Thomas Knapp: If You Want More of Something, Subsidize It (Population Edition)

“There’s scientific consensus, US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said in a 2019 livestream on climate change, “that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it OK to still have children?”

Less than three years later, AOC’s mad at US Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) for suggesting that perhaps Congress limit itself to one or two, rather than three, federal subