Email blast from OAI:
July 23, 2015, Santa Fe, NM — Two-term former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is calling Donald Trump’s visit to the Mexican border a “photo op that is just too easy” and an “entirely predictable part of his ‘blame it on Mexico’ campaign”.
In a statement released Thursday, Johnson, a former border Governor said, “It’s embarrassing to see Donald Trump joining the list of politicians who visit the border for a couple of hours, usually after lecturing us about immigration and border security, and vow to solve our problems by building a bigger fence. It’s just too easy and solves nothing.
“What makes Trump’s exploitation of immigrants even more embarrassing is that he has built his fortune in the very industries that clearly depend on immigrant labor, both legal and illegal. Instead of posing for the cameras in Laredo, maybe he should be checking to see how many illegal immigrants have helped him build his buildings, serve the guests in his hotels and casinos, and contributed to his billions. He should know better than anyone that illegal immigration isn’t about fences and drones. Rather, it is entirely about an arcane system that doesn’t allow immigrants to legally fill the needs of the job market.”
“Building a wall across the entire Mexican border, and somehow getting Mexico to pay for it, is just crazy, and more importantly, won’t solve the problem. Replicating a Berlin Wall isn’t something Americans want to do, and it won’t work any better here than it did in Berlin. Border security means knowing who is coming here and why, not building an ever-bigger fence and militarizing our boundaries. A functional, market-based work visa program that would allow businesses like Donald Trump’s to easily hire immigrant workers will do far more for both security and the economy than all the fences and drones in the world. Yet, the politicians refuse to put such a system in place.
“As far as all that crime Mr. Trump claims Mexico is sending to us, that’s not an immigration problem. Immigrants, legal or not, don’t commit crimes at any higher rate than we red-blooded Americans do, and border violence — which is very real and very tragic — is almost entirely about a failed War on Drugs and the prohibition it perpetuates.”
Gov. Johnson serves as the Honorary Chair for Our America Initiative, an organization that is fighting to change the failed War on Drugs and to solve immigration and trade issues through market based solutions.
###
IPR note: Gary Johnson was the Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2012 and is widely expected to seek the party’s nomination again in 2016.
They both have employed plenty of so-called “illegal” imigrants, which there’s nothing wrong with doing. Trump is the only one being hypocritical about it, though.
Johnson raises a lot of innuenedo but zero facts implying that Trump is a chronic employer of illegal immigrants. Has someone audited how maany illegal aliens Johnson has employed in his “handyman’ companies? Is Johnson projecting?
ac: But the original question was the idea of “Auburn” being the reference for point for “the” libertarian plumb-line. I reject that, and I reject the associated idea that Rothbard himself defines the “plumbline.”
me: I’d extend that to say that I reject the idea of any sort of plumbline at all.
If you’re going to insist that criticism of Lincoln is not tantamount to defending the Confederacy (I agree!), then you have to concede the inverse, which is that worship of the Confederacy is not automatically justified just because it includes hatred of Lincoln.
You’re right with your WWII analogy, libertarians can (and should!) also criticize FDR’s record without being neo-Nazis. I would hope that’s obvious enough. But if you do so while standing on stage with a Nazi flag, waxing poetical about what great men Erwin Rommel and Herman Goering were, saying the Holocaust wasn’t really such a big deal, and advocating that the Nazi regime should be re-established, then you don’t get to cry “No fair! I’m just anti-FDR! How dare you call me a neo-Nazi!?”
“If not, maybe you would be so kind as to present a link to someone from LvMI actually praising the Confederacy.”
Here, let me google that for you.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/04/thomas-dilorenzo/libertarians-should-love-the-confederate-flag/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/02/myles-kantor/cornel-wests-anti-confederate-absurdities/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/thomas-dilorenzo/should-southerners-memorialize-collaborators/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/11/charley-reese/hooray-for-the-confederate-flag/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods#Controversy_on_League_of_the_South_membership
You will get precisely zero argument from me about criticisms of Lincoln, other than when they are lacking in historical accuracy and rigor as DiLorenzo et al’s often are. But when you’re founding the League of the South, waxing poetic about the Glorious Lost Cause, putting Confederate generals and soldiers on a hero-worship pedestal, and cheerfully waving Confederate flags while preaching modern Southern secession to “preserve Anglo-Celtic culture” – if that’s not neoconfederate, then nothing ever could be.
“In fact, I’m not aware of anyone in the Mises crowd saying anything about Lincoln, the Confederacy, or the Civil War that differs substantially from Rothbard’s take on those subjects. Should he also be shunned?”
Rothbard has been dead for more than two decades, and contrary to what Lew might tell you, he didn’t rise from the grave three days later. And yes, there absolutely are things Rothbard said and did which modern libertarians should reject. Shun? Who said anything about shun? I think some of the folks in question do good work outside of the topic of the civil war (and some don’t). But the original question was the idea of “Auburn” being the reference for point for “the” libertarian plumb-line. I reject that, and I reject the associated idea that Rothbard himself defines the “plumbline.”
AC: I wouldn’t regard Auburn’s definition of anything as authoritative, whether they have one or not. Their pretensions to the title aside, they are hardly the Keepers of the One True Libertarianism. Vicar of Rothbard, perhaps.
ME: Love it. I see them as Frodo Baggins figures. 😉 Carrying a ring around that they are not quite sure what to do with.
