Starchild Answers Constitutionalist Immigrant’s Letter to Rand Paul Re: Immigration

This letter was sent in response to a letter Starchild received regarding Rand Paul’s speech about immigration.  The letter was previosuly posted on IPR, and you can read that here .

Dear Tony,

Thank you for writing. I was also heartened by Rand Paul’s filibuster of president Obama’s drone-loving nominee to head the CIA. However I must disagree with your support for restrictions on peaceful freedom of movement, which are fundamentally at odds with the “limited government constitutional republic of minimal intrusion on individual freedom” that you desire.

Senator Paul may not have pointed this out in his speech, but the Constitution only allows the federal government to regulate *naturalization* (the process of becoming a U.S. citizen), not *migration* (who can physically enter or leave the country). The Feds have no authority to control migration. This is why there were virtually no controls on immigration to the United States for about the first century of the country’s existence.

Unfortunately, over time the government began to engage in more and more constitutional violations, culminating in the out-of-control situation that exists today, with the U.S. president claiming (and Congress approving) the power to arbitrarily murder anyone in the world at any time, including U.S. citizens, that he claims is involved with terrorism. Militarized borders, walls and fences are definitely part of this picture, as are the unconstitutional Social Security and tax laws that you complain about undocumented migrants violating. It is *good* that these illegal and anti-freedom statutes are being violated.

As a refugee from communist Cuba, you should understand the importance to freedom of not allowing the authorities to exercise this kind of control over who comes and goes, this kind of ability to keep tabs on everyone, rob them of money they have earned, etc. It is anti-libertarian, and a recipe for a police state like the Castro regime, which America is in danger of becoming.

On a practical level, is it any wonder that most immigrants in the United States disdain the Republican Party, when that party so blatantly disdains their rights and freedoms? Polls show that immigration reform is the top

issue for Hispanics in this country, and that they will vote accordingly:

“Latino voters selected their presidential candidates largely based on immigration rhetoric and policy, according to the report. Specifically, 43% of Latinos who voted for Obama said they would back a GOP candidate if the Republicans lead immigration reform.

“If President Barack Obama and the Democrats take the lead on immigration reform, however, Latino voters reported that they would be more likely to vote for them.

“A total of 44% said they would be more likely to vote Republican if this party led on immigration reform. Yet, when asked how Republicans blocking immigration reform would affect their vote, 42% said they would be less likely to vote Republican (including 33% of Latino Republicans).

“Currently 58% of Latino voters polled rate immigration reform as the most important issue for the government to address, up from 35% in a November 2012 Latino Decisions poll.”

(From http://politic365.com/2013/03/06/immigration-policy-key-to-winning-latino-vote-democrats-ahead-of-the-game/ ).

George W. Bush was not an “open borders” president by any stretch of the imagination. Peaceful immigrants continued to be deported under his administration, border walls and fences were expanded, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created, and more money and personnel were added to border control. Nevertheless the 39% of the Hispanic vote that you report him receiving was significantly greater than the 27% that the more anti-immigrant Romney received.

Abridging the freedom of peaceful people who want to come to the United States for more rights and economic opportunity as you and your family did is a losing political proposition. If the Republican Party gets this issue wrong, not just the Democrats but the Libertarian Party of which I am an elected leader will be there to offer voters who might otherwise vote GOP a better alternative.

I don’t mind encouraging the Republicans to adopt policies that will reduce the appeal of the LP because my first loyalty is to the cause of freedom, not to any particular party or organization, and seeing the right thing happen is more important to me than getting credit. I urge you to likewise support freedom by standing for the important principle that all people deserve equal rights under the law regardless of where they are born, and governments should not discriminate against people on the basis of their nationality.

Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

 

Starchild is a long-time Libertarian activist and proponent of freedom.  He is currently an At-Large representiative to the CA Exectutive Committee and the Libertarian National Committee.  He also sometimes writes here on IPR.

118 thoughts on “Starchild Answers Constitutionalist Immigrant’s Letter to Rand Paul Re: Immigration

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak

    I read the LP platform plank on immigration. Correct me if I am wrong, but it didn’t seem as though it was endorsing amnesty. Of course it’s a given that it wouldn’t support welfare for illegal immigrants. I think it’s a position I could live with.

    So one huge issue remains: the life issue. The LP should become an explicitly pro-life party. I consider myself to be socially tolerant, but I don’t think that “murder of the unborn” should fall in that category. At least it’s good to see that there are a lot of prominent pro-life libertarians, like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Lew Rockwell, Judge Andrew Napolitano, as well as those who are no longer with us, Murray Rothbard, Ludwing von Mises, F.A. Hayek.

  2. paulie

    I read the LP platform plank on immigration. Correct me if I am wrong, but it didn’t seem as though it was endorsing amnesty.

    “Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.”

  3. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Krzysztof, it would be very difficult for the LP to take a hard-line pro-life stance on abortion. I understand you see a fetus as a life, and that life has a right to life. However, a woman should have rights to her body and whether or not she wishes to spend nine months providing life to another. I know that sounds harsh, but that’s the reality. I believe it would be hypocriticial for the LP to tell women what they must do with their bodies. This is absolutely a no-win situation for all concerned, so it should be left as a private matter for those concerned. I think a stand somewhere in the middle, which is where we are now, is the only appropriate stand we can take.

  4. Andy

    Krysztof Lesiak “So one huge issue remains: the life issue. The LP should become an explicitly pro-life party.”

    Good luck with this one. LOL!

  5. paulie

    Not all libertarians agree.

    Personally I don’t think any coercive taxation is ultimately acceptable, nor is a forced monopoly on government services, but my views are pretty extreme even in the LP.

  6. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 21, 2013 at 10:52 pm

    Unrelated topic, is there an LP position on the Fair Tax? I know Gov. Johnson was for it but is that representative of the party?”

    I don’t think that there’s ever been an official position from the LP on the Fair Tax, but historically, the LP has been opposed to all taxes.

    I’d really like to see the Libertarian Party pass a resolution condeming the Fair Tax. I suppose I should put in the work to get the ball rolling to make this happen.

    The Fair Tax is really a stupid, waste of time, counterproductive issue for libertarians to get behind. It is no better than the current system, it does not move us in the direction of more liberty, as in it is not an interim step, and it may even end up being worse than the present system. It’s not like it is really a popular issue that is going to bring the party a lot of support either. I really don’t see anything good about it.

  7. Andy

    Paulie said: “paulie // Mar 21, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    Not all libertarians agree.

    Personally I don’t think any coercive taxation is ultimately acceptable”

    I think he means unacceptable.

  8. paulie

    I don’t think that there’s ever been an official position from the LP on the Fair Tax,

    Some state LP s and candidates have endorsed. National never has, to my knowledge.

