There are plenty of Republicans who support the mass immigration into a democratic welfare state agenda. You would fit in well with guys like Romney, McCain, Bush, etc….

  29. Tony From Long Island

    Paulie, one does not need to fill their vernacular with racial slurs to have racist tendencies.

    His anti-immigrant rants show his biases. If they were all coming from Norway or Canada would his opinion be the same? I doubt it.

  30. Andy

    Others here may feel more comfortable in one of the left wing socialist parties that pushes for “open borders” into a democratic welfare state.

    Today I ate at a restaurant across the street from a college, and there was a flyer on a bulletin board about an immigration rights rally. The flyer was from the Socialist International organization.

  31. Andy

    Tony, going back to the racist smears. Pathetic. You either do not pay close attention, or you are intentionally lying. If you recall, I told of an incident that happened several years back where I got into a debate with an Irish immigrant and an Australian immigrant, both of whom were white, over gun rights. Both of them favored outlawing the private ownership of firearms. I said that I would not want either of these guys becoming American citizens or voting.

    Also, I recently posted a video on immigration from That Guy T, aka-Taleed Brown, who black, or African American, and he agrees with me.

    So take your stupid comments and shove them up your was.

  32. Tony From Long Island

    right after an anti-immigrant post . . . he complains about me calling him out on his anti-immigrant posts . . . priceless!

    g’night all

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    Romney and McCain and others “soft” on immigration are not in control of the GOP anymore.

    Your nativist, xenophobic bosom buddies are, Andy.

    You are advising me to leave an open borders party to go to a xenophobic party while your xenophobic butt stays in the open borders party.

    Makes no sense.

  34. Andy

    I have followed Adam Kokesh online for several years, and I had the opportunity to meet him and hang out with him a couple of times last year. Even though I have some minor disagreements with him, I do agree with him for the most part, and I think that he is doing a lot of good things with his activism. His “push the anarchy button” style of campaigning for President is interesting.

    It is still way early in the process of campaigning for President for 2020, but I would strongly consider supporting Adam Kokesh for President.

  35. Andy

    Tony, I did not type and anti-immigrant posts, I typed anti-Marxist and theocrats nvader posts.

    Anthony, your views, as well as the views of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, are more in line with the Republican Party.

  36. dL

    Also, the purest libertarian position on the issue is NOT open borders, it is private property borders.

    There is no such thing as “private property borders.” The most inane, vapid concept I have ever read. If I was a progressive, I would use Hoppe’s theory as exhibit A of why you need a strong, central government to facilitate trade, markets and travel. Otherwise, everyone would be stuck on their own little moated property, unable to go anywhere. They would have to resort to primitive farming of their own land to avoid starving to death. And they better hope for sufficient rainfall. Otherwise, they will die of thirst before the draught kills manages to starve them off(assuming the Ayatollah of Property doesn’t issue a fatwa allowing movement across borders to avoid imminent death.Then again, I have no idea how the Ayatollah could ever get his message out.) .

    If I took Hoppe’s theory seriously, it would by far be one of the better arguments for the necessity of the State I’ve come across.

  37. Andy

    dL, saying that there is no such thing as a private property border is like saying there is no such thing as private property. People would obviously be economically incentivized to trade, and to associate with others, they just would not be under state coercion, so interactions would be on a voluntary basis.

  38. dL

    dL, saying that there is no such thing as a private property border is like saying there is no such thing as private property.

    No, it it is not. Private property has boundaries, not borders. Private property can be boundary surveyed, property has boundary lines. Your bounded piece of land is yours for your own private exclusive use outside of the public consideration.

    Borders refers to geographic boundaries for governments denoting a common legal jurisdiction. Even so, most of those are unguarded, unfenced(e.g, the border between the state of Alabama and the state of Georgia). The term/language “border” has no legal or common law tradition as it relates to private property. The term “borders” applied to private property is a collectivist poison pill introduced by the enemies of liberty to justify the evisceration of private property rights in the name of private property.

  39. robert capozzi

    dL: The term “borders” applied to private property is a collectivist poison pill introduced by the enemies of liberty to justify the evisceration of private property rights in the name of private property.

    me: Ooga booga! Who are these “enemies of liberty”? When did they do this introduction? How do you know their motive, if these enemies consciously did what you say? Why do you defer to “common law tradition”? Out of convenience? Perhaps a lack of viable alternatives?

  40. dL

    Ooga booga! Who are these “enemies of liberty”?

    The axis powers of lessAnarchy

    Why do you defer to “common law tradition”? Out of convenience? Perhaps a lack of viable alternatives?

    “Borders are for states. Boundaries are for property.” Also read that from a Chinese fortune cookie once…

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    There are two kinds of borders:

    1) Open Borders; and
    2) Government-controlled Borders

    Only one of these types is compatible with libertarianism.

    Open borders is the libertarian position.

    Open borders is the ONLY libertarian position.

    Authoritarianism isn’t libertarianism.

  42. robert capozzi

    tk, I’d like you’d frame it more like:

    1) No borders
    2) Government borders

    With:
    1: “Only” L position
    2: Statist position

  43. robert capozzi

    dL, borders and boundaries are both lines of demarcation, yes? Both are unnatural conventions that people tend to recognize. Both are arbitrary, although we tend to justify them for matters of convenience, tradition, and wealth creation.

    If I understand you, you seem to believe that only boundaries are worthy and borders are unworthy. Correct?

    You point to — I think — a borderless planet where property boundaries (with a set of rules that defines legitimate property) and honored and protected. If that’s a superior configuration, the case would need to be made, one that includes how such a setup could be evolved toward, including practical considerations.

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    There’s a degree to which you are correct: Government borders and private property boundaries are both conventions that people tend to recognize and that we tend to justify.

    But it does not follow from that fact that the justifications for each are equally valid or defensible.

    In an unrelated matter, I had reason to think of you as I was writing yesterday’s column, specifically the following:

    “Vault 7 confirms that as a state entity, the CIA answers to philosopher Anthony de Jasay’s description of the state as such. Just as a firm acts to maximize profits, the state and its arms act to maximize their own discretionary power. Even if it doesn’t do some particular thing, it requires the option, the ability to do that thing. It seeks omnipotence.”

  45. robert capozzi

    tk, glad we agree. Lines of demarcation are artificial constructs. Subjective levels of validity, I suggest, are subjective. I tend to prefer property lines to borders, too, but both seem to have some utility in the here and now.

    As for the State’s (or, really, those in the State and Deep State) tendency toward maximizing its portfolio of powers, I agree. I don’t know any of them, and I’m not a mind reader, but there’s no evidence they seek omnipotence. There is LOTS of evidence they seek morearchy, though.

    Is there someone at Langley or Fort Meade who envisions, say, deciding which man and woman should be paired and how many babies they should have, for ex.?

    Possible, but hopefully highly unlikely.

  46. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . .It is still way early in the process of campaigning for President for 2020, but I would strongly consider supporting Adam Kokesh for President. . . . ”

    Good luck with that! Hopefully it won’t be for the LP. Going back to the 0.5% vote goal again I see . . .

  47. Anthony Dlugos

    Adam Kokesh for President. dear god. A man who makes women sign slave contracts and thinks his first order of duty once elected is to “abolish the federal government.”

    Lord Hoppe, save me from your followers.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    Excerpt from a speech I’m giving in a couple of days:

    If you’re planning to run for office, you have reasons for doing so. Maybe there’s a specific issue you want to address. Maybe you’ve been active in your community and your neighbors are asking you to provide them with leadership they can trust. Maybe you’ve watched the man or woman doing the job now and concluded that it needs to be done better and that you can be the person who does it better. Or maybe you just realize that for liberty to win in Florida, it needs you to carry it on your shoulders. Those are all good reasons.

    But let’s look at it from the other end of things: You’re running as a LIBERTARIAN, and that has to mean something. You’re asking the Libertarian Party of Florida to put its label on your candidacy, to provide you with the volunteers who create winning campaigns, to help you raise the money to get your message heard. Do YOUR reasons for running match up with the Libertarian Party’s reasons for associating itself with you?

    The Libertarian Party has a purpose. Running candidates for office is not that purpose. Running candidates for office is a means, not an end.

  49. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Is there someone at Langley or Fort Meade who envisions, say, deciding which man and woman should be paired and how many babies they should have, for ex.?”

    If the subject is brought to Langley or Fort Meade, there will be plenty of people who are willing to develop the capability whether they expect to use it or not, and whether they think it should be used or not. It’s not about whether or not they want to do it, it’s about whether or not they want to be able to do it.

    The Cult of the Omnipotent State’s answer to “should the state be able to do X” is always “of course the state should be able to do X.”

  50. Anthony Dlugos

    “Running candidates for office is not that purpose. Running candidates for office is a means, not an end.”

    Dammit, Thomas. You had me until then.

  51. robert capozzi

    tk, you may be right. Do you have evidence that CIA and NSA staff want to be able to do any and all X actions that they cannot and do not do now?

  52. Andy

    “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard agreed with me.

    “This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.

    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL

    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a “second-best” solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camp_of_the_Saints

  53. Andy

    It is funny how some Libertarians will support incrementalism, or partial measures, or “working within the system” when it comes to a wide variety of issues, such as gay marriage (state licensing of marriage), marijuana (for medicinal use, and/or taxing and regulating), the military (most Libertarians call for bringing the military back to the USA, and reducing defense spending, but few Libertarians call for the immediate abolition of the military), taxation (many Libertarians call for reducing, but not quite eliminating taxes, getting rid of the income tax, but keeping other taxes, and some even propose new taxes, some of which are as bad (or even worse) than what we have now like the Fair Tax), etc…. All of these things are generally considered to be perfectly acceptable proposals in Libertarian circles.