Langa points out that not all the LRC crowd are for immigration controls, which is interesting. Block himself popularizes this notion of a plumbline, which really does not work for me. But it seems the logical conclusion to the deontological absolutism at the core of dogmatic L-ism.
And neo-confederate is hardly a smear when it’s objectively true. Though if I were to pick a complaint, the cheerleading for the government of Jefferson Davis would come second to the embrace of violent anarcho-theocracy and flirting with white supremacists.
This “cheerleading for the government of Jefferson Davis” appears to be a figment of your imagination. If not, maybe you would be so kind as to present a link to someone from LvMI actually praising the Confederacy. And again, mere criticism of Lincoln (no matter how harsh such criticism might be) does not constitute an endorsement of the Confederacy, any more than criticism of FDR (or Stalin) constitutes an endorsement of Hitler. In fact, I’m not aware of anyone in the Mises crowd saying anything about Lincoln, the Confederacy, or the Civil War that differs substantially from Rothbard’s take on those subjects. Should he also be shunned?
(For the record, I disagree with part of what Rothbard had to say about those issues. However, the idea that he should be dismissed as some “neo-Confederate” crank is absolutely absurd.)
Of course, none of this has anything to do with Deist’s (very weak) anti-immigration argument.
I wouldn’t regard Auburn’s definition of anything as authoritative, whether they have one or not. Their pretensions to the title aside, they are hardly the Keepers of the One True Libertarianism. Vicar of Rothbard, perhaps.
And neo-confederate is hardly a smear when it’s objectively true. Though if I were to pick a complaint, the cheerleading for the government of Jefferson Davis would come second to the embrace of violent anarcho-theocracy and flirting with white supremacists.
RC
Additional detail about the poll I referenced: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161765/americans-favor-giving-illegal-immigrants-chance-stay.aspx
There’s more there than just the headline.
The Auburn Plumbline is also often Confederate revisionist, so forgive me for not dumping Emma Goldman’s words on the Statue of Liberty because you found a link from mises.org.
I don’t know which is more troubling — the LNC Chair implying that Emma Goldman was some sort of libertarian authority, or the LNC Chair repeating the repeatedly debunked argument equating criticism of Lincoln with support for the Confederacy. Based on that logic, I guess you think libertarians who criticize FDR’s alliance with Stalin, or his use of Japanese internment camps during WWII, are making “Nazi revisionist” arguments, right?
It’s not that difficult to refute the arguments of sophists like Deist and Hoppe, without resorting to red herrings and smear tactics.
Near as I can tell, btw, the Auburn Plumbline is that open borders only work in a stateless environment. They make a freedom of association argument for some border controls by a state.
https://mises.org/library/bernie-koch-brothers-and-open-borders
Maybe you missed this part at the bottom:
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Your frequent insinuations notwithstanding, I have never seen any evidence of a “hive mind” in Auburn. There is room of diversity of opinion. Yes, Hoppe (and some others) support heavy restrictions on immigration. On the other hand, Block (and some others) favor open borders.
The Auburn Plumbline is also often Confederate revisionist, so forgive me for not dumping Emma Goldman’s words on the Statue of Liberty because you found a link from mises.org.
Near as I can tell, btw, the Auburn Plumbline is that open borders only work in a stateless environment. They make a freedom of association argument for some border controls by a state.
https://mises.org/library/bernie-koch-brothers-and-open-borders
pf, this is one of the many challenges with polling. How a question is framed and how it is asked can elicit a wide range of impressions. For ex., “opposed further restrictions on immigration” and “legalization of unauthorized immigrants” doesn’t fully cover the issue. A person could favor restricting immigration MORE and yet be for legalizing the undocumented, for starters. Personally, I’m for liberalizing the numbers of immigrants, and I’m OK with legalizing the undocumented, but I think there’s a strong case for disallowing them from citizenship and public assistance.
And there’s a host of other permutations on this complex issue.
Then you haven’t found all the polls. Once gain ….
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/america-isnt-getting-more-liberal-its-getting-more-libertarian
…
On immigration, Americans are also much more open today. In 1996, only 38 percent opposed further restrictions on immigration; in the 1980s, just 41 percent favored legalization of unauthorized immigrants. In 2013, those numbers were 63 percent and 69 percent, respectively.…..
The polling data links to additional detail: http://www.gallup.com/poll/161765/americans-favor-giving-illegal-immigrants-chance-stay.aspx
Further:
For starters lp.org polls are in no way limited to Ls. They exist on an open website for whoever drops by, whether they are Ls, opponents, just checking out the party, political junkies, news reporters…they can be any persuasion, in fact. Also, the polls can be spread through notices on other websites, blogs, social media links and so on.
Secondly the LP.org poll does not offer any choices for liberalizing immigration policies short of completely all out open borders, which is my position. However, there are many more moderate libertarians who support a more incremental solution, which I am not opposed to either, although it’s not my ultimate objective.
Finally, supposing that the poll actually does reflect the position of Ls per se, which is far from certain, I think this reflects the unfortunate tendency of several decades of conservative-libertarian fusionism, marketing the LP primarily to conservative white Anglos, and teatards calling themselves libertarian. It’s possible that self-described libertarians and/or those people who are on our email lists and FB page may actually be worse than the general public on this issue at this point.
Speaking of the FB page I saw it casually mentioned that the marketing of the page is made primarily to teapartisans. I asked who is in charge of that policy a couple of times, but no one replied. And I’m actually pretty heavily involved in the back end of the facebook page. If I can’t find out the answer to that sort of simple query, who can?
Anyway, that aside aside, I think the additional information I discussed in this comment casts your prior statement in a bit of a different light:
Zealots and dogmatists sometimes twist their perceptions to fit their pre-programmed narrative.
The poll that I found said: “Do you think undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States should or should not be allowed to live and work here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?”
That does NOT say that 60% think undocumented, illegal immigration should be LEGAL. Their record would be cleaned by paying a fine and other, unspecified penances. Or, if you prefer, the want amnesty for the illegals. But it’s almost certain that most are not for open borders.
Indeed, neither do most Ls, according to this poll:
https://www.lp.org/poll/do-you-support-an-open-borders-policy-for-immigration
It’s not that I think you should change your opinion based on polls. The general idea of free migration has a lot of appeal, although the specific application to this time and place strike me as unworkable.
Whew! And here I was worried for nothing. I was besides myself thinking what I would do if I didn’t get permission to view things as I wish. What a relief!
Proper? I disagree with that characterization.
Not according to the poll results posted….above? Can’t remember if it was in this thread. 60-something percent, as it turns out, are for amnesty (which I think is a good first step, albeit not enough.)
View things as you wish, PF. If someone is in the US without the proper documentation to work in the US, most view that as “illegal.”
Again untrue. Reactions that should have taken place would include primarily stop poking the hornets nests in the majority Muslim world and environs, and a few other things. Security theater accomplishes nothing.
Many, perhaps even all, of those being set up to be knocked down and try to justify the money spent and limitations of freedom and wars to breed more terrorists. Overall I would say the recation has been hugely counterproductive if the goal is average people in this portion of the continent being safe from terror, but I grant that is not necessarily everyone’s goal.
See above. No human being is illegal and immigration shouldn’t be.
pf: And being asked your nationality is a lot different than what often happens now. A lot more people turned away, including Americans, or searched, etc.
me: Again, we agree that there has been over-reaction. I don’t have enough information to take a position that any specific reaction should have been taken, but it seems you believe there should be no reaction whatsoever.
pf: I’m not convinced it’s the national will, and even if it is, security theater is useless at preventing terrorism;
me: An empirical question, to be sure. “Useless” is an absolutist statement. I believe some would-be terrorists have been stopped, iirc.
pf: immigrants work more and harder and start more businesses and take welfare less than native born Americans;
me: Hmm, that’s the stereotype on immigrants work ethic, one that I admit I have observed as well as a GENERAL matter. Taking less welfare seems beside the point, since I think the point is that welfare spending is far too high, and the point I think most would say is that illegals simply don’t deserve US tax dollars in any way.
And that strikes me as a very reasonable position.
I think it depended where you crossed. I know several of the times I crossed into Canada in the 80s I don’t remember anyone asking me anything much less asking for proof. And being asked your nationality is a lot different than what often happens now. A lot more people turned away, including Americans, or searched, etc.
I’m not convinced it’s the national will, and even if it is, security theater is useless at preventing terrorism; immigrants work more and harder and start more businesses and take welfare less than native born Americans; in short the common concerns are either misplaced or the security theater in place does nothing to solve them in reality.
That’s not my position. I would prefer a lot less “public” property, and legitimate property owners could have wide latitude to define trespass and rules of conduct, although I’d preserve some public easement by customary right. I don’t accept the “condo” analogy of government (supposedly in the name of the public) being legitimate part-owner of all property in this portion of the continent.
As to whether my position is persuasive, I believe it will be, although different segments of the public will accept at different rates and with some uneven progress and backsliding throughout. I’m pretty optimistic that the long run won’t be nearly as long as some think, and that many here will live to see it.
In the early 80s, I was in college in Buffalo. We crossed into Canada very frequently. They asked us every time what our nationality was. Once, we had an exchange student in the car from Pakistan.
We had to turn around.
I fully agree that the national will often over-reacts.
Whether your position: Anyone can go anywhere with anything is persuasive is a matter of testing. Personally, I would not support testing that, as I think it backfires.
That’s when you enter from outside the EU, not across borders between member nations. There are plenty of relatively unguarded borders between nation-states in many parts of the world. As mentioned above, most US land borders were very little guarded until fairly recently – the welfare state, terrorism, and modern modes of transportation all already existed – and we had neither anarchy nor chaotic immigration.
Crossing the EU borders
If you are a citizen of a country outside the EU, you will need to prove your identity and present official papers to border guards/authorities when you enter the EU for the first time.
These official papers can be different, depending on where you come from, your nationality , the reason you are visiting, how long you plan to stay and the border control rules in the EU country you are going to.
http://ec.europa.eu/immigration/what-should-i-avoid/how-to-enter-the-eu/crossing-the-eu-borders_en
You may be recalling something from the past.
pf: Open borders isn’t necessarily anarchist; state, city and county governments have borders, yet no migration restrictions, ie their borders are open.
me: Your point is mostly semantics, since most see a difference between the boundary lines between states and cities are different between nations.
If I recall, even in Europe they check your passport, and if you are not European, they check a bit closer.
Opposing further restrictions and wanting to legalize people already here. Sounds like movement in a good direction to me. Liberal and libertarian are in the larger context of the article; read the whole thing. Open borders isn’t necessarily anarchist; state, city and county governments have borders, yet no migration restrictions, ie their borders are open.