  9. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 21, 2013 at 10:56 pm

    I am to. So what taxes if any would exist in a Libertarian America? How would the government raise revenue?”

    This is a good question. The ultimate goal of a hardcore anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist libertarian is to have no coercive government, and therefore no taxation. Under this system, services would be paid for in the open market voluntarily by user fees.

    This sounds pretty radical to a lot of people (given years of pro-government indoctrination), and I think that everyone realizes that we are far from having something like that.

    So most Libertarians – and of course keep in mind that not all Libertarians are anarcho-capitalists / voluntaryists – run on a platform that goes something like, “End the income tax and cut the size government to where it is so much smaller that it can run on the remaining taxes that are authorized by the Constutiton in tarriffs, duties, and excise taxes.”

  10. Andy

    Paulie said: “Some state LP s and candidates have endorsed. National never has, to my knowledge.”

    I’d like to start a movement to get the LNC, as well as every state and local LP affiliate to pass a resolution condeming the Fair Tax. This is a bad plan even if one is a minarchist / limited government libertarian.

  11. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    I said what I meant:

    Personally I don’t think any coercive taxation is ultimately acceptable.”

    Ewwwps, I skimmed through it quickly and missed the part where you said don’t.

  12. paulie

    Corporate charters are grants of privilege from the government, so corporate taxes are not always necessarily illegitimate.

  13. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    I thought Libertarians oppose tariffs, since they are protectionist and go against the principles of Austrian free-market economics?”

    Libertarians do oppose tarriffs, but since they are in the Constitution and since running on a platform of eliminating all taxes is considered to be too radical a step by most people, the tarriffs, duties, and excise taxes that are authorized in the US Constitution have been a fall back postion for Libertarians. These Libertarians do want to keep these taxes low, and some want to eventually eliminate them.

  14. paulie

    I thought Libertarians oppose tariffs, since they are protectionist and go against the principles of Austrian free-market economics?

    We do oppose protectionist tariffs, but some libertarians think already existing tariffs are not as bad as other taxes.

    Others back various other revenue models e.g. Land Value Tax, flat income tax, national sales tax without the “prebate,” etc.

  15. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:10 pm

    Corporate charters are grants of privilege from the government, so corporate taxes are not always necessarily illegitimate.”

    Corporate taxes are still taxes, and they get passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, so they to would not exist in a pure libertarian society, but then again, neither would corporations as we know them.

  16. paulie

    but then again, neither would corporations as we know them.

    My point exactly. So in the meantime, they are not necessarily illegitimate taxes since they tax something that is not legitimate to begin with and constitutes a government granted privilege which other forms of business organization don’t get.

  17. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:13 pm

    Also, there are some who support a national lottery”

    There have been other proposals over the years, such as the proposal from Dave Hollist of California who said that taxes could be eliminated and that the government could sell contract insurance instead, which he suggested a 1% fee for I believe. This proposal stated that the government would enforce contracts for people who purchase the contract insurance from them, but not for those who did not purchase the contract insurance.

  18. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Mar 21, 2013 at 10:46 pm

    Krzysztof, it would be very difficult for the LP to take a hard-line pro-life stance on abortion. I understand you see a fetus as a life, and that life has a right to life. However, a woman should have rights to her body and whether or not she wishes to spend nine months providing life to another. I know that sounds harsh, but that’s the reality. I believe it would be hypocriticial for the LP to tell women what they must do with their bodies.”

    Uh oh, this gets back to the whole ship in the ocean, airplane in the air, car on the highway scenario, where the captain of the ship, or the pilot of the plane, or the driver of the car doesn’t feel like they should have to carry a passenger anymore, so they throw that passenger out during the trip and the passenger dies as a result. When asked why they didn’t wait until they docked the ship or landed the plane or parked the car so the passenger did not die, they reply, “Hey, it’s my ship/plane/car, who are you to tell me what I can do with it?”

  19. paulie

    So are you saying that the transportation company has a duty to deliver the passenger in the same condition he or she was in before the trip started, due to a freely entered contract to provide transportation to an agreed upon destination?

  20. Brian Holtz

    Libertarians have proposed multiple non-force-initiating ways for a government to raise revenue:

    • Pigovian “taxes” i.e. fines on negative externalities (pollution)
    • Congestion pricing/auctions for use of community-owned networks (transit, pipes, wires) and spaces (parks, spectrum, orbits)
    • Severance fees for natural resources
    • Contract insurance
    • Community sharing of site rent (i.e. land value “tax”)

    Community collection of site rent has been discussed favorably by a long list of libertarians and classical liberals. Indeed, LP founder David Nolan wrote:

    What kind of taxation is least harmful?….My own preference is for a single tax on land, with landholders doing their own valuation; you’d state the price at which you’d be willing to sell your land, and pay taxes on that amount. Anyone (including the tax collector) who wanted to buy it at that price could do so. This is simple, fair, and minimizes government snooping into our lives and business.

  21. Andy

    Krzysztof (Man, you’ve got a difficult name to spell! I keep having to scroll up to make sure I get it right.), if you are looking for a 100% anti-abortion party, even though you may have strong pro-liberty arguments in favor of this position, I don’t think that you are going to find it in the LP because there are a lot of LP members who committed to the other side of the issue. There are pro-life Libertarians as well, and a lot of people in the LP take a more middle of the road stance on the issue. I just think that you will have a hard time convincing the LP’s hardcore pro-abortionists to change their minds. So depending on how important this issue is to you, you might want to go to the Constitution Party or somewhere else if you consider this to be a high priority, or the most high priority issue.

    I like to welcome new people to the LP, and I’d love to see you come on board, but I’m just being straight up with you. The LP is pretty divided on the abortion issue, and the party does have some militant pro-abortion/pro-choice people.

    Abortion has been one of the most debated issues in the Libertarian Party for many years, and I don’t see anything changing in regard to this anytime soon. So if this bothers you, you may want to go elsewhere.

    However, keep in mind that there is no perfect political party, and no one party has every member agreeing with every other member 100% on everything, from issues to strategy, all the time. You will find a range off views and debate on those views in every party or any other group for that matter.

    So if you are going to chose a party or group to affiliate with, the only way you will find one is if you remain an army of one. When you bring other people into the mix you are going to have some disagreements, and that’s all there is to it.

    If you can accept this reality, that not everyone is going to always agree with you about everything, then you try to find a party or group that comes the closest to agreeing with you.

    I think that the Libertarian Party has the best set of principles of any other political party. Does this mean that everyone in the party always agrees? No. Does this mean that the Libertarian Party always gets it right? No. Does this mean that the Libertarian Party always lives up to its principles? No. The Libertarian Party has its flaws like any other organization, but having said this, it is still the best political party out there, at least in my opinion.