    However, when it comes to immigration, there is a group of Libertarians, not all, but a vocal group, that freaks out and shouts down anyone who dares to suggest an incrementalist approach to immigration. These people want to enact the most radical position on immigration, even if it is done in isolation (as in the welfare state and forced association laws remain as is), which means that it is NOT actually being done in a libertarian manner, and which is actually inline with socialist parties/groups (like the example I cited from Socialist International).

    So if one says, “Hey, you know, I think that if government borders were stripped away, and we were unable to repeal the welfare state, that millions more people would flood into the country and use various welfare programs, and that once they become American citizens, the statistics show that a super-majority of these people vote to increase the welfare state. Given these facts, I think that it would be a bad idea to get rid of government borders until we do something about these other problems, because if we don’t, this will cause a societal collapse and we will end up in a communist country. I think that we should come up with some kind of compromise solution for now.”

    One would think that this would be perfectly reasonable, especially when one considers that the Libertarians who do the freaking out have failed to demonstrate that bringing large numbers of people in from other countries, some of whom are enticed by the welfare state, has increased Libertarian membership ranks, vote totals, and the number of elected Libertarians.

    I’m an abolish coercive government guy. So in my ideal world, coercive government would not exist, but I am also realistic enough to know that this is something that is not going to happen overnight, and it is quite possible that it will never happen, without libertarians breaking off from the rest of society and forming their own private developments/cities/communities. See The Libertarian Zone: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ .

  54. Andy

    How can you achieve a libertarian society if you live surrounded by a majority of people who don’t want a libertarian society?

  55. dL

    tk, glad we agree. Lines of demarcation are artificial constructs. Subjective levels of validity, I suggest, are subjective. I tend to prefer property lines to borders, too, but both seem to have some utility in the here and now.

    Conventional, heuristic constructs are not arbitrary. The principle is: that which works is what is used. So, they are subject to the scientific method, so to speak.

    Property boundaries are conventional, peaceful constructs to enforce private property homesteading for a scarce resource: land under a Lockean priviso(no one can claim all the land for themselves).

    Borders are jurisdictional delineations. In some cases the distinction border and boundary is merely semantic. But it in other cases, the distinction is not semantic. In those cases, border is a prohibition against moving outside/away from your current jurisdiction, whether it be for travel, trade, employment or seeking competitive governance. When the HoppeBots use “private property borders,” they mean it in this sense.

    Hoppe wrote that human migration is an existential threat to Western, Christian civilization. For him, the application of government borders to private property is a means to curtail human migration and arrest the effects of increasing civilization. If it was merely applied to his own crackpot vision of a free society, one could dismiss him w/ a “good luck w/ that.” Yeah, you might have your isolated pockets of Amish, agrarian society that choose to live in the 17th century. I would wish him luck when he moves into one and enjoys milking his cows at 4:30AM. However, when he and followers use private property rights to JUSTIFY government borders, then he and they move into “enemy of liberty,” authoritarian status. The scientific heuristic principle RE: government borders is that they increase the authority and responsibility of the state. That there is absolutely no doubt about.

  56. Andy

    Why are so few Libertarians calling for the Repeal of the Refugee Resettlement Act when it is a taxpayer funded welfare program? Is it because it sounds “mean” to not use taxpayer funds to bring refugees into the USA? Since when do Libertarians support government welfare programs?

    How is it that Americans were able to survive the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War, without having a bunch of American refugees running off to collect welfare in some other country?

    If one is really so concerned about refugees, why not help them in some other country which has a lower cost of living than the USA? If you helped them in some other country, you could help a lot more people by using the same money in a place that has a lower cost of living, so why not do that instead of bringing them here, where statistically, a majority of them are staying on welfare for years?

    If government welfare programs had been around back in the 1700’s and 1800’s, do you think that the USA would have turned into a successful country?

  57. Anthony Dlugos

    “Hoppe wrote that human migration is an existential threat to Western, Christian civilization. ”

    Did he really?

    No wonder I don’t read his crap.

  58. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . . Why are so few Libertarians calling for the Repeal of the Refugee Resettlement Act when it is a taxpayer funded welfare program? . . . . ”

    OK, so we want to help refugees from war torn disasters. I welcome them to our refuge. But you want to say ” Ok . . . you’re on your own . . . good luck . . . ”

    Another example of your lack of simple human empathy.

    Why not just go full Trump and let them fend for themselves in their ravaged countries?

  59. Tony From Long Island

    ” . . . .Hoppe wrote that human migration is an existential threat to Western, Christian civilization . . . . ”

    AH! Andy just drinks that in . . .. tasty nonsense! Then he whines about being called on his racist tendencies

  60. robert capozzi

    dL: The principle is: that which works is what is used. So, they are subject to the scientific method, so to speak.

    me: This is an impressive post, and yet I feel it’s a dodge wrapped in academic jargon.

    IF the standard is: That which works is what is used, I support that. As a general rule, property conventions make sense to me and they generally work. Importantly, they do not always work, though.

    By all indications, borders work, too. South Koreans would attest to that, as the border with N. Korea has held for decades, and they’ve generally been able to raise their living standards quite substantially in that time.

    As a general matter, I’d say boundaries work quite a bit better than borders. It simply doesn’t follow, though, to say, Therefore, let’s abolish borders.

    My sense is that, for all their weaknesses, the general sense among Americans and probably most of the world is that borders are a good idea. World Federalists and panarchists are, for the most part, fringe movements that have not persuaded the multitudes that their models work better.

    Agreed?

  61. dL

    yet I feel it’s a dodge wrapped in academic jargon.

    It’s a common terminology used in the IT/programming world. I didn’t get it from academia.

    My sense is that, for all their weaknesses, the general sense among Americans and probably most of the world is that borders are a good idea. World Federalists and panarchists are, for the most part, fringe movements that have not persuaded the multitudes that their models work better.

    Agreed?

    Nope. 19th century liberalism by and large had abolished the passport. The 20th century reintroduced the passport as a consequence of the global wars. A “fringe concept” that has always existed at the margins is not accurate. More like an artifact of centralized war planning control that never was terminated at the conclusion of the wars. A predictable thing. “War is the health of the State” is not a cliche.

    By all indications, borders work, too.

    No doubt. They certainly do. The scientific heuristic RE: borders is that they increase the authority and responsibility of the state. That they maintain or increase political liberty in the liberal sense does not pass the scientific test. States that have borders become more illiberal over time.

    N.Korea , though not a puppet state of China, is nonetheless a client state. It wouldn’t last 5 seconds w/o Chinese support. South Korea relies on the US in part for its security from chinese-subsidized N. Korea. DMZ Borders certainly have worked to reinforce a perverse dynamic of an artificial two-state solution for 65 years at substantial cost to US blood and treasure.

  62. robert capozzi

    dL: The scientific heuristic RE: borders is that they increase the authority and responsibility of the state.

    me: It sounds as if you are conflating “borders” with “passports.”

    Borders have been around for centuries, and the modern era has pretty always had borders, as far as I know. Zomia may be the exception, although even there, IIRC the academic who IDed “Zomia” drew a line around remote areas that are effectively stateless.

    The word “increase” involves a comparison…in this case, we’d need to see a borderless place compared with one with borders. Without such a sample, I don’t see how you can make a comparison.

    Can you?

  63. robert capozzi

    dL: DMZ Borders certainly have worked to reinforce a perverse dynamic of an artificial two-state solution for 65 years at substantial cost to US blood and treasure.

    me: Yes, it’s really not working for US and Chinese taxpayers. It IS working for the South Koreans.

    The Korean border is not the problem for US and Chinese taxpayers. The subsidies are the problem, near as I can tell.

  64. dL

    It sounds as if you are conflating “borders” with “passports.”

    No I’m not. I clearly defined “borders” above.

    Borders are jurisdictional delineations. In some cases the distinction border and boundary is merely semantic. But it in other cases, the distinction is not semantic. In those cases, border is a prohibition against moving outside/away from your current jurisdiction, whether it be for travel, trade, employment or seeking competitive governance.

    A passport is one of the instruments used to erase the mere semantic distinction between border and boundary. A passport does not imply a boundary(e.g, you do not need a passport to travel from Alabama to Georgia, at least not by car or foot). But it most certainly implies a border.

  65. dL

    Yes, it’s really not working for US and Chinese taxpayers. It IS working for the South Koreans.

    It is not working for the North Koreans. Although, I’m sure you would get 100% unanimity from the N. Koreans that they loved that border if you were to “poll” them. But take that same poll a day after that border gets erased.

  66. robert capozzi

    dL, OK, back in the day, I would pass from the US to Canada fairly frequently. I would be stopped at what most would call “the border crossing” and asked what my citizenship was. I would say US. They would let me cross. I didn’t need a passport.

    In your mind, was the US/Canada border a “border”? If it’s not, then you are using language, I believe, in a non-standard way.

    I would also say that NK is not working for NKans. That is largely due to severe indigenous dysfunction in NK. Having an armed border seems to be working out well for the SKans, however. The SKans have dysfunction as well, but my estimation is the dysfunction is not nearly as severe as it is in NK. Keeping the NK army out of SK seems like a pretty good idea for at least the SKans. And that is an example where a border is a good idea for at least some people.

