During the first hour of the Libertarian Party presidential forum that aired Friday night on the Fox Business Network, leading Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson admitted that in his view, Jewish bakers should be forced by government to bake wedding cakes for Nazis.
The issue arose when fellow Libertarian presidential candidate Austin Petersen brought to the attention of moderator John Stossel that in an earlier debate in Oregon, Johnson declared that bakeries should be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. Johnson affirmed the position, arguing that being able to discriminate on the basis of religion is a “black hole.” Petersen pushed Johnson on the issue and asked whether he felt Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers. Stossel directed the question to Johnson, who replied “that would be my contention, yes.”
Candidate John McAfee disagreed strongly with Johnson, arguing, “If you’re the only baker in town it may be a problem, but no one is forcing you to buy anything. . . Am I harming you if I don’t sell you something? No. It’s my choice to sell, your choice to buy.”
Petersen commented that Johnson’s position “portrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the free market. You have to allow the marketplace to work. You cannot stamp out bigotry.”
The second hour of the forum will air next week on the Fox Business Network.
Sadly, this does not appear to be an April Fools joke.
Johnson is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with his anti-libertarian answers.
Johnson is sounding like he flunked Libertarianism 101.
Sounds like he’s trying to cater to the Democrats who he’s pulling more of than Republicans… at least according to the poll where was at 11%. 6% from Clinton in that poll. I call pragmatism towards the left. This is why Petersen as VP would balance things out on the ‘Traditionalism/Conservative’ side.
There seems to be a complete video of the debate starting at 26 minutes into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8DnxyZsqLc
The copy at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OpWb979rjs might be better
Liberty 101 fail.
Lol mistyped my own name
Liberty 101 fail
I watched the entire forum and the clip I posted captures the most important exchange. This follows my thesis that Gary Johnson is the PC candidate and not the free speech candidate. With the convoluted line of thinking he displayed in the forum, I could easily see him advocate for “hate speech” and “hate crime” nonsense.
“This is why Petersen as VP”
Dear God. It would be bad enough having one of them on the ticket, let alone both.
I still wonder why anyone would want to buy a cake from someone who so irrationally hates them?
but, I also wonder…
If we had private ownership of roads should some small stretch that served millions suddenly be allowed to be only for left handed, right eye blind … kleptomaniacs?
I will take my answer off the air.
McAfee also seems to imply if the baker is the only baker in town, then maybe the baker should be forced to serve without regard to religious distinction. Of course he’s also suggesting at the same time that there wouldn’t really be one baker in town, usually.
Johnson should’ve realized the leftist position would probably be not to cater to discriminators either, if the real goal is pushing religious discrimination out of the market altogether. At least that would make a good political answer to an exaggerated argument, and how else could someone realistically answer.
But reading between the lines, I think he’s scared of Maddow :O
Pingback: Gary Johnson: Jewish Bakers Should Be Forced to Bake Nazi Cakes | Saturn's Repository
The leftist position, also known as the libertarian position, is that other people aren’t your property, no matter how badly you may want them to bake cakes for you.
My personal take as a radical centrist is that both right-libertarian “purists” as well as Gary Johnson are wrong on this issue.
The question is first whether the use of government force to prevent discrimination by businesses that are defined as “public accommodation” in the Civil Rights Act is a greater initiation of force than what in some cases could be considered an attempt at systemic economic coercion done by the business owner that wishes to discriminate based on assumed association or superficial characteristics. The next question, if the first question is answered that the systemic economic coercion is in fact the initiation of force, and the government intervention is then a response to this – is what are the limits to what a “public accommodation” should rightly be defined to.
Unfortunately the first question would require me to type out a manifesto in order to even begin to address and debate which I don’t have time to do at the moment. However to this less ambiguous second question – I would say a “public accommodation” would be best defined as only the places generally open to the public that vend goods or provide services necessary for daily sustenance, continued health, or that allow for freedom of movement – e.g. grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, pharmacies, medical clinics, hotels, buses, trains, airlines, car rentals, gas stations, automobile repair shops. So the “devils bargain” in the “public accommodation” clause is that the force of government used to make a few individuals have to accept against their will personal discomfort (thus impinging their individual right of self determination) – although it should be noted a force that enables the person being forced to be “uncomfortable” achieving greater economic success – then allows a much broader privilege to all US citizens to be able to purchase the necessities of life and health out of any place in the US open for their sale regardless of only that person’s assumed associations or superficial characteristics (noting that this does NOT apply to that person’s individual behaviors! e.g. a customer being abusive to a businesses’ staff would be still be able to be denied service without this being considered “discrimination”). This way people can neither be “run out of town,” forced into acquiring all necessities from single “company store” that is the only open to them, nor kept from moving through the open roads of the USA through denial of fuel, food or resting places to them.
But I would note – what Gary Johnson seems to miss in defending the basic concept of non-discrimination for “public accommodation” – is that NONE of those vendors or services within that definition are ever required to have to repeat or amplify the SPEECH of a person or group that makes the business owner “uncomfortable.” And in that regard I would say having government force a baker to have to add decorative messages that are offensive to does cross the line of what is a rightful “public accommodation”. So yes – the baker must sell a cake to any that come in, if they in fact have a business whose doors is open to the general public for the purpose of selling cakes – but no, they should not be forced to “participate” in SPEECH they find offensive to themselves. The same metric would go to wedding photographers – this profession is not needed for the daily sustenance or continued health or freedom of movement to anybody – so it would not really be a “public accommodation” that would be required to operate under anti-discrimination laws.
As far as “free market” would solve problems of discrimination in the market place – it seems very few touting market responses as the sole response ever ask them why these solutions often did not effect the elimination of discrimination in areas where it happened historically – and that is because often the owners of both parts of “separate but equal” facilities were in fact the same people – so that they were not ever losing out on business with the arrangement but instead were actually able to charge more for less quality service to the minorities being targeted for discrimination – and also noting that even in cases where there were minority owners for the “separate but equal” retailers that they ended up being given much higher rates for their goods by wholesalers also owned by those people who were effecting a targeted economic coercion.
Re: hate crimes: Johnson pointed out that as governor he vetoed hate crimes legislation.
Re: market discrimination: Johnson stumbled toward redemption by citing the example of a private utility monopoly (electricity, water) that discriminates against gays etc. If he’s a minarchist who believes local government should regulate physical-network monopolies (streets, pipes, wires), then he should realize that libertarians can oppose government discrimination while not outlawing discrimination in private market transactions.
Then Johnson stumbled away from redemption by saying he would “be hard-pressed to sign” a law mandating that women get equal pay for equal work — but only because he supports the concept but “the devil is in the details” about how to implement it. Sigh.
@Thomas Knapp
Alright, that is the libertarian position, but when I said leftist I do refer to whichever group Johnson was attempting to indulge. You may call it what you wish.
@Steve Berson
That’s a brilliant defense of Title II.
Johnson affirmed the position, arguing that being able to discriminate on the basis of religion is a “black hole.”
On the contrary, the real “black hole” is the PC egalitarianism that Johnson seems to have embraced. Once you abandon the notion of individual sovereignty (or self-ownership, if you prefer), you quickly find yourself on a slippery slope that leads straight to the kind of tyrannical government that Johnson claims to oppose.
“The leftist position, also known as the libertarian position, is that other people aren’t your property, no matter how badly you may want them to bake cakes for you.”
That may have been the “leftist position” 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago, but they have evolved since then. These days, they think that individuals are the property of the collective. (Even if they are smart enough not to openly admit that belief.).
I voted for Wrights in each round of voting in ’12 because he was more in tune with libertarian philosophy, more pure, but I was happy with Johnson. This time around, however, I’m left supporting him less and less each time I see him speak. Has he always been this bad and I am just noticing or is he in a downward spiral? In Vegas he at least had the wisdom to refer to the Fair Tax as the Less Unfair Tax by Day 2 of the convention. Now he’s blustering and wrong on so many different issues.
“. Has he always been this bad and I am just noticing or is he in a downward spiral?”
These flaws with Johnson have been there from the beginning. More people are just starting to notice them now.
” In Vegas he at least had the wisdom to refer to the Fair Tax as the Less Unfair Tax by Day 2 of the convention.”
He may have said this back then, but now here we are almost 4 years later, and he is still supporting the Fair Tax, even though multiple Libertarians have called him out about this.
Johnson’s position on this issue is inline with modern day people who identify as being on the left, and it is NOT a libertarian stance, and I really don’t see how this is even debatable.
The only way I could see forcing somebody to provide a service would be if it is a government employee, or perhaps a business that is heavily subsidized by government.
Other than these exceptions, there is no way in hell that anyone should be forced to provide a good or service to somebody. If a person does not want to bake a cake for you, or rent out their banquet room to you, or rent an apartment to you, for whatever reason, that is their right, and if you don’t like it, go elsewhere.
This is called freedom of association, and Gary Johnson apparently does not get it.
My personal take as a radical centrist is that both right-libertarian “purists” as well as Gary Johnson are wrong on this issue.
“Right libertarian purist” is an oxymoron. Within the context of libertarianism, “right” and “left” are defined by the situations in which people find the use of aggression to be acceptable. That is to say, the situations in which they deviate from “purist” libertarianism. Therefore, a “purist” libertarian, by definition, is neither left nor right.
As for your attempt to argue that discrimination should not be allowed when it impedes access to that which you regard as “necessary” to survival, surely you would agree with me that physical intimacy is more important to survival than eating cake. If so, do you then hold that prostitutes should be unable to “discriminate” with regard to who they choose to have sex with, and instead, must simply acquiesce to any potential “customer” who demands their services?
This is complete bullshit.
An Illinois inn was fined $80,000 for refusing to host a gay civil union ceremony
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-illinois-inn-fined-for-refusing-to-host-gay-civil-union-ceremony-2016-3
Brian Holtz said: “Then Johnson stumbled away from redemption by saying he would ‘be hard-pressed to sign’ a law mandating that women get equal pay for equal work — but only because he supports the concept but ‘the devil is in the details’ about how to implement it. Sigh.”
Yeah, the devil is apparently in the details for Johnson when it comes to understanding basic economics.
“Thomas Knapp
April 2, 2016 at 01:10
‘This is why Petersen as VP’
Dear God. It would be bad enough having one of them on the ticket, let alone both.”
Agreed.
“This is called freedom of association, and Gary Johnson apparently does not get it.”
McAfee would not get it either, so he takes a non-purist but still Jeffersonian stance, calling for governmental intervention in the case of monopoly.
In this age it is difficult to say that more harm is initiated by a racist business than by imposed restrictions, since they have little influence and there are now many other options, except in certain cases like higher education. Ultimately I don’t think Johnson should have engaged in this specific debate, over cake of all things.
That he is not a purist, to me at least, suggests that he is able to differentiate, and to potentially be more capable of processing (rationally) which things necessitate action, and inaction, on his part as president.
Granted we are wary of that because it could imply being less principled, and we have seen the effects of that on politicians. But no one thinks Johnson is as unprincipled as Clinton, for example.
Stances on foreign policy and civil liberties should supersede the inhibitions one may have of him taking the majority view on civil rights.
langa –
Heehee – well I can see your argument regarding cake – but at that point we end up getting into diving into the weeds separating specific food products as to whether they are “necessary” or not – which is the start of absurd complexity in law and its enforcement (the exact ingredients into cronyism). Again – I would say the forcing of some individuals into both discomfort
Anyhoo – obviously a prostitute is not performing what can be considered a “public accommodation” within the stricter limits of its original definitions – it is not vending a product or service truly needing for your survival (such as emergency medical treatment as best example) or freedom of movement. You will not die from not being able to have sex with someone else – and masturbation can certainly work towards fixing being “distracted to death” – but given a town which decides not to allow you the ability to purchase food, medicine or the means of transportation away from them – I’d say that an essential liberty is actually protected by government intervening against such economic coercions.
Regarding “right” versus “left” libertarians – historically there HAS been a difference between these factions – e.g. Proudhon vs. Rothbard – and that is in the attitude towards “deeded capital”. A so called “right-libertarian” could likely maintain that a natural resource may have an “owner” and will ignore hundreds of years of state-backed coercions that were needed to achieve the current status quo of who holds “deeds” (a government enforced paradigm – with the status quo of property ownership being yet another “social contract” which no one has actually signed) – where as a left-libertarian might question these arrangements.
whoops – incomplete sentence above completed
“Again – I would say the forcing of some individuals into both discomfort and greater economic success – discomfort they may choose to completely avoid by choosing professions other than those that fall within the realm of “public accommodation” – is less of an initiation of force than the systemic violence pushed by apartheid societies”
I will grant though that anti-discrimination laws can pose a “slippery slope” against individual rights – and that they are being prosecuted to absurd levels that cross what I believe are the rightful limits of a what a “public accommodation” should be defined as.
“Election Addict
April 2, 2016 at 03:16
‘This is called freedom of association, and Gary Johnson apparently does not get it.’
McAfee would not get it either, so he takes a non-purist but still Jeffersonian stance, calling for governmental intervention in the case of monopoly.”
Monopolies are generally imposed by government.
Let’s say that a Walmart bakery decided that they did not want to serve gays. I could actually see an argument in forcing them to serve gays, because Walmart is heavily subsidized by government (ie-corporate welfare, plus Walmart actually sends their employees to government welfare offices, and they are also the number one recipient of food stamps in the country), and lots of Walmart stores are built on land that was seized through eminent domain, or was given to Walmart by local governments. Also, government entities own lots of stock in Walmart. The last time I checked (which was a few years ago), the California State Employees Pension Fund (CALPERS – http://www.CALPERS.gov ) owned around $1 billion dollars worth of Walmart stock, as did the California Public School Teachers pension fund. The Illinois State Investment Board owned like $1 billion worth of Walmart stock. The University of Arkansas was a major share holder in Walmart, and I’m sure there are a lot more government entities that own a stake in Walmart.
So given these facts, I would not consider Walmart to be a true private entity, so I could see forcing Walmart to bake cakes for gays. However, a true private business or individual should not be forced to bake cakes or to provide any other good or service to anyone.
That’s a good example and I can see that as a reasonable implementation in alignment with that ideology, or the general idea of protecting individual rights. Certain services I would differ on, because any society or group would ultimately follow Edmond Burke’s notion that people should be free to do what they should, not exactly to do anything they want without regard to other people’s welfare, and that includes helping people out when they need it without regard for classifications like religion. A governmental imposition of that, within limits, merely cements what people would decide anyway.
“Monopolies are generally imposed by the government.”
Often to provide needed services by providing needed services to people who couldn’t afford them.
I guess I’m not convinced that market intervention goes hand in hand with privileging business, and actually the Civil Rights Act proves the point.
*scratch one of the “providing needed services”
Election Addict said: “Often to provide needed services by providing needed services to people who couldn’t afford them.”
Well, this is what the government claims.
My talking points on this issue might go something like this:
Discrimination is a third-rail-type question. Let’s be clear: There is an expectation that businesses that present themselves as “open to the public” will serve people regardless of their skin color, creed, and sexual orientation.
We are past the days when it’s acceptable to have “separate but equal” services. I’m happy that we no longer live in a nation where restaurants have signs saying “We Serve Whites Only.”
It’s a distraction to get hung up on issues like wedding cakes for same-gender marriages. My suggestion to bakers who find such marriages offensive to say to their potential customers: “Look, I’ll take your money, but the truth is I don’t believe in same-sex marriages. I can refer you to bakers who would be more appropriate to the task.”
Now, if I were a baker, you can be sure that I would bake your wedding cake with the same love that I would for a hetero couple.
Should the baker be forced to bake the same-sex wedding cake? Ideally, probably not. Frankly, I consider this to not be a relevant question for the office of president of the United States. I am happy that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of marriage equality. Like any social change, it’ll take some time to fully sort this all out.
I’d rather spend time here talking about the major issues that confront this nation. Restoring fiscal sanity, bringing the troops home, ending the alarming incarceration rates in America…these are the great issues of our time.
“I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.” — Tolstoy
“robert capozzi
April 2, 2016 at 04:31
My talking points on this issue might go something like this:”
Robert Capozzi for President?
Here is how a free society would handle a bake shop that did not want to serve gays:
1) Gays could take their business to another bake shop.
2) Gays could protest the bake shop that does not serve gays, and/or they could post negative comments about the bake shop online, and let people know that this bake shop is run by anti-gay bigots.
Both of these actions would be perfecting inline with libertarian ideology.
What is NOT inline with libertarian ideology is to go running to the government to get them to get them to fine, or threaten to fine, bake shops (or other private businesses) that do not serve gays.
“s would be perfecting”
Should read, “would be perfectly…”
AJ, no, I offer those talking points to any candidate to use, riff off of, or disregard. It’s highly unlikely I will ever run for any office. I’m WAAAAAY too radical. 😉
…we end up getting into diving into the weeds separating specific food products as to whether they are “necessary” or not – which is the start of absurd complexity in law and its enforcement…
This was part of my point above about the “black hole” of egalitarianism. Once you decide that there are certain situations where it is legitimate to use violence to force people to act as slaves, who gets to decide which situations qualify?
…given a town which decides not to allow you the ability to purchase food, medicine or the means of transportation away from them…
Well, in such a situation (which I don’t believe has ever existed), who would be the catalyst for passing anti-discrimination laws in the first place? To put it another way, if you live in a town where most of the stores won’t sell to gays (or blacks, or whomever), and that fact bothers you, instead of marshaling your resources to agitate for anti-discrimination laws, why not use those resources to open your own stores that will sell to those groups? You’ll not only fight discrimination, you’ll likely turn a nice profit to boot.
Regarding “right” versus “left” libertarians – historically there HAS been a difference between these factions – e.g. Proudhon vs. Rothbard – and that is in the attitude towards “deeded capital”. A so called “right-libertarian” could likely maintain that a natural resource may have an “owner” and will ignore hundreds of years of state-backed coercions that were needed to achieve the current status quo of who holds “deeds” (a government enforced paradigm – with the status quo of property ownership being yet another “social contract” which no one has actually signed) – where as a left-libertarian might question these arrangements.
I wouldn’t consider Rothbard to be a “right” libertarian. On those rare occasions that he (in my opinion) deviated from pure libertarianism, he did so about equally to the left as to the right. I will grant that one of his proteges, Hans Hoppe, is a good example of a right libertarian, but only insofar as he deviates from pure libertarianism (e.g. his views on immigration).
In any case, I think most libertarians would agree that most property titles are, in fact, problematic, in the sense that almost all property has, at some point, been transferred illegitimately. The difference between libertarians and leftists is that libertarians don’t think there is any way to solve that problem. There is simply no way to go back and untangle all the webs to discover who “really” owns what. Given that, the left’s solution (the welfare state) produces a distribution just as arbitrary and capricious as that of the status quo. Put simply, we cannot right the wrongs of the past by having government arbitrarily redistribute wealth in the pursuit of a chimerical egalitarianism.
Is it possible that a business that discriminates against people for their skin color, gender, creed, or sexual orientation are defrauding the public?
The Republican Johnson isn’t Republican enough for a certain wing of the LP. I guess Peterson is trying to “win” that block. Which Republican is it going to be in 2016, LP?
“Is it possible that a business that discriminates against people for their skin color, gender, creed, or sexual orientation are defrauding the public?”
First take: Sure, it’s possible. And it’s possible that they’re running a double set of books, and that the manager is schtupping one of the cashiers back in the stock room, and that their goods are overpriced, etc. But none of those things, including “defrauding the public,” are the same thing as discriminating against people for [insert characteristic here].”
Second take: Most stores used to have (and I think some still do) notices posted on the sign with their hours, etc., that “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” So no, it’s not fraud to then exercise that reserved right. The would-be customer knew coming in that that could happen.
Third take: There’s no such thing as “the public” in the sense of an entity that can be defrauded.Even if what you describe as fraud is in fact fraud, it only defrauds specific individuals (people who expect to be welcomed as customers but aren’t).
The 4th debater, NOTA, took the proper position.
I see NOTA winning the 1st round of voting at the convention. At least Libertarians never assimilated brokered from the Elephant.
A real shame Perry wasn’t there.
Yes, it’s a shame that Perry wasn’t there.
I’m guessing that most of the national convention delegates watched (or DVRed and WILL watch) this debate. I’m also guessing, based on experience that most of those delegates don’t spend a lot of time e.g. reading IPR or similar sites and agonizing over their candidate choices. So this will likely affect their votes in Orlando.
To the extent that that’s true, I’d say that Johnson lost a lot of support, that McAfee picked up some, and that Petersen picked up a little.
Johnson’s strength AND weakness is that Libertarians know who he is and have nominated him before. That means that absent some really big positive deal, he started out at his peak of support and has nowhere to go but down. If he doesn’t have 50%+ support on the first ballot, he’s going to lose, not gain, on subsequent ballots. And I don’t think he’s going to have 50%+ support on the first ballot.
tk: Most stores used to have (and I think some still do) notices posted on the sign with their hours, etc., that “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
me: I’ve seen those signs, but I have not seen one is ages.
Something I realized in breaking out of the Randian/Rothbardian cult is that ALL law is a form of social engineering. That is, there is no law in a state of nature.
At this point, there seems to be a difference between an open-to-the-public business and a members-only club. A business is open to everyone, with reasonable restrictions: e.g., No shoes/No service.
Strikes me that if the KKK wants to start a club, and to exclude blacks, Latinos, gays, and Jews, I think that’s a sick impulse, but I don’t think they should be banned. If a KKK member wants to start a business that excludes those subsets of the public, I’d call that a form of fraud. Blacks, Latinos, gays, and Jews are members of the public.
How that should be addressed legally is another matter.
Bob,
What is it about opening a business that inherently constitutes some kind of social contract obligating the business owner to act as a slave of any and all members of “the public” who happen to be in the mood to invoke said contract?
“Strikes me that if the KKK wants to start a club, and to exclude blacks, Latinos, gays, and Jews, I think that’s a sick impulse, but I don’t think they should be banned.”
What about the United Negro College Fund? What about all of the other various organizations that are only for blacks, Latinos, gays, Jews, etc…?
“If a KKK member wants to start a business that excludes those subsets of the public, I’d call that a form of fraud. Blacks, Latinos, gays, and Jews are members of the public.”
How in the hell is that fraud? If a person does not want to serve/do business with somebody, they should have that right.
Also, why would anyone want to do business with somebody who does not want to do business with them?
“Dear God. It would be bad enough having one of them on the ticket, let alone both.”
Says the guys who has no fucking clue how to win an election.
“Says the guys who has no fucking clue how to win an election.”
I suspect I’ve won more elections than you, since the number of elections I’ve won is in excess of zero.
An argument can be made that since we all pay taxes and we all receive some form of government services, and this especially applies to roads, then no one has a right to discriminate against anyone since that person suffering from the discrimination paid a tax to support that government service the discriminator uses. While I do not agree with this I have heard it frequently in the past.
I will add that bringing up this issue is a waste of time but as the song says suicide is painless.
I have also won elections of various sorts. Including one run by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
aj: How in the hell is that fraud? If a person does not want to serve/do business with somebody, they should have that right.
me: It’s a “fraud” because in this time and this place, “business” means “open to the public.”
If a hater wants to set up a hater members-only club, that’s a different matter.
I read the article hoping I could get some insight about what was said at last night’s debate; but sadly, it’s just Petersen doubling down on the “cake” thing at the Oregon debate last week. Since he revive that conversation, I suppose I’m allowed to re-ask the question I asked him, not only in the Oregon thread here, but on his facebook page, which he still hasn’t asked:
Mr. Petersen: in your campaign against the non-aggression principle, you’ve said a President has to “enforce the laws” even if it means violating the NAP. You’ve apparently flip-flopped, or made an exception: you say you will refuse to enforce non-discrimination laws against gays, in the name of “religious liberty and private property rights”.
So what about the non-discrimination titles in the Civil Rights Act, which make it illegal for white people to keep coloured people out of their stores, motels, and restaurants? Would you enforce those, or not?
What is really interesting here is that Petersen knows or should know, that this is a problem for Libertarians with the public but he brings it up to use against Johnson. Tells me where AP’s brain is at.
Assuredly, antidiscrimination laws for items paid for with tax dollars, like roads, schools, public utilities, student athletic teams, ballot boxes, … are totally appropriate. I cheer when I recall Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy sending in the Army to desegregate schools, not to mention President Johnson sending in Federal registrars of voters. To borrow from President Reagan: “Son, we paid for those things with our tax dollars.”
It is the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the land. Of course, when there are contradictory laws, he must do something unnatural, namely thinking, but the President is stuck enforcing the laws. And ordering the Attorney General to perform her duty to defend the Constitution by litigating against UnConstitutional laws.
This is only a problem with some Libertarians.
tk: What is it about opening a business that inherently constitutes some kind of social contract obligating the business owner to act as a slave of any and all members of “the public” who happen to be in the mood to invoke said contract?
me: Oh, I would not say it is “inherent.”
I’m looking at this differently, with fresh eyes. If you walked up to a business that gave all indications was “open to the public,” but when you got to the door, you saw a sign saying “We Serve Only White People.”
You’d probably react as I would: With revulsion.
I’m suggesting a different paradigm, which simply says, “For all intents and purposes,” this is not a “business” in the contemporary meaning of the word.
Yes, I would act as you do, with revulsion.
I would not consider my revulsion a license for myself or anyone else to enslave the business owners, though.
@langa –
I posted:
“…given a town which decides not to allow you the ability to purchase food, medicine or the means of transportation away from them…”
to which you responded”
“Well, in such a situation (which I don’t believe has ever existed),”
To which I say: Are you f’in kidding me???? It existed in tons of places in THIS nation – and not so long ago. e.g. Mining towns where everything was owned by the company and outside union organizers would be greeted with denial of service everywhere they went during the day and beat downs by Pinkerton rent-a-cops at night; by black travelers who would have to take extra gasoline, food and sleep in their cars to get through certain stretches of what were supposed to be public roads, and if ran out of gas in certain places would first face denial of service and then arrest and fines for loitering; cases of black people with critical injuries losing their lives as they were shuttled by ambulances to farther away and lower quality facilities that would accept blacks instead of the closest ones; for non-whites applying for business and home loans who would be “red lined” and denied the tools to own property and open competing businesses that whites were granted; – over and over and over – and that’s barely scratching the surface.
Anyhoo – if it wasn’t clear I agree that anti-discrimination laws can indeed go down the “slippery slope” towards truly impinging on individual rights to freedom association and self determination of non-violent behaviors – however once again I have to say that IF kept within the limitation of what is truly a “public accommodation” (of which emergency medical services represents to me the most valid example that I would hope even the most ardent libertarian absolutist would see as valid for a minimal government to prevent discrimination from happening in) – and NOT let it cross over into forcing people into “participating” in behaviors they do not approve of (such as having to repeat or aid in the dissemination of speech they do not agree with) – then it actually promotes a gigantic freedom and security for all US citizens – and that is the knowledge that one may acquire the goods and services needed for your own freedom of movement, continued health and daily sustenance regardless of what open to the public store or medical facility you happen to walk into for these. The cost to individual rights in that case is solely “discomfort” – completely avoidable by choosing not to engage in being employed in specific retail or medical occupations – but that price of “discomfort” is rewarded back by “forcing” someone to have greater economic rewards as well.
I know some will consider this an “authoritarian” or “statist” stance – however I still stand that in the cases where we are talking about a response to systemic violence of targeted economic coercion – that it is in fact a rightful role of even a strictly limited government.
Being open for business does not, and should not, mean being open for business for anyone, with no discretion from the business owner (assuming it is an actual private business, unlike Walmart from my example above).
Andy –
I agree with you in good part – however I believe greater liberty for a society in sum total is achieved when places that are specifically “public accommodation” the rightful reasons for denial of service are for things pertaining to specific abusive behavior of the potential customer and not pertaining to assumed association or superficial characteristics.
A hospital being able to legally deny emergency medical care based on race does not seem like a paradigm that we should return to, in my humble (“statist”) opinion.
“What is NOT inline with libertarian ideology is to go running to the government to get them to get them to fine, or threaten to fine, bake shops (or other private businesses) that do not serve gays.”
Absolutely correct. I looked in to the (for me) nearby case of the (now closed) Gresham Oregon bakery that wouldn’t bake cakes for same-sex weddings, “Sweet Cakes by Melissa”, http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/. My objection to this legal case hinges on the Oregon law that bars discrimination for reasons of “sexual orientation”. Problem is, the government (and all the activists) were misinterpreting the law.
Counter-example: Suppose two heterosexual men come into the store, asking for a cake for their upcoming wedding. Presumably, the store would refuse: The fact that the men claimed to be heterosexual wouldn’t matter; the issue for the store is that it’s a same-sex wedding. Similarly, if two heterosexual women come into the store, they get refused despite the fact they are heterosexual.
Now imagine a gay man and a lesbian woman come into the store, wanting a cake to get married. Would the store agree? If the store was genuinely discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation”, clearly the store should refuse, because both of these customers are avowed homosexuals. But it’s a cake for an opposite-sex wedding. so I think that the store would have agreed to this.
Conclusion? Contrary to the mis-application of the law, the bakery wasn’t discriminating on the basis of “sexual orientation”; they were, as they claimed, discriminating on the basis of a same-sex wedding. Which is not quite the same thing.
You may challenge this, asking why two heterosexual men (or women) would want to enter into a same-sex marriage. There is a good and practical reason. Imagine some old dying billionaire wanted to stiff the government out of death taxes. He has a son; he marries that son, and after a suitable period he divorces that son, with the divorce settlement being untaxed. So money is transferred to his son, tax-free. The process could be repeated with other sons, and perhaps a cooperating ex-wife marrying daughters, resulting in a large fraction of the wealth being transferred, tax-free, down a generation.
If the government objects, it can be pointed out that such an old dying billionaire could easily marry an 18-year old person (unrelated) to achieve the same tax-free estate treatment.
If there’s the objection that people who are familialy (and genetically) close (a father and a son) should not be able to marry, the obvious answer that laws prohibiting close marriages were clearly intended to avoid genetic defects due to interbreeding. A father and his son will certainly not breed, so to apply such laws to them would be contrary to their original reason to be.
I have always taken the position that if one is in business to serve the public, then one serves ALL the public, no matter how reprehensible a customer’s beliefs or request may be.
“I have always taken the position that if one is in business to serve the public, then one serves ALL the public, no matter how reprehensible a customer’s beliefs or request may be.”
Well, then you’re simply wrong, from the standpoint of government interference. You are certainly entitled to start a business, and follow that practice, but don’t expect other people to agree with this for their own businesses. A company doesn’t “serve the public”, it serves customers. Those customers have a choice as to which business to deal with; To me, that means that businesses ought to have the same right to decide which customers to deal with.
Governments might be thought of as businesses where the customers (citizens) don’t have the right to refuse to do business with them; that’s one reason the rules should be correspondingly different for government.
langa said: “Hans Hoppe, is a good example of a right libertarian, but only insofar as he deviates from pure libertarianism (e.g. his views on immigration).”
Hans Herman Hoppe’s view on this issue is that land currently held and/or controlled by government should be privatized, and that the market should determine who can immigrate where, as in it would be up to land owners, and/or neighborhood associations as to set their own policies about who can enter where. Some may chose to have very open policies about who enters their land, while others would set more restrictive policies.
This does not deviate from pure libertarianism, as this is what would happen in a pure libertarian society (where there would also be no welfare state, and no means by which to vote other people’s rights away).
Where Hoppe deviates from libertarianism (of any kind, “pure” or not) is where he holds that until such time as the end state he desires exists, we should PRETEND that the state acts as our delegated manager of “public” properties and have it enforce the entry policies that he has decided we should all want.
Steven Berson said: “A hospital being able to legally deny emergency medical care based on race does not seem like a paradigm that we should return to, in my humble (‘statist’) opinion.”
Hospitals in this country are heavily subsidized by taxes. Hospitals also receive lots of money by charity.
I agree that it would be crappy for a hospital to turn somebody away on the basis of race, or ethnicity, or something else like this, and this could happen, but I do not think that it is necessary to turn to a coercive government for a solution to this problem. I think that market incentives to not turn people away (from getting negative publicity, to the hospital wanting to make more money, and to receive more charitable contributions). would be strong incentives for hospitals to not turn people away.
This reminds me of the following quote from Thomas Jefferson: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery .”
“Thomas L. Knapp
April 2, 2016 at 16:25
Where Hoppe deviates from libertarianism (of any kind, ‘pure’ or not) is where he holds that until such time as the end state he desires exists, we should PRETEND that the state acts as our delegated manager of ‘public’ properties and have it enforce the entry policies that he has decided we should all want.”
I disagree, and I’d say that it is “open the borders right now, consequences be damned” libertarians who are the ones who are deviating from libertarian purism.
I provided numerous documented examples on other threads here which NOBODY has been able to provide a rebuttal about how present day immigration has led to expansion of the welfare state, as well as a demographic shift which is far less likely to support gun rights than a traditional white European American population which goes back to the American Revolution and the pioneer days. This might sounds “mean” or “politically incorrect,” but it is also true, and survey after survey after survey proves this. Remember, I am talking about averages here. There are certainly exceptions to what is the average (like Chinese immigrant Lily Tang; 80% of Asians in surveys support more gun control laws, but Lily is one of the 20% who does not).
A radical shift in demographics, along with a welfare state, and a political agenda to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, is a recipe for disaster. It would be one thing if everyone entering the country were some kind of libertarian or constitutionalist, but this is far from reality.
Yes, you’ve provided numerous collectivist statistical claims about groups.
Statistical claims about GROUPS, whether they’re accurate or not, do not trump the rights of INDIVIDUALS.
Or at least they don’t in anything resembling a libertarian theory.
This video hits the nail on the head. Libertarianism SHOULD NOT BE A SUICIDE PACT. Bringing in unlimited numbers of foreign born socialists, communists, and theocrats does not expand individual liberty, it does the opposite if anything.
Libertarianism Is Not A Suicide Pact
” as well as a demographic shift which is far less likely to support gun rights than a traditional white European American population which goes back to the American Revolution and the pioneer days. ”
Just to be clear here, I am aware of the fact that many Europeans today are gun grabbing socialists (probably the majority of them unfortunately), and I am also aware of the fact that there are lots of white Americans who hold all kinds of stupid political views (and even a lot of the ones who are pro-gun rights are bad on some other issues), and that there are white “liberals” who are completely worthless when it comes to gun rights.
I am talking about averages here. There are pro-gun rights people in this country who are not white, and/or are not connected to the traditional American gun rights culture, but still support gun rights, and this is great. I am glad these people are out there, and I wish more were like them on this issue.
I consider the right to keep and bear arms to be one of the most important issues, certainly in the top 3 issues, and quite possibly the #1 most important issue. If we lose gun rights, we could very easily lose everything else. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the few things that has been holding the government back from making things worse than they would be otherwise.
So if all of the data compiled indicates that the only demographic in this country that has a majority support for gun rights is white Americans, and if the only demographic that has a super-majority support for gun rights (beyond self identified libertarians and constitutionalists, which is a very small minority of the population), are white Americans who’d be labeled as rednecks/hicks/hillbillies/cowboys, and there is a radical shift in demographics, primarily as a result of mass immigration (or more accurately, statist migration), and the new population of “Americans” who have come in as a result of (statist) mass migration policies has a super-majority view that does NOT support the right to keep and bear arms, I’d call this cause for alarm.
What happens to gun rights in this country when the pro-gun rights supporters become such a minority of the population that they are easily outvoted? This is the direction in which current demographic trends are headed. Should pro-gun rights supporters not be alarmed by this demographic trend (which, in addition to immigrants, includes more people living in urban areas, and more children being raised by single mothers, with less fathers around to take the kids hunting and target shooting, so less children are being taught the pro-gun right culture, since the pro-gun rights tradition has usually been handed down by fathers)?
You can spam this thread with that stuff all you like, just as you do with every other thread where the subject comes up. No amount of thread spamming will magically turn authoritarianism into libertarianism.
Jim Burns has a useful review on Youtube of the Part 1 Libertarian debate.
“You can spam this thread with that stuff all you like, just as you do with every other thread where the subject comes up. No amount of thread spamming will magically turn authoritarianism into libertarianism.”
You need to actually address the issues that Andy is raising. The entire concept of “private property” is based on the idea that people should be able to control who enters his property, and what they do there. While the analogy is admittedly imperfect, in theory government is supposed to represent the interests of the public, and certainly against foreigners. That obligation is severely thwarted when you take the position that just anyone can enter the country, and even more, can begin to vote, diluting the say previously held by the individuals called “citizens”.
Andy is quite right: Libertarianism isn’t a suicide pact. Or if you really think it is, you should say so explicitly.
Jim,
No, I don’t have to address the “issues” Andy “raises.”
All I have to do is point out that the Hoppean approach to those “issues” that he seems to endorse is authoritarian, not libertarian.
That’s not to say it’s wrong — whether it’s right or wrong is an entirely different argument. If he thinks authoritarianism is better than libertarianism, he should just say so.
George,
could you provide a link?
“All I have to do is point out that the Hoppean approach to those “issues” that he seems to endorse is authoritarian, not libertarian.”
The entire concept of private property is that people are deemed to have “authority” over their own property, control that all other people don’t have. The diametrically opposite position is that all property is owned by the collective. In the latter view, taken to the extreme, no individuals have any authority whatsoever, it’s only what the public wants. But there’s also a question of who that “public” actually is: Is it 320 million residents of America, or 7+ billion residents of the Earth.
Now, the current America is at neither of these two extremes…yet. But unless you believe that all 7 billion people on Earth are somehow entitled to vote in American elections, you have implicitly agreed that there are certain proper limits to who may decide for a given piece of property, at least based on geography. And if you concede that citizens should be entitled to vote, and non-citizens shouldn’t be allowed to vote, you’ve agreed to yet another restriction.
(It isn’t clear from current law that illegal aliens should be denied the opportuntiy to vote in elections, at least state and local ones. If a given state’s laws or constitution allow illegals to vote, should the people of different states have a legitimate, legal objection to this? Federal elections may operate under different rules.)
Should 51% of the population of a given geographic reason (or 51% of their elected representatives) be entited to decide to exclude others, either physically or their right to vote? It sounds like you disagree. But how do we decide which is correct?
You’ve got your straw man all tangled up in your non sequitur there. I haven’t even MENTIONED voting.
What I’ve mentioned is the fundamental dishonesty of pretending that by restricting peaceful travel over the lands and roads it illicitly controls, the state is acting as some kind of legitimate manager on behalf of the property rights of “the public.”
It’s not doing so, nor is there any way it COULD do so, because “the public” has no opinion on the matter. Collectives don’t have opinions. Individuals do.
Furthermore, Hoppe’s prediction of outcomes in pretty strange.
Yes, in a free society, all property would be privately owned. Including the roads.
And in that case, each Mexican wanting to travel from Juarez to Arkansas to pluck chickens for Tyson would probably be a lot more willing to pay a toll to the road owner for the ability to travel over it than all the people who say they don’t want Mexicans traveling from Juarez to Arkansas would be to pay the road owner some kind of extra fee to get him to exclude all Mexicans.
Hoppe’s idea that people who think what other people do is any of their fucking business are actually willing to pay the price of having their desires implemented is a fantasy. People who think what other people do is any of their fucking business inevitably expect those other people to pick up the cost of obeying the busybodies, generally with the state as middleman.
Jim and Andy make some very good points. Tom is living in a fantasy world. Whether we like it or not, people enter the country, become citizens and begin to have voting rights that they can use to take away our rights. This is a problem if the people coming in want to take away our rights. Given that the state is not going away anytime soon, to control this problem, you must either get rid of the welfare state that is driving immigration or crack down on immigration itself.
William,
Do you even know how many foreigners become citizens each year? In a BIG year, about 1/5th of 1% of the current population. Usually about half that.
Someone’s living in a fantasy world — a paranoid fantasy world — but it’s not me.
That adds up really fast. Especially as natural born citizens die off.
Jim: “Well, then you’re simply wrong, from the standpoint of government interference. ”
Thank you for your feedback. 🙂
“That adds up really fast. Especially as natural born citizens die off.”
You’re leaving one number out there — the number of citizens BORN each year. Even after deaths are subtracted, naturalized citizens are a decreasing, not increasing, percentage of the population.
Note that demographic studies have shown that a big percentage of gun owners are white males age 55 and over. What happens as these 55 and over white male gun owners die out?
Tom,
Are you taking into account anchor babies and children born to immigrants? I’m pretty sure the birthrate of first generation immigrants is much higher than those of firmly established families.
Tom is basically saying that since the government controls common spaces in this land mass where we live, anyone from around the world, regardless of political ideology, should be able to come here, regardless of the wishes of those already living here, and if these people get on welfare, or become registered voters and vote to take our freedoms away, well that is just too damn bad for those of us who were already here.
“Are you taking into account anchor babies and children born to immigrants?”
Yes. I’m counting them as what they are — natural born citizens.
Andy, we’ve gone over how it’s not nice to lie about people before, haven’t we?
aj: Being open for business does not, and should not, mean being open for business for anyone, with no discretion from the business owner (assuming it is an actual private business, unlike Walmart from my example above).
me: You don’t seem to get the nuance of my point. A business at this stage is to be open to the public — all the public, that is, without reference to race, creed, or sexual orientation. Excluding the shoeless and the naked are a different matter.
This is not to say that haters can’t do commerce only with those that they don’t hate. The Klan I think should be allowed to have a cracker-only golf course if they want to, but that would be a club.
“Should” is a subjective matter. It’d be really, really strange in this day and age to have a “no jigaboos” dry cleaners, for ex. I’d say that’s not what we’ve come to expect from a “business.” I’d say it’s NOT a “business,” it’s a members-only commercial enterprise, a pronouncedly unenlightened one, IMO. The owners would have a really bizarre agenda.
This is a matter of 21st century nomenclature.
There’s really no such thing as an anchor baby. Parents of such children are routinely deported, along with the children themselves. All that their citizenship gets them is an opportunity to re-enter the US when they are 18, presuming they have managed to hold onto their birth certificates that long.
Robert Capozzi said: “This is a matter of 21st century nomenclature.”
This is somewhat a matter of semantics, but regardless, if a private business (not a tax payer subsidized and partially owned publicly traded corporation like Walmart) wants to discriminate, on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or whatever else, they should be free to do so.
If a person walks in a private business, and the person behind the counter says, “We don’t serve your kind in here.” or, “Get out, _____________________ (fill in slur here). We don’t want your kind around here.” this ought to be perfectly legal.
Is this offensive to some people? Sure it is, but people do not have a right to not be offended. If one does not like it, don’t go in there.
Let’s say a Christian family operates a hotel and convention center. What if the Church of Satan wanted to have their annual convention at their hotel, and they wanted to perform Satanic rituals in their convention ballroom? What if they wanted to order cakes that had pentagrams on them, and with the words, “Hail Satan” written in icing over the pentagram. If the Christian couple refuses to rent room and their convention center to the Church of Satan, should the members of the Church of Satan be able to go file a complaint with some government board that fines the Christian hotel and convention center owners for not allowing the Church of Satan to hold their convention at their hotel.
An argument can be made that since we all pay taxes and we all receive some form of government services, and this especially applies to roads, then no one has a right to discriminate against anyone since that person suffering from the discrimination paid a tax to support that government service the discriminator uses. While I do not agree with this I have heard it frequently in the past.
I also disagree with that argument. It seems analogous to claiming that if a slave owner feeds his slaves with food that he stole from you, then that makes you the “rightful” owner of his slaves. (I hope it doesn’t need to be pointed out to anyone here that there is no such thing as a “rightful” owner of slaves.) In other words, it’s a classic example of the old adage, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
Steven, instead of throwing a hissy fit over a largely irrelevant parenthetical, how about addressing the actual argument that I made, which was:
…who would be the catalyst for passing anti-discrimination laws in the first place? To put it another way, if you live in a town where most of the stores won’t sell to gays (or blacks, or whomever), and that fact bothers you, instead of marshaling your resources to agitate for anti-discrimination laws, why not use those resources to open your own stores that will sell to those groups? You’ll not only fight discrimination, you’ll likely turn a nice profit to boot.
As for the rest of your “public accommodations” argument, it seems to consist largely of hand waving and “ends justify the means” logic. It’s almost like saying, “Well, I’m generally opposed to the idea of rape, but if the girl is really, really, really hot and you really, really want to have sex with her, and you’ve already tried taking her to nice restaurants and buying her expensive jewelry, and she still won’t give it up, then I guess it’s OK. But, you know, I’m not really a rapist. Really, I’m not.”
With regard to the Hoppe/immigration argument, I thought TK absolutely nailed it in this comment:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/04/gary-johnson-jewish-bakers-should-be-forced-to-bake-nazi-cakes/#comment-1341376
Re 10:23
Q: “What is it about opening a business that inherently constitutes some kind of social contract obligating the business owner to act”?
A: A grant of limited liability by the state.
Since the grant of limited liability is completely illegitimate, so is any alleged contract arising from it.
One further comment on the immigration debate. People (including libertarians) are free to oppose immigration based on “ends justify the means” arguments. But it’s important to understand that those are not libertarian arguments. “The ends justify the means” is an idea that is thoroughly incompatible with libertarianism, and if your position is based on that kind of logic, it is simply not a libertarian position.
That is complete bullshit. There is no right to immigrate on to land that is already occupied.
How about if I immigrate to your house and put up a tent in your backyard without your consent?
Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism
http://christophercantwell.com/2016/02/16/open-borders-is-global-communism/
Sadly, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion both inside and outside of libertarian circles about libertarianism’s relationship with the immigration issue. This is no mark against someone who has simply not had it explained to them, of course. The position is not entirely obvious to the casual onlooker. The persistence with which some insist on clinging to falsehood however, I find quite troubling.
The layman’s assumption would be that libertarians favor open borders. This is an understandable mistake. Libertarians are not big on having the government do pretty much anything, and since governments do control political boundaries at present, it makes sense one would assume we favored their abolition. This is not a completely incorrect assumption, but it requires some important details many seem to leave out. It would be more accurate to say we favor privatizing borders, than to say we favor their abolition.
When termed as privatization, the question turns to whose control the property once making up the border in question will then be under. The idea that a government would cease to exist, or cease to perform the function of immigration control, and that this would open the floodgates for waves of low quality, poverty stricken, potentially dangerous people is understandably off-putting to the sane men and women of a prosperous society.
The libertarian who is not well read, may assume that since we seek no consensus for the validity of our political positions, this wholly rational fear is irrelevant. He is indisputably wrong in this. Libertarians favor property rights. If there is a conflict between your ideas of what freedom entails, and someone else’s property rights, property rights prevail over your misguided notion of freedom. The idea that a society based in the rule of property would visit massive misery and violent crime upon a civilization is so antithetical to libertarian philosophy, that it boggles the mind anyone would take it seriously. What property owner would invite people onto his property, whom he did not want to be there? What freedom could there be if he had no choice to exclude people from his property?
Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism (continued)
Governments create a falsehood of common spaces as one of the many “services” they provide us with to justify their extortion schemes and thuggery. Police patrol highways and say “Someone has to make sure people are driving safely!” and this is true. Licenses, inspections, insurance requirements, speed limits, alcohol concentration limits, and all the other edicts and regulations the State imposes upon us are justified by these “common spaces”. Some more or less sensible than others.
Any libertarian who has ever tried to defend the idea of a stateless society has heard someone utter the phrase “But who will build the roads?” to the point that his has become a meme in libertarian circles. The answer is quite simple to the informed libertarian – owners of roads would build roads, and charge for their usage. They would set the rules of the road, be they speed limits, vehicle safety requirements, limits or prohibitions on intoxicants, and the conditions under which security agents of the road might enforce compliance. Restrict too heavily, and drivers might opt to pay a competitor for a different path. Leave your roads unsafe, and face the same peril for your business.
That libertarians do not settle disputes by way of democratic elections does not mean we want to impose unpopular and miserable circumstances upon people. We rather favor market forces making the determination, and providing ranges of options to people dependent on their ability to pay for those options. We are of the well informed opinion that this will produce superior outcomes to the one size fits all “solutions” of Nation States, often dictated by the will of hyperinclusive mass democracy – institutions not known for their ability to allocate resources efficiently.
The point being, libertarians favor privatization more than they favor abolition. The exact manner in which that privatization takes place is up for considerable debate and beyond the scope of this article, but “borders” are the whole entire point of libertarianism. Borders are simply property lines defined by owners and recognized by other members of the society. They are the delineations from which justification of force is derived.
Open Borders Isn’t Libertarian, It’s Global Communism (continued)
To assert that Nation States would cease to exist, or cease to enforce political boundaries, and that this would result in the equivalent of “open borders” as understood in modern political discourse, is insane. This is the equivalent of saying that in the absence of the State, highly desirable resources would remain unowned in perpetuity, and that all of mankind could exploit these resources simultaneously without conflict arising between any of them. One need not be a philosopher or economist to understand the problem here, only a layman’s understanding of basic physics.
Privatizing borders, like privatizing roads, simply removes the title to land from the Nation State, and places it in the hands of a private party. That party then sets the rules for the use of that property according to their best interests just like any other property owner would. He may opt to build a road, or he may opt to build a swimming pool, a home, or a shopping mall. In none of these instances could he be compelled to have massive waves of socialists, communists, and theocrats pouring across his land against his will, without ability to pay, and raping women and killing men along their way.
The State imposes these “common spaces” against all rational market incentives, as States tend to do. Once it does, it can only bring about one or both of two possible conclusions.
1. Forced Inclusion
2. Forced Exclusion
The “open borders libertarian” chooses forced inclusion and thinks himself quite principled and morally superior, but he is misguided at best and more likely very dishonest. By creating a common space, and maintaining it at taxpayer expense, the State purports to make common ownership of these spaces amongst “the people”. Naturally, this creates conflict, since my interests do not always align with the rest of “the people”.
Perhaps I am a factory owner who wants cheap low skilled labor, and so I am quite keen on having lots of impoverished people entering the society desperate for a job. Perhaps someone else is in the real estate business and does not want these impoverished people driving down property values. Any number of examples could be listed here, but somebody is going to get the shaft in this equation at the expense of the other. There is no libertarian course of action for the Nation State to take in this case, it is coercing people to pay for things which they do not want to pay for. So short of privatization, whatever course of action the State embarks upon, it is not going to be libertarian in its nature.
Philosophically speaking, “the” libertarian position on what a Nation State does with its borders, is that it should privatize them along with everything else. If someone amongst you would like to tell me how we get enough people on board with a private property driven society today to make that happen, I’m all ears. With this option not likely being on the realistic political menu in the present moment, one is left only to choose between utilitarianism, and leftist warm and fuzzy suicidal nonsense.
We know what happens when leftist warm and fuzzy nonsense wins the day. Across those borders come flooding in massive waves of dangerous, poverty stricken people who victimize the populace with crime, drain the public coffers with welfare dependency, and alter the course of the civilization through the ballot box. Given that those pouring in are usually from less civilized places, their decisions at the ballot box are predictably as uncivilized as their decisions on the street.
Societies are made up of the people who reside within them. If you replace the people of one society with the people of another society, then the society will come to resemble that of the place the new people just fled. Democratically elected governments, though they may seem largely unresponsive to what you want individually, do respond to that which can get them elected. If the people now electing your government, are the same people who elected the government of Mexico, or Venezuela, or some other terrible place, then in rather short order, your government will resemble that government. This almost seems too obvious to have to state.
For the libertarian then, it is quite imperative from a strategic standpoint to take into consideration who he is making neighbors of. If one finds himself quite frustrated trying to convince white westerners of his politics, he will find this even more difficult to do when Islamists are chopping off heads and raping women in his neighborhood. He will have quite the difficult time explaining Austrian economics to someone who does not even speak his language.
Denial of these obvious realities is the cornerstone of communist nonsense. The belief that all people are equal and interchangeable, that we are all liquids taking the shape of the container into which we are poured, is not based in reality, and it is certainly not based in libertarianism. It is dogmatic liberal gibberish spouted only by power hungry politicians, and their supporters who are dumb enough to believe it.
Abolishing borders and replacing them with nothing doesn’t abolish or even diminish the government. Quite the contrary. Borders are only abolished when power is centralized. Just as one can travel from New York to California, this was facilitated by the centralizing of power into the US Federal Government by the colonies. Same as one could travel from France to Spain only by the establishment of the European union. A world without borders is not a world without government, it is a world with one, inescapable, communist, government.
I shouldn’t have to explain this to libertarians. The fact that it is supported by the Democrats should have made that obvious enough. When the issue goes bipartisan, well, then you really know something bad is about to happen.
“natural born citizen
April 2, 2016 at 23:32
Re 10:23
Q: ‘What is it about opening a business that inherently constitutes some kind of social contract obligating the business owner to act’?
A: A grant of limited liability by the state.”
This is only so because of the state. Not all businesses are corporations, but given the reality in which we live under I’d assume that the vast majority of them are, but this is only so they can compete in the market place (and note that there are private corporations and publicly traded corporations).
I already said above that I believe that there is a strong argument to force corporations who receive lots of tax payer funding to serve all members of the public, but I would not apply this to businesses that do not receive corporate welfare.
If a guy named Joe opens up a diner, using his own money, or perhaps a combination of his own money and the money of some friends and family members, and calls it Joe’s Diner, and he incorporates the business, I do not think that this should automatically force him to serve anyone who walks in the restaurant.
How about if gays owned a bakery, and members of the Westboro Baptist Church came in and wanted them to bake a cake that said God Hates Fags on it? If the gay bake shop owners refuse to do business with them should the members of the Westboro Baptist Church be able to whine to some government agency to go fine the gay owned bakery?
“There is no right to immigrate on to land that is already occupied.”
True.
47% of the US is unoccupied.
The most powerful street gang in the area (the “US government” gang) illegitimately claims to own 30% of the US.
You want that street gang to manage the land it illegitimately claims to own the way you might manage it if you owned it.
But you don’t own it.
What happened to you? You used to seem like a very strong and pretty radical libertarian. Now you’re spamming threads with that authoritarian clownshoe — and likely federal provocateur and informant or agent — Cantwell in an attempt to make your irrational authoritarian fantasy “libertarian.”
aj: If the Christian couple refuses to rent room and their convention center to the Church of Satan, should the members of the Church of Satan be able to go file a complaint with some government board that fines the Christian hotel and convention center owners for not allowing the Church of Satan to hold their convention at their hotel.
me: No. They should call advertise themselves as a club, not a business open to the public.
I don’t think there should be a government board. This might well be simply a civil matter. Or it might be a different sort of business license, like what members-only private golf clubs are registered as. How this should be set up from a jurisprudential perspective is a technicality.
Well, there’s your problem. Wherever did you get the idea that businesses should have to “register” or get a “business license” from the government in the first place?
L: People (including libertarians) are free to oppose immigration based on “ends justify the means” arguments.
me: Unfortunately, things are not nearly as simple as you frame them. Immigration is not something that is just a question of “support” or “oppose.”
Unless you mean “completely open borders” when you use the word “immigration.” It strikes me the more root issue is: What is a nation state? I view them as a large condo association, in which all citizens have an implicit stake. (AndyLand would make that explicit, but sadly nation states did not evolve in that manner, as specific, written contracts.)
To maintain domestic tranquility, the condo board might have some basic rules, including a check-in for visitors. Or the condo board might NOT have a check-in policy. Either “means” would be a question of judgment and hopefully a sense of the will of the condo owners. In this case, my sense is that most are OK with a check-in and some restrictions on immigration.
That’s one model. Your model seems to be: This gang sits as overlords over all the citizenry. Any rules they make are wrong and should be abolished. My sense is that maybe 0.5% might subscribe to your model.
Andy, you really don’t seem to get it, so I will try to put it in terms you can understand. You argue that since some immigrants are bad (from a libertarian standpoint), then the government is justified in restricting immigration. This is no different than saying that because some people use guns for things that are bad (from a libertarian perspective, e.g. murder, armed robbery, etc.), then government is justified in restricting gun ownership. It’s just “ends justify means” bullshit, and there’s nothing libertarian about it. And no, it doesn’t matter that some people don’t want immigrants on their property. Some people don’t want guns on their property, either. Again, that doesn’t mean that government is justified in imposing “one size fits all” edicts, no matter whether the subject is guns or immigration. Oh, and guess what? In addition to the moral argument, there’s also the practical argument that, just like gun control laws, immigration restrictions don’t work.
What is a nation state?
A criminal organization, with very good PR.
tk: Wherever did you get the idea that businesses should have to “register” or get a “business license” from the government in the first place?
me: I didn’t say “should.” That’s already the case.
more…
Now, if you want to measure reality against constructs like AndyLand or something, that’s a different matter.
L: [A nation state is] A criminal organization, with very good PR.
me: Yes, some Ls look at it that way. And it’s a reasonably internally coherent model, one to which I once subscribed.
That model suggests a very lonely political life, though, one that is way out on the fringes. As a practical matter, you’ll either need to convert very large numbers of people to adopt your model for it to at least start to become viable, OR maybe it could be a useful model after some cataclysmic event like a world-altering EMP pulse, coronal mass ejection, or nuclear war.
What trips up many abolitionist anarchists is that they don’t recognize that their model is not a universal truth. It’s a construct that only they have adopted as their truth, which is different.
“langa
April 3, 2016 at 05:10
Andy, you really don’t seem to get it, so I will try to put it in terms you can understand. You argue that since some immigrants are bad (from a libertarian standpoint), then the government is justified in restricting immigration. ”
No, you do not seem to get it. You act as though that since the we live in a society where government controls common spaces, that it should be a “free for all” for said common spaces, with any person from around the world, regardless of their political ideology, to enter this land territory, as if this is what would happen if we actually lived in a purist libertarian society, when this is NOT reality. If we lived in a purist libertarian society, the function of allowing or not allowing people to enter certain areas would be a function of the market, as in there’d be land owners, and associations of land owners, some of whom would have very open policies about who’d enter their land, while others would have more closed policies about who’d enter their land. What we would NOT have would be a society where just anyone goes anywhere, and is forced to integrate even over the objection of the local land owners, or land owner associations.
Let’s say I am in a town which has a park which is operated by the local government. The local park is a common space, which can be used by anyone, but there are some restrictions, such as nobody in the park past 11 PM, and so on and so forth. Now since libertarians do not believe that government should exist, does this mean that it would be OK for me to show up in the park and set up a tent, or perhaps start building a house. Do you think that the other people in the town who pay taxes to this park, which is a common space which is controlled by the local government? Should immigrants from other countries be able to move into this park and make it their new home, even if it is against the park policies, and even if the local tax payers object to people moving into the park?
Keeping with the park example: New York City has lots of immigrants. There is also a large park in New York City called Central Park. Given that Central Park is a common space, should immigrants be able to move into Central Park?
Here is a a REALITY CHECK for some libertarians, and this is that property borders would still exist, and immigration restrictions would still exist, even if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist society.
Some people have called Disney World a private city. It is not a perfect example of a private city, because I know that there are government entities which have purchased shares of Disney World’s publicly traded stock, and I would not be surprised if Disney World has received some kind of subsidies from the government (I’d have to research this, but I’m just assuming that they have since they are a large corporation). Even though it is not a perfect example, I’m still going to use it anyway. Disney World has an “immigration” policy, and that is that people who enter Disney World have to pay for a ticket. They have rules that have to be followed. If a person tries to enter Disney World without purchasing a ticket, or if they enter and break whatever their rules our, they would be “deported” from Disney World by Disney World security guards.
So there’d still be immigration policies in the absence of the state. Some land owners or groups of land owners may in fact set up immigration policies that are MORE RESTRICTIVE than the current US government’s immigration policies. Others may chose to set immigration policies that are less restrictive that the current US government immigration policies, but the bottom line here is that immigration policies would not disappear in the absence of the state.
The REALITY in which we presently live under is that the government controls all of the common spaces whether we like it or not. Also, in this same REALITY, who enters the country is highly relevant to the people who already live here, because government policies force integration with immigrants regardless of what any of the people who are already here want, and in addition to this, immigrants are able to use government welfare (which it has been proven that they do at a statistically high rate), adding to the tax burden of the population that is already here, and once these immigrants become “American citizens” (which in a lot of cases is done fraudulently, since part of the swearing in ceremony includes swearing an oath to the US Constitution, which many of them do not agree with or do not understand), they can register to vote, and statistically speaking, many of them vote to expand the welfare state and in favor of more gun control laws. These factors make the issue of who enters the country highly relevant to everyone.
” Do you think that the other people in the town who pay taxes to this park, which is a common space which is controlled by the local government?”
Should read, ” Do you think that the other people in the town who pay taxes to this park, which is a common space which is controlled by the local government, would like it if people started moving into the park?”
“and break whatever their rules our,”
Should read, “and break whatever their rules are…”
robert cappozzi said: “That model suggests a very lonely political life, though, one that is way out on the fringes. As a practical matter, you’ll either need to convert very large numbers of people to adopt your model for it to at least start to become viable,”
The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there is no place in this country where a majority of the population consists of libertarians. There are some libertarians out there who want to have even less of a chance of having a libertarian society by advocating that any socialist, communist, or theocrat from around the planet should be able to move here in unlimited numbers, even though the present system allows them to get on welfare, and eventually become registered voters, where they can then vote to take freedoms away from those same libertarians who advocated that these people should be able to move here.
tk: I would not consider my revulsion a license for myself or anyone else to enslave the business owners, though.
me: No, nor would I want to “enslave” anyone. It’s that mentality — that the State “enslaves” — triggered my compassion, leading to the creation of the Harlos Nonarchy Pod idea. It would allow anyone to avoid “enslavement” on their property.
aj: The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there is no place in this country where a majority of the population consists of libertarians.
me: Feels like nonsense to me, assuming that you means “NAPsters” when you say “libertarian.” Even if all 1MM or so NAPsters gathered in, say, NH, that might get the L pop of NH to be 50%. That would probably lead to some significant lessarchistic change in NH most likely, but the rest of the US would still be careening toward morearchism, and would continue to largely control NH from DC.
“‘robert capozzi
April 3, 2016 at 11:14
aj: The reason that we do not have a libertarian society right now is because there is no place in this country where a majority of the population consists of libertarians.’
me: Feels like nonsense to me, assuming that you means “NAPsters” when you say “libertarian.” Even if all 1MM or so NAPsters gathered in, say, NH, that might get the L pop of NH to be 50%. That would probably lead to some significant lessarchistic change in NH most likely, but the rest of the US would still be careening toward morearchism, and would continue to largely control NH from DC.”
Most laws are enforced locally. If libertarians had a majority somewhere, even if it was just a low population city/town or county, that area where libertarians had a majority would have more freedom, in spite of what happens in Washington DC.
aj, we’re definitely watching a different movie. Federal taxes are much higher and federal regulations much more onerous from what I’ve seen.
And, more importantly, even if Dixville Notch had a super-majority of Ls, how does that make America L?
“What we would NOT have would be a society where just anyone goes anywhere, and is forced to integrate even over the objection of the local land owners, or land owner associations.”
Actually what we would have in the absence of the state would almost certainly look a lot like what we would have now if we had “open borders.”
The only people who would have any say over who used the roads would be the owners of the roads. And the owners of the roads wouldn’t give a rat’s ass where you came from, as long as you paid the toll to use their roads. And any nosy land owners or land owner associations would be told where to stick it if they objected, just like they’d tell the road owner to go fuck himself if he tried to control what they did with their land.
” And the owners of the roads wouldn’t give a rat’s ass where you came from, as long as you paid the toll to use their roads. ”
That position is astonishingly out of touch with reality. It is up there with the Libertarian Communist position that if roads were privately owned, there would be no speed limits.
No, if the Turnpike is privately owned, the libertarian anarchist position is that it is none of the libertarian party’s business what the speed limit is. And, I-90, being owned by the little old guys investing society, has a 25 mile per hour speed limit, enforced by autocannon that you gave permission to blow your ass off when you used their road, as did your passengers.
Ditto, Roads of Boston, an affiliate of the Democratic State Committee, does ban use by Republicans. Because they can.
And of course, there is the Holy Turnpike of the Blessed Mary, which you cannot cross because they own the air rights, which lets everyone pass…at a rate determined by the number of days since you last attended confession.
Did I mention Trump Roads of Texas, which does not let Mexicans on board?
No, a privately owned road system is just plain crazy.
“47% of the US is unoccupied.”
That depends entirely on what your definition of “occupied”. A typical human body subtends two square feet when standing up. There are about 26 million square feet in a square mile, thus 320 million Americans could probably fit in 30 square miles. If the area of America is around 5 million square miles, then only about 0.0006% of the US is occupied.
But that is an extremely distorted definition of “occupied”.
“The most powerful street gang in the area (the “US government” gang) illegitimately claims to own 30% of the US.”
That’s agreed. But what will happen to that area upon ‘libertarianization’?
“You want that street gang to manage the land it illegitimately claims to own the way you might manage it if you owned it.”
Actually, I’d prefer they auction it off, to put it into private hands.
“”But you don’t own it.”
What’s your point?
“What happened to you? You used to seem like a very strong and pretty radical libertarian. Now you’re spamming threads with that authoritarian clownshoe — and likely federal provocateur and informant or agent — Cantwell in an attempt to make your irrational authoritarian fantasy “libertarian.””
His point works very well. Why don’t you see it?
“The only people who would have any say over who used the roads would be the owners of the roads. And the owners of the roads wouldn’t give a rat’s ass where you came from, as long as you paid the toll to use their roads. And any nosy land owners or land owner associations would be told where to stick it if they objected, just like they’d tell the road owner to go fuck himself if he tried to control what they did with their land.”
That sounds like a rather hand-wavy claim. Presumably, there would be a lot of overlap between the owners of the land and the owners of the roads. It’s in their self-interest to do so, obviously.
“There are some libertarians out there who want to have even less of a chance of having a libertarian society by advocating that any socialist, communist, or theocrat from around the planet should be able to move here in unlimited numbers, even though the present system allows them to get on welfare, and eventually become registered voters, where they can then vote to take freedoms away from those same libertarians who advocated that these people should be able to move here.”
Absolutely correct! That’s the “suicide pact” you were mentioning. If anything, the idea of opening borders would amount to the final, last-gasp, desperate power-grab of the anti-libertarians, trying to obstruct the success of implementing a libertarian society.
Jim just hit the nail on the head. The political controllers who run the government WANT lots of foreign people who have no concept of limits on government moving here in mass because they are using these people to destroy what is left of freedom in this country. They are tools to expand the welfare state, enact gun control, and merge into global government (not all of them of course, but a majority).
How many Americans today would own land, or would own more land, if not for all of the taxes and regulations that prevent them from doing so? I bet it is a lot.
Yes, there is still unoccupied land in this country, but some of it is in places where living there would be difficult. Also, even if foreigners moved on to unoccupied land in the USA, there could still be problems if the foreigners depending on the ideology of the foreigners, as in they could be socialist, communists, or theocrats, and after obtaining citizenship they could vote that way, and in addition to this, they could all sign up for welfare under the present system, therefore adding to the tax burden for everyone else.
How much unowned land is there in the United States? Approximately none.
I see that no one (including Andy) has answered my argument that immigration restrictions are based on the exact same logic as gun control laws. The silence is deafening.
So there’d still be immigration policies in the absence of the state. Some land owners or groups of land owners may in fact set up immigration policies that are MORE RESTRICTIVE than the current US government’s immigration policies. Others may chose to set immigration policies that are less restrictive that the current US government immigration policies, but the bottom line here is that immigration policies would not disappear in the absence of the state.
Substitute “gun control” for “immigration” and this statement would be no less true — and no less relevant.
That is a ridiculous assertion, langa. A property owner has the right to screen who comes on to their property. If you don’t like it, don’t go to that property. This would be the case even in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Comparing this to gun control is not a valid comparison at all. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE ON TO PROPERTY THAT IS ALREADY OCCUPIED BY OTHER PEOPLE.
Also, the government has policies in effect that allow immigrants to SIGN UP FOR WELFARE. Not only this, current government policy under the Refugee Resettlement Act is that the GOVERNMENT — USES TAX PAYER FUNDS TO BRING IMMIGRANTS INTO THE COUNTRY, AND THEN SIGNS THEM UP FOR EVERY WELFARE PROGRAM THEY CAN ONCE THEY GET HERE. The government is LITERALLY IMPORTING WELFARE RECIPIENTS.
If you don’t see that there is an agenda going on here, then you are blind.
Just to further clarify, my position is not and has never been to cut off all immigration into the present day USA. I have put out several proposals to reform the system.
That is complete bullshit, langa. A person owning or carrying a gun is NOT the same as a person moving into territory which you occupy, and then under present conditions, being able to receive stolen property from you via the welfare system, and being able to vote your freedoms away via the ballot box.
If the mass immigration that has been happening in this country is such a wonderful thing, then how come such a high percentage of these immigrants end up on welfare, and how come statistically the majority of them vote to expand the welfare state and for more gun control laws?
Look at the statistics. Are you fucking blind?
Here is a REALITY check. Watch the video and look at all of the statistics provided.
Stefan Molyneux: The Truth About Immigration And Welfare
TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN’T MAKE YOUR BAD ARGUMENTS ANY BETTER.
In a free society, property owners would have the right to decide whether to allow guns on their property, and if so, who to allow to bring guns on their property, how many guns they could bring, what kind of guns they could bring, and so on. That doesn’t mean that, until we reach a free society, the government has the right to make those decisions for everyone. The same thing goes for immigration. Sure, you can choose to exclude people from your private property. That doesn’t mean you can use government to impose the same choice on everyone else.
To put it more generally, just because an individual has the right to establish rules for their own property, that doesn’t make it OK for government to force those same rules on everybody. What is so hard to understand about that? It’s basic libertarianism 101.
langa, it is very frustrating to have a discussion with people who ignore any facts, such as the demographic shift that says that the US government is swearing in masses of people as being American citizens, who then register to vote and disproportionately vote in favor of expanding the welfare state and increasing gun control laws.
Do you admit or deny these facts?
Andy,
Do you admit or deny the fact that new immigrant citizens are a shrinking, not growing, percentage of the US population?
Do you admit or deny the fact that whether your arguments are right or wrong, what they AREN’T is libertarian?
Over what time frame, Thomas Knapp?
“langa
April 3, 2016 at 19:34
TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN’T MAKE YOUR BAD ARGUMENTS ANY BETTER.
In a free society, property owners would have the right to decide whether to allow guns on their property, and if so, who to allow to bring guns on their property, how many guns they could bring, what kind of guns they could bring, and so on. ”
Sure, and if you don’t like their gun policy, DO NOT GO THERE.
Tom says: “Do you admit or deny the fact that new immigrant citizens are a shrinking, not growing, percentage of the US population?”
Why do you keep pushing this? Your statistics do not count anchor babies as immigrants even though they come from the same culture of gun control and totalitarianism as their parents. In addition, new immigrants and illegal immigrants have more children on average than those already here. I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.
Good point, William. The majority of the offspring of immigrants are being raised on welfare (once again, look at the statistics), and are being raised in households who have ZERO connection to the pro-gun rights culture. Many of them live in large urban areas, where most of the native born with whom they interact are “big city liberal” types.
This is NOT like immigration of the past, where people had to be rugged individualists (since there was no welfare state), and where people had guns and knew how to live off the land.
I have posted this article here before, but once again, here is an interesting article on demographic shifts leading to more gun control laws being passed, from the Washington Post.
The NRA Will Fail. It’s Inevitable. Just look at the demographics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?tid=sm_fb
From the article: ”
PostEverything
The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
Just look at the demographics.
Resize Text Print Article Comments 2673 Book mark article Read later list
Saved to Reading List
By Adam Winkler October 19, 2015
Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA School of Law and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”
People look at handguns at the Nation’s Gun Show at the Dulles Expo Center earlier this month. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
The recent deadly shooting at an Oregon community college, like so many before it, isn’t likely to lead to new federal laws designed to curb dangerous people’s access to guns. While this understandably frustrates supporters of gun safety legislation, there is reason for them to be hopeful. The National Rifle Association’s days of being a political powerhouse may be numbered.
Why? The answer is in the numbers.
Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.
The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.
Sanders, Clinton spar on gun control at debate
Play Video1:48
At the first Democratic presidential debate of the 2016 election, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is not tough enough on guns. (CNN)
Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.
An overwhelming majority of African Americans say that gun control is more important than gun rights (72 percent to 24 percent). While the African American population shows signs of slow growth, other racial minority groups are growing more rapidly — and report even greater support for gun control.
The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.
Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.
Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”
MY COMMENT: DO YOU NOT SEE A REASON TO BE ALARMED BY THIS?
“Your statistics do not count anchor babies as immigrants”
Correct. My statistics do not count non-immigrants as immigrants.
langa: And no, it doesn’t matter that some people don’t want immigrants on their property. Some people don’t want guns on their property, either. Again, that doesn’t mean that government is justified in imposing “one size fits all” edicts, no matter whether the subject is guns or immigration.
me: Actually, I see your point, up to a point. Whether it’s L-ism 101 is another matter. Who wrote this text, and who has the authority to make it definitive.
In the end, it for me boils down to who owns public property, and who is its steward. Unless and until all property is truly privately owned, I would assert that public property is owned by all citizens, with the government as its steward. As its steward, it strikes me as abundantly reasonable that what is toted on public property is the government’s call. Similarly, it’s also the government’s call to establish visitation and/or immigration to the public’s property.
If the shareholders don’t approve of the steward’s call on these matters, they should have the right to express an alternative view and to suggest an alternative policy. This is just as Disney stockholders can agitate to get the Disney Corporation to allow for toting bazookas in Disneyland, if one wants to play the corporate gadfly.
Should an American Indian baker be required to bake a Columbus day cake? What about a black slave descendant baker. Should they be required to bake a cake for the descendants of their ancestors owners? If you are in business, you are a business. Your religion doesn’t exist inside the business. Remember… The Free Market is free of Religion.
langa, it is very frustrating to have a discussion with people who ignore any facts…
It is equally frustrating to have a discussion with someone who refuses to answer the points that I am making, and instead, just keeps repeating the same things, that have nothing to do with what I’m saying.
Let me see if I can summarize our disagreement. As far as I can tell, you have made two arguments for the government restricting immigration. Those arguments are:
1. Immigration can lead to bad things (increased support for welfare, gun control, and so on). So, the government is justified in restricting immigration, in order to prevent those bad consequences.
I agree with you that immigration can lead to bad things. But gun ownership can also lead to bad things (murder, armed robbery, and so on). Do you therefore believe that government is justified in restricting gun ownership, in order to prevent those bad consequences?
2. In a free society, some people might choose not to allow immigrants on their property, so government should not allow immigrants on public property.
Again, I agree that, in a free society, some people might choose not to allow immigrants on their property. But, again, in a free society, some people might choose not to allow guns on their property. Do you therefore believe that government should not allow guns on public property?
L: Do you therefore believe that government should not allow guns on public property?
me: Sometimes it might be a good idea, sometimes not. Toting a semi outside Barrow AK seems OK, but not so much in NY subway.
Robert, I agree with you that the government is acting as a “steward” of public property (whether or not they are doing a good job at this, and whether or not they should be doing this, and whether or not government should exist are different topics), however, there is a thing called the 2nd amendment which is supposed to prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
“however, there is a thing called the 2nd amendment which is supposed to prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.”
And there is a thing called Article I, Section 9, which is supposed to prohibit the federal government from regulating immigration. If they get to ignore the one, why shouldn’t they get to ignore the other?
Article I, Section 9. Until 1808.
Tom,
Your particular interpretation of Article I, Section 9 is a fringe view. It is not shared by legal experts.
Tom, the Constitution also says that the government can REPEL INVADERS (as in people who come here who are anti-liberty), and the Constitution also authorizes the establishment of a Naturalization process for foreigners, part of which requires them to swear an oath to the Constitution in order to be granted citizenship.
How can one swear an oath to the Constitution, and support government welfare programs and gun control laws, both of which violate the Constitution? That is called perjury.
The government officials who are facilitating this situation ought to be brought up on charges of treason.
“I agree with you that immigration can lead to bad things. But gun ownership can also lead to bad things (murder, armed robbery, and so on). Do you therefore believe that government is justified in restricting gun ownership, in order to prevent those bad consequences?”
I disagree that gun ownership can lead to bad things, at least not if there is mass gun ownership of firearms among the general population. First off, guns are not people, guns are inanimate objects. Second of all, statistics clearly show that mass gun ownership leads to less crime.
Immigrants are people. The act of immigrating is people relocating. The act of relocating in and of itself is not really good or bad. If a good person is relocating, then relocating can be good. If a bad person is relocating, then relocating can be bad.
I mentioned statistics when I mentioned gun ownership (and once again, guns are not people, they are inanimate objects). Every statistic shows that high rates of civilian gun ownership leads to less crime.
Now let’s examine what can happen when people relocate. Some people may relocate to a different area, and they may do something positive, and the people in said area where they are relocating may want them there. However, on the flip side of this, other people may relocate and do bad things, and maybe people there don’t want them there.
Let’s look at what is going on in Europe right now after mass migration of Muslims into Sweden, Norway, Germany, Belgium, France, etc… The Muslim immigrants have been a drain on the welfare system, and they have caused crime rates to go up, and in particular, the very heinous crime of rape. There has been a 1,000% increase in the amount of rapes that have happened in Sweden, and it is because of the Muslim migrants. The city of Olso, Norway has reported that 100% of the rapes that happened last year were committed by Muslim men.
Given this data, would you say that the people who already inhabited in Sweden, Norway, Germany, Belgium, France, etc…, would be better off today if they had not allowed mass Muslim migration, or are they better off with all of these Muslims in their society?
Are the Muslims who have been wreaking havoc in Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, etc…, peaceful people?
Why do they have to go to Europe or America? Why don’t they go to some other Muslim nation?
Given what the Muslim migrants have done in these European nations, do you think that a European nation that has not had mass Muslim migration should start taking in lots of Muslims? Like let’s say Iceland. Do you think that it would be a good idea for the people of Iceland to bring in lots of Muslims? How about some other countries in other parts of this world, like Japan for instance? Should the Japanese accept large numbers of Muslims into their land?
Look at what all of these wonderful Muslim migrants have done in Oslo, Norway.
Oslo, Norway: 100% of rapes committed by ‘non european immigrants’ (muslims)
Islamic Invasion Of Sweden Has Led To Rape Crisis
The Rape of Europe
My Libertarian Zone concept has an immigration policy which is meant to attract libertarians and REPEL non-libertarians. It is done via an enforceable contract, which applies equally to everyone in The Libertarian Zone, including those who’d be born there.
How long do you think that the Libertarian Zone would stay libertarian if there was no mechanism in place to repel non-libertarians?
The Libertarian Zone
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/
Look at the nice custom that Muslims migrants brought with them to Europe. It is called Taharrush. It is when a group of Muslim men swarm women and sexually assault them. Nice custom from these “peaceful” migrants.
Taharrush: Muslim gang rape custom sweeping Europe
Robert Capozzi is going to love this one.:)
Gun Activists Protest at Public Places with their Firearms
aj: there is a thing called the 2nd amendment which is supposed to prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
me: Sure it does. But it doesn’t specify WHERE arms can be kept and toted. From a property rights perspective, I read this clause to mean: Y’all can keep arms on your property. Toting OFF your property is of course subject to the property owners, or their stewards. Stewardship is delegated to the states.
AK might say: Tote whatever you want wherever you want. NY might say toting off your property needs a special permit. And federal property might have specific rules depending on the situation: Toting onto grazing lands they rent out might be OK. Toting in the US Capitol, not OK.
Just as some might say Disney makes a bad business decision by banning arms from Disneyland, some will say the government(s) are poor stewards. Some would say I’m foolish for not packing heat myself. So far, I’ve never once felt I needed a gun, but of course maybe tomorrow I will be murdered in a home invasion.
Still, I would think most who call themselves L would come down on the side of respecting people’s right to exercise their subjective choices, so long as others are not harmed in making those choices, including property stewardship choices.
more…
AJ, your Nightline vid about open toting was fantastic, thanks.
And it illustrates the point wonderfully. TX allows totage of long guns on public property, but some businesses in TX don’t. This to me shows how property rights work.
Surely you don’t want to force Chipotle to allow long guns in its San Antonio restaurant, do you?
“Article I, Section 9. Until 1808.”
Yes, it could have been amended at any time after 1808. But it never was. It wasn’t until 1875 that an activist Supreme Court miracled up a federal power to regulate immigration, and even then Congress didn’t trust it and found another hook — treaty — to hang the first US immigration regulation, the Anti-Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on. It wasn’t until the 1890s that the feds started taking over immigration from the states in earnest, and it wasn’t until after World War II that one even required a passport to enter the US.
Andy,
Yes, the Constitution authorizes the US government to repel invaders (not in ALL CAPS, though). So what? Invasion consists of gang-bangers crossing each others’ turf lines to fight, not non-gang-bangers crossing those turf lines to go to work.
I dunno. If Congress was delegated rules for “naturalization,” and the rules say the immigrant can’t be naturalized until X, Y and Z are satisfied, then the immigrant is SOL and would be a “visitor” or returned home.
I disagree that gun ownership can lead to bad things…
That seems like a pretty silly position to take. If some guy buys a gun, and then uses that gun to commit a murder, or an armed robbery, then pretty clearly, his ownership of that gun lead to a bad thing. Now, you can argue that, on the whole, the right to own guns has positive consequences (and I’d agree with that), but that’s different than claiming that someone owning a gun never has negative consequences.
…statistics clearly show that mass gun ownership leads to less crime.
What if some new study showed that gun control actually reduced crime? Would you then be in favor of it? If so, then I would say your position on gun control would be consequentialist, and not libertarian.
The act of immigrating is people relocating. The act of relocating in and of itself is not really good or bad.
More importantly, the act of relocating, in and of itself, does not constitute aggression. The libertarian position is that government, if it exists, is only allowed to prohibit activities that violate the NAP. Since the act of immigrating, in and of itself, does not violate the NAP, then prohibiting it is not a libertarian position. The fact that immigration might lead to NAP violations doesn’t matter. As I’ve demonstrated above, buying a gun might lead to an NAP violation. Or, to give another example, using certain drugs (like PCP) might lead to an NAP violation. In short, if the government can ban anything that might lead to an NAP violation, then government could do almost anything it wants. That’s not libertarianism.
Pingback: Gary Johnson: Jewish Bakers Should Be Forced to Bake Nazi Cakes « Attack the System
Langa: What is your definition of “lead to”? You said,
“That seems like a pretty silly position to take. If some guy buys a gun, and then uses that gun to commit a murder, or an armed robbery, then pretty clearly, his ownership of that gun lead to a bad thing. ”
“Lead to” in this context is a very vague assertion.
“Article I, Section 9. Until 1808.”
“Yes, it could have been amended at any time after 1808. But it never was. It wasn’t until 1875 that an activist Supreme Court miracled up a federal power to regulate immigration, and even then Congress didn’t trust it and found another hook — treaty — to hang the first US immigration regulation, the Anti-Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 on.”
I think you’re confused. That Section 9 contains a limitation on Congress restricting importations of persons, which by its own terms expired 1808. That Section didn’t need to be “amended” after 1808: It expired on its own terms 1808.
Although arguably, that section did not explicitly authorize Congress from restricting immigration after 1808. You may be arguing something like ‘Since the Constitution didn’t explicitly give Congress authority to control immigration, Congress shouldn’t be able to do that, whether before 1808 or after.’
I think it would be a better world if such restrictions were thought to be in place, but there has been far more action by Congress (particularly during the 20th Century), for instance controlled-substance laws (Harrison anti-narcotic act 1918?), gun laws (about 1933), marijuana laws (1937), etc. Congress has greatly stretched the “Commerc e Clause”, the “Necessary and Proper Clause”, etc, far beyond what was originally envisioned.
Thomas Knapp:
“Yes, the Constitution authorizes the US government to repel invaders (not in ALL CAPS, though). So what? Invasion consists of gang-bangers crossing each others’ turf lines to fight, not non-gang-bangers crossing those turf lines to go to work.”
That might be your own personal opinion on the limitation of Congress, but if Congress is as ‘restricted’ as much as it generally has been by the Constitution in the 20th Century, this restriction wouldn’t last two seconds in Congress.
What is an ‘invader’? One kind, clearly, would be an army from another nation, as in 1812. Or perhaps Quantrill’s Raiders during the Civil War. But I would be hard-pressed to argue that 20+ million illegal aliens, over a period of 30 years, WEREN’T ‘invaders’ by the words of the US Constitution,
aj: there is a thing called the 2nd amendment which is supposed to prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
“Sure it does. But it doesn’t specify WHERE arms can be kept and toted. From a property rights perspective, I read this clause to mean: Y’all can keep arms on your property. Toting OFF your property is of course subject to the property owners, or their stewards. Stewardship is delegated to the states.”
When the 2nd Amendment (US Constitution) “doesn’t specificy where the arms can be kept and toted”, logic suggests that such details aren’t important to the scope of that right. This is from Wikipedia:
“Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[31] “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.””
To me, it’s obvious that this is a restriction on law-making bodies prohibiting them from restricting RTKBA. It doesn’t prevent an individual land-owner from making further restrictions covering his own property. This isn’t far off from what you agreed.
However, your talk about “stewards”, to the extent that you could include “Stewardship is delegated to the states.”, is clearly wrong. Unlike the 1st Amendment, which is phrased as “[the Federal] Congress shall make no law…”, with the 2nd Amendment the ratifying states were agreeing on a general statement that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, they were agreeing that even the state legislatures (or local governments, like towns and cities) would be prohibited from further limiting the RTKBA.
Keith Jones: You said,
“Should an American Indian baker be required to bake a Columbus day cake? What about a black slave descendant baker. Should they be required to bake a cake for the descendants of their ancestors owners? If you are in business, you are a business. Your religion doesn’t exist inside the business. Remember… The Free Market is free of Religion.”
No doubt people are entitled to take that position, for the operation of their own businesses. And that would be wise. But it isn’t required that business owners follow this practice.
Where in the Constitution does it say that tax payer funds should be used to bring immigrants into the country, and then sign them up for welfare once they are here, as is done under the Refugee Resettlement Act?
If you use tax payer funds to bring immigrants in, and then sign them up for welfare once they are here, what kind of immigrants are you likely to get, and how are they likely to vote after they become citizens?
I don’t know anyone who calls himself or herself a libertarian who favors using taxpayer funds to bring immigrants into the country and signing them up for welfare.
All I advocate is letting people come and go as they please, subject to the same laws as anyone else. That is, if someone for whom probable cause exists to believe that he or she has committed or is committing a crime is noticed, he or she gets arrested and tried; and if someone is acting as an actual invader — that is, an armed attacker levying war on the United States, not someone coming to take a job picking tomatoes, which simply can’t under any stretch be classified as “invasion” — then he or she gets killed.
To put it a different way, all I advocate is libertarianism. If you prefer an authoritarian approach, that’s fine, feel free to argue for one. But quit pretending that authoritarianism is libertarianism.
Thomas Knapp: You said, “To put it a different way, all I advocate is libertarianism. If you prefer an authoritarian approach, that’s fine, feel free to argue for one. But quit pretending that authoritarianism is libertarianism.”
You should quit pretending that something that is arguably libertarianism is “authoritarianism”. I am completely convinced that Christopher Cantwell’s essay at http://christophercantwell.com/2016/02/16/open-borders-is-global-communism/ completely destroys the “libertarianism requires a policy of open borders” nonsense.
Once we consider ‘privatization’ rather than mere ‘abolitionism’ as the proper pathway to libertarianism, we realize that we are entitled to be able to exclude others from our property.
Jim,
Your ability to exclude others from your property has never been in question. What’s in question is your ability to exclude others from MY property.
Christopher Cantwell is not a libertarian. He played one on the Internet for awhile until he either decided there wasn’t enough money in it or was ordered by his masters in DC to move on. Now he’s playing a Trump-loving race-baiter.
If you find Cantwell “completely convincing,” you’re a fucking idiot.
Christopher Cantwell is a libertarian? That’s news to me.
I’m distressed that Andy is so sure that the children of immigrants are being raised on welfare, and the majority who become citizens will vote as progressives. What hat did that come out of?
You said, “If you find Cantwell “completely convincing,” you’re a fucking idiot.”
I said I found this specific essay convincing. He is quite correct. I said,
“I am completely convinced that Christopher Cantwell’s essay at http://christophercantwell.com/2016/02/16/open-borders-is-global-communism/ completely destroys the “libertarianism requires a policy of open borders” nonsense.”
I did not say that everything else he may have had to say was completely convincing. There is a difference
But that article in particular is a huge steaming pile of irrational horseshit.
jim: with the 2nd Amendment the ratifying states were agreeing on a general statement that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, they were agreeing that even the state legislatures (or local governments, like towns and cities) would be prohibited from further limiting the RTKBA.
me: Jim, you agree that Disney can ban toting on its property, correct? No rights are being infringed upon by that company adopting that policy. The Constitution simply doesn’t specify whether toting on public property is covered by 2A or not.
Coming at it from another angle….do you believe that anyone can tote in the US Capitol? During White House visits?
Tom is attacking Cantwell based on personality, and he has been unable to refute anything that Cantwell said in the video and article above.
This is a classic case of “shoot the messenger,” but do not prove that anything the messenger said was wrong.
I do not know Chris Cantwell. I only know what I have seen of him online. He seems kind of abrasive and overly bombastic at times, and i do not agree with him on everything, but he hit the nail on the head above.
“Tom is attacking Cantwell based on personality, and he has been unable to refute anything that Cantwell said in the video and article above.”
Whether or not I’m “unable” to refute anything in the Cantwell video/article is an open question, since I haven’t waded into that pool of shit here. If there’s something specific that you think is irrefutable or want me to refute, feel free to point it out.
Langa: What is your definition of “lead to”?
I am using it in the same sense that Andy says that immigration will “lead to” more welfare, more gun control, etc. If you’re looking for a synonym, “contribute to” would probably work.
Jill, have you bothered to do any research on the issue of immigrants on welfare, and immigrant offspring on welfare? I am not making any of this stuff up. It is all documented.
FYI, Cantwell has been a Libertarian Party member in the past. He left the parparty for a few years, but he rejoined the LP a year or so ago (I am not sure if his membership is up to date at this moment or not).
THE STUDY BELOW IS FROM THE PEW RESEARCH RESEARCH CENTER.
Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/
From the artcile: “75%
Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significally lower among the public at large.”
MY COMMENT: So am I making this up, or is The Pew Research Center making this up? If you don’t believe The Pew Research Center, there are other groups which have conducted studies and have come up with the same data.
“He left the parparty for a few years, ”
Should read, “He left the party for a few years…”
“So am I making this up, or is The Pew Research Center making this up?”
Neither. It’s not that you’re making anything up. It’s that you’re using the data as an excuse to jump to an authoritarian collectivist conclusion (which is fine if that’s how you want to roll) and then trying to pretend that your authoritarian collectivist conclusion is a libertarian conclusion (which is not fine because it’s false).
Just in case Jill or anyone else reading this thinks that The Pew Research Center is lying, this is from Gallup:
Hispanic Voters Favor Gov’t Involvement to Solve Problems
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155333/hispanic-voters-favor-gov-involvement-solve-problems.aspx
From the article: “PRINCETON, NJ — The majority (56%) of Hispanic registered voters in the U.S. believe the government should ‘do more to solve our country’s problems.’ This is more than the 37% of all American registered voters who say the same. Hispanic voters born outside the U.S. are even more likely to favor government intervention than those born in the U.S.”
Also from the article: “Hispanic voters who were not born in the U.S. differ most from the views of all Americans. Hispanic voters not born in this country tilt by 61% to 22% toward the view that government should be more involved in solving problems, with almost one in five not having an opinion either way. Hispanic voters who were U.S.-born are more evenly split, with 54% saying government should do more and 41% saying the government is doing too much.
Although they believe that government should do more to solve problems, Hispanic voters are divided about whether the government should (48%) or should not (46%) promote traditional values in U.S. society. Hispanic voters who were not born in this country are the most likely to want the government to promote traditional values — whereas those born in the U.S. express views similar to those the rest of Americans hold.”
MY COMMENT: So it Gallup lying too?
Oh, and before anyone pitches a shit fit at me, I am 12.5% Hispanic (note that Hispanic is not a race, but rather refers to people from Spanish speaking countries, which is why the census says, “Hispanic or Latino of any race”).
Once we consider ‘privatization’ rather than mere ‘abolitionism’ as the proper pathway to libertarianism, we realize that we are entitled to be able to exclude others from our property.
As I have explained above, just because someone may legitimately prohibit something on their private property, in no way means that government can legitimately prohibit that same thing on public property. To claim otherwise is the antithesis of libertarianism. Private property owners can legitimately prohibit an almost unlimited number of things (speech, types of clothing, guns, drugs, religious activities, pets, foods, and so forth). To claim that government is therefore justified in banning these things on public property is not even remotely libertarian. Such a government would actually be worse than that of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. So much for Cantwell’s “convincing” argument.
jim: with the 2nd Amendment the ratifying states were agreeing on a general statement that “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, they were agreeing that even the state legislatures (or local governments, like towns and cities) would be prohibited from further limiting the RTKBA.
Robert Capozzi: Jim, you agree that Disney can ban toting on its property, correct? No rights are being infringed upon by that company adopting that policy. The Constitution simply doesn’t specify whether toting on public property is covered by 2A or not.
I agree that the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is that (private) property owners may choose to ban the carrying weapons by their guests to their property. Precisely because it’s THEIR property.
But I DON’T agree that government may ban ownership and carrying of weapons on nearly all of what is called “public property”, and yet be considered consistently following the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment has been called, by the SC in Heller (2008), a guarantee of the RTKBA as it existed in 1789: It did not “grant” rights. To understand what RTKBA should be, at least consistent with the 2nd, requires that we turn back the clock and see what weapons-laws were 227 years ago. Did government ban possession of weapons on “public” property in 1789? I don’t think so.
So, I believe that it is illegitimate for all levels of government to ban the ownership and carrying of weapons, at least in those examples of “public property” to which the public actually has access to. Certain government facilities may be an exception. Millitary bases, for instance.
“Coming at it from another angle….do you believe that anyone can tote in the US Capitol? During White House visits?”
Those may be among the rare exceptions. But let’s consider the question: At what years did it become illegal to bring weapons into the White House, or the Capitol, etc?
Should the public be able to bring guns onto airplanes? Have you ever seen an episode of Twilight Zone from 1963 where actor William Shatner “Nightmare at 20,000 feet”) in his pre-Star Trek days) played a passenger who pulled a gun when he imagined some creature fiddling with one of the engines of the plane, outside the cabin. Back then, apparently, the concept that people would be allowed to freely bring loaded guns onto planes was so accepted as to be considered unexceptional.
One of the delusions of anti-gun people is their belief that current gun laws are the way things “always” were, back to well before 1800. But that simply isn’t true.
“Thomas Knapp
April 4, 2016 at 19:20
“So am I making this up, or is The Pew Research Center making this up?”
Neither. It’s not that you’re making anything up. It’s that you’re using the data as an excuse to jump to an authoritarian collectivist conclusion ”
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! I am calling for the abolition of the state and privatizing everything and allowing land owners, and groups of land owners, to create their own policies towards who enters their land and on what terms.
I just recognize that we are not living in a true free market anarcho-capitalist society. The society in which we live in has this thing called government. Government controls common spaces. Government forces people to integrate who may not want to integrate. Government taxes people and uses those taxes in ways in which a lot of people do not approve, such using some of it for Marxist wealth redistribution. Government holds these things called elections, where various groups, primarily called Democrats and Republicans (and note that even within these groups there are internal battles for who controls each party and which policies are enacted), who battle for control and for which policies are implemented.
So given these factors:
1) Government control of common spaces (and for that matter, the government exercises some control over private spaces as well);
2) Government taxing people and using some of that tax money for Marxist wealth redistribution;
3) Government having elections to see who controls the government and which polices are enacted;
who enters the country, and what their political ideology is, are VERY RELEVANT topics.
If the state were abolished, and everything was broken up into various land owners or groups of land owners forming voluntary associations, then the topic of who enters where would not be relevant to everyone, because it would be up to each land owner or association of land owners, but THIS IS NOT OUR PRESENT REALITY.
Even in the absence of the state, there would still be some disputes over who goes where, as I’m sure that some people will still sneak into some places, or will somehow violate the terms of entrance to some places, and there’d be a market for people to remove these people from said places.
Condo associations and hotels and resorts have “immigration” policies, as in if you want to reside there or visit there, you must pay for a place, and/or pay an entrance fee, and these places have various terms of conduct and other policies in place, and the violations of said terms of conduct or policies could lead to a person being ejected from said condo association, hotel, or resort.
Cantwell did an excellent job in the video and article above at how pointing out that under the present reality in which we live under, which is a coercive state controlling common spaces, and regulating private spaces, and also having a tax system which in part finances Marxist wealth redistribution, and with policies being controlled via democratic elections (therefore making it relevant as to which candidates are elected, and which ballot measures pass), all of which makes who enters this land territory where we live highly relevant.
You’ll never have a libertarian society as long as you are surrounded by socialists, communists, and theocrats, so if immigration is being used to increase the number of socialists, communists, and theocrats (all of whom can end up on the voter rolls), of which there is more than enough data to show that this is the case, then this causes a lot of people to become alarmed, and rightfully so.
Cantwell really hit the nail on the head better than anyone I’ve ever heard on this topic in the Libertarianism Is Not a Suicide Pact video by pointing out how completely insane it is for libertarians to cheer in favor of more socialists, communists, and theocrats moving into the country where they increase the welfare rolls, and where after becoming Americans citizens a high percentage of them vote in block for bigger and bigger government, therefore voting AGAINST the interests of the same libertarians who cheered on their arrival in this country.
It is quite ironic how some of the same Libertarians who PITCH A SHIT FIT if somebody who is not a “real libertarian,” or who is not ideologically “pure” (in their definition of what that means), or who is “too Republican” (like a Bob Barr or a Wayne Root) shows up in their organization, even though their organization has little or no impact on the real world as it stands right now, yet these same Libertarians will sit and cheer as lots of immigrants enter the country, completely ignoring whatever political ideology the immigrants have, even as many of the immigrants get added to the welfare rolls of the very same welfare state Libertarians complain about frequently, and even as these immigrants gain American citizenship and get added to the voter rolls and vote in large majorities for policies which Libertarians oppose, like expansion of the welfare state and increased gun control laws.
Suicide Pact Libertarians, indeed.
You can pile as many paragraphs of collectivist authoritarian horseshit on top of each other as you want. When you’re done piling paragraphs of collectivist authoritarian horseshit atop one another, you’re still going to have a bunch of collectivist authoritarian horseshit, not anything resembling libertarianism.
Which, like I’ve said, is fine. If you want to be a collectivist authoritarian, knock yourself out. Nobody’s stopping you. Just don’t expect libertarians to pretend your collectivist authoritarian horseshit isn’t collectivist authoritarian horseshit so that you can continue to pretend it’s something else.
“Robert Capozzi: Jim, you agree that Disney can ban toting on its property, correct? No rights are being infringed upon by that company adopting that policy. The Constitution simply doesn’t specify whether toting on public property is covered by 2A or not.”
The 2nd amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed.” It does not say, “the right to keep arms at their home,” it says to BEAR ARMS.
People commonly carried around guns back in the days of the Founders, and this remained a common practice for many years after those days.
Here is a link to the Liberal People’s Party of Norway. This is a libertarian party in that country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_People%27s_Party_(Norway)
This is from their platform:
“Replace the parliamentary system and the monarchy with a constitutional republic.
Abolish coercive taxes.
Abolish all current restrictions regarding trade between Norway and other nations. Viewing the EU as a social democratic, redistributive and protectionist organization, they oppose Norwegian membership.
Simplify laws, end bureaucracy, decriminalize victimless crimes, and so forth.
Privatize roads, highways, railroads and other infrastructure, leaving their construction and upkeep to the free market.
Abolish state financing of: special interest groups, business and industry, the agricultural and fishing sectors, the unemployed, and so forth.
Abolish restrictions on immigration, provided that the above is accomplished beforehand.
Abolish mandatory military service, instead relying on a fully professional defence force.
Complete the separation of church and state.”
NOTICE THAT THEY PREDICATE ABOLISHING STATE RESTRICTIONS ON IMMIGRATION UNTIL AFTER THE ABOVE PARTS OF THEIR PLATFORM ARE ENACTED FIRST.
This is basically the same point that Cantwell and Hoppe are making, and the same point that I am making.
These libertarians in Norway have enough sense to NOT want to be Suicide Pact Libertarians.
This is also inline with the constitution of Liberland, which is a libertarian country that is trying to form on some unclaimed land in Europe. Liberland BANS socialists/communists, Nazis, and religious extremists.
The people behind Liberland also have the good sense to not enact the SUICIDE PACT LIBERTARIAN policy of allowing people with destructive anti-libertarian political views to be a part of Liberland.
Here is more data for Jill and everyone else to examine.
Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households
http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
Oh, and before some idiot labels me as being “anti-immigrant” or with some other nonsensical accusation, I formerly endorse the campaign of Chinese immigrant Lily Tang for US Senate in Colorado.
It seems to me that Christopher Cantwell seems to define himself as a liberarian.
https://youtu.be/CkxNKO8kSGc?t=46m3s
Block and Cantwell both praise Hans-Hermann Hoppe as a Libertarian examplar.
This is some hardcore anti-American horseshit from T Knapp @ April2:
“Yes. I’m counting them as what they are — natural born citizens.”
This is from March of last year.
Christopher Catwell: I Rejoined the Libertarian Party
http://christophercantwell.com/2015/03/08/i-rejoined-the-libertarian-party/
The term “natural born citizens” isn’t defined in the U.S. Constitution. I think the most likely definition is a person who had citizenship from birth, as opposed to being granted citizenship later on.
Current law (as opposed to the Constitutional requirement) is generally understood to say that a person born in America (including territories) is an American citizen. But contrary to what many people say, that is not required by the 14th Amendment. (Prior to the 14th, citizenship wasn’t defined by the U.S. Constitution.”
People often falsely believe that a case called Wong Kim Ark (1898) requires that all persons born within America be granted citizenship. But that decision was based on then-current law in 1898, at which point there was (almost) no such thing as an “illegal alien”. (That law was changed in about 1924).
Congress could, today, change the law so that children born in America of illegal aliens not be granted citizenship. Such illegal aliens owe allegiance to their own nations, and thus fall under a clause in the 14th Amendment which excludes them from being entitled to having their children automatically become citizens.
Although, this is an interesting take on Wong Kim Ark: http://www.federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered/
A portion of that article:
“Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.“
“Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
“The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause in the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
“Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power. The United States Attorney General (who was a Republican Senator involved in the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866) in 1873 ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean: ….[end of quote]
I personally am not overly caught up in native and natural born citizens vs. imports but the article that best describes its original definition can be found at:
http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2016/02/should-we-elect-an-american-president.html
I have read Let Them In by Jason L. Riley and still believe it to be persuasive on all its main points
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3243631-let-them-in
https://youtu.be/DDK9Ic2qx3I (5 minute video by Reason interviewing Jason L. Riley)
I won’t address the silly arguments of the nativist authoritarians that have taken over the latter portions of this thread, as I already did in a prior thread (or threads) and life is too short to repeat myself endlessly to the same people. Nor do I have the time to find exactly which threads they were.
However, I did find the latest citation to from Thane Eichenauer to be interesting,
Part of the article he cites says
“At the time of our nation’s founding Benjamin Franklin obtained three copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. There is a record of the acquisition from Franklin backing this up that still exists today. I’ll quote that in a moment. It was the preeminent guide on the subject. Franklin put one in a library, sent one to the College of Massachusetts, and brought one to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for the delegates to use, which they did.
This book they used defines “natural born citizen” clearly as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth. It’s a plain, clear definition of the term they used in the Constitution.”
I commend Thane Eichenauer for pointing out that by his interpretation Donald Trump is not eligible to run for president, since Mr. Trump’s now deceased mother was born in Scotland. According to wikipedia:
Donald John Trump was born on June 14, 1946, in Queens, one of New York City’s five boroughs.[7][8][9][10] He is the fourth of five children to Mary Anne (née MacLeod; 1912–2000), a homemaker and philanthropist,[11] and Fred Trump (1905–1999), who worked as a real estate developer. His mother was born at Tong on the Scottish island of Lewis and Harris.[12] In 1930, aged 18, she visited the United States and met Fred Trump. They were married in 1936 and settled in Jamaica Estates, Queens, as Fred Trump eventually became one of the city’s biggest real estate developers.
Should Mr. Trump find himself pitted in a general election against Mrs. Clinton, he ought perhaps to be worried that she or someone acting on her behalf would sue him for being ineligible. Mrs. Clinton’s parents were born in Scranton and Chicago. Mr. Trump should, I suppose, keep his fingers crossed for a come from behind victory by Senator Sanders, whose father was born in a portion of the Austro-Hungarian empire that later became a part of Poland.
However, Mr. Trump may not make it as far as the general election, particularly if Gov. Kasich realizes before the national convention that both Mr. Trump and Sen. Cruz are ineligible by the above standard and acts promptly to have them both removed from contention by the courts.
jim: Those may be among the rare exceptions. But let’s consider the question: At what years did it become illegal to bring weapons into the White House, or the Capitol, etc?
me: Strikes me if you allow exceptions, you have a problem with your argument. You are acknowledging that government can restrict toting on some public property.
When it became illegal is irrelevant. It may have been after the 1954 incident where Puerto Rican nationalists shot up the Capitol.
It also doesn’t matter how the states, as stewards, chose to have no toting rules in the 19th century. I’m OK with a state choosing that approach now as well. I’m also OK with some states choosing to follow Disney’s lead and restricting toting on public property.
What some forget is there have been some rather spectacular events on public property in the past decades that motivate some restrictions on toting. The Capitol shooting. Assassinations. Add to that skyjackings, which while the airliners were privately owned, they did fly through public property.
Have some states overreacted in their stewardship of public property? Sure. Has Disney overreacted as well? Harder for me to say.
Of course, I’m simply reading the plain text of the Constitution and applying standard property rights analysis to the situation. If that’s an improper approach, I’d like to hear why so.
62% of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare | Steven Camarota and Stefan Molyneux
Here is what Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to his 15 year old nephew about carrying a gun:
1785 August 19. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Notice how Jefferson said, “the carrying of arms”?
Robert, here’s my take on carrying guns.
If a place is open to the public to come and go, then people ought to be able to carry guns there. The same goes with speech.
If a place is not open to the public to come and go, then I can see placing restrictions on carrying guns, speech, etc…
Here is a comment from Christopher Cantwell that is posted in the comment thread below this video:
“Christopher Cantwell6 months ago
+Kyle P I favor open borders, in a free market. Once price controls enter the picture, we’ve got major problems.?”
Christopher Cantwell: Open Borders, or Market Immigration?
My reply to Robert Capozzi inline:
jim: Those may be among the rare exceptions. But let’s consider the question: At what years did it become illegal to bring weapons into the White House, or the Capitol, etc?
RC: Strikes me if you allow exceptions, you have a problem with your argument. You are acknowledging that government can restrict toting on some public property.
I’m not the one proposing there be an exception.
“When it became illegal is irrelevant. It may have been after the 1954 incident where Puerto Rican nationalists shot up the Capitol.”
You should have said that when it became illegal isn’t CONTROLLING, not that it is irrelevant. I consider American gun laws to have gone wrong in about 1933, the National Firearms Act.
“It also doesn’t matter how the states, as stewards, chose to have no toting rules in the 19th century. I’m OK with a state choosing that approach now as well.”
I don’t think states had a proper choice here. The 2nd Amendment rules, or at least should rule. While the SC only decided the question in 2008, in Heller v. DC, I think the proper interpretation of the 2nd has always been that the matter was decided when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791.
” I’m also OK with some states choosing to follow Disney’s lead and restricting toting on public property.”
Well, then you are wrong. What else is new? The question concerning non-private property was decided in 1791.
“What some forget is there have been some rather spectacular events on public property in the past decades that motivate some restrictions on toting.”
Not controlling: The decision was made in 1791. Those writing the US Constitution decided to guarantee the right as it existed in that year. If laws didn’t exist then prohibiting ownership on “public property” in 1791, then that is presumed to be the right of people. Subsequent incidents may have led to people wishing that the 1791 decision had not been made, or made differently, but that is ‘water under the bridge’.
“The Capitol shooting. Assassinations. Add to that skyjackings, which while the airliners were privately owned, they did fly through public property.”
Again, the decision was made in 1791. Reversible only through a Constitutional amendment. Which has not yet been done. “Flying through public property” is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment said nothing about “private property”.
Have some states overreacted in their stewardship of public property? Sure. Has Disney overreacted as well? Harder for me to say.
“Of course, I’m simply reading the plain text of the Constitution and applying standard property rights analysis to the situation. If that’s an improper approach, I’d like to hear why so.”
Your “improper approach” is that you are interpreting “public property” as being analogous to private property, AND THEN you are ignoring the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t prohibit individual property owners from prohibiting gun possession on their own property; it DOES prohibit governments from prohibiting gun possession on what they declare to be “public property”. If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t affect private property, nor public property, what does it affect?!?
Wang Tang Fu:
Above, you said in part:
“This book they used defines “natural born citizen” clearly as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth. It’s a plain, clear definition of the term they used in the Constitution.”
Here is the actual reference to Emer[ich] de Vattel’s book: http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2016/02/should-we-elect-an-american-president.html
“Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at § 212:
§ 212: The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Evidently, you simply added the “…whose parents are citizens of the country _at_the_time_of_birth_.”
It sure is convenient to invent “facts” when you need them.
Try again.
Jim, what if a property owner opens up their property for the public to come and go without permission? The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st amendment applies on such property (see Marsh v Alabama for one example). So what about the 2nd amendment? I know that in states that recognize the right to carry guns that people can carry guns anywhere the general public has access to come and go freely.
Don’t blame me, that was a quote from Thane Eichenauer’s link. I didn’t invent anything, but perhaps the author of that article did. However, I would also read it the same way even without that additional part, as I would not interpret “…of parents who are citizens” to mean of parents who subsequently become citizens. Perhaps it is my excessively poor grasp of English that I would not interpret it that way.
Donald Trump was born in 1946. His mother was naturalized in 1942. She was a citizen when he was born.
There is a second citation from the same book in the same typepad article. The first citation appears further up in the article and includes the part that I supposedly invented. If anyone cares, they can read the typepad article for themselves and do a text search. It is near the beginning of the article.
Jim: I’m not the one proposing there be an exception.
me: No, you didn’t “propose” it, but you agreed that there may be rare exceptions. Once an absolute is blown, it’s no longer an absolute.
jim: You should have said that when it became illegal isn’t CONTROLLING, not that it is irrelevant. I consider American gun laws to have gone wrong in about 1933, the National Firearms Act.
me: I’ll stick with irrelevant, although controlling works as well. Thanks for the suggestion, though.
Jim: The 2nd Amendment rules, or at least should rule. While the SC only decided the question in 2008, in Heller v. DC, I think the proper interpretation of the 2nd has always been that the matter was decided when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791.
me: I really don’t think you are getting my point, so let me try again. My understanding is that Heller “protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
I agree with that, and that makes sense. My understanding is that, per 2A, everyone has the right to possess a gun at home in the US. I’m pretty sure — but correct me if I am incorrect — that the matter of LEAVING one’s property toting is now governed by generally state law. Some states allow open carry, others concealed, others require permits, etc.
This all makes perfect sense to me. Once you leave your property, the property owner or steward can exercise his or her property rights, and establish what you may bear where.
Jim: Well, then you are wrong. What else is new? The question concerning non-private property was decided in 1791.
Me: Am I? Strap a rifle to your back and get on an NYC subway and let us know how that goes. I’m pretty sure if a cop sees you, you will be arrested. I’m pretty sure Heller didn’t change that, but if it did, actual evidence would be nice.
Jim: Not controlling: The decision was made in 1791. Those writing the US Constitution decided to guarantee the right as it existed in that year. If laws didn’t exist then prohibiting ownership on “public property” in 1791, then that is presumed to be the right of people.
me: You may well presume that. It’s a rather archaic interpretation, particularly given that the USC also established courts to interpret the Constitution and other laws.
There was also established in the Constitution the ability to amend. 2A could be amended to clarify that the Feds and the states can’t — as stewards of public property — have rules for what can be toted off people’s property onto public property. The Jim-written Constitution might well read: Anyone can carry any firearm anywhere, open or concealed. Unfortunately for you, it simply doesn’t say that.
Jim: Again, the decision was made in 1791. Reversible only through a Constitutional amendment. Which has not yet been done. “Flying through public property” is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment said nothing about “private property”.
me: Right, it’s silent on the matter, as it’s assumed. Are you really arguing that 2A applies to Disneyland?
As Rothbard I think correctly pointed out, we do have freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to shout fire in a theater. There, the property owner may constrict what speech is acceptable or not.
Same concept applies for 2A.
Jim: Your “improper approach” is that you are interpreting “public property” as being analogous to private property, AND THEN you are ignoring the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t prohibit individual property owners from prohibiting gun possession on their own property; it DOES prohibit governments from prohibiting gun possession on what they declare to be “public property”. If the 2nd Amendment doesn’t affect private property, nor public property, what does it affect?!?
me: I see. So does that mean that if a person is in a state university’s theater, he or she CAN shout fire because it’s public property, not private property?
more…
Jim, are you saying that anything you do at home or on your property, you can do on public property? Can you drive on the left drunk at 100 mph? Take a dump in the gutter? Can you burn down parkland?
If not, what can the government do as steward of public property?
Robert Capozzi said: “So does that mean that if a person is in a state university’s theater, he or she CAN shout fire because it’s public property, not private property?”
Shouting fire in a theater if there is not fire is an act of fraud. If there were a fire in a theater and a person shouted fire, and then everyone quickly evacuated, the people in the theater would thank the person who shouted fire for helping to save them.
Another factor at play in this scenario is the function of the theater. People go to the theater to here what is being said from the stage or screen. If a person is shouting inside the theater then they’d be disrupting the reason that the people were in attendance. However, if a person were standing outside the theater speaking, their speech does not interfere with the operation of the theater, unless they were blocking the door to the theater, in which case the issue would not be one of speech, but rather blocking the flow of pedestrian traffic.
“People go to the theater to here what is being said”
Should read, “People go to the theater to hear what is being said…”
“Jim, what if a property owner opens up their property for the public to come and go without permission? The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st amendment applies on such property (see Marsh v Alabama for one example). So what about the 2nd amendment? I know that in states that recognize the right to carry guns that people can carry guns anywhere the general public has access to come and go freely.”
Sounds like the same argument the cake slavers make — that if you’re “open to the public,” your property somehow ceases to be your property and anyone and everyone gets to make use of it in any way they want whether you like it or not.
aj: Shouting fire in a theater if there is not fire is an act of fraud.
me: I track. OTOH, it’s also not a benefit of the bargain. The theater owner offers entertainment, and the theater goes pays for the entertainment offered. Acting inappropriately and outside the bargain is not the deal that’s been agreed to.
Andy said:
“Jim, what if a property owner opens up their property for the public to come and go without permission? The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st amendment applies on such property (see Marsh v Alabama for one example). So what about the 2nd amendment? I know that in states that recognize the right to carry guns that people can carry guns anywhere the general public has access to come and go freely.”
Well, presumably if a person lets others onto his own property, he may do so with no limits, some limits, or any kind of limits.
Wang Tang Fu said:
“Don’t blame me, that was a quote from Thane Eichenauer’s link. I didn’t invent anything, but perhaps the author of that article did. However, I would also read it the same way even without that additional part, as I would not interpret “…of parents who are citizens” to mean of parents who subsequently become citizens. Perhaps it is my excessively poor grasp of English that I would not interpret it that way.”
This is from the Wikipedia article on Marco Rubio:
“Rubio was born in Miami, Florida,[3] the second son and third child of Mario Rubio Reina[4] and Oriales (née Garcia) Rubio. His parents were Cubans who immigrated to the United States in 1956, prior to the rise of Fidel Castro in January 1959.[5] His mother made at least four trips back after Castro’s victory, including for a month in 1961.[5] Neither of his parents was a U.S. citizen at the time of Rubio’s birth,[6] but his parents applied for U.S. citizenship and were naturalized in 1975.[5]”
If the definition of “natural born citizen” included the requirement that a person’s parents be US citizens at the time of his birth, Marco would not qualify.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for President. He had been born in Arizona _territory_, just a few years before it became a state.
jim: …if a person lets others onto his own property, he may do so with no limits, some limits, or any kind of limits.
me: But, apparently, according to you, no such limits can be placed on public property, is that your view?
And then there’s this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/
Odd that MS feels the need to use legislative social engineering in this manner.
“But, apparently, according to you, no such limits can be placed on public property, is that your view?”
Of course.
First of all, since the government claims to be my agent, administering my property for my benefit (I’m a member of the “public”), how the hell could it have any right to limit my use of that property? Who’s the boss here?
Secondly, The US Constitution applies to the government. And it says the government doesn’t get to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Where the hell would that restriction apply if not on property the government has control of? Russia or somewhere?
tk: Who’s the boss here?
me: Oh, you’re the boss on your property, mos’ def’. When you venture into the common space, it’s the condo association.
tk: Secondly, The US Constitution applies to the government. And it says the government doesn’t get to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Where the hell would that restriction apply if not on property the government has control of? Russia or somewhere?
me: Definitely with you on your own property nationwide. I might be inclined to agree with you on federal property, although frankly it feels weird to me to take the position that you should be able to tote in the Capitol.
It seems abundantly reasonable that states could limit public totage. The reasonable man standard is, after all, fundamental to jurisprudence.
more…
Not that I think the USC is the end all and be all, but let’s not forget 10A.
Why SHOULDN’T I forget an unexplained acronym or abbreviation?
Oh, wait … 10th Amendment? The 10th Amendment explains why the states don’t get to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.
“robert capozzi
April 5, 2016 at 17:44
tk: Who’s the boss here?
me: Oh, you’re the boss on your property, mos’ def’. When you venture into the common space, it’s the condo association.”
I think that your comparison to a condo association is a good one (even though the government is a coercive “condo association”), but the rules for the government “condo association” say that the government is prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
if I had the money to open up a private city, which is basically what my Libertarian Zone concept is, the contract that I would draw up (remember, everyone living in or visiting the Libertarian Zone would be bound by the Libertarian Zone contract) would allow for people to carry guns and engage in free speech anywhere that is open to the public. It would be up to the property owners of places that were not open to the public as to whether or not people could carry guns or engage in free speech on their property.
With the current crop of libertarian presidential candidates, is the best we can do or have to offer? Not enthusiastic about any of the candidates running on the libertarian presidential ticket, not sure I’ll even vote in November.
I do kind of like McAfee, plus, he’s just selected a friend of mine (Judd Weiss) to be his running mate. I wish he didn’t have so much baggage, though.
I’m still officially endorsing Darryl Perry.
(I owe IPR an article about McAfee’s choice. Maybe I can get to it tonight.)
“Thomas L. Knapp
April 5, 2016 at 14:37
‘Jim, what if a property owner opens up their property for the public to come and go without permission? The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st amendment applies on such property (see Marsh v Alabama for one example). So what about the 2nd amendment? I know that in states that recognize the right to carry guns that people can carry guns anywhere the general public has access to come and go freely.’
Sounds like the same argument the cake slavers make — that if you’re “open to the public,” your property somehow ceases to be your property and anyone and everyone gets to make use of it in any way they want whether you like it or not.”
This is not a valid argument. A person carrying a gun or speaking does not force a person to do anything, not does it take any resources, unlike baking a cake. The police frequently pass through and hang out in these type of venues, and they carry guns with them while doing it, so there’s no reason why a regular person cannot carry a gun in these same places.
If a person walks on to property that is open to the public they do not forfeit all of their rights. If they did, then the next time you drive into a shopping center parking lot, it would be OK for the shopping center employees to ransack your car, or to grab you and drag you into a back room and rape you.
If a person has a right to defend themselves from attackers, and a gun is a tool for defense from attackers, disallowing a person to carry a gun is essentially taking away person’s right to defend themselves. The same thing with speech.
The Marsh v Alabama case was about somebody who was street preaching in Chickasaw, Alabama, the only thing is that the town was a corporate town, as in the entire town was owned by the Gulf Shipping Company. The Supreme Court ruled that because the corporate town was open for the public to come and go without permission, that the 1st amendment applied.
Most of today’s spaces that are open to the public but are corporate are so intermixed with government, that they really are not as “private” as they appear to be. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, Walmart and other big corporate stores like Target, Home Depot, Kroger, Safeway, etc…, receive billions of dollars in tax payer funding, get land given to them via eminent domain, process billions of dollars worth of food stamps, sometimes have US Post Offices or mail boxes on their premises (or they sell stamps), sometimes sell state lottery tickets, and frequently have police that just hang out in front of them (basically acting as security guards for these stores). A lot of people do not know this, but government entities such as government employee pension funds, state universities, toll authorities, port authorities, water districts, school districts, etc…, have billions and billions of dollars in investments, and they own stock in all of the big, publicly traded corporations, and as I mentioned above, these government entities own billions of dollars worth of Walmart, and etc… So given these facts, I don’t think that private property arguments fly at all when it comes to these venues.
“Mike B.
April 5, 2016 at 18:33
With the current crop of libertarian presidential candidates, is the best we can do or have to offer? Not enthusiastic about any of the candidates running on the libertarian presidential ticket, not sure I’ll even vote in November.”
Same here.
“Jill Pyeatt
April 5, 2016 at 18:42
I’m still officially endorsing Darryl Perry.”
I’d be more enthusiastic about Perry’s campaign if he raised more money and had more campaign organization, and were running a higher profile campaign (by LP standards).
Andy,
Thanks for your heroically verbose exercise in establishing that yes, you’re making exactly the same argument for a right to impose your desire to carry arms on someone else’s property that you reject when it’s used as an argument for a right to impose someone’s desire for a cake from someone else’s property,
I reject that argument in both cases. Your land (aka your property) is no more mine to use on any terms other than those you set than is your time and effort (aka your property). I don’t owe a cake to a gay couple and I don’t owe you space on my floor.
jim: …if a person lets others onto his own property, he may do so with no limits, some limits, or any kind of limits.
Capozzi: But, apparently, according to you, no such limits can be placed on public property, is that your view?
You said, “such limits”. The 2nd Amendment prohibits governments from “infringing” the RTKBA. I interpret “infringement” to mean any reduction, even around the “fringes”. Placing limits on public property would be an “infringement” of the practice as it existed in 1791, and is thus a reduction to the right the Constitution guarantees.
tk: The 10th Amendment explains why the states don’t get to regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.
me: Not quite how I read that language. 2A says we have the RTKBA, but it doesn’t say specifically where. 10A leaves “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Together, that’s how I arrive at nationwide right to keep and bear on one’s property, but powers to act as steward is left first to the states, then the people. IL can say, sorry, we respect the ability to keep a firearm on your property, but when you come onto the commons, we — like Disney — have the power to attach strings to totage.
jim: The 2nd Amendment prohibits governments from “infringing” the RTKBA. I interpret “infringement” to mean any reduction, even around the “fringes”. Placing limits on public property would be an “infringement” of the practice as it existed in 1791, and is thus a reduction to the right the Constitution guarantees.
me: I missed that. Not how I read 2A and 10A together, as I just explained to TK. 2A is silent on what is delegated to the states, and we’ve I think all agreed that Disney is within their rights to ban toting on their property. If they can, so can states when it comes to public property.
robert capozzi said: “Together, that’s how I arrive at nationwide right to keep and bear on one’s property, but powers to act as steward is left first to the states, then the people. IL can say, sorry, we respect the ability to keep a firearm on your property, but when you come onto the commons, we — like Disney — have the power to attach strings to totage.”
Did you read the quotes from Thomas Jefferson said about carrying guns above? Do you think what you said is what they actually had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment?
robert capozzi said:
And then there’s this:
“https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/
“Odd that MS feels the need to use legislative social engineering in this manner.”
I might agree. As a libertaian, I don’t believe that government has any authority to force one person to deal with another, or company, or corporation, etc. It should therefore not be necessary to pass a law to “allow” a business to refuse service to anyone. Since the only entity which purports (in some areas) to prohibit businesses from discriminating is government, why should they pass a law to allow what should be their right in the first place?
But that, my position, is not PC.
jim said: “Since the only entity which purports (in some areas) to prohibit businesses from discriminating is government, why should they pass a law to allow what should be their right in the first place?”
Maybe they did it to clarify what the law is on this matter.
more…
Of course, I have no regard for practices in 1791. Slavery was legal then, for ex.
jim: The 2nd Amendment prohibits governments from “infringing” the RTKBA. I interpret “infringement” to mean any reduction, even around the “fringes”. Placing limits on public property would be an “infringement” of the practice as it existed in 1791, and is thus a reduction to the right the Constitution guarantees.
Capozzi:” I missed that. Not how I read 2A and 10A together, as I just explained to TK. 2A is silent on what is delegated to the states, and we’ve I think all agreed that Disney is within their rights to ban toting on their property. If they can, so can states when it comes to public property.”
The Heller decision pointed out for much of the 19th and 20th century, the Bill of Rights wasn’t considered applicable to the states, just the Federal Government.
“We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment . It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. Other provisions of the Bill of Rights have similarly remained unilluminated for lengthy periods. This Court first held a law to violate the First Amendment ’s guarantee of freedom of speech in 1931, almost 150 years after the Amendment was ratified, see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697 (1931) , and it was not until after World War II that we held a law invalid under the Establishment Clause, see Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Ed. of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign Cty., 333 U. S. 203 (1948) . Even a question as basic as the scope of proscribable libel was not addressed by this Court until 1964, nearly two centuries after the founding. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964) . It is demonstrably not true that, as Justice Stevens claims, post, at 41–42,“for most of our history, the invalidity of Second-Amendment-based objections to firearms regulations has been well settled and uncontroversial.” For most of our history the question did not present itself.”
The Heller decision also stated:
” Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a “novel principl[e]” but rather codified a right “inherited from our English ancestors,” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) , petitioners’ interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment ’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.”
Robert Capozzi said:
“Of course, I have no regard for practices in 1791. Slavery was legal then, for ex.”
You are not required to like the way things were done in 1791. But your preference is irrelevant to the scope of the right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Or did you think it was?
jim said: “Since the only entity which purports (in some areas) to prohibit businesses from discriminating is government, why should they pass a law to allow what should be their right in the first place?”
Andy: “Maybe they did it to clarify what the law is on this matter.”
Unfortunately, that is probably necessary these days.
“2A says we have the RTKBA, but it doesn’t say specifically where. 10A leaves ‘powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'”
To the States respectively, or to the people.
The Second Amendment says which one of those two the RTKBA is reserved to. It is a “right of the people.” The states are no more empowered to infringe it than the feds are.
Your “improper approach” is that you are interpreting “public property” as being analogous to private property…
Cantwell’s argument that you find so “convincing” has exactly the same flaw.
Odd that MS feels the need to use legislative social engineering in this manner.
The whole “religious freedom” argument is silly. The right to refuse service (which I of course fully support) has nothing to do with religion. It’s a matter of property rights, plain and simple.
TK said:
Sounds like the same argument the cake slavers make — that if you’re “open to the public,” your property somehow ceases to be your property and anyone and everyone gets to make use of it in any way they want whether you like it or not.”
Then Andy said:
This is not a valid argument. A person carrying a gun or speaking does not force a person to do anything, not does it take any resources, unlike baking a cake.
I say:
TK is right. Private property owners can set whatever standards they want on their property. If they want to ban guns or speech, that is their right. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. And, even though it doesn’t matter, carrying a gun or saying certain things could indirectly take away resources, by driving away potential customers. Why do you think a business would have those rules in the first place? Just to be assholes?
“langa
April 5, 2016 at 22:57
‘Your ‘improper approach’ is that you are interpreting ‘public property’ as being analogous to private property…’
Cantwell’s argument that you find so ‘convincing’ has exactly the same flaw.”
Just because the government controls and regulates property in this county is no reason that said property should be opened up to everyone on the planet, particularly if the people in question have ideologies that are socialist, communist, or theocratic.
The current situation with immigration is NOT what would happen if all land in the USA were privatized, and it clearly does not reflect the will of most people.
Since when do libertarians support NON-peaceful people crossing borders? Anyone who is not a libertarian is by definition NOT a peaceful person.
langa said: “TK is right. Private property owners can set whatever standards they want on their property. If they want to ban guns or speech, that is their right. ”
What if the land they are on was seized through eminent domain?
Also, if the land is open to the public to come and go, does this mean that they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT? If so, somebody could keep land open to the public, and look for women (or children) that they want to rape, and then once they walk on the land, they could rape them, and then say, “Well it is my land, so I can do whatever I want.”
” If you don’t like it, don’t go there. And, even though it doesn’t matter, carrying a gun or saying certain things could indirectly take away resources, by driving away potential customers. Why do you think a business would have those rules in the first place? Just to be assholes?”
Oh bullshit. Have you ever been to Arizona, or any state where people open carry? I’ve been in states like Arizona, where it is not uncommon to see a person open carry a gun, and I’ve seen them walking around in shopping centers, and nobody cares. It does not cost any store any business.
Also, the police regularly show up at these same venues and they carry guns. Why should it be OK for the police to carry guns at these venues and nobody else?
Notice how the paragraph I posted about about how in today’s society, there really are not very many shopping centers and similar places that are not tied in with the government. Do a little bit of research, and you’ll find that EVERY big corporate stores takes lots of tax payer funding, and that pretty much all of them are part owned by government. The land where many of these places are built in lots of cases was taken through eminent domain, or handed out as a giveaway from a city or state government to a corporation. There are some cases where a local government actually owns shopping centers, sometimes through shell corporations. How often have you seen the police hanging around in front of Walmart, or other corporate stores/shopping centers, basically acting as security guards for said venues? I have seen this pretty frequently around the nation.
langa said: “. If you don’t like it, don’t go there. And, even though it doesn’t matter, carrying a gun or saying certain things could indirectly take away resources, by driving away potential customers.”
This is a ridiculous statement. Lots of things could offend lots of people. Seeing black people shopping at a store may offend somebody. Seeing a Jewish shopper wearing a Yarmulke may offend somebody. Seeing somebody wearing a Christian cross may offend somebody. Seeing somebody wearing an Eagles football jersey may offend somebody.
If you don’t take any rights with you after you leave your land (and what if you don’t own any land?), then you don’t really have any rights.
“You’ve got the right to keep and bear arms and the right to free speech, but you give up those rights once you walk out of your yard.”
“hy do you think a business would have those rules in the first place? Just to be assholes?”
Name a business that has these rules. I see people with guns walking around at all kinds of businesses on a pretty regular basis. These people are called cops.
Unless you are talking about some small mom & pop business, pretty much any big corporate business in this country is tied in with and subsidized by the state.
Say somebody has a “no guns allowed” policy, so a person leaves their gun at home and enters. While in said location, they get mugged, or raped. Should the venue that had the “no guns allowed” policy be held liable in a law suit?
Mercenary petition circulators are currently getting paid $4 per signature (this is one of multiple initiative petitions circulating in California right now) to place the gun control measure below on the California ballot for the election this November.
Given the number of foreign born people, and the number of “big city liberals” in California, do not be surprised if this initiative passes.
GUN CONTROL: Life under Newsom’s “Safety For All” Act of 2016
RC: ” Jim, are you saying that anything you do at home or on your property, you can do on public property? Can you drive on the left drunk at 100 mph? Take a dump in the gutter? Can you burn down parkland?
If not, what can the government do as steward of public property?”
The second Amendment prohibits government in America from infringing the RTKBA. It doesn’t cover driving, polluting, arson, etc.
Jim, you seem to be fixated on this “original understanding” idea. You quote Heller, for instance, saying: “We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.”
Now, as far as I know, Heller did not lead to a nationwide adoption of the alleged original understanding that anyone can tote anything anywhere on public property. Did I miss something? Can you pack heat in Chicago now? Strap an Uzi on your back in San Francisco?
Cherry picking language out of Supreme Court decisions doesn’t enlighten much. Heller, like most decisions they make, has a pretty narrow sweep in terms of policy change, as I read it. You?
Jim: You are not required to like the way things were done in 1791. But your preference is irrelevant to the scope of the right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Or did you think it was?
Me: Thanks. Ya know, I can’t say I have a particular preference. I definitely don’t think there’s a right to tote on another’s private property. I definitely think there are good reasons to ban machine guns. Other than that, I’m just reading the words in the USC and doing my best to interpret them. And to respect property rights more broadly.
When I studied constitutional law a bit as an undergrad, I noticed that there were pretty large differences of interpretation on a number of issues. The USC has been reinterpreted a number of times, and chances are that will happen in the future, too. You say that yourself on this thread: “The Heller decision pointed out for much of the 19th and 20th century, the Bill of Rights wasn’t considered applicable to the states, just the Federal Government.”
Tk: The states are no more empowered to infringe [RTKBA] than the feds are.
ME: Let me try again.
1 The USC says there’s a RTKBA, but it doesn’t say where.
2 We agree that doesn’t apply to another’s property.
3 It’s no longer “necessary to the security of a free State,” at least for decades since some states have regulated public totage.
4 I agree that states and the feds are not empowered to infringe on the RTKBA on one’s own property. States are empowered to exercise stewardship of public property. And, last I checked, even federal enclaves like DC still don’t allow unlimited public totage.
5 Rights — including 2A rights — have always been constrained by property rights, and that strikes me as a good idea.
6 1A rights are also constrained by property rights and the reasonable man standard. We have the right to protest, but the states regulate where and when. Midnight vigils with bullhorns in residential areas are not allowed by most if not all states. Toting machine guns in the subway is also regulated by the public’s steward. You may think that midnight vigils with bullhorns in residential areas and machine guns in the subway should be OK, but it seems plain to me that the virtually all of the rest of the public doesn’t agree with you. You do have the right to try to convince them otherwise, though.
The current situation with immigration is NOT what would happen if all land in the USA were privatized, and it clearly does not reflect the will of most people.
And there it is again — this ridiculous assertion that there is no difference between public and private property. It simply amazes me that someone who considers himself a libertarian doesn’t understand such a crucial distinction.
What if the land they are on was seized through eminent domain?
Then that land should be taken from them, and returned to its original owners.
Also, if the land is open to the public to come and go, does this mean that they can do WHATEVER THEY WANT? If so, somebody could keep land open to the public, and look for women (or children) that they want to rape, and then once they walk on the land, they could rape them, and then say, “Well it is my land, so I can do whatever I want.”
Obviously not. Rape violates the NAP.
I’ve been in states like Arizona, where it is not uncommon to see a person open carry a gun, and I’ve seen them walking around in shopping centers, and nobody cares. It does not cost any store any business.
Obviously, if it was keeping people away, of course you wouldn’t see them there. That’s what “keeping away” means.
Also, the police regularly show up at these same venues and they carry guns. Why should it be OK for the police to carry guns at these venues and nobody else?
I’m not saying it is OK or not OK. I’m saying that decision should be left up to the property owners.
Notice how the paragraph I posted about about how in today’s society, there really are not very many shopping centers and similar places that are not tied in with the government. Do a little bit of research, and you’ll find that EVERY big corporate stores takes lots of tax payer funding, and that pretty much all of them are part owned by government. The land where many of these places are built in lots of cases was taken through eminent domain, or handed out as a giveaway from a city or state government to a corporation. There are some cases where a local government actually owns shopping centers, sometimes through shell corporations. How often have you seen the police hanging around in front of Walmart, or other corporate stores/shopping centers, basically acting as security guards for said venues? I have seen this pretty frequently around the nation.
Obviously, libertarians should oppose these sorts of things. But what we shouldn’t do is say that because of these things, we should act as if every business is now owned by the government. That’s communism, not libertarianism. Your argument seems to be, “Well, since we don’t have a perfectly free market, then screw it. Let’s just go to full-blown totalitarianism!”
Lots of things could offend lots of people. Seeing black people shopping at a store may offend somebody. Seeing a Jewish shopper wearing a Yarmulke may offend somebody. Seeing somebody wearing a Christian cross may offend somebody. Seeing somebody wearing an Eagles football jersey may offend somebody.
A private business should have the right to ban any or all of those things. If they did so, it would probably be pretty stupid, since they would probably cost themselves more customers than they gained, but that would be their business. Literally.
Say somebody has a “no guns allowed” policy, so a person leaves their gun at home and enters. While in said location, they get mugged, or raped. Should the venue that had the “no guns allowed” policy be held liable in a law suit?
Obviously not. They didn’t force that person to enter their business.
These arguments that you’re making are just bizarre. I think TK was right earlier in the thread. You seem to have abandoned libertarianism. Even RC sounds more libertarian on this thread than you do.
My replies inline:
“Jim, you seem to be fixated on this “original understanding” idea. ”
It’s not just me. It’s the Supreme Court. Since the right is said by them to be guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, the meaning of that text by those who wrote and ratified it is important.
“You quote Heller, for instance, saying: “We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment.””
There, the Heller majority was addressing the assertion that it, in the Heller decision, was somehow changing the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That majority considered the relatively small number of SC decisions addressing the meaning of that Amendment, and showed how the Heller decision is consistent with all prior SC opinions.
“Now, as far as I know, Heller did not lead to a nationwide adoption of the alleged original understanding that anyone can tote anything anywhere on public property. Did I miss something? Can you pack heat in Chicago now? Strap an Uzi on your back in San Francisco?”
That’s not how the American legal system works. Consider that it took many years to actually implement the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision. This is from the Wikipedia article, “Separate but equal”:
The doctrine was overturned by a series of Supreme Court decisions starting with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. However, the overturning of legal separation laws in the United States was a long process that lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s involving many court cases and federal legislation.
“Cherry picking language out of Supreme Court decisions doesn’t enlighten much. Heller, like most decisions they make, has a pretty narrow sweep in terms of policy change, as I read it. You?”
Why do you call it “cherry picking”? Heller is many pages long. Any reasonable-sized quote to be placed here is only a tiny fraction of its size. Doesn’t that mean you could always call it “cherry picking”, no matter how proper the quote was?
“Jim: You are not required to like the way things were done in 1791. But your preference is irrelevant to the scope of the right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Or did you think it was?”
“Me: Thanks. Ya know, I can’t say I have a particular preference. I definitely don’t think there’s a right to tote on another’s private property. I definitely think there are good reasons to ban machine guns.”
The fact that you think “there are good reasons to ban machine guns” doesn’t mean that to do this would be properly allowed under the 2nd Amendment. They already made the decision in 1791.
“Other than that, I’m just reading the words in the USC and doing my best to interpret them. And to respect property rights more broadly.”
Problem is, you weren’t alive in 1791, and you don’t know the context under which the 2nd Amendment was written. Much of its proper interpretation requires the knowledge of history, including the legal history, that the average (non-lawyer) person wouldn’t be aware of.
“When I studied constitutional law a bit as an undergrad, I noticed that there were pretty large differences of interpretation on a number of issues”
How about a few examples? Do you mean within different Federal Circuits? Or between Federal and State? Or do you mean over time, like years or decades?
. The USC has been reinterpreted a number of times, and chances are that will happen in the future, too. You say that yourself on this thread: “The Heller decision pointed out for much of the 19th and 20th century, the Bill of Rights wasn’t considered applicable to the states, just the Federal Government.”
That’s because of that (foolish, in my opinion) practice of “incorporation”. The 1st Amendment, at least, was written (wrongly, in my opinion) to literally apply only to [the Federal] “Congress”. The country has been interpreting the 1st Amendment to apply to both Federal and State governments (which is good, I think), but this omission is glaring.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t limit itself to Federal application. Even more relevantly than the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment has even more reason to have been immediately applied to the States and localities, as well as the Feds.
“Tk: The states are no more empowered to infringe [RTKBA] than the feds are.”
“ME: Let me try again.”
“1 The USC says there’s a RTKBA, but it doesn’t say where.”
The 2nd Amendment refers to a RTKBA. The SC, in the Heller decision, decided that the state of laws in 1791 was the relevant time frame to compare. And the second merely refers to it not being appropriate to infringe the RTKBA as it existed in 1791. Therefore, it is not proper for any American government to infringe the RTKBA, anywhere in American territory, today.
“2 We agree that doesn’t apply to another’s property.”
Not exactly. The 2nd Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from infringing RTKBA anywhere in America. It doesn’t say that individual property-owners can’t set restrictions on visitors to their own property. An individual property owner prohibiting armed people from visiting his land doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.
“3 It’s no longer “necessary to the security of a free State,” at least for decades since some states have regulated public totage.”
You are entitled to your opinion. Others are entitled to theirs. Neither justifies the change in interpretion of the right as guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. If anything, I think people are MORE in need of easily-accessible weapons as they were 100 years ago.
“4 I agree that states and the feds are not empowered to infringe on the RTKBA on one’s own property. States are empowered to exercise stewardship of public property.”
That depends on what you mean is “stewardship”. If you mean engaging in restriction of the RTKBA, I say you’re wrong. I think the 2nd Amendment prohibited government from implementing restrictions of a type that didn’t exist in 1791.
This is progress:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/18/federal-court-strikes-down-some-dc-gun-laws-as-unconstitutional.html
” And, last I checked, even federal enclaves like DC still don’t allow unlimited public totage.”
Well, I think that DC is wrong here as well: Were people allowed to possess weapons “in federal enclaves” (if any existed) in 1791? Ideally, a lower court will examine the issue, apply the reasoning from Heller and McDonald, and decide that the RTKBA didn’t allow governments to restrict gun possession, and thus strike down current anti-gun laws.
5 Rights — including 2A rights — have always been constrained by property rights, and that strikes me as a good idea.
If you are referring to private property rights, okay. But you need to be more specific than merely saying, “constrained by property rights”.
“6 1A rights are also constrained by property rights and the reasonable man standard. We have the right to protest, but the states regulate where and when.”
To a very limited degree, this might be true.
Midnight vigils with bullhorns in residential areas are not allowed by most if not all states. Toting machine guns in the subway is also regulated by the public’s steward.
Maybe such laws were prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. In Israel, army members carry guns just about everywhere. To assume that government “has to” or is even “allowed to” prohibit such carry requires virtually to ignore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
” You may think that midnight vigils with bullhorns in residential areas and machine guns in the subway should be OK, but it seems plain to me that the virtually all of the rest of the public doesn’t agree with you. You do have the right to try to convince them otherwise, though.”
The decision has already been made, in 1791.
Jim: Doesn’t that mean you could always call it “cherry picking”, no matter how proper the quote was?
Me: Fair. I would submit that the very notion of “original understanding” involves pouring through old documents and arriving at a PERSPECTIVE on what long-dead people were thinking at the time. Is this the “best” approach to jurisprudence? I don’t know, it might be. But what is clear is the Framers had opinions. We today have opinions. The meaning of words change, technology changes, and context changes.
I note that Scalia is now dead. His approach to jurisprudence may well die with him, so Heller reasoning may not again be employed to interpret the meaning of 2A.
Jim: The fact that you think “there are good reasons to ban machine guns” doesn’t mean that to do this would be properly allowed under the 2nd Amendment. They already made the decision in 1791.
Me: Did they? Did they define all “arms”? I missed that one. Do you have irrefutable proof that the Founders meant by “arms” ANY WEAPON? Are you one of these people who believes that nuclear weapons are covered by 2A?
Jim: Problem is, you weren’t alive in 1791, and you don’t know the context under which the 2nd Amendment was written. Much of its proper interpretation requires the knowledge of history, including the legal history, that the average (non-lawyer) person wouldn’t be aware of.
Me: True. Scalia wasn’t alive in 1791, either. He was certainly more schooled in the law than I am, or you (most likely) are. But if that’s the case, why do you defer to Scalia? You don’t have enough information to assess whether he was correct or not!
Jim: How about a few examples? Do you mean within different Federal Circuits? Or between Federal and State? Or do you mean over time, like years or decades?
Me: Mostly over time, but yes the Supremes sometimes reverse lower court rulings.
Jim: That’s because of that (foolish, in my opinion) practice of “incorporation”. The 1st Amendment, at least, was written (wrongly, in my opinion) to literally apply only to [the Federal] “Congress”. The country has been interpreting the 1st Amendment to apply to both Federal and State governments (which is good, I think), but this omission is glaring.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t limit itself to Federal application. Even more relevantly than the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment has even more reason to have been immediately applied to the States and localities, as well as the Feds.
Me: Again, YOU may have found it foolish. I might, too. Few things boil down neatly to a simple true or false, and yet that seems to be what we all want, in the end. The best we seem to be able to do is our best to stumble toward truth.
Jim: The 2nd Amendment refers to a RTKBA. The SC, in the Heller decision, decided that the state of laws in 1791 was the relevant time frame to compare. And the second merely refers to it not being appropriate to infringe the RTKBA as it existed in 1791. Therefore, it is not proper for any American government to infringe the RTKBA, anywhere in American territory, today.
Me: Again, I need proof. Even Heller has not allowed open-carry in DC, now has it? You are making an assertion with NO evidence. Might there be subsequent challenges to public totage that one day leads to a nationwide open carry of machine guns? Maybe, but I’ll bet you that in 10 years it will still be illegal.
Jim: Not exactly. The 2nd Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT from infringing RTKBA anywhere in America. It doesn’t say that individual property-owners can’t set restrictions on visitors to their own property. An individual property owner prohibiting armed people from visiting his land doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.
Me: Common ground!
Jim: That depends on what you mean is “stewardship”. If you mean engaging in restriction of the RTKBA, I say you’re wrong. I think the 2nd Amendment prohibited government from implementing restrictions of a type that didn’t exist in 1791.
This is progress:
Me: Nope. I support the RTKBA nationwide. I also support property rights.
Jim: Well, I think that DC is wrong here as well: Were people allowed to possess weapons “in federal enclaves” (if any existed) in 1791? Ideally, a lower court will examine the issue, apply the reasoning from Heller and McDonald, and decide that the RTKBA didn’t allow governments to restrict gun possession, and thus strike down current anti-gun laws.
Me: Definitely would like to bet you big money (for me) that public toting will have strings attached in 10 years from now. But thanks for finally engaging!
Jim: Maybe such laws were prohibited by the 2nd Amendment. In Israel, army members carry guns just about everywhere. To assume that government “has to” or is even “allowed to” prohibit such carry requires virtually to ignore the meaning of the 2nd Amendment….The decision has already been made, in 1791.
Me: Let me suggest that you are stuck in a tautology. It’s plain as day that the reasonable man practice is that 1A and 2A are both bounded by property rights and stewardship. Introducing practices in Israel that on their face run afoul of posse comitatus is a deflection, an obvious one.
You may WANT ubiquitous public totage of machine guns so much that you extrapolate from a now-dead Supreme Court justice’s opinion in a black and white manner, hand waving that this was all settled in 1791. This despite the fact that it’s clearly NOT settled. There are many, many gray areas, unavoidable ones, given the nature of words, property rights, and social intercourse generally.
Things just aren’t as simple as you make them out to be.
might be worthy of a separate article:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/07/gary-johnson-libertarian-may-be-our-last-hope-as-a-terrible-clinton-trump-choice-looms.html
The Suicide Pact Libertarians will be sitting on the sidelines cheering on this bullshit.
Washington Post Op-Ed Cheers: Mass Immigration Will Destroy NRA, Second Amendment
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/20/washington-post-op-ed-cheers-mass-immigration-will-destroy-nra-second-amendment/
From the article: “Mass immigration from the Third World would destroy the NRA and ultimately the Second Amendment, a Washington Post op-ed declares, as foreigners with no cultural connection to America continue to pour into the nation at an unprecedented rate.
‘Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA,’ author and UCLA professor Adam Winkler writes. ‘The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.’
Thus extreme levels of immigration ratcheted up — but never reduced — by the U.S. government would not only disenfranchise voters that disagree with the progressives’ consolidation of power. The growth in the immigrant population would also likely disarm these voters in the near future, especially those who lean Republican.
The millions of foreigners the U.S. government voluntarily imports each year can be counted on to vote en-masse in favor of unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms,”
Pingback: Viral Video of Christopher Cantwell Shows Necessity of the Second Amendment | The Saturnalian
Pingback: Amerikaans LP presidentskandidaat Gary Johnson begrijpt niets van libertarisme | De Individualist
Pingback: GayPatriot » On Refusing Service to People Who Don’t Share Your Values
Pingback: Building a Third Party - Swimming Upstream
Pingback: Moonbattery » Gary Johnson, “Libertarian” Candidate, Thinks Jews Should Be Forced to Bake Nazi Cakes
Pingback: Gary Johnson, “Libertarian” Candidate, Thinks Jews Should Be Forced to Bake Nazi Cakes | Tea Party News
Pingback: Gary Johnson, “Libertarian” Candidate, Thinks Jews Should Be Forced to Bake Nazi Cakes
Pingback: An open letter to the Libertarian Party delegates- Nominate Austin Petersen, don’t make the same mistakes the GOP has made - Big Sky Headlines
Pingback: Reconsider Voting For Gary Johnson As A Trump Protest Vote
Pingback: Libertarians Can't Make Noise With These Candidates
Pingback: Of Libertarians and Bernie Sanders – Fermenting Politics
Pingback: Religious Liberty: Where do Libertarians Stand?
I was actually considering Johnson for my vote but after hearing this he has lost it completely. This is not a libertarian principle to have government force people to give up their religious beliefs in practice.
Pingback: Explainer: What you should know about the Libertarian Party platform | Acton PowerBlog
Pingback: 5 Reasons Why Gary Johnson Does Not Belong On The Presidential Debate Platform |
The 5 Reasons author is not paying attention to polling, which shows Johnson takes more votes from Clinton than from Trump, so that he will be politely targeted by Clinton. That’s assuming that Johnson gets into a debate. The Huffington Post and Real Clear political poll aggregations show little or no change in the polling results for Johnson over the last six weeks, leaving him at around 8 %. indicating that nothing is happening. The notorious Fox News poll is a three-way poll. THey are switching to 4-wya polls from now on.
Pingback: Many Donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State - Page 4 - Defending The Truth Political Forum
Pingback: Why 2016 Has Been the Worst Year Ever for Libertarians | The Liberty Conservative