  22. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:28 pm

    So are you saying that the transportation company has a duty to deliver the passenger in the same condition he or she was in before the trip started, due to a freely entered contract to provide transportation to an agreed upon destination?”

    I think that if a transportation provider throws somebody out of their mode of transportation mid trip and the person dies that most people would call it murder.

    Under this line of thinking, if the woman agreed to engage in the sexual act that created the fetus, then the fetus entered voluntarily, since they knew the risk of pregnancy going into the agreement. I suppose if a woman was raped, then the passenger (the fetus) did not come into being voluntarily, so in this case I could see an agrument in favor of removal resulting in death, however, there are some hardcore pro-lifers who’d say that it is still a life and deserves protection.

  23. paulie

    Think about this portion some more:

    “So are you saying that the transportation company has a duty to deliver the passenger in the same condition he or she was in before the trip started,…

    For the time being, we can ignore this part:

    “…due to a freely entered contract to provide transportation to an agreed upon destination?”

  24. Dave Terry

    Starchild wrote: “George W. Bush was not an “open borders” president by any stretch of the imagination. Peaceful immigrants continued to be deported under his administration, border walls and fences were expanded, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was created, and more money and personnel were added to border control. Nevertheless the 39% of the Hispanic vote that you report him receiving was significantly greater than the 27% that the more anti-immigrant Romney received.

    The reason for this is that both Bush & Obama are chameleons; what they SAY isn’t what the DO! Example:
    (Reuters) – President Barack Obama says he backs immigration reform, announcing last month an initiative to ease deportation policies, but he has sent home over 1 million illegal immigrants in 2-1/2 years — on pace to deport more in one term than George W. Bush did in two.

    The Obama administration had deported about 1.06 million as of September 12, against 1.57 million in Bush’s two full presidential terms.

    By Comparison, Bush was much more libertarian than Obama!

  25. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    You didn’t answer my question.”

    The anwser sounds pretty apparent to me. You can’t throw a person out mid trip unless you can do it without it resulting in the death of the passenger.

    Pro-abortion/pro-choice people should go with better arguments because that one is weak in my opinion.

  26. paulie

    You can’t throw a person out mid trip unless you can do it without it resulting in the death of the passenger.

    The passenger was alive before the trip started. If the obligation of the transportation company is to return the passenger to status quo ante, what does that imply in your analogy?

  27. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Believe it or not, I’m not necessarily pro-choice, as far as my personal belief, or how I would counsel my son or myself in my younger days. I was trying to explain the intellectual argument to Krzysztof. Andy, the plane/boat/auto analogy is ridiculous. Those exist for the sole purpose of transporting people. Women have more purposes in life than just procreating. And don’t give me that “she agreed to have sex, so she knew the risk” stuff. In the real world, it’s not that simple.

  28. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Yeah, well wait until you see the column Judge Gray just sent me. It’s a doozy–

  29. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Thanks, Dave Terry!

    (How can you be so right sometimes, and so wrong at other times???)

  30. paulie

    Thanks, Dave Terry,

    (How can you be so right sometimes, and so wrong at other times?

    You know what they say about broken clocks….

  31. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 21, 2013 at 11:59 pm

    Starchild wrote: ‘George W. Bush was not an ‘open border’ president by any stretch of the imagination. Peaceful immigrants continued to be deported under his administration,”

    This was just for show. Far more were allowed in than were thrown out. One of George W. Bush’s top advisors actually was involved in staging those mass pro-immigration protests. It is part of the agenda to create the New World Order to have a global government, as in no borders, just one big socialist planet.

    I think that in order to maintain a libertarian society, immigration would have to be based on political ideology, as in, immigration would have to be done on the basis of contract, since people could lie about their ideology. Sign a contract to enter the Libertarian Zone where you agree to not initiate force or fraud. Perhaps a bond could be posted, and if a person initiates force or fraud they’d face a randomly selected jury trial and face deportation for violating their immigration contract. The contracts would have to be pretty simple and straightforward so everyone can understand them. There’d be no birthright “citizen” status for anyone either, including the natural born in the Libertarian Zone people. Children could be exempted, but once they reach a certain age, say going with the already established age of what is considered to be adulthood in our society, 18, they will be given their Libertarian Zone contract. If they sign it then they agree to not initiate force or fraud, and if they violate it, as a part of their penalty (outside of restitution to their victim), they will also face a deportation trial. So basically, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, socialists, fascists, communists, theocrats, etc…, will not be wanted or tolerated in the Libertarian Zone. The penalty for trying to start a coercive government would be death, or deportation. Taxes would be banned. People would be free to walk around with guns. The only welfare would be private charities, or people helping others out on a one-on-one voluntary basis. There’d be no laws against drugs, prostitution, or gambling, but people would be responsible for any themselves should they get out of hand with any of their vices to the point where they inflinct damage upon others via force and fraud. There’d be no regulations censoring speech. There’d be no licenses to start businesses. All services would be paid for via user fees and purchased in the open market.

    Even with the present supposedly constitutionally limited government that we live under (I said supposedly since we all know that the Constitution is not actually followed on anything even remotely close to a consistent basis), I’ve found that most immigrants are clueless about what this country is supposed to stand for, but then again, so are most natural born Americans. This is what lead me to come up with the idea of a contract society, that would apply to both immigrants and the natural born. You can’t have a libertarian society, even if it is a constitutionally limited government form of a libertarian society, when most of the people in it have no concept or belief in liberty, or in why government should be limited, or even know what the Constitution says. Whatever liberty you have will vanish as more and more people do not understand or believe in the concept of individual freedom.

    So I do not celebrate immigrants coming to this country unless I know that the immigrant actually believes in individual freedom. If they are a socialist, communist, fascist, gun grabber, welfare state moocher, Affirmative Action supporter, loyalist to a foreign government, free speech supressor, or some other type of big government person, I do NOT support these immigrants, and frankly, I wish they would leave the country, and I’d be happy to show them the door myself.

    I think the knee jerk “I support immigrants” attitude from some libertarians is naive. Here are some examples of why I do not support all immigrants:

    1) I was gathering signatures on the petition to Recall California Governor Grey Davis back in 2003. I asked a black guy to sign the petition and he turned out to be black African immigrant who was not an American citizen, so he could not sign the petition. I tried to move on to the next person, but he came over to me and started yelling at me for trying to recall the Governor, and he said (in his African accent), “You are disrepecting your Governor! He is your leader! You should show him respect!” I told him that I did not like what the Governor was doing to California and that I wanted to give the public a chance to remove him from office by helping to gather enough signatures for there to be a recall election. He then said that he was going to call the police on me and have me arrested. Fortunately, this happened in California which has better legal protections than most states for people to go out in public to collect petition signatures, so nothing became of it, but what an asshole this guy way. He thought that I should bow to the Governor as if he was some kind of African tribal chief.