AndyLand is a horse of a different color, since just like with condo associations, people would generally be there because they chose to move there, not because they were born there, with a few exceptions. And generally speaking in both cases they will have signed a clear and explicit contract upon moving there. Not so with the US as we have established.
AndyLand is a fantasy, but as far as condos, suppose one is born there and becomes an adult who does not want to abide by the rules, or changes one’s mind and no longer finds the mutually agreed upon rules acceptable; this person can move out of the condo and in most cases keep the same job and friends, still see family members regularly, go to the same restaurants and gym etc etc. Contrast this with migrating to another country, often thousands of miles, different customs and often a different language, having to start career over, usually far from family and friends. We’re talking about vastly different things than condo associations with their mutually agreed upon rules.
pf quoting FEE: …opposed further restrictions on immigration…
ME: Consider this language a bit more closely. “Opposing further restrictions” is not “open borders.” And I’m not sure that any position on immigration can be characterized as liberal, conservative, or libertarian.
It IS fair to say, I think, that open borders is anarchist, since anarchists don’t believe there should be governments and therefore there would be no borders.
Except, of course, AndyLand would have a property line that has the effect of a border.
I’m not a politician at all, and there are plenty of questions you haven’t answered including in this thread. I don’t feel like finding them again, you can find them if you want to.
It’s not an on/off switch. Most people have some element of it. Hopefully minor with most people. Also, a lot of people internalize and parrot misinformation without realizing the motivations of those originally propogating it.
All the more reason a billion people wouldn’t move to the US in one year since the vast majority of them would not find jobs and no one would pay that much charity for that many people. And again moving to a different country is not trivial. It’s a pretty big deal requiring a lot of effort and is not exactly cheap for impoverished people from poor countries.
I’m OK with millions.
I don’t think it’s even close to accurate for reasons already pointed out.
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/america-isnt-getting-more-liberal-its-getting-more-libertarian
…
On immigration, Americans are also much more open today. In 1996, only 38 percent opposed further restrictions on immigration; in the 1980s, just 41 percent favored legalization of unauthorized immigrants. In 2013, those numbers were 63 percent and 69 percent, respectively.…..
In the places where there is demand they can be had regardless of whether the bans are strict.
PF: Do a search of average wait times to immigrate legally from various countries to the US. Among many other things. So, yes, absolutely.
ME: You are an excellent politician, answering the question you want to answer. Or maybe I didn’t make my point clear, so let me try again:
Since most support SOME immigration controls, are most people racist, in your opinion?
pf: Moving is no small thing, and if a billion people in one year actually did move here there would be no wage differential, or even jobs of any kind for most of them. It’s an absurd scenario.
me: Ah, no, sorry. In the US there are minimum wage laws. Those wage rates are still much higher than the wage rates in poor nations.
There are also a lot of social welfare programs and policies that other nations don’t have. Yes, a billion is unlikely…millions, maybe not.
pf: Earlier, I made the point that the comparison is specious. A condo building is private property, even if jointly owned. You start by assuming your conclusion, that this is also true of the portions of this continent claimed by the US regime. Most people move into a condo building, and sign an explicit contract. Most people are in the US by virtue of birth, some of us came here as children, and there’s no explicit contract (the constitution is so badly mangled that it’s not a valid substitute). And if the costitution were the contract, it assigns the government a list of powers and imposing immigration quotas is not one of them.
me: Yup, it’s not an explicit contract. It’s an analogy, and I’d say a pretty darned accurate one. We’ll have to agree to disagree about it, then.
pf: In fact, the country did just fine with no immigration quotas until the openly racist immigration quotas were passed in the 1920s; with a virtually unguarded Mexican border until the LBJ years; and with a virtually unguarded Canadian border until the GWB years. This shows that living without migration quotas is eminently possible and can and has been done without billions of people streaming here.
me: Ah, yes, the good old days! Has anything changed since then? Has the welfare state become far more pronounced? Has the world’s population mushroomed? Has there been highly dramatic and disruptive terrorism in the US since then? Have modes of transportation linked more of the world together, making travel generally easier and more affordable?
Making the case for open borders will require changing a lot of minds, which is especially difficult when others recognize that the world has changed a lot in the last 50 years or so.
Even in the LM, I see no evidence that most Ls want open borders. If your position can’t be sold to your fellow travelers, what makes you think you can convince non-Ls of your view?
pf: When there is demand for migration, it will happen, legally or not – labor will find job markets just like goods will find buyers even if they are made contraband. The regime’s outlawing of some drugs has not made them unavailable or reduced the number of users and addicts. Guns find their way to countries which ban them when there’s a demand for them. So do migrants. They just get abused in the process when it’s made illegal.
me: To some extent. Not sure that the demand for guns and drugs is actually lower in places where the bans are stricter, or not. This starts to feel tautological.
Do a search of average wait times to immigrate legally from various countries to the US. Among many other things. So, yes, absolutely.
Moving is no small thing, and if a billion people in one year actually did move here there would be no wage differential, or even jobs of any kind for most of them. It’s an absurd scenario.
Earlier, I made the point that the comparison is specious. A condo building is private property, even if jointly owned. You start by assuming your conclusion, that this is also true of the portions of this continent claimed by the US regime. Most people move into a condo building, and sign an explicit contract. Most people are in the US by virtue of birth, some of us came here as children, and there’s no explicit contract (the constitution is so badly mangled that it’s not a valid substitute). And if the costitution were the contract, it assigns the government a list of powers and imposing immigration quotas is not one of them.