    You might encourage the SKans to open their border, but I’m guessing they will not heed your counsel, for good reason!

  67. robert capozzi

    more…

    Your powers of persuasion might gain some traction in NK, although I suspect that the citizens there would be non-responsive to your exhortations, due to fear of retaliation by the regime.

  68. dL

    In your mind, was the US/Canada border a “border”? If it’s not, then you are using language, I believe, in a non-standard way.

    Yes. I can’t express what I wrote any clearer

    Borders are jurisdictional delineations. In some cases the distinction border and boundary is merely semantic. But it in other cases, the distinction is not semantic. In those cases, border is a prohibition against moving outside/away from your current jurisdiction, whether it be for travel, trade, employment or seeking competitive governance.

  69. robert capozzi

    dL, you use the word “prohibition.” In the US/Canada example, I was not prohibited from traveling to Canada, yet you say “yes,” it’s a border.

  70. dL

    dL, you use the word “prohibition.”

    I used the word “a prohibition.” I used to go to Canada too as a child w/o a passport. Couldn’t do that today. It once had a reputation as the world’s friendliest border. Not anymore. Today, it has border agents on both sides who will grant or deny crossing based on any number of background checks, security protocols, etc. Friendly border or not, it was a border.

    Frankly, I’m not sure what fucking point you are trying to make.

  71. robert capozzi

    dL, likewise, actually.

    I’ve not heard a coherent case from you about why borders are something that deserve much, if any, scrutiny. In this time, and throughout most of history, there have been borders between nation-states, lines of demarcation that marked a change in laws and other things.

    States have dysfunction because states enact dysfunctional laws, not because they have borders, near as I can tell. Border dysfunction is a symptom, not a disease.

  72. dL

    dL, likewise, actually.

    I’ve not heard a coherent case from you about why borders are something that deserve much, if any, scrutiny. In this time, and throughout most of history, there have been borders between nation-states, lines of demarcation that marked a change in laws and other things.

    You may want to reread the thread, Bob. The digression RE: borders started w/ the proposition made by some here that private property has borders and thus can be used as means to enact a de facto immigration policy. To address that canard requires a bit of a turn on the distinction between borders and boundaries. Hence the point of the discussion. Your point: no clue, other than you think you are going to trip me up on something. Not likely.

    States have dysfunction because states enact dysfunctional laws, not because they have borders, near as I can tell. Border dysfunction is a symptom, not a disease.

    I consider states to be highly functional discretionary power maximizing firms. Systemic dysfunction doesn’t have much longevity. A dysfunctional system breaks down, doesn’t last long, purely by force of entropy. Dysfunction is either repaired(reformed) or replaced. Hence, it’s unexplainable to merely chalk up border control that continues to systematically become more illiberal over time to mere dysfunction.

  73. robert capozzi

    dL, it’s really not about “tripping up.” My practice is to subsume my preconceived notions to the truth. That’s why I ask a lot of questions.

    I think I see your point about functionality. However, from a big-picture perspective, my assessment is that the US is increasingly DYSfunctional. All things considered, there is more coercion and less peace in the aggregate. I sense more desperation and less aspiration among the populace.

    This is, of course, impossible to measure.

    I could imagine scenarios where there was more border control in response to perceived threats but where the rest of the State were abating. Net net, I’d see that as progress.

    Technological innovation has masked and to some extent overwhelmed increased coercion levels until the past 10 years or so. The State’s coercion levels are now becoming so crushing that we are not growing our way out of the problem.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    “How can you achieve a libertarian society if you live surrounded by a majority of people who don’t want a libertarian society?”

    Good question.

    Look around you. You already live surrounded by a majority of people who don’t want a libertarian society.

    And when you decide to be an authoritarian rather than a libertarian on immigration, you become one of those people.

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC/dL,

    Actually, the US-Canadian border is a GREAT example of borders as an instrument of state control and of the state’s maximization of discretionary power.

    Like you say, at one time you could travel between the US and Canada without a passport … because the two states said so.

    Now you need a passport … because the two states say so.

    In the first instance, they had guards at the border to let you know who runs your life and who could stop you from crossing that line if they felt like doing so.

    In the second instance, they started exercising the muscles they were flexing in the first instance.

    Maybe later, it will just be nothing but barbed wire and machine gun towers, no crossing, capital offense, no questions asked. Or not. But the claim of that authority is already on the table.

  76. Robert Capozzi

    TK, are there borders and border guards because “they” want you to know who “runs your life” OR because most citizens in those states think having borders is a good idea?

    I’ve seen no evidence that most Americans, at least, don’t want borders. Very few, I’d guess, want a borderline society.

    Checking passports may or may not be a good idea…I have no opinion on the matter. Some sort of screening makes intuitive sense to me, though, at least in the here and now.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    TK, are there borders and border guards because “they” want you to know who “runs your life” OR because most citizens in those states think having borders is a good idea?
    —–

    Well, let’s see:

    “They” — state actors — are in charge.

    “Most citizens” aren’t.

    So I would say that the actions of state actors are an indication of the desires of state actors, not of “most citizens.”

  78. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi
    March 10, 2017 at 08:50
    TK, are there borders and border guards because “they” want you to know who “runs your life” OR because most citizens in those states think having borders is a good idea?

    I’ve seen no evidence that most Americans, at least, don’t want borders. Very few, I’d guess, want a borderline society.

    Checking passports may or may not be a good idea…I have no opinion on the matter. Some sort of screening makes intuitive sense to me, though, at least in the here and now.”

    Borders would still exist if we lived in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society. The borders would just be controlled by property owners instead of a coercive government.

    This is much like how many of the functions that government provides would also exist in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society, like fire departments. Fire departments are not illegitimate because they are run by government. If one’s house is on fire, one would be a fool to not call the government fire department because they are trying to be a libertarian purist. Even libertarians have to operate in the real world as it exists now.

  79. dL

    I’ve seen no evidence that most Americans, at least, don’t want borders.

    And I see very little evidence that Americans want controlled borders as it currently stands.

    Very few, I’d guess, want a borderless society.

    Technically, the libertarian position is “open borders,” not “no borders.”

    Open borders==jurisdictional delineation w/o prohibition such that any two points on the surface of the globe are topologically simply connected(legally, w/o need of evasion). My guess is that if you went by polling data, roughly 1/3 of Americans support open borders. And the open borders position is a higher priority item for those who support that position than border policy is for those who do not support the position. Put differently, I would guess that the number of Americans who support open borders is roughly the same as those who support Trump-style closed borders. Hence, the LP should champion the open borders position without (republican-lite) equivocation.

  80. dL

    Borders would still exist if we lived in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society. The borders would just be controlled by property owners instead of a coercive government.

    Since Anarcho-capitalism poses law and security as a market good delivered by firms, anarcho-capitalist society would be a borderless society by definition. Legal jurisdiction would not be tied to any territorial delineation. Of course, I have also found that anarcho-capitalism as defined by Rockwell, Hoppe et al is a big, fat misnomer. Best I can tell, what they actually advocate in practice is State Propertarianism. And the followers of said individuals general repeat that drivel w/o any evidence of critical reflection…hence, the term “bots.”

  81. robert capozzi

    tk: So I would say that the actions of state actors are an indication of the desires of state actors, not of “most citizens.”

    me: Some truth there. OTOH, I’ve seen no evidence that most want open borders. dL claims that 1/3 do, but I’ve seen no evidence of that, either.

    Ever open minded, of course. But my sense is that most accede to what the State does — more or less — at the borders. Few, I suspect, research the matter seriously. Most seem OK with either the status quo or want more stringent border checks.

    dL, you cite “the L position.” The closest thing I’ve seen to such a thing in the LP platform. Last I checked, that plank is not an open border plank.

  82. dL

    me: Some truth there. OTOH, I’ve seen no evidence that most want open borders. dL claims that 1/3 do, but I’ve seen no evidence of that, either.

    https://openborders.info/blog/who-favors-open-borders/

    Interesting how the non-culture of liberty people(read: non-white ppl) have much more liberal views of open borders.

    dL, you cite “the L position.” The closest thing I’ve seen to such a thing in the LP platform. Last I checked, that plank is not an open border plank.

    yeah, b/c ppl like you added language that sabotaged the platform. Hopefully, that will be remedied. And there is going to be an effort to remedy that.

  83. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: Some truth there. OTOH, I’ve seen no evidence that most want open borders. dL claims that 1/3 do, but I’ve seen no evidence of that, either.”

    I have talked about politics with I don’t even know how many people, every type of person you can imagine, both in person, and online, and the assertion that 1/3 of the population wants “open borders” is wildly inflated. “Open borders” is actually a very unpopular issue.

    “Open borders” is a fantasy that would not exist in an actual libertarian society.

  84. robert capozzi

    dL, on scanning, your link doesn’t seem to back your claim of 1/3. Further, were I surveyed, I might say “let anyone come,” too. That’s not nearly specific enough language.

    I would say “let anyone come, but vet them and possibly keep some kind of maximum number per year and possibly charge a fee for entry and GJ made sense to me about a guest-worker program.” I really don’t have much of a position on border control. It’s gray for me, and the deontological L approach misses the forest for the trees on the issue.

    I did not agitate for the change to the platform. I did vote for it, as it seemed reasonable to me.