    2) I was in Washington working on a petition to shut down the state liquor store monopoly and allow liquor to be sold at regular stores (the initiative had a bunch of regulations in it, so it was not completely libertarian, but at least it was getting rid of the state liquor monopoly and allowing some competition). I asked a guy to sign who turned out to be a Russian immigrant. He did not seem to understand what the petition was, and at that point I was not clear if he was an American citizen or not, but to cut the chase about the petition I said that it was communistic for the government to own all of the liquor stores in the state, thinking that since he left Russia, surely he must know that communism was not a good thing. Big mistake from me, because the guy ended up hanging around me for a while so he could lecture me about why communism was good, and how great life was in the former Soviet Union. I didn’t say it, but if communism was so wonderful, why in the hell did he immigrate here? I kept trying to get rid of the guy because he was interfering with me asking other people to sign the petition, but he kept hanging around, so I finally called a Libertarian petitioning buddy (this person has never posted here) who was gathering signatures at a different door at the same location, and I signaled for him to come over and I acted like we had something to talk about and then finally the Russian guy left. It’s a shame he did not leave to go back to mother Russia.

    3) I was petitioning for the Libertarian Party in Grand Island, Nebraksa, and I asked a hispanic lady to sign the petition. She told me that she was born in Mexico but had become an American citizen. She asked me what a Libertarian was, so I gave her the World’s Smallest Political Quiz from the Advocates for Selft Government’s website (I had a downloaded copy of it). She anwsered no to every question, so she scored as a bottom of the Nolan Chart diamond Authoritarian. She said, “I don’t agree with any of this!” in a nasty way. Then I asked her if she would sign the petition just to allow the choice to be on the ballot out of fairness. She refused to sign and threw the World’s Smallest Political Quiz flyer back at me.

    4) I was petitioning in Glendale, California which is home to a lot of Armenian immigrants. The petition was to add an amendment to the Glendale City Charter to prohibit price controls on the sale, rental, and lease of realestate, which basically meant that it was an anti-rent control petition. Some of the Armenians who were American citizens did sign the petition, but others who were Americans citizens would not sign the petition, and I remember them making comments like, “We need rent control.” I never said this to anyone because it is always better to avoid arguments, but I felt like responding with, “If you think that ‘we’ need rent control, why don’t you go back to where you came from, commie?” I remember getting into a conversation with this one Armenian guy about gun control, and I don’t know how the conversation shifted to gun control, maybe he thought when I said, “Could you sign a petition to stop rent control in Glendale?” (or something like that) he mistakenly thought that I asked him to sign a petition to stop gun control in Glendale. Whatever the case may be, this guy was for gun control. He thought that the government should take all of the guns away and that only the police and military should have guns. I brought up the Armenian genocide, and how gun control actually lead to it, but either this guy just did not get it, or he did not believe me, or maybe he had a death wish, but whatever the case may be, he kept insisting that regular people should not be allowed to own guns.

    5) I used to work a catering job in the Los Angeles area years ago, and I remember setting up for an event one time and getting into a debate with a couple of co-workers over the right to keep and bear arms. One of them was from Ireland and the other one was from Australia. They both had an attitude similar to British TV news personality Piers Morgan (this was several years back, so I did not know who Piers Morgan was back then) about guns, that was that the government should ban them and that only police and military should have them, and that Americans who supported the right to keep and bear arms were ruffians who were living in the past. I brought up the fact that when the UK and Australia enacted strict gun control laws that it actually lead to an increase in violent crime. They either did not believe me or they did not care. The Irish guy also thought that the government should censor violent and obscene movies.

    6) This past summer I was petitioning for the Libertarian Party and I asked a black guy to sign a the petition, I think that it was in Maryland, and he turned out to be from some other country. I’m not sure if he was an American citizen or not. He asked me where the Libertarian Party stood on the issue of gay marriage. I told him that the Libertarian Party believes that people shoud be free to marry whoever they want, and that the government should not be involved in marriage in the first place. He said something like, “No, the government has got to stop the gays from getting married!” Then he stormed off.

    These are just a few examples of anti-freedom immigrants that I’ve encountered over the years. Why in the hell should I celebrate these people being here? I consider them to be a threat to my freedom, and I wish that they’d leave.

    Now on the flip side, I will say that I have run into other immigrants who do get it, in that they do believe in individual freedom, like a Chinese guy I encountered in Columbia, Maryland, or an Iranian guy I encountered in Las Vegas, Nevada, or another Iranian guy I encountered in Oxnard, California (of course, I’ve encountered anti-freedom Iranians as well), or this India Indian family I encountered in Carmel, Indiana, and there’s even a Russian Jewish guy who posts here a lot who seems to believe in this freedom thing.:)

    There are also plenty of natural born Americans who do not believe in freedom, and who are either authoritarian control freaks or people who like being lead around by authoritarian control freaks. I saw a guy wearing a really cool t-shirt during one of my visits to Seattle, Washington a few years ago that said, “America: A Nation of Sheep Ruled by Pigs”. I think that this t-shirt describes a lot of people in this country – both natural born and immigrant – perfectly.

    This is why a libertarian contract society is probably the best anwser, but getting it to happen is far easier said than done.

  32. Andy

    “Children could be exempted, but once they reach a certain age, say going with the already established age of what is considered to be adulthood in our society, 18, they will be given their Libertarian Zone contract. If they sign it then they agree to not initiate force or fraud, and if they violate it, as a part of their penalty (outside of restitution to their victim), they will also face a deportation trial. ”

    I was just going over this long rant, and I noticed that I neglected that under this possible scenario, if a child reaches adulthood and does not sign the Libertarian Zone contract, then they would also face deportation.

    This is just a hypothetical scenario for the ideal way to handle keeping and maintaining a libertarian society. It is just one of my observations that you can’t have a libertarian society when you have have a society that is filled with many non-libertarians.

  33. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Mar 22, 2013 at 12:02 am

    What kind of idiot would compare a woman’s body to a truck?”

    It’s a passenger scenario. What kind of an idiot does not get that?

  34. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Mar 22, 2013 at 12:18 am

    Thanks, Dave Terry!

    (How can you be so right sometimes, and so wrong at other times???)”

    The fact that it is a woman’s body does not invalidate the comparison. The comparison is that they are carrying a human being. Now one can argue that a fetus is not a human being, or should not have any rights, but this is a different argument, or whether or not the act that lead to the creation of the fetus was consensual or not, but those are all different arguments.