In fact, the country did just fine with no immigration quotas until the openly racist immigration quotas were passed in the 1920s; with a virtually unguarded Mexican border until the LBJ years; and with a virtually unguarded Canadian border until the GWB years. This shows that living without migration quotas is eminently possible and can and has been done without billions of people streaming here.
When there is demand for migration, it will happen, legally or not – labor will find job markets just like goods will find buyers even if they are made contraband. The regime’s outlawing of some drugs has not made them unavailable or reduced the number of users and addicts. Guns find their way to countries which ban them when there’s a demand for them. So do migrants. They just get abused in the process when it’s made illegal.
Whether these quotas are STILL racist…I dunno, do you?
(My guess is that some support quotas for racist reasons, but I suspect most are more concerned with the ability to absorb large numbers of immigrants too quickly, especially the schools and access to medical services. These don’t strike me as hateful and do strike me as reasonable.)
Surely you see the many differences between moving from NY to VT. The wage differentials are in the other direction from, say, most of Central America and the condo association you and I reside in, for starters, a point you yourself made earlier.
Yes, but do I find that likely…no. A million people could choose to move from New York to Vermont in one year, but realistically it won’t happen. Nation of origin quotas were originally created with an explicit, and at that time in no way secret, racist purpose.
pf, you make a good point. It strikes me that quotas might be more reasonable if they were based on an absolute number per year, as a means to allow for a reasonable absorption level.
After all, if 1 billion people tried to enter in one year, that could lead to some significant logistical problems, yes?
Even if this were true, country of origin quotas are a bit like racial quotas as a ceiling rather than a floor, or racially restrictive zoning and the like.
pf: The general will is not necessarily what is expressed through the political powerstructure.
me: Yes, agreed. I’d think that generally most people are supportive of the privilege to immigrate to our condo association, but probably also support some checks on those coming to the US to work and vacation.
Whether Frankelian shock tactics and position are the best way to move the needle toward freer immigration, I dunno. I think it alienates more than attracts…
I’m not a rear view mirror type. Some things have gotten better and others have gotten worse. There were never any good old days.
Maybe, maybe not. There were lynch mobs and witch burners and lords and knights and nobles and revenuers of all sorts looting, raping, pillaging and killing their way all through the pages of history, in every part of the world. And yet there have always been peaceful hobbit-types as well, coexisting and trading and cooperating in good faith and generally able to get along with common law and neighbors helping neighbors – at least until one of these armed gangs sweeps through town. It continues to be that way in many places, such as the developing world and Detroit and many of the hoods and woods in the US, where the military/police always bring extortion and brutality and usually ignore real crimes, while people generally take care of each other and keep instances of real crimes with victims very low whenever these “helpful” and/or nakedly aggressive characters don’t intervene. The general will is not necessarily what is expressed through the political powerstructure.
pf: So, I haven’t signed it, but it’s binding, except it’s not, because actually it doesn’t say what it says or what it was meant to say but whatever the government that it is supposed to restrain and limit says that it says. Sounds about as close to a real contract as the medieval Catholic church (in the days inquisition, crusades, and non-priests punished for reading the Bible, etc.) does to the teachings of Jesus.
me: Yes, it’s all quite exasperating, agreed. I’d like things to be a LOT tidier as well.
OTOH, I’m not sure even Andyland — The Libertarian Zone — would be free of vagueness and hypocrisy. Nonarchy Pods might not even be, even though it would establish states of just one individual. The only difference is that the Podster could not blame his or her woes on someone else.
pf: Yes, there’s an organic common law,
me: Right, and there’s also the general will. As the state has taken on more and more control over our lives, the gap between organic common law and general will has widened.
But before we start pining for the good old days, let’s remember that there has always been some rather massive social dysfunction. Iceland in the year 1000 and maybe the US in the 1870s.
So’s ending the war on undocumented workers and children.
Trump and Christie do us a great favor by stating their policy so bluntly.
In the end the only opinion that matters is that of the voter.
Come the election next year, the people will decide and how these guys do will be the measure of the peoples will.
The people know that ending the drug war is the only way to save us all from the horror that the drug war has forced on Mexico and the whole world.
Yes, there’s an organic common law, which deals mainly with real crimes (not victimless crimes such as crossing imaginary lines). It’s far different from the activities of alphabet soup agencies such as ICE.
See: http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
“So our regime follows the constitution all the time? I don’t think so. In fact we are so far from being bound by it that we can pretty much throw out the idea that it is any kind of working social contract in practice. The regime’s unconstitutional edicts limiting migration with quotas are one of many cases in point.”
Agreed on all points, just saying, that would be the obvious rebuttal to a plea to be able to read “the” social contract.
I don’t think the entire concept of a social contract (or implicit social order, perhaps) is useless. There is a certain Hayekian unwritten rules of society that we do often implicitly, and voluntarily, accept on day-to-day basis, in a way that doesn’t really have to do with justifying government impositions or power. It can, and has, been used at times not just to empower but also to limit government. That might be an argument that appeals more to minarchists than anarchists, but I think it can actually be appreciated by either in the same way that historical Divine Natural Law arguments (e.g. the King is equally beneath God, rights granted by the creator, etc.) can be recognized and even respected for the role they have played, even by non-believers and atheists.