    I would say I do not believe anyone can go anywhere any time. My lean is to be as liberal as possible when it comes to immigration. The wall sounds like a real bad idea to me. The anchor-baby thing seems like tortured-logic to me.

    I do believe it’s a bad idea to take fringe positions in a political context. In a theoretical context, I’m as radical and open-minded as they come, IF the idea is coherent.

  85. Tony From Long Island

    Andy : ” . . . .I have talked about politics with I don’t even know how many people, every type of person you can imagine, both in person, and online, and the assertion that 1/3 of the population wants “open borders” is wildly inflated. “Open borders” is actually a very unpopular issue.

    “Open borders” is a fantasy that would not exist in an actual libertarian society. . . . ”

    Especially if you have your way . . . you wouldn’t want any brown people here!

    I love how I have a much more libertarian position on this issue than you do. I thought “libertarianism” is about principle and can be applied to every single issue . . .blah blah . . .

  86. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 10, 2017 at 19:51
    “Open borders” is a fantasy that would not exist in an actual libertarian society.

    Fixed, no charge.”

    So Tom does not believe in property rights?

  87. Andy

    Tom and dL are playing word games. They should know damn well that if coercive government ceased to exist and there was an anarcho-capitalist society, that there would be private property borders, or “boundaries”, and that migration/immigration policies would be set by land owners, or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations. Some land owners may set policies that were very lax, but others could set policies that are very strict, even more so than what we see now with government.

  88. robert capozzi

    aj, politics is all about word games. There’s no escaping that.

    It’s not obvious why we would want to use a speculative standard (anarcho-capitalist society) to assess what is appropriate for border enforcement. What would the world be like if the Earth had half the gravity it does now? We can guess and speculate, but the G forces are what they are. Borders are contrivances–widely agreed to contrivances.

    Apparently, TK and dL would object to one sentry patrolling each border if s/he were paid from coercive taxation. It’s a charming worldview in a way, but it comes across as loopy and eccentric.

  89. Anthony Dlugos

    Andy, this here site is hardly a bastion of pragmatic libertarianism and literally no one agrees with you.

    That should tell you something.

  90. dL

    aj, politics is all about word games. There’s no escaping that.

    True…flowery, clerical rhetoric to cover up criminality, social control and plunder.

    It’s not obvious why we would want to use a speculative standard (anarcho-capitalist society) to assess what is appropriate for border enforcement.

    The only “we” in that regard would be Andy Jacobs. I used an appeal to anarcho-capitalism to knock down his incorrect view of border enforcement in an anarcho-capitalist society, not ours. By definition, there are no “borders” in an anarcho-capitalist society. That’s b/c law and security is a market exchange good, not a (monopoly) territorial provision. If there are borders in an anarcho-capitalist society, then that society is not anarcho-capitalist.

    The appeal to “open borders” in our current society is actually a liberal one. Has absolutely nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism, or even, technically, libertarianism. Open borders is the libertarian position, but the libertarian position in this instance is consistent with the liberal one.

    What would the world be like if the Earth had half the gravity it does now? We can guess and speculate, but the G forces are what they are. Borders are contrivances–widely agreed to contrivances.

    Inane analogy. The law of gravity is not a moral contrivance. Gravitational acceleration is directly related to the mass and inversely related to the square of the radius. if you suddenly reduced it’s g value value by half, it would instantly become dead rock orbiting the sun no matter how you fiddle with the mass and radius values to get 1/2 g. Take a physics class Bob next time to avoid the embarrassment of a vapid contrarianism by way of the natural sciences.

    Apparently, TK and dL would object to one sentry patrolling each border if s/he were paid from coercive taxation. It’s a charming worldview in a way, but it comes across as loopy and eccentric.

    Nah..too absolutist Bob. I have no problem with you paying taxes to a sentry to patrol you. It would be a charming dedication to coercive taxation on your part.

  91. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    Of course I believe in property rights.

    What I do not believe, because I am a libertarian, is that the state is a legitimate property manager acting on the behalf of, and with the consent of, actual owners of property.

    “Government property” or “public property” is not owned by you or me — nor is it owned by the state. It is simply unowned and unhomesteaded. The state isn’t managing it on my behalf or on yours. It’s just forcibly holding it out of homesteading and legitimate ownership. Its “borders” are not property lines, they’re gang turf lines, and no one owes them any respect.

    It’s one thing to let Hoppe and his ilk con you into believing that in this one instance, and ONLY in this one instance, we should pretend that the state is something other than what it is and that an authoritarian position is the correct one.

    It’s another thing entirely to characterize that authoritarian position as libertarian. Authoritarianism is not and cannot be libertarianism. They are opposites.

    The contradiction between your position and the libertarian position will, at some point, resolve either with you deciding to abandon your position in favor of being a libertarian, or with you deciding to abandon libertarianism in order to stick to your authoritarian position. It’s not going to end with libertarians who didn’t fall for the Hoppe scam joining you in pretending that the scam is libertarian.

  92. Jim

    Andy “…if coercive government ceased to exist … there would be private property borders, or “boundaries”, and that migration/immigration policies would be set by land owners…”

    I’m glad you acknowledge here that nothing about government ceasing control of the border would require private property owners to invite illegals onto their property. Some of your other comments don’t seem to grasp that fact, like:

    Andy “Note that Adam does NOT have an “open border” on his property in Arizona, he’s got a fence around it. Hey Adam, if “open borders” are such a great idea, why don’t you tear down your fence and allow anyone to just waltz on to your property?”

    The difference between open borders and closed borders is not that, with open borders, private property owners would suddenly lose control of their property. The difference is that, with government controlling immigration, people like you are telling everyone else that they are not allowed to invite whomever they want onto their own property because people like you don’t want them to make that determination for themselves.

  93. robert capozzi

    dL: By definition, there are no “borders” in an anarcho-capitalist society.

    me: In the name of precision, this should probably read more like: …there WOULD BE no borders per se in an anarcho-capitalist society. Should the territory where an anarcho-capitalist society was operating meet a nation-state, it would only be a “border” from the nation-state’s perspective. “Boundary” would probably suffice for the ACS.

  94. Jim

    What the LP Platform said about immigration in 2000, when Harry Browne was running for President:
    *
    The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
    *
    The issuance of U.S. passports should cease. We look forward to an era in which American citizens and foreigners can travel anywhere in the world without a passport. We aim to restore a world in which there are no passports, visas, or other papers required to cross borders. So long as U.S. passports are issued, they should be issued to all individuals without discrimination and should not be revoked for any reason.
    *
    We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.
    *
    We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

    We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

    Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

    We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

  95. robert capozzi

    dL: It would be a charming dedication to coercive taxation on your part.

    me: The truth is I am not “dedicated” to coercive taxation. I simply recognize that there will be coercive taxation for the foreseeable future. Should Nonarchy Pods somehow be instituted as an option, one could say that taxation would not be coercive any longer.

    In the meantime, I advocate for lower taxes and spending as virtuous improvements to what I perceive to be a degrading social configuration.

  96. Jim

    robert capozzi “As for the State’s (or, really, those in the State and Deep State) tendency toward maximizing its portfolio of powers, I agree. I don’t know any of them, and I’m not a mind reader, but there’s no evidence they seek omnipotence. … Is there someone at Langley or Fort Meade who envisions, say, deciding which man and woman should be paired and how many babies they should have, for ex.?”

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent
    : having virtually unlimited authority or influence

    Omnipotent doesn’t mean they want to do everything. It means there is nothing stopping them, should they desire to do something. The goal of the Cult of the Omnipotent State is to create a world where there is nothing stopping the state from acting on anything it desires.

  97. Robert Capozzi

    Jim, yes, that seems to be TK’s view, too.

    Again, no evidence of that view by anyone I know of. Even if I bought that definition, I’d need to see someone advocating for NO checks.

  98. ATBAFT

    Seems like we have a real problem here. It looks like a substantial number of libertarians aren’t buying the open-borders argument. If most other libertarians can’t be convinced, then how will the non-libertarians be convinced? How long did it take for, say, the 1/2 percent of the non-slave population to convince the others that abolition was a good idea? Maybe incrementalism, while not the ideal, is in order for the next century or so.

  99. Andy

    The real purist position is not about immigration, it is really about relinquishing government control over borders, and land in general, to private property owners. This would be a far more complicated thing to achieve than most people realize.

    I agree with ATBAFT that incrementalism should be the key to this issue.

  100. dL

    Maybe incrementalism, while not the ideal, is in order for the next century or so.

    Well, except for the pesky fact that the incrementalism has steadily gone from “open borders” in the 19th century to a condition approaching communist walls in the 21st century.

  101. paulie

    Open borders is not in the libertarian party platform.

    It is, with the stupid and unnecessary caveat of the last sentence, which was never in that platform plank until very recently and badly needs to be removed – especially because it is severely exaggerated in what it is meant to say by you and a few others.

  102. dL

    Jim, yes, that seems to be TK’s view, too.

    Again, no evidence of that view by anyone I know of. Even if I bought that definition, I’d need to see someone advocating for NO checks.

    Anthony de Jasay. The state is a unitary firm whose maximand is discretionary power.
    http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_01_1_jasay.pdf

    The cult of the omnipotent state is that there is nothing outside the jurisdictional purview of the state. No promise too great. No authority too trivial. No prison sentence too long if you don’t properly bow to it.