    Suppose a person was swimming across a pond or lake and they had a child holding on to their back. Half way across, should they say, “You know, this is my back, and I don’t feel like carrying this child any further across the lake, so I’m just going to leave the child in the middle of the lake. So what if the child drowns, it’s my back and I can do what I want?”

  35. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Sorry, Andy, I’m with Dave on this. I can’t imagine how in the world you can compare a woman’s body to a truck. It’s so beyond insulting, that if I have to explain it to you at your age…nevermind.

    Let me give you a hint: NEVER say that to a girl you’re dating, or would like to date.

  36. Andy

    “…due to a freely entered contract to provide transportation to an agreed upon destination?”

    This would depend upon whether or not the act that resulted in the fetus was voluntary or not. If it was rape, then you’d have somewhat of a point.

  37. Andy

    “l Pyeatt // Mar 22, 2013 at 1:42 am

    Sorry, Andy, I’m with Dave on this. I can’t imagine how in the world you can compare a woman’s body to a truck.”

    So it is a fetuses body that you are talking about rejecting which results in death.

    Just as I said in the swimming across the lake with a child on your back scenario, should a person leave a child in the middle of a lake because they don’t feel like swimming with it on their back the rest of the way.

    Hey, the guy you think is so freaking wonderful in Lee Wrights told me that he was an anti-abortion Christian Libertarian when I met him in North Carolina back in 2001, of course you wouldn’t hear him admit this on the campaign trail, just like he would not admit to having once been a Democrat and a Jimmy Carter voter, so I doubt you’d get a straight anwser out of him.

  38. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    A person swimming across a pond with a child on his back is an entirely different thing than a truck dumping its cargo. It’s still not an appropriate analogy, but I’m thinking we won’t come to agreement here. I’m really NOT pro-abortion. The very thought of it is horrible to me. However, I just don’t think it’s my business to speak for every woman, especially now that I know how phenomenally difficult it is to raise a child. And that’s with plenty of financial resources, and with a gifted child, which is more than most women have. And with all due respect, Andy and Krzysztof, you guys don’t know how difficult it is, either. Perhaps you don’t know, but my child’s father chose to never even see him. He never gave me a dime. A man can walk away. It can and does happen all the time.

    BTW, it never occurred to me EVER, for one second to abort my child. That’s what was right for me. The libertarian view is not to get involved in anyone’s business that isn’t your own (yes, that’s me paraphrasing). So, we should stay away from this topic, which I will do starting right now.

  39. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    As far as your comment about Lee Wrights, Andy: you certainly can carry a grudge. It doesn’t become you.

  40. Andy

    “l Pyeatt // Mar 22, 2013 at 1:42 am

    Sorry, Andy, I’m with Dave on this. I can’t imagine how in the world you can compare a woman’s body to a truck.”

    So how about if a woman is carrying a baby in her arms and it is snowing outside, and she no longer feels like carrying the baby, so she puts it on the ground, and walks off, and because there is nobody around, the baby freezes to death and dies. When questioned, she replies, “Hey, it’s my body, and I did not feel like carrying the baby around any longer, so I just put in on the ground. So what if the baby froze to death. What are you, one of those anti-woman’s rights wacos? Who are you to tell me what I can do with my body?”

  41. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt // Mar 22, 2013 at 1:54 am

    As far as your comment about Lee Wrights, Andy: you certainly can carry a grudge. It doesn’t become you.”

    Well, everytime I come on here and read the underserved adulation it makes me want to puke.

    Also, he and Haugh both cost this party (in terms of money squandered and outreach opportunities lost), and they personally caused me to lose money (and other Libertarian petitioners to lose money for no legitimate reason). My personal economic loses were several thousand dollars, which compounded in terms of interest, or reflected in the price per ounce of gold or silver, or to the rate of return in the stock market, or to other opportunities that are unseen (as I believe it was Walter Williams who described in an essay about the seen and unseen econimic costs), would be a lot more than that.

  42. Andy

    Look, I’m for a society where jurors are all fully informed of their right to nullify the law. So right now, this country is so divided on abortion, that I doubt that any abortion doctor or woman getting an abortion would be able to get convicted even if some local jurisdication arrested somebody and charged them with murder for carrying out an abortion.

    I just find some of the pro-abortion arguments to be stupid. There are some anti-abortion arguments which are stupid as well.

    Actually, there are certain indivduals walking on this planet that make a good case for retroactive abortion.:)

  43. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Mar 22, 2013 at 1:54 am

    As far as your comment about Lee Wrights, Andy: you certainly can carry a grudge. It doesn’t become you.”

    I’m also still carrying a grudge about the 9/11 attack, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, Iran-Contra, The Gulf of Tonkin (which happened before I was born, but I’m still upset about it), etc…

  44. Andy

    ‘However, I just don’t think it’s my business to speak for every woman, especially now that I know how phenomenally difficult it is to raise a child.”

    But lots of people do seem to think that it is OK to speak for every fetus, and assume that they want to be killed.

    “And with all due respect, Andy and Krzysztof, you guys don’t know how difficult it is, either. Perhaps you don’t know, but my child’s father chose to never even see him. He never gave me a dime. A man can walk away. It can and does happen all the time.”

    Deadbeat dads are another issue. Most people look down upon deadbeat dads (myself included).

    Here’s an interesting scenario, what if a man and a woman are in a relationship, and the guy gets the woman pregnant during a consenual act, and he WANTS to keep the baby, but she does not, and against his will, she gets an abortion? I know a guy who was in this situation.

    I think that if we had a free society, that there would be abundant resources and it would be much easier for children to be cared for and that technology may advance to the point where abortion became obsolete (cryogenics, etc…).

    Abortion is not a high priority issue for me. I’m more concerned about ending the Federal Reserve and fiat currency, ending the income tax, phasing out the Social Security mess, fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws, gun rights, exposing government false flag attacks, ending the war on drugs, ending military imperialism, and quite a few other issues.

    I just find the, “I can throw somebody out and so what if they die because it is my body, so if I throw them out and they die it does not matter.” argument to be weak.

    I don’t think that there is any chance of anyone being thrown in jail for abortion anytime soon (well, except maybe the guy in that article I posted above who apparently “aborted” some babies after they were alive and outside of the womb, but this will come down to a jury decision I imagine, so who knows what they will decide), even less likely if we bring back fully informed juries in this country, so I don’t think that people who support abortion have anything about which to worry.

  45. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “BTW, it never occurred to me EVER, for one second to abort my child. That’s what was right for me. The libertarian view is not to get involved in anyone’s business that isn’t your own (yes, that’s me paraphrasing). ”

    The libertarian code is to not initiate force or fraud. If you see a person about to committ a murder with a knife, it does not violate the libertarian code to stop the knife from penatrating the victim’s body.