So, I haven’t signed it, but it’s binding, except it’s not, because actually it doesn’t say what it says or what it was meant to say but whatever the government that it is supposed to restrain and limit says that it says. Sounds about as close to a real contract as the medieval Catholic church (in the days inquisition, crusades, and non-priests punished for reading the Bible, etc.) does to the teachings of Jesus.
pf: You’re probably right. We’d have to go back to not trying to pretend that it is in fact anything like our effective “social contract.”
me: Yes, the Constitution is kind of a shimmering shadow. Rather than using the word “contract,” maybe something like “uncodified social order” might work better.
Another often repeated yet bogus claim. If “general welfare” was all-encompassing why bother to list anything else or even have a list of supposedly limiting rules at all?
You’re probably right. We’d have to go back to not trying to pretend that it is in fact anything like our effective “social contract.”
The general will can change. A necessary, and sometimes but not always adequate, condition is pushing for that change to take place.
Exactly, although that has been thrown out the window over the years anyway through the judicial game of telephone.
Only if you torture them in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, or some nameless rendition black site with enhanced interrogation until they become pliant and willing to say whatever you want to avoid more pain.
Exactly, so how can you say that it is some type of social contract which is actually in force? I think the one I link is actually a lot closer to the practical truth. In fact I don’t see what it gets wrong if you want to get into the specifics.
So our regime follows the constitution all the time? I don’t think so. In fact we are so far from being bound by it that we can pretty much throw out the idea that it is any kind of working social contract in practice. The regime’s unconstitutional edicts limiting migration with quotas are one of many cases in point.
Not very relevant to what we want things to be like. If you don’t have a goal you can’t move in its direction, however incrementally.
How would “the public” vocalize and enforce its wishes, except through politicians, bureaucrats, armed agents, courts and jails? It’s a feel good option, but an empty one, even before you consider all the way everything from elections to public opinion is manipulated by small yet organized and/or moneyed interests.
How’s that again? If a willing landlord rents to a willing tenant or a willing employer hires a willing employee or a willing customer buys from a willing seller and the regime and its agents intervene with the private property, are they only enforcing their dubious ownership of “public” property or in effect operating on the even more dubious that all property is at least in part public?
Less.
It doesn’t allow for it at the nation state level either. Migration is neither naturalization nor invasion.
ac, yes, there have been few areas where the federal powers have been limited, agreed. A1, S8 is another open-ended area of the Constitution.
Literalistic and anachronistic readings of the Constitution don’t seem like fertile areas to roll back the state. It might be that completely open borders might be optimal, but I don’t see that as something that is going to happen any time soon, mostly because I don’t sense that that’s where the general will is.
People will read into words what they want them to say…haven’t you noticed?
Literally any law could be claimed to promote “domestic tranquility” then, and there would be no constitutional limits on federal power at all.
That’s not how the Preamble works, anyway. It’s a list of purposes for the Constitution, not powers of the federal government.
“domestic tranquility” and other clauses could be read otherwise.
“I see to recall that the Constitution doesn’t allow for that.”
It doesn’t provide for it internationally, either.
“If asking to have actually signed is too much, can I at least see the contract I supposedly signed?”
That link is amusing, but in the U.S. that contract is written. Federally in the U.S. Constitution, and at the state levels by the state constitutions (local governments being creatures of the states). Thus “We, the People….” etc. That’s the claim, anyway. That a constitution = a written social contract. I sense you wouldn’t agree with its legitimacy, but it is at least available to be read.
pf: I guess you think that’s the way it should be, and perhaps must and always will be, too …
me: No, just calling it as I see it. I suspect most see it that way, too. If you polled the question: Who owns public property? and the answers were:
– The public
– No one
– The president, governors and mayors
The public would probably be the top choice by far.
As for how it always will be, I can’t say. As a matter of speculation, I’m sure many alternatives are possible.
pf: Bear in mind, of course, that the regime’s migration restrictions don’t only apply to unowned or “public” property.
me: Again, I don’t see it that way, and I suspect the vast majority don’t, either.
pf: It doesn’t matter what seems reasonable to you; it’s up to the collective to decide, and you already said so. But, I’d really still like to see the exact contract .. can we nail down some wording here?
me: Hmm, yes, if FL collectively said the state is clothing optional, but Disney World said Visitors must have on schmatta, schmatta, schmatta, I’d be OK with this, as would you, I suspect.
Attempting to codify a social contract seems like not the best use of time to me, nor am I the best candidate to write one. One seems to be more or less in force now, and I have offered up the Nonarchy Pod concept for those who object to the constructive contract.
pf: Also, whether migration should be regulated between states, cities and counties, too.
me: I see to recall that the Constitution doesn’t allow for that.
I guess you think that’s the way it should be, and perhaps must and always will be, too (of course, “by the public” means in practice by the regime and its armed agents, kangaroo korts and police-prison-industrial complex). There’s a name for the ideology of collective ownership; I think it’s collectivism.
Bear in mind, of course, that the regime’s migration restrictions don’t only apply to unowned or “public” property.
It doesn’t matter what seems reasonable to you; it’s up to the collective to decide, and you already said so.
But, I’d really still like to see the exact contract .. can we nail down some wording here?
Also, whether migration should be regulated between states, cities and counties, too.
pf: Is your plumbline that the government should dictate how your hair should be cut, whether you can curse, whether you wear jeans, shorts or a skirt….
me: I don’t have a plumbline. I do my best to describe reality as it is and to the extent I have political views, I’m heavily biased in favor of maximizing individual liberty. I’m humble and honest enough to recognize that I don’t have the Silver Bullet of liberty, and there may well be many means to advance liberty.
Even extremist abolitionism might work, although I’m skeptical.
Reality as it is is that public property is owned collectively by the public. On most public property, the owners require private parts to be covered by clothing when in public. A few apparently have no such requirement. I’m OK with either outcome, but I don’t advocate public nudity rules be relaxed in those places that don’t currently allow it.
Types of clothes seems wildly unreasonable to me, as would hairstyle rules.
Cursing in public is a bit different to me, as it seems threatening for some. I don’t have an opinion as to whether certain words should not be spoken in public by law.
Bummer.
But I don’t think it was much of a problem before that, either.
“San Francisco too, although that may have changed.”
It did, a few years ago.
And before the thread spins further into theoretical fantasyland please let us know what social contract we are supposed to have signed or to sign now. Is http://perspicuity.net/politics/soccont.html agreeable, and if not which parts would change? If asking to have actually signed is too much, can I at least see the contract I supposedly signed?
Is your plumbline that the government should dictate how your hair should be cut, whether you can curse, whether you wear jeans, shorts or a skirt….
Exactly. San Francisco too, although that may have changed.
So you would have due process and trials to force deportations? If so, how much would this cost?
I could, or I could not, but it’s really not relevant since the regime does not just apply its immigration edicts to unowned property.
Perhaps. The most true-to-life attempt I know of to have done so is here:
http://perspicuity.net/politics/soccont.html
I wouldn’t sign; how many here would? And yet if you think about it that is in fact the “social contract” that a lot of people think we should be bound by, even though we never signed.
And meanwhile, back in reality, even if you or someone thinks we should sign that: we haven’t sign jack squat.
How do you square it with assigning the federal government the extensive powers of a co-op board? You don’t have to be a NAPsolutist to see that would be a rather authoritarian system.
BTW, are state, county and municipal government also co-ops of this same nature, and will we have to face similarly restrictie processes when trying to move or travel between them?
“Let’s look at that some more. In effect, that is what borders are…a property line. US citizens own the co-op the United States of America. It’s our property collectively. ”
Wrong. You own your property, I own my property. There is no collective ownership of the U.S.
“You can prance about your crib in your birthday suit, but not down 5th Ave., for ex.”
Why not? Public nudity is legal in Oregon and Vermont, I don’t hear many people there complaining.
pf: all kinds of input and rules about people’s behavior, dress and speech,
me: Have ’em now. You can prance about your crib in your birthday suit, but not down 5th Ave., for ex.
Is the plumbline that prancing naked on public property should be legal?
PF, I would say that the co-op analogy is what the US and most nations are, and for the most part always were, except for monarchies, where the king owned all the property.
The model I point to peels away all the confusion that governs crossing borders, including the due process avoidance the government currently uses to police the borders.
You could say that land inside a border that is not owned by an individual or entity is simply unowned, with no rules around it. That doesn’t work.
Yes, Lysander 😉 , you didn’t sign the contract. Neither did I. Perhaps the constructive contract should be formalized.
Finally, we’ve established that I am not a NAPsolutist, which for many means I am not a L. I’ll continue to use L, though, since I am for maximizing individual liberty and minimizing the state.
1) Where do you derive this notion from?
2) Supposing it were correct, the government, as the co-op governing board, would have a lot more rights than just deciding who enters the country – they could also then have all kinds of input and rules about people’s behavior, dress and speech, ejecting them from the co-op even if they were born there, charging a co-op fee — sounds like applying such a theory would have results that are very authoritarian, not even remotely compatible with libertarianism.
But unlike a co-op or Andy J’s Libertarian Zone concept, the US is not some kind of association that most people enter into voluntarily. Most Americans are still here just because they were born here, and immigrants have not necessarily signed any “contract” either. Arguably naturalized citizens have, but some of us were not old enough to sign a contract legally. So at best you can say people who became naturalized citizens as adults agreed to the oath of citizenship, but that’s a relatively small percent of the population, and it’s not nearly as comprehensive as a co-op contract.
As Andy C. points out not even the US regime legally defines undocumented entry or overstaying as trespass, because then they would have to give people due process (including a trial if need be) to force deportation. I don’t see how your co-op analogy could be even remotely valid, much less libertarian.
ac: But it’s not a property line, and crossing it isn’t trespassing.
me: Let’s look at that some more. In effect, that is what borders are…a property line. US citizens own the co-op the United States of America. It’s our property collectively.
Within that, of course, the idea is that most of the property is owned by individuals, families, or businesses.
Ideally, we would encourage others to visit, to work temporarily, or to immigrate permanently. But to do so, we have some rules that govern all three types of visitations.
Agreed. Not because the border doesn’t have a function- it’s good that the United States and Mexican governments both know and agree where one country ends and the other begins. But it’s not a property line, and crossing it isn’t trespassing.
I just think it’s worth pointing out how overplayed and overstated the “they all committed a crime! they’re all felons!” talking point is, even under the existing laws that purport to prohibit immigration.