  103. paulie

    Also, the purest libertarian position on the issue is NOT open borders, it is private property borders.

    And regime borders interfere with those. When employers and employees, buyers and sellers, landlords and tenants and even charities and those they want to help want to connect, the regime is trespassing on their property when it interferes in their travel for the purpose of doing so.

  104. paulie

    There are plenty of Republicans who support the mass immigration into a democratic welfare state agenda. You would fit in well with guys like Romney, McCain, Bush, etc….

    They are increasingly unwelcome in that party.

  105. paulie

    Today I ate at a restaurant across the street from a college, and there was a flyer on a bulletin board about an immigration rights rally. The flyer was from the Socialist International organization.

    Yes, it’s a shame the LP does not put up more flyers like that instead of bending over backwards to try to attract more anti-immigrant Anglos even to the point of altering our platform plank. As you may recall, Wes Benedict told us that he did precinct analysis of LP votes in Texas, and we did as well or better in precincts with mostly Latino names as opposed to ones with mostly Anglo names. It’s a shame we don’t make our position in favor of liberalizing migration laws front and center, and clean up the plank by deleting the idiotic final sentence.

  106. paulie

    Tony, I did not type and anti-immigrant posts, I typed anti-Marxist and theocrats nvader posts.

    Any time you expand that from individuals to nationalities, ethnicities, races and religions, they become collectivist anti-migrant posts, and that goes double when you endorse regime action based on those collective judgements even if you do add the caveat that one day you want to get rid of the regime and move to a neo-feudalist world order.

    Anthony, your views, as well as the views of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, are more in line with the Republican Party.

    I don’t think so. That’s the party now headed by Trump, the worst of all candidates in the last election and the worst president in US history.

  107. paulie

    If I was a progressive, I would use Hoppe’s theory as exhibit A of why you need a strong, central government to facilitate trade, markets and travel. Otherwise, everyone would be stuck on their own little moated property, unable to go anywhere. They would have to resort to primitive farming of their own land to avoid starving to death. And they better hope for sufficient rainfall. Otherwise, they will die of thirst before the draught kills manages to starve them off(assuming the Ayatollah of Property doesn’t issue a fatwa allowing movement across borders to avoid imminent death.Then again, I have no idea how the Ayatollah could ever get his message out.) .

    If I took Hoppe’s theory seriously, it would by far be one of the better arguments for the necessity of the State I’ve come across.

    Exactly.

  108. paulie

    People would obviously be economically incentivized to trade, and to associate with others, they just would not be under state coercion, so interactions would be on a voluntary basis.

    They are, and collectivist regime borders interfere with that.

  109. paulie

    The term “borders” applied to private property is a collectivist poison pill introduced by the enemies of liberty to justify the evisceration of private property rights in the name of private property.

    Exactly. Borders are not property lines. For borders to be property lines you have to posit some legitimate collective property ownership to the regime, which is the opposite of libertarian theory.

  110. paulie

    “Running candidates for office is not that purpose. Running candidates for office is a means, not an end.”

    Dammit, Thomas. You had me until then.

    If it’s an end, not a means, it follows that you should do whatever is most likely to maximize getting elected, which historically is to join the R or D gangs and run on the messages those parties typically put forward.

  111. paulie

    “Mr. Libertarian” Murray Rothbard agreed with me.

    Calling Rothbard Mr. Libertarian is a stretch. Over the course of his life he supported Strom Thurmond, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan and David Duke. His disciples now stump for Trump.

    What’s more, Rothbard did not agree with you. He argued for limiting naturalization of citizens, not for immigration restrictions.

    Even more interesting, he was the one who wrote about “no particular orderism,” meaning that one pro-liberty policy should never be held hostage to another one. Holding migration freedom hostage to ending welfare is a prime example of that, and Rothbard wrote about the fallacy of such thinking.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints” that Rothbard referenced,

    It’s totally racist trash.

    And you should read that entire JLS issue. The pro-migration freedom articles are by far the more logical and convincing ones.

  112. paulie

    How can you achieve a libertarian society if you live surrounded by a majority of people who don’t want a libertarian society?

    You could begin by deporting the ones who oppose migration freedom, giving them a taste of their own medicine.

  113. Anthony Dlugos

    “The contradiction between your position and the libertarian position will, at some point, resolve either with you deciding to abandon your position in favor of being a libertarian, or with you deciding to abandon libertarianism in order to stick to your authoritarian position. It’s not going to end with libertarians who didn’t fall for the Hoppe scam joining you in pretending that the scam is libertarian.”

    A rare instance where I am in absolute agreement with Thomas.

    Which is why I periodically suggest…partially tongue-in-cheek…that Andy might feel more comfortable in the CP. That’s not a “get out” comment, but if we dropped him in a CP meeting…void of any identifying elements…in state where he’s never been, and told him it was an LP meeting, he might THINK he was in an LP meeting.

  114. paulie

    It is funny how some Libertarians will support incrementalism, or partial measures, or “working within the system” when it comes to a wide variety of issues, such as gay marriage (state licensing of marriage), marijuana (for medicinal use, and/or taxing and regulating), the military (most Libertarians call for bringing the military back to the USA, and reducing defense spending, but few Libertarians call for the immediate abolition of the military), taxation (many Libertarians call for reducing, but not quite eliminating taxes, getting rid of the income tax, but keeping other taxes, and some even propose new taxes, some of which are as bad (or even worse) than what we have now like the Fair Tax), etc…. All of these things are generally considered to be perfectly acceptable proposals in Libertarian circles.

    However, when it comes to immigration, there is a group of Libertarians, not all, but a vocal group, that freaks out and shouts down anyone who dares to suggest an incrementalist approach to immigration.

    This was refuted on previous threads but you continue to cut and paste it, thus wasting everyone’s time. Those of us who support migration freedom generally support incremental moves in that direction just like we support incremental moves on any other issue when we can’t go as far as we would like in the near term. However, your posts show no evidence that you want to make migration less restricted. Your tone suggests you want to make it more restrictive, and you continually fail to answer questions which try to clarify this. Making migration more restricted than it is now is an incremental move in the wrong direction. Which direction do you want to move in?

  115. paulie

    Hoppe wrote that human migration is an existential threat to Western, Christian civilization. For him, the application of government borders to private property is a means to curtail human migration and arrest the effects of increasing civilization. If it was merely applied to his own crackpot vision of a free society, one could dismiss him w/ a “good luck w/ that.” Yeah, you might have your isolated pockets of Amish, agrarian society that choose to live in the 17th century. I would wish him luck when he moves into one and enjoys milking his cows at 4:30AM. However, when he and followers use private property rights to JUSTIFY government borders, then he and they move into “enemy of liberty,” authoritarian status.

    Exactly!

  116. paulie

    Why are so few Libertarians calling for the Repeal of the Refugee Resettlement Act when it is a taxpayer funded welfare program?

    Because so many refugees are created by US military aggression, foreign aid and arms sent abroad, support for foreign dictators, etc.

  117. paulie

    “Hoppe wrote that human migration is an existential threat to Western, Christian civilization. ”

    Did he really?

    Yes, he is a racist bigot POS.

  118. paulie

    Of course, I have also found that anarcho-capitalism as defined by Rockwell, Hoppe et al is a big, fat misnomer. Best I can tell, what they actually advocate in practice is State Propertarianism. And the followers of said individuals general repeat that drivel w/o any evidence of critical reflection…hence, the term “bots.”

    Bingo!

  119. paulie

    Tom and dL are playing word games. They should know damn well that if coercive government ceased to exist and there was an anarcho-capitalist society, that there would be private property borders, or “boundaries”, and that migration/immigration policies would be set by land owners, or groups of land owners working in voluntary associations. Some land owners may set policies that were very lax, but others could set policies that are very strict, even more so than what we see now with government.

    Andy of all people should know that public easement is a common law check on private property becoming a way to fence people in and prevent them from going anywhere. If it were not for easement someone could buy all the property around yours and you would literally be a prisoner in your home. And, again, regime borders are collectivist and absolutely nothing like private property lines, and conflating the two is stupid, inane and collectivist. Andy should know better.

  120. paulie

    Andy “Note that Adam does NOT have an “open border” on his property in Arizona, he’s got a fence around it. Hey Adam, if “open borders” are such a great idea, why don’t you tear down your fence and allow anyone to just waltz on to your property?”

    This suggests that the whole country is the private property of the government (regime), which no libertarian would even approach suggesting.

  121. paulie

    The difference between open borders and closed borders is not that, with open borders, private property owners would suddenly lose control of their property. The difference is that, with government controlling immigration, people like you are telling everyone else that they are not allowed to invite whomever they want onto their own property because people like you don’t want them to make that determination for themselves.

    Exactly.

  122. paulie

    What the LP Platform said about immigration in 2000, when Harry Browne was running for President:

    Much better than the current plank!

  123. paulie

    Seems like we have a real problem here. It looks like a substantial number of libertarians aren’t buying the open-borders argument.

    Yes, because libertarianism is continually marketed to the wrong people, positioning it in a way that drives much larger numbers of more easily persuadable people to running far in the other direction.

  124. paulie

    If most other libertarians can’t be convinced, then how will the non-libertarians be convinced?

    Eventually they will be outvoted, at which point they can either adjust or self-deport to Antarctica or the dark side of the moon to create Whiteopia.

  125. paulie

    How long did it take for, say, the 1/2 percent of the non-slave population to convince the others that abolition was a good idea?