    This all comes down to when does life begin, and when to individual rights begin. IF life begins at conception, then abortion is an act of aggression, and it violates the libertarian code (of course, then one could make an argument for a rape exception). IF life does not begin at conception, then removing a fetus is like removing a wart or cutting off a toe nail. IF life begins sometime while the fetus is developing, but before it is born, then maybe rights kick in sometime during the stages of development, which would be an argument in favor of early term abortions being OK and late term abortions being not being OK.

    Another way to look at this issue is that it does not matter when life begins, and that rights do not begin until after the fetus leaves the womb, so therefore abortion is OK because a fetus should not have any rights.

  46. Andy

    Jill Pyeatt said: “However, I just don’t think it’s my business to speak for every woman, especially now that I know how phenomenally difficult it is to raise a child.”

    A woman who decides she does not want her child, or can’t handle a child, could turn it over to a charitable organization, of which I believe there’d be more of if the income tax were eliminated and other taxes were reduced or eliminated. Also, there could be charitable organizations that would actually provide a woman with financial help to raise a child, and maybe then they would not want to give it up. This once again would be if taxes were greatly reduced or repealed and the government wasn’t wasting so many resources on expensive foreign wars, etc…

  47. Andy

    Krzysztof said: “At least it’s good to see that there are a lot of prominent pro-life libertarians, like Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Lew Rockwell, Judge Andrew Napolitano, as well as those who are no longer with us, Murray Rothbard, Ludwing von Mises, F.A. Hayek.”

    Maybe I’m wrong here, but didn’t Rothbard support abortion under the eviction argument? I’m not sure about von Mises or Hayek.

    I could look it up, but somebody will probably pop in with the information.

  48. paulie

    “…due to a freely entered contract to provide transportation to an agreed upon destination?”

    This would depend upon whether or not the act that resulted in the fetus was voluntary or not. If it was rape, then you’d have somewhat of a point.

    You focused on what I already stipulated was the relatively less important part of my question.

    The main part, which you continue to ignore, talk around or misinterpret:

    In your analogy, the transportation company is required to return the passenger in the condition in which they were before they boarded the vessel, that is, alive.

    Even if we grant that this right exists for stowaways – that is, if someone sneaks on board, that doesn’t mean you just dump them in the middle of the ocean or out of a plane etc – the bigger issue is that they were alive before they got on board.

    However, before a fetus gets “on board” it is not alive. In fact, it is created “on board.”

    So if the principle you are advocating is a return to status quo ante (that is, the state in which a thing was before….in the case of the passenger, alive and in a certain condition), what does that mean for the fetus?

    How does your analogy not fail on those grounds?

  49. paulie

    Just as I said in the swimming across the lake with a child on your back scenario, should a person leave a child in the middle of a lake because they don’t feel like swimming with it on their back the rest of the way.

    Slightly less offensive analogy, but still the same problem. The child was, presumably, alive before he or she got on that person’s back.

  50. paulie

    Hey, the guy you think is so freaking wonderful in Lee Wrights told me that he was an anti-abortion Christian Libertarian…

    What Lee Wrights thinks about this, whether he has changed his mind or not and whether he is truthful or not does not change anything about the question.

  51. paulie

    A man can walk away. It can and does happen all the time.

    Yes, but women can walk away too, and that also happens all the time. Granted it is harder for women, and they can’t walk away from pregnancy except through abortion, but they can and do abandon their children. Many of my friends growing up did not know their mothers OR their fathers. In fact I think that was the biggest difference between me and them, why I’m still alive and not doing life in prison.

  52. paulie

    So how about if a woman is carrying a baby in her arms and it is snowing outside, and she no longer feels like carrying the baby, so she puts it on the ground, and walks off, and because there is nobody around, the baby freezes to death and dies.

    Same presumption your other analogies suffer from. There was a living, breathing child before she carried it into that snow storm.

  53. paulie

    Maybe I’m wrong here, but didn’t Rothbard support abortion under the eviction argument?

    At one time he did, yes. He may have become “pro-life” later on in an attempt to make an alliance with the far right, which was his strategy at the end of his life.

  54. Oranje Mike

    #5, By day 2 of the convention in Vegas the Governor was referring to the “Fair Tax” as the “Less Infair Tax”. He recognized it was a contentious issue. His stumping of the Fair Tax is why I cast my vote for Wrights.

  55. Brian Holtz

    Hoppe wrote: “Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother’s absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die.”

  56. Robert Capozzi

    Classic ex. of Emerson’s “foolish consistency.” Little minds seem incapable of admitting to mistakes.

  57. Dave Terry

    There’s a hole in my condom,
    Dear Liza, Dear Liza
    There’s a hole in my condom,
    Dear Liza, a Whole.

    Harry Belafonte

  58. Andy

    I’d be interested in seeing some discussion about my comments in post #47 about anti-liberty immigrants and my proposal for a Libertarian contract society.

  59. Andy

    “paulie // Mar 22, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    @47 was too long. Can you edit it down to a more manageable length?”

    Probably not. Just break it up in bit size pieces if you think that it is too long.

  60. paulie

    I encourage your idea of setting up a libertopia

    How about setting up a statopia somewhere that will leave all the rest of us to live free?

    🙂

  61. Robert Capozzi

    P, that’s probably available RIGHT NOW. There are surely remote, off-the-grid places all over the earth where gov’t’s long arm doesn’t touch anyone living there’s life. Knapp often cites a serpentine area in the mountains of Asia as such a place. The Arctic, Antartica, parts of AK, Canada, various islands…they don’t have to deal with the revenoo-ers.

    That’s the thing with state’s, though. They want to control territories, and there are a lot of states competing for said control. While the nonarchist can IMPLORE the many states to stay out of any budding Libertopia, getting those states to agree and honor any such agreement seems gullible at best and derelict at worst.

    Andy’s a persuasive dude, but I’m not sure he can get Kim Jong Un to let Andy & Friends set up Libertopia – complete with signed non-aggression contracts – off the coast of N. Korea. Then again, maybe Dennis Rodman might be enlisted to broker such a deal! 😉

    Why not?

  62. paulie

    No, but you missed my point.

    Why is it that people who want to live free are the ones who have to move somewhere and set up a ‘topia?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense for the statist control freaks and their sycophants to move to some remote location and leave everyone else the hell alone?

  63. Catholic Trotskyist

    Andy, you should write a book; you’re petitioning stories are actually really interesting. As for creating a libertarian contract society, it would only work if everything worked out well economically in that society, incentivising more people to become libertarians, and also if people made fair judgments about who is and is not libertarians. What if the judges were Lee Wrights and Tom Stevens? (I don’t have a problem with Lee Wrights myself; just trolling Andy).

  64. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Mar 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    A79, I encourage your idea of setting up a libertopia. I think it’s a idea that’s been kicking around for decades.”

    After giving a lot of thought to the subject, a Libertarian Contract society seems like the way to make it happen. Big government types would have to be excluded from such a society, or at least strongly discouraged from entering, and being forcibly thrown out, or even killed, if the enter the Libertarian Zone and try to form a coercive government or initiate force and fraud in some other manner.

    Signing a Libertarian Zone Contract would also be the best immigration policy. People who sign the contract can enter, but if they violate it they get thrown out (after paying restitution for any damages they cause).

    We could have a libertarian society right now if it wasn’t for all the damn statists out there.

  65. Andy

    “Catholic Trotskyist // Mar 22, 2013 at 10:17 pm

    Andy, you should write a book; you’re petitioning stories are actually really interesting.”

    Maybe that could be a project for the future, perhaps if I retire or something.

  66. Andy

    “As for creating a libertarian contract society, it would only work if everything worked out well economically in that society, incentivising more people to become libertarians, and also if people made fair judgments about who is and is not libertarians.”

    I don’t expect everyone to become a libertarian. I recognize that some people will never be libertarians, and this is one of the things that lead me to this concept.

    I think that things would work out quite well in such a society. I think that it would be an economically prosperous and happy place to live. So I expect that some people will lie about being libertarians in order to enter such a society, and I also expect that some who are already a part of the libertarian society will fall short of libertarian principles, and this is why everyone who lives there must sign a contract which clearly, and in simple terms, spells out exactly what the code of conduct is for living in the Libertarian Zone, and what the penalties are if one violates the contract. This way everyone will know what is expected of themselves and of everyone else, and what the consequences are if they do not abide by the contract.

    “What if the judges were Lee Wrights and Tom Stevens? (I don’t have a problem with Lee Wrights myself; just trolling Andy).”

    I already realize that there would be disputes that would happen in the Libertarian Zone, and that there will be “libertarians” in them who do underhanded things, but all trials will be decided by randomly selected fully informed juries, so it won’t be up to one or two people.

    Also, there’s no such thing as a utopia, so there could still be problems, but I think that overall it would be a huge improvement over the way things are now.

  67. Andy

    Doug Stanhope made a good point in that video when he pointed out that there are natural born Americans that are just as bad as a lot of the immigrants that people criticize. I had the same thoughts, and this is what lead me to the idea of applying the contract to natural born people in the Libertarian Zone as well as to immigrants in the Libertarian Zone.

  68. Dave Terry

    Andy (47) “I think the knee jerk “I support immigrants” attitude from some libertarians is naive. Here are some examples of why I do not support all immigrants:

    Have you actually ever met a libertarian who says he supports “all” immigrants?

    I actually HAVE met some libertarians who claim that they support “all” native Americans,
    no matter HOW worthless they are.

    But MAYBE they mean “support” in a different way than we do.

  69. Dave Terry

    A79; Re; “Libertopia”

    I understand that “Dolly World” for sale, so it has plenty of parking spaces.

  70. Robert Capozzi

    a 93: We could have a libertarian society right now if it wasn’t for all the damn statists out there.

    me: Yes. It’s a lonely road to see how statelessness is the ideal and yet no one else around you sees how injurious the State is to all.

    Without the eyes to see and the ears to hear, the “sheeple” plod along, chewing the grass and getting sheared periodically.

    Hold high the banner for the sheeple, and the light just might go off for them all one day. All we need is 10% of the sheep, and it’s off to the races. Next stop: Galt’s Gulch.

    Something like that?

  71. Ray Beez

    Signing a Libertarian Zone Contract would also be the best immigration policy. People who sign the contract can enter, but if they violate it they get thrown out (after paying restitution for any damages they cause).

    Wat about people who are born there? And do 100% of the property owners and residents have to agree before this “society” is formed?

  72. Ray Beez

    DT …

    Polly;

    Who’s Polly? Are you talking to voices in your head? I haven’t seen anyone named Polly comment here. You must be having hallucinations.

    Is that a cigar you’re smoking? Is there a hole in the end of it?

    Definitely hallucinations. This is fascinating. Tell us more.

    In this fevered dream you are having, are you the “Polly” that is “smoking” a “cigar”? Does it represent something that happened with you and your father, or uncle, or both, when you were a young boy?

    Is this what has been causing you to lash out all these years?

    Perhaps some medication might help you DT, and maybe some electro-convulsive therapy. But it may be too late….you might have to have a frontal lobotomy.

    Or did you have one already?

  73. Mike Kane

    I live 90 miles from Cuba and you hear about it every day. People come over on inflatable rafts, dinghies, etc. It’s a wet feet/dry feet policy, so if they can make it to shore, they can stay.

    Unfortunately being tied to a bridge mooring during a tropical storm counts as ‘wet feet’, and those poor folks made in 90 miles only to get deported.

    I’m surprised this gentleman from Cuba would be anti-immigration, especially considering how many people from his birth land would do anything to get to the states.

    On 2 occasions, technicians from Direct TV came over one to hook up the dish and another for service. Both Cuban immigrants, who came over on rafts. Both haven’t seen their families since they left.

    I agree with Starchild. The right to freely travel is quite possibly the most important right a human being has.

  74. Dave Terry

    Andy (49): “It’s a passenger scenario. What kind of an idiot does not get that?

    The question again, is what kind of idiot thinks that
    ” No one can argue that a fetus is not a human being, or should not have any rights,

    By any rational definition of “human being”, a fetus, embryo, zygote, sperm or ovum DO NOT
    qualify!

    (your fundamentalist dogmas, not withstanding)

    Do the ‘speculative’ rights of an, as yet, unknown
    undeveloped and unnamed, “POTENTIAL
    human being take precedent over the basic human rights of a conscious, living, breathing,
    acting human being?

  75. ProFunk

    Mike Kane @103 makes a great points, as does MHW on Radical caucus facebook group:

    “We should also point out that there is a degree of bigotry in allowing financial capital to flow freely around the world but denying physical capital, like hands and backs, the same opportunity.”

  76. Dave Terry

    Andy (93) “We could have a libertarian society right now if it wasn’t for all the damn statists out there.

    HALF RIGHT! We could ALSO have a libertarian society now, if it weren’t for all the knee-jerk ANTI-STATISTS in here.

  77. Dave Terry

    Rabies (101) “Wat about people who are born there?”

    Do you mean “What” about people who are born there? Where is THERE? What about people who were born HERE? Why would they want to go “there”?