Another is that there is no strict constitutional justification for such laws, which weren’t passed until the the 1880s with the first Chinese Exclusion Act. Congress is given a power to define a uniform rule of naturalization- the process whereby a foreigner becomes a citizen. Naturalization is quite distinct from residency, immigration, or mere presence in the country. Congress could, and did, fiddle the dials on how easy or hard becoming a citizen was, long before they started making it illegal for people to come to the United States. Which shows that immigration prohibition laws aren’t a “necessary” adjunct of the naturalization power.
Even if it were a felony under the law, crossing an imaginary line is not wrong. At least, not by any reasonable definition of the word.
Another great point. The migrant bashers are ridiculous and don’t have a leg to stand on.
“Yes they do. In fact 100% of them have committed a crime. Thats what the “illegal” means in illegal immigrant.”
“Improper entry” is a misdemeanor, and that only applies to people who cross the border illegally, not those who enter legally and then overstay a visa and the like, which accounts for half or more of “illegal immigrants.”
“Unlawful presence” isn’t even a misdemeanor- it’s a civil matter, punished by civil, not criminal, penalties. That’s how people can be deported without getting a jury trial and all the other due process of law that you’d get for a criminal prosecution.
Either way, it simply isn’t true as people blithely assert that all “illegal immigrants” are all criminals under the existing law, and even those who did cross the border illegally aren’t felons because of it.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html
True…
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx
“Yes they do. In fact 100% of them have committed a crime. Thats what the “illegal” means in illegal immigrant.”
And 100% of Americans have also violated the law. Ever used someone’s unsecured WiFi? You’ve broken the law. Ever gone over the speed limit? You’ve broken the law. Ever forgotten to use your turn signal? You’ve broken the law. Do you own a permanent marker? Chances are that in doing so, you are in violation of your city’s anti-graffiti ordinance. We all break the law.
Over a thousand shares on FB already. Didn’t see that coming 🙂
True, that’s another part of the symbolism, but then the axe blade that fascists have sticking out of the bundle of fasces represents the power of the state to carry out capital punishment.
Either way, the Marxist regimes in the real world fit this view of fascism in practice, whatever their rhetorical allegiance to socialism (workers owning the means of production – whereas under Marxism in practice it was actually bureaucarts, not workers, who owned those means) or communism (an utopian fantasy in which the state and all class disnctions have faded away, quite unlike the reality of Marxist regimes).
The bundle of sticks was not meant to beat people into submission. It was to represent that while one stick by itself could easily be broken, a bundle of sticks could not be broken so easily.
In many ways all so called communist regimes are fascist. They claim(ed) to actually be socialist, with communism as a goal that they were working towards. In other words communism refers to their professed goals, socialism to their economic system self-identification at the stage they were actually in, and fascist to their methods of maintaining power in practice (naked state terror, as represented by the Roman fasci, bundles of sticks used to beat Romans into submission by their rulers).
Left libertarians just love to call all totalitarian regimes “fascist” because apparently communists just aren’t that bad. Shameful. I guess Castro’s Cuba was/is “fascist” as well!
They were rather fascistic in practice. Communism was a pipe dream that they paid lip service to. No “scientific socialist” regime ever claimed to have actually achieved communism.
“…East German fascist regime …” – George Phillies
Is it really so difficult to call them communist?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/23/why-was-the-border-patrol-union-going-to
Why Was the Border Patrol Union Going to Participate in Donald Trump’s U.S.-Mexico Border Tour?
Should armed agents of the state be able to organize and use their power to influence politics?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/23/rand-pauls-anti-sanctuary-city-bill-valu
Rand Paul’s Anti-Sanctuary City Bill Values Arbitrary Government Rules Over Liberty
Wanting tougher immigration law to prevent possible crimes is like wanting tougher gun laws to prevent possible crimes.
Looks like this post is getting pretty good FB buzz…
Actual crimes, not bullshit regime edicts against victimless “crimes” is what was meant here.
Immigrants, legal or not, don’t commit crimes at any higher rate than we red-blooded Americans do
Yes they do. In fact 100% of them have committed a crime. Thats what the “illegal” means in illegal immigrant.
What we need is a comprehensive reform that deals with border security at the same time deal with undocumented immigrants asap.
We have already wasted more than 15 year’s talking about resolving this huge mess aren’t that way more than enough does it need all those wasted years to solve that issue.
It’s always the border security issue I believe we can do both at the same time it’s not that hard unless it’s an excuse not to solve the undocumented issue at all.
This problem are not going away it’s causing to much pain and suffering to the undocumented plus it’s huge burden on our shoulder we truly need a relief.
Thus it failed in its ultimate objective, which was to keep France from being invaded and overrun by Germany.
The Berlin wall’s ultimate objective was to keep the East German regime from collapsing by keeping people from escaping. Ultimately, the regime did collapse and the wall came down.
The Great Wall of China was supposed to keep the Mongols from invading China, but in the end that too failed. None of these walls achieved their ultimate objective even though they all did provide some temporary “protection” for the regimes that put them up.
As is usually forgotten, the Maginot line was completely successful. It was designed to channelize a German attack so that they would attack elsewhere, which they did. It’s just that when they attacked elsewhere, they won.
Indeed!
I do love the irony that the party of the man who said “tear down this wall” want to build a wall.
It worked in the short run but not in the long run. The Great Wall of China and the Maginot line failed in their ultimate objectives as well.
Mr. Johnson notwithstanding, the depraved Berlin wall and the parallel border fortifications did work for the East Germans. the walls cut the escape rate from a flood to a trickle. Even if the trickle had been ten times as large, that was all that the East German fascist regime needed.