    Not nearly as long as it would have taken had they started out by calling for something short of abolition.

  126. paulie

    That’s not a “get out” comment, but if we dropped him in a CP meeting…void of any identifying elements…in state where he’s never been, and told him it was an LP meeting, he might THINK he was in an LP meeting.

    LOL, no, he’s well aware of the difference.

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    Is he? He seems to be telling me the closed-border, anti-free trade, anti-NWO, anti-globalist CP position is actually the LP position.

  128. Anthony Dlugos

    “If it’s an end, not a means, it follows that you should do whatever is most likely to maximize getting elected, which historically is to join the R or D gangs and run on the messages those parties typically put forward.”

    The Libertarian Party should do whatever is most likely to maximize getting elected. That’s the whole point of a political party.

    No reason we can’t use the tactics and strategies that the Democrats and Republicans successfully use to get elected, and simply have a different message.

    Sadly, the Libertarian Party has ossified as a result of the virus that says the political arena is to be used for educational purposes, which is like owning a football team to teach football fans about physical fitness.

    A lot of Libertarians then double down, turn our lack of success into a virtue, and a death spiral of belief in the necessity of educating a public not looking to be educated when it comes to the political arena.

  129. dL

    Andy “Note that Adam does NOT have an “open border” on his property in Arizona, he’s got a fence around it. Hey Adam, if “open borders” are such a great idea, why don’t you tear down your fence and allow anyone to just waltz on to your property?”

    B/c it’s his private property and he could do what the fuck he wants to do with it. But what he does w/ his property does not extend to telling other people what they can do w/ theirs. Nor is putting up a fence around his property lines an immigration policy. Nor does the open borders position advocate the right to trespass(the closed border position is the one that advocates the right to trespass by “authorized agents”). Nor would any social order have complete private ownership of property for private enclosure. That is, if that social order wants have a lifespan > 30 days. Otherwise, everyone would starve to death. Got it?

    Now why don’t tell those property owners along the US/Mexican “border” why they have to accept government invasion of their private property with a long contiguous fence. I’m sure thy would love to hear from a staunch champion of “private property rights” such as yourself. And while you are at it, you can tell 65% of the US population why they can have their constitutional rights usurped at will b/c they reside in a “border zone.” They love to hear how you are incrementally protecting them an invasion of the illiberal brown hordes.

  130. dL

    Yes, it’s a shame the LP does not put up more flyers like that instead of bending over backwards to try to attract more anti-immigrant Anglos even to the point of altering our platform plank.

    +1

  131. dL

    The Libertarian Party should do whatever is most likely to maximize getting elected. That’s the whole point of a political party.

    Actually, that’s not the point of a political party. That’s more like butt of late night comedian jokes about politicians w/o principles. A politician w/o principles is one of the more publicly detestable creatures in American society, just above rapist and child molester. Do you really think standing up to announce “we’re here to say and do anything that maximizes getting elected” would go over well?

  132. Anthony Dlugos

    I didn’t say anything about not having principles.

    I AM suggesting the principles our party and consequently our candidates should have will be shaped by the arena of competition (elections) that the party operates in. Politics being the art of the possible, as you know.

    If you’re suggesting our principles should have no connection to the possible, then what you want is not a political party. Perhaps a think tank, or a media outlet, or an educational institute of some form, but not a political party. where cutting deals is..part of the deal.

  133. robert capozzi

    dL: The cult of the omnipotent state is that there is nothing outside the jurisdictional purview of the state. No promise too great. No authority too trivial. No prison sentence too long if you don’t properly bow to it.

    me: (Said with Seinfeld intonation) Who are these people?

    Crickets! I hear crickets! 😉

  134. dL

    me: (Said with Seinfeld intonation) Who are these people?

    It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring, and a car will slow beside you, and the door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift. And they will take care of that crickets problem for you.

  135. dL

    Politics being the art of the possible, as you know.

    Actually, politics is a rent-seeking game, as you should know…

  136. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Crickets! I hear crickets!”

    It’s not about what you hear. It’s about what you see. Or, rather, about what you screw your eyes shut and cover them with your hands and scream “I won’t look! You can’t make me look!” to avoid seeing a microsecond after each time you ask who the people are who have been identified to you probably a hundred times or more at this point.

  137. robert capozzi

    dL, yes, politics is a rent-seeking game in which actual participants in the game play the art of the possible. Most who play it now look for ways to expand net rent-seeking, with their constituents garnering an advantage in that process.

    A few who play the game seek a net reduction in rent-seeking, but they are mindful that their constituencies don’t lose their rents disproportionately. RP2 and perhaps Amash…maybe a few others…play it this way.

    NAPster Ls are playing an entirely different game…Holier than Thou is the name. The Devil in their game is the illusory CotOS! 😉

  138. robert capozzi

    tk, you’ve indeed cited what we might agree are HISTORICAL, FOREIGN movements that seemed to advocate for something approaching an all-powerful state. What you’ve not supplied is who are the members of the CotOS in America today.

    The first definition that comes up for me of “omnipotent,” by the way, is:

    adjective
    1. (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
    synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, preeminent, most high…

    noun
    1. God.

    Note that “omni” is from the Latin “omnis” meaning “all.”

    “All” is indivisible and absolute. “More” is not. It’s a matter of degrees. That’s why I coined (I think) the term “morearchist,” to differentiate those who want the State to be more powerful from, say, leaders of the defunct Ba’ath Party, who you cite as an example of advocates for an “omnipotent” state.

  139. Thomas L. Knapp

    “What you’ve not supplied is who are the members of the CotOS in America today.”

    Actually, I’ve supplied several such names, with supporting evidence, any number of times. There are quite a few who meet even the description you use to minimize the possibility (one need not “seem to advocate” for something to actually support that thing).

    Using your definition, the list will skew toward Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, who are very open on their views of state power, unlike Republicans who mostly talk about “limited government” while working day and night to create unlimited government. But on the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani comes to mind as representative of the cult.

  140. Robert Capozzi

    TK,thanks. Honestly, I don’t recall your citing Pelosi, Schumer, and Giuliani as advocates of an omnipotent state.

    I suspect I won’t find any evidence that any of them advocating for government control of everything.

    Would you retract your assertion if I find one issue where they either advocate for shrinking the State in any area or don’t advocate more government in any area?

    If not, then help us understand your inconsistency. They either advocate all-powerful government, or they don’t, yes?

  141. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I suspect I won’t find any evidence that any of them advocating for government control of everything.”

    No need to “suspect.” You posted the definition of omnipotence yourself. It isn’t control of everything. It’s the ability to control everything. There’s a difference.

    If I’m pointing a shotgun at someone, my power over that person is not a function of whether or not I pull the trigger. It’s a function of it being my prerogative to decide whether or not to pull the trigger.

    I am unaware of any issue on which Pelosi, or Schumer, or Giuliani has ever claimed anything but that whether or not to exercise control of it is and should be the government’s decision to make.

  142. ATBAFT

    paulie
    March 11, 2017 at 13:59
    How long did it take for, say, the 1/2 percent of the non-slave population to convince the others that abolition was a good idea?
    “Not nearly as long as it would have taken had they started out by calling for something short of abolition.”

    Sorry, no. You need to read your history. The radical abolitionists did not compromise but abolition came from those who were willing to compromise.

  143. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The radical abolitionists did not compromise but abolition came from those who were willing to compromise.”

    No, abolition came as:

    1) A side effect of war; in which

    2) Radical abolitionists managed to make the abolition of slavery a litmus test of varying efficacy both at home and abroad.

    The radical abolitionists did not get what they wanted entirely through their own means, but had they not existed and held the full abolition line that they did hold, they likely would not have got what they wanted for decades longer than it took.

  144. George Phillies

    No, the end of slavery came from the one who would *not* compromise. When southern peace commissioners arrived in DC in late 1864, Lincoln told them that there were two non-negotiable conditions. One was that the Union would be restored. The other was that slavery was to be abolished. Slavery ended because Lincoln would not brook compromise on this issue.

  145. dL

    TK,thanks. Honestly, I don’t recall your citing Pelosi, Schumer, and Giuliani as advocates of an omnipotent state.

    I suspect I won’t find any evidence that any of them advocating for government control of everything.

    If you expand the area of investigation beyond your inner rectum you will find that each goes absolutely apeshit whenever each suspects something is defiantly operating outside jurisdictional control of the government. Schumer in particular is publicly haunted by the thought that someone somewhere is experiencing unauthorized pleasure.

    RE: literal interpretations of “omnipotent.” This has been discussed before. It’s not OS, it’s CoTOS. CULT being the operative word here. There is no evidence of the existence of any omnipotent god. Plenty of evidence of the existence of religion, tho. And godly omnipotence in religion does not hold that the deity has totalitarian control over the individual in all things. It’s more like god has judgement, jurisdictional authority in all things. Something similar to this
    http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/12/06/nothing-is-beyond-our-reach-nro-new-logo-claims.html

    NROL-39 is represented by the octopus, a versatile, adaptable, and highly intelligent creature. Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide,” said Karen Furgerson, a spokeswoman for the NRO. “‘Nothing is beyond our reach’ defines this mission and the value it brings to our nation and the warfighters it supports, who serve valiantly all over the globe, protecting our nation.