    BTW, there is a vaccine for “Raybeez” but not for bad spelling. Maybe you just have a problem with your right index finger (not to mention your middle finger)

    :>)

  78. Ray Beez

    Hey dumb ass @107, do you ever close your quotes? You know, so someone can tell where the part you are quoting ends and the part you are stating begins? That would help, before you lecture other people on typos.

    By the way it is Raymond Garrison Beez Jr., not “Rabies.” I got sick of hearing that one when I was a kid, and it’s not any funnier now. WHat, are you having to repeat grade school again because you failed so many times?

  79. Ray Beez

    Do you mean “What” about people who are born there? Where is THERE?

    Are you congenitally incapable of reading context? THERE is the hypothetical contract society “libertopia” that Robert and Andy were discussing. Also, was someone addressing you? Because I wasn’t, and I would prefer it if you didn’t address me or anything I say. Rest assured that none of it is addressed to you, even if it is addressed to everyone else.

    You have nothing useful to add, and your constant misinterpretation and misdirection of everything is neither amusing nor interesting. Wouldn’t it be better if you simply left and never came back?

    What about people who were born HERE? Why would they want to go “there”?

    I have no idea what the fuck you are babbling about, nor does anyone else, and neither do you.
    Your question makes no sense whatsoever in the context of what I was responding to, but that’s pretty much always the case with you. Which is why you should just stop butting into people’s conversations and find some other group of people to annoy with your nonsense.

    Maybe you just have a problem with your right index finger (not to mention your middle finger)

    All of my fingers are just fine, including both of my middle fingers. Don’t you see both my middle fingers pointed at you? Maybe you need eye surgery to go with the long overdue brain transplant.

  80. paulie

    Mr. Terry,

    Did that lobotomy only penetrate your cerebral cortex, or did it go all the way to the base of your brain?

  81. paulie

    “We should also point out that there is a degree of bigotry in allowing financial capital to flow freely around the world but denying physical capital, like hands and backs, the same opportunity.”

    MHW FTW.

    meanwhile:

    http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=8868

    Give me your poor!
    Posted in LFA Flashback by R Lee Wrights on March 22nd, 2013

    by Mary J. Ruwart

    Liberty’s natural constituents have always been the young and disadvantaged, not the established and the elite. Is the Libertarian Party, built on the activism of the “have-nots,” now snubbing its most ardent supporters?

    “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    – Inscription on the Statue of Liberty

    The inscription on the Statue of Liberty asked not for Europe’s titled, wealthy, or elite, but those who benefit most from liberty—the poor and the oppressed. When the Statue was unveiled in 1886, it was common knowledge that the impoverished were freedom’s natural constituency.

    In Europe guild membership was necessary to work at one’s chosen profession. Only the well-to-do or well-connected could hope to qualify, however. For the working poor, coming to America was the difference between putting their children to bed with full stomachs and watching them slowly starve to death.

    Read the rest of this entry »

  82. Dave Terry

    Arby (110) ” was someone addressing you? Because I wasn’t,”

    Hold on, Mr. Beezelbub! YOU addressed me first with your arrogant and condescending remarks.

    Arby (110-1 “THERE is the hypothetical contract society “libertopia”

    I hate to disappoint you Bees, but there is no “Here” OR “There” in “libertopia” or any other “hypothetical” place. “Libertopia” ONLY exists between your ears, in that huge empty space!

  83. Andy

    Dave Terry said: “Have you actually ever met a libertarian who says he supports ‘all’ immigrants?”

    It depends on how you define this, but if you define this by always supporting immigrants, and always assuming that immigrants are here because they are pro-freedom, then yes, I’ve met plenty of Libertarians who blindly cling to this dogma.

    Immigration is the movement of people, sometimes that can be a good thing, but sometimes it can be a bad thing.

    Truly peaceful people crossing borders and facilitating the production and distribution of goods and services is a good thing, however, destructive people, including people with destructive ideologies, such as socialists, communists, fascists, etc…, crossing borders is not such a good thing.

    “I actually HAVE met some libertarians who claim that they support ‘all’native Americans,
    no matter HOW worthless they are.”

    Yes, I’ve encountered this from time time, and it is pretty damn stupid.

    Every group contains some people who are pro-freedom, some who are anti-freedom, and others who fall somewhere in between.

  84. Robert Capozzi

    One of the more interesting dynamics on the immigration issue is that the less-affluent elements of the US tend to be the most anti-immigrant, is my sense. The more-affluent tend to be more welcoming, in part perhaps because they don’t feel economically threatened by immigrants.

  85. Ray Beez

    Hold on, Mr. Beezelbub!

    It’s just Beez. I thought you were keen on spelling?


    YOU addressed me first with your arrogant and condescending remarks.

    I addressed you with the truthful and accurate remarks @102. I in no way, shape or form addressed you @101.

    Arby

    Wrong again. It’s Ray Beez. One given name, one family name, seven letters in total. Why is it you have a difficult time getting a simple thing like that correct?

    I hate to disappoint you Bees,

    It’s Beez, not Bees, and my expectations of you are so low that it would be literally impossible for you to disappoint me.

    there is no “Here” OR “There” in “libertopia” or any other “hypothetical” place.

    Andy proposed a hypothetical, Robert addressed it, as did I. If your brain is not developed enough to handle hypothetical scenarios, it would be best for you to stay out of conversations you are incapable of handling, and stick to the only thing which gives your pathetic existence a possible chance at marginal utility – being a punching bag for factually correct insults.

    between your ears, in that huge empty space!

    Speaking to yourself in public again? Back to the place with the strapped table, electrodes and the shaking for you!

    In the meantime, I note that Andy did not respond to @101, which was actually addressed to him, not to you.

  86. Dave Terry

    RC (115) “One of the more interesting dynamics on the immigration issue is that the less-affluent elements of the US tend to be the most anti-immigrant,

    This parallels the attitudes of poor whites in the antebellum south. They tended to support our “peculiar institution” much more strongly than did the upper classes.

    Even though the institution of slavery worked AGAINST the best economic interests of the free whites, it did give they the illusion of superiority.

    So too does immigration work in the best interests of the general population, PROVIDED it ISN’T a welfare state.

  87. paulie

    One of the more interesting dynamics on the immigration issue is that the less-affluent elements of the US tend to be the most anti-immigrant, is my sense. The more-affluent tend to be more welcoming, in part perhaps because they don’t feel economically threatened by immigrants.

    It’s called divide and conquer.

    People at the bottom of the political, economic or social pyramid are kept fighting each other, thus keeping those pyramids of power balanced on their backs and keeping those at the top secure in their positions.

Leave a Reply

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