    Government security/intel agency logos of an octopus enveloping the entire earth w/ it’s tentacles proclaiming “NOTHING IS BEYOND OUR REACH” ==QED. Btw, that logo back in the day was the way the United States depicted the global threat of totalitarian communism.

  146. paulie

    paulie
    March 11, 2017 at 13:59
    How long did it take for, say, the 1/2 percent of the non-slave population to convince the others that abolition was a good idea?
    “Not nearly as long as it would have taken had they started out by calling for something short of abolition.”

    Sorry, no. You need to read your history. The radical abolitionists did not compromise but abolition came from those who were willing to compromise.

    But that was exactly what I said. Libertarians should not compromise on migration freedom, even if it takes a long time to get there, and even if the eventual goal is reached primarily through the efforts of people who only partially agree or disagree but agree to meet us half way, and later halfway from there, etc. Abolitionists didn’t compromise their advocacy of abolition. Some other people called for half measures, and eventually after a long struggle progress was made. There was no such thing as all abolitionists giving up on the idea of abolition and that somehow magically leading to abolition.

  147. paulie

    I AM suggesting the principles our party and consequently our candidates should have will be shaped by the arena of competition (elections) that the party operates in. Politics being the art of the possible, as you know.

    Yes, short term politics is the art of the possible. That doesn’t mean we should give up or alter or hide our long term goals in any way. Doing so makes those goals much more impossible to ever reach, even in the long term.

    If you’re suggesting our principles should have no connection to the possible, then what you want is not a political party. Perhaps a think tank, or a media outlet, or an educational institute of some form, but not a political party. where cutting deals is..part of the deal.

    Cutting deals is one thing; giving up negotiating ground before you get a seat at the table is quite another.

  148. paulie

    The Libertarian Party should do whatever is most likely to maximize getting elected. That’s the whole point of a political party.

    Actually, that’s not the point of a political party. That’s more like butt of late night comedian jokes about politicians w/o principles. A politician w/o principles is one of the more publicly detestable creatures in American society, just above rapist and child molester. Do you really think standing up to announce “we’re here to say and do anything that maximizes getting elected” would go over well?

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/04/april-1-winner-party-launched-nationwide-smashes-records/

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/04/winner-party-keeps-on-winning/

  149. paulie

    B/c it’s his private property and he could do what the fuck he wants to do with it. But what he does w/ his property does not extend to telling other people what they can do w/ theirs. Nor is putting up a fence around his property lines an immigration policy. Nor does the open borders position advocate the right to trespass(the closed border position is the one that advocates the right to trespass by “authorized agents”). Nor would any social order have complete private ownership of property for private enclosure. That is, if that social order wants have a lifespan > 30 days. Otherwise, everyone would starve to death. Got it?

    Now why don’t tell those property owners along the US/Mexican “border” why they have to accept government invasion of their private property with a long contiguous fence. I’m sure thy would love to hear from a staunch champion of “private property rights” such as yourself. And while you are at it, you can tell 65% of the US population why they can have their constitutional rights usurped at will b/c they reside in a “border zone.” They love to hear how you are incrementally protecting them an invasion of the illiberal brown hordes.

    I shouldn’t be, but I can’t help but remain astounded that this can be anything but obvious to any libertarian.

  150. Anthony Dlugos

    Depends what you’re starting negotiating position is.

    I want a BMW M4. Going into a dealership with a starting offer of zero on the $80,000 automobile does not make me a smart shopper or more likely to get a good price. In fact, it makes it less likely.

    The problem with using the abolitionists as a an example of “no-compromise” success is that they operated with some level of implicit/explicit understanding that government is necessary. If the LP wants to reset our starting negotiating position to that one and THEN begin compromising, then fine by me.

    But while there may be historical examples of nearly-stateless or stateless societies that evovled au natural, there’s NO evidence that a starting position of ZERO government is at all helpful when attempting to succeed in reducing the size/scope of government.

  151. paulie

    The Libertarian Party should do whatever is most likely to maximize getting elected. That’s the whole point of a political party.

    That’s easy then. It should dissolve and encourage all its candidates to run as Ds and Rs with a conventional D and R message. After all, that is empirically proven to be what is most likely to maximize getting elected.

    No reason we can’t use the tactics and strategies that the Democrats and Republicans successfully use to get elected, and simply have a different message.

    The Ds and Rs arrive at their messages through extensive polling, fundraising, advertising, and building coalitions with issue and pressure groups. Against this, you posit an unproven theory (or disproven, since there are any number of Ls, independents and other alt parties continuously trying to copy establishment tactics and strategies to win and in the vast majority of cases failing).

  152. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I want a BMW M4. Going into a dealership with a starting offer of zero on the $80,000 automobile does not make me a smart shopper or more likely to get a good price. In fact, it makes it less likely.”

    True.

    I’m glad that even the most radical libertarian almost never takes that approach in electoral politics.

    And I’m surprised that you keep setting up that strawman in a room full of people you know have kerosene and lighters and are not afraid to use them.

  153. paulie

    The problem with using the abolitionists as a an example of “no-compromise” success is that they operated with some level of implicit/explicit understanding that government is necessary.

    There were some anarchist abolitionists. Abolition never depended on assuming monopoly government is “necessary,” although some abolitionists never challenged it. However, they made an error in doing so, which is why freeing slaves also entailed enslaving free people, and why we have (at least in raw numbers) even more slaves today, in jails and prisons, many of them for victimless crimes and many of the rest as a consequence of policies criminalizing victimless, voluntary activities. Thus, abolitionist goalposts have now shifted.

    But while there may be historical examples of nearly-stateless or stateless societies that evovled au natural, there’s NO evidence that a starting position of ZERO government is at all helpful when attempting to succeed in reducing the size/scope of government.

    “That government governs best which governs least” logically extrapolated leads to the conclusion that panarchy, autarchy or some form of non-monopoly social order governs best of all.

  154. Anthony Dlugos

    The radical Libertarian position is not a negotiating position. It effectively takes us off the playing field. Which is why the response ends up being “we can’t win yet [meaning ever,] or “its not about winning elections,” or some other excuse to allow us to persist in our dysfunction.

  155. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The radical Libertarian position is not a negotiating position.”

    What is it that you think the radical Libertarian position, in the context of electoral politics, is?

  156. Anthony Dlugos

    Some sort of word salad that doesn’t concede the necessity of the state, given that we are attempting to work within a state process (elections) .

  157. paulie

    Some sort of word salad that doesn’t concede the necessity of the state, given that we are attempting to work within a state process (elections) .

    So what? Marxists sell newspapers. Present reality shouldn’t be ignored, and our long term goals should not be abandoned. There is no contradiction there.

  158. paulie

    it should come as no surprise that this led to a fractured liberty movement, and that some in the movement said, “Screw it, I’ll take my chances with Donald Trump over the wicked Hillary Clinton,” while others did not bother voting, or cast a protest vote for somebody else, and others held their nose and voted for Gary Johnson.

    Notice that Andy doesn’t even acknowledge that there were also those who voted for Clinton to stop Cheeto Benito von Drumpf, despite his supposed adherence to a libertarian vision that doesn’t lean either left or right. Likewise, Alex Jones rails against the left-right paradigm, but continuously falls into it himself, even to the point of supporting the authoritarian Donito Cheetolini.

  159. dL

    Going into a dealership with a starting offer of zero on the $80,000 automobile does not make me a smart shopper or more likely to get a good price. In fact, it makes it less likely.”

    Bargaining for another’s liberty is not the same as bargaining for an automobile. The former is more like a hostage negotiation. It certainly isn’t incrementalism on the order of “ok, give me 10 hostages dead now, one alive, and 15 freed in 20 years.” Incrementalism!!! No, the hostages/slaves would fire Dlugos as their negotiator.

    Hostage negotiation starts with the uncompromising position that the hostages are going to be freely released. All of them. The negotiation part is over whether it is going to be done peacefully or violently. If violently, there may be a signifiant likelihood of innocent hostages dying. Hence, the peaceful option may involve a wide latitude of tolerance for playing psychological games with the kidnapper to ultimately maneuver a peaceful surrender.

    The radical libertarian position on abolition starts with the uncompromising position of liberty/release/freedom. And it wants to drive it to a point of having the leverage of a hostage negotiation. It can be resolved peacefully or violently. But it is going to be resolved.

    Now perhaps that may offend some in polite society. But it is not going to offend those who are enslaved.

  160. dL

    The problem with using the abolitionists as a an example of “no-compromise” success is that they operated with some level of implicit/explicit understanding that government is necessary.

    The libertarian position is that government AT BEST is a necessary evil. Frankly, that’s more or less the liberal position, too. That’s quite a bit different than the position that government is necessary.

  161. Anthony Dlugos

    You can’t operate in the political arena like its a hostage negotiation.

    I do agree about the distinction you are making, dL. I just believe the Libertarian PARTY needs to operate more along the lines of the automobile purchase negotiation model than the hostage negotiating model that you suggest.

    So I’m not surprised that we disagree. But I think viewing it as a hostage situation trying
    to free the enslaved is the exact wrong approach, even if you are correct in a philosophical sense.

  162. dL

    You can’t operate in the political arena like its a hostage negotiation.

    That’s not what I said. I did not say perpetually operate in the political arena like it was a hostage negotiation. That would be a nonsense position. For one, that requires leverage. Two, hostage negotiations are a final stand. Politics is not a perpetual final stand. I said the objective was to drive it to get to that point of having the leverage of a hostage negotiation on the specific issues.

  163. Thomas L. Knapp

    OK, let’s look at how the most radical Libertarian presidential candidate since Bergland handled one issue: Taxation.

    While Harry Browne did not lie about or minimize the libertarian position on what taxation is (theft), his actual policy proposal was to eliminate one, and only one, federal tax, the elimination of which would have reduced federal government revenues to what they had been less than a decade before.

    I’ve seen quite a few Libertarian candidates, many of them quite radical, campaign on that exact proposal and emphasize that exact effect. It’s a proposal that anyone who can claim, with a straight face, to support limited government or smaller government, should be able to get behind.

    But some of us have mentioned alternative proposals to consider if people mis-remember 8-10 years ago as a time of crumbling roads, mass starvation, etc. because government was just so damn small.

    For example, my second line position is if there’s not political will to eliminate the income tax, at least start raising the personal exemption to it on an annual automatic basis so that every year the poorest Americans fall off the tax rolls.

    Others have proposed “flattening” the income tax at a low rate if it can’t be eliminated immediately, so eliminating all the arcane social engineering measures (credits and exemptions) so that all that’s left to do is incrementally lower the rate as cuts are made on the spending side of the equation.

    On the other hand we have Gary Johnson’s “mainstream” starting position of cratering the American economy and putting every man, woman and child in the country on a monthly government welfare check from cradle to grave while not cutting government revenues at all with a sudden and dramatic switch to the idiotic “Fair Tax” proposal.

    So yeah, maybe the radicals are playing it like a hostage situation. But, at least recently, the “mainstream Libertarian” faction is playing it like Richard Speck proposing to pay a social call on some nursing students.

  164. robert capozzi

    tk: I am unaware of any issue on which Pelosi, or Schumer, or Giuliani has ever claimed anything but that whether or not to exercise control of it is and should be the government’s decision to make.

    me: I suspect there’s lots and lots of them. Who should marry? How many kids should they have, if any? Which movie should we go to? Where should we have dinner? Who should we invite to the party? Where should we go on vacation? What degree should I pursue? What job should I apply for? etc.

    dL: CULT being the operative word here.

    me: I see that. Are Guiliani and Schumer in the same cult? Do they meet frequently? Have the same leaders? Perform the same rites?

    Of course not. This is Alex Jones stuff. “Omnipotent” is wild overstatement, but “cult” is conspiracy-tinged.

    So, yes, “cult” is the kookiest terminology.

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I suspect there’s lots and lots of them.”

    After which you state several questions, and show precisely zero answers by any of the named figures to support your contention of what they advocated for (the first three of which at least some of them have made statements comporting with my understanding of their general position, not yours).

    Sticking with Pelosi:

    – She has specifically weighed in on who should marry, and at all times has assumed in her statements that OF COURSE the government can license and regulate marriage — in other words, that the government can decide who should marry.

    – She has specifically weighed in on contraception as a way to cut government costs by reducing the number of children born. Has she proposed more draconian population controls than just funding contraception (and abortion)? Not that I’m aware of, but if such were proposed there’s nothing in her record that would indicate she would say “oh, that’s not something the government should get to decide.” She would just weigh in on a particular decision, assuming the legitimacy of whatever decision was reached because it was the government that reached it.

    – On what movies people should watch, she has spent year inveighing against a Supreme Court verdict (Citizens United) that allowed people to watch a movie she didn’t think they should have been allowed to watch.

  166. Jim

    robert capozzi “The first definition that comes up for me of “omnipotent,” by the way, is: adjective 1. (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything. synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, preeminent, most high… noun 1. God.”

    If you were having a conversation about spies, would you interject that the first definition to come up for the word “plant” had to do with vegetation? The word omnipotent, as it is being discussed here, applies to the state, not to a deity.

  167. Jim

    Thomas L. Knapp “What is it that you think the radical Libertarian position, in the context of electoral politics, is?”

    Well, if you’re running for President, campaign on a platform to declare the federal government of no authority, dissolve or privatize every agency, transitioning some functions to the states, liquidate all remaining assets to fund social programs as private charities, resign the Presidency to become “Custodian of the Federal Government,” and do it all with a single executive order on the very first day in office.

    Alternatively “don’t vote. It only encourages them.”

    Thomas L. Knapp “… if there’s not political will to eliminate the income tax, at least start raising the personal exemption to it on an annual automatic basis so that every year the poorest Americans fall off the tax rolls.”

    I’ve long thought that was the best that could be done with state income taxes. Raise the personal exemption as high as we can get it, then peg it to inflation + 0.5%, or whatever.

    But, while I don’t support the fair tax as a goal, I don’t share your and Andy’s belief that it would be worse than the present system or that it would crater the economy. And characterizing it as a new welfare program is as wrong as saying the presidential election campaign fund is welfare.

  168. Jim

    robert capozzi “I suspect there’s lots and lots of them. Who should marry? How many kids should they have, if any? Which movie should we go to? Where should we have dinner?”

    Was that supposed to be “What should we have for dinner?” or “Where should we go for dinner?”

    If you meant “what”, then I think we can say Pelosi supports government getting involved here as well as what Thomas Knapp listed. Most Democrats support things like banning trans fats and junk food taxes.

  169. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    Hmm. I disagree with your characterization of what it means to be radical within the context of electoral politics.

    Not entirely — there are some circumstances in which running for an office on the promises of eliminating that office could be useful, or even work (my friend Alan Weiss did exactly that when running for a utility district seat, and in fact did end up getting the district dissolved) — but for the most part by running for office you are accepting the premise of the election, which is that you’re being hired to help operate the system, not dissolve it.

    That doesn’t require giving up on abolition as the goal, or even pretending to, but it does require setting intermediate goals that can actually be accomplished 1) from the position sought, 2) in the timeframe of a term in that position, and 3) within the existing rules/prerogatives of the position.

  170. robert capozzi

    tk, actually, the government doesn’t say who you should marry, it grants marriage licenses to most applicants as long as they qualify for the license. There are exceptions, and yes PSG probably do support various limitations on the granting of licenses, e.g., under-age, blood relatives, until recently same gender, more than two people, etc. But I don’t think they or the rest of the “cult” are interested in weighing in on whether Tom should marry Nicole or Katie.

    I’d be very surprised if PSG think the State should weigh in on whether you should see LOGAN or GET OUT this Saturday.

    dL,

    I’ve asked TK this before, and I don’t think he answered, but try to clear your mind for a moment. Imagine if there were a survey of the general populace that said something like:

    Who made this statement? “We challenge the cult of the omnipotent state.”

    Was it:

    1) Thomas Jefferson
    2) Abraham Lincoln
    3) Alexander Graham Bell
    4) Charles Manson

    If Manson doesn’t get picked the most, I’d be surprised. If Manson doesn’t get picked by a high percentage of those surveyed, I’d be shocked. (Although I wonder whether there’s another crazy person who’s known more universally.)

    Playing semantical word games can be fun, but in the big picture, basing a political party on what I believe many would view as either crazy talk or obscure, easily misunderstood language is not a good start.

    It might be a good start if one wants to start a counter-cult that is almost certain to garner few adherents, as it has done.

  171. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    “Playing semantical word games can be fun, but in the big picture, basing a political party on what I believe many would view as either crazy talk or obscure, easily misunderstood language is not a good start.”

    Actually, I’ve only ever run into one person on earth who claimed to view the CotOS phrase as crazy, obscure or easily misunderstood, and that person is you.

  172. Robert Capozzi

    TK, you weren’t in Portland in 06, then. Advocates for removal characterized it as “kooky.” 3/4s agreed.

  173. Robert Capozzi

    TK, do you mean to say that those who disagree with you are “wreckers.”

    You cracked the code, they are-what-idiots and fools? You have pronounced CotOS sound and insightful, therefore those who find it to be kooky are just wrong?

    You surely see where that line of thinking goes… 😉

  174. Thomas L. Knapp

    “TK, do you mean to say that those who disagree with you are ‘wreckers.'”

    No, I mean to say that people who show up to a Libertarian National Convention for the express and stated purpose of mangling the platform, then leave the party as soon as they have successfully done so, are wreckers.

  175. dL

    I’ve asked TK this before, and I don’t think he answered, but try to clear your mind for a moment. Imagine if there were a survey of the general populace that said something like:

    Bob…dead man talking…you’ve already hung yourself on this question. But I will grant a dying man’s last request on the matter.

    My guess would be Thomas Jefferson.

    Charles Manson would win for this quote:

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    But it’s just a guess.

  176. Jim

    robert capozzi “I’d be very surprised if PSG think the State should weigh in on whether you should see LOGAN or GET OUT this Saturday.”

    In that instance, they don’t care. But you can’t seriously be arguing that the government has never banned or censured a book or film – which means they claim the authority to do so, if and when they want.

  177. robert capozzi

    tk, really? Someone expressly wanted to “mangle” the platform? Who told you that that was their intent?

    In my case, I drifted back into the LP, thinking that America needs and is ready for a lessarchist party, one that could bend the curve toward enhancing individual liberty. As I got more involved, it became clear that the LP’s profound dysfunctions are probably unfixable, given the depth charges protecting the core insanity. At root, the LP is only an viable vehicle for NAPsters and CotOS believers to promote those eccentric viewpoints. Since I am neither, it seemed appropriate to allow myself to lapse.

    Jim, no, I am not arguing that at all. I’m sorry if I somehow gave you that impression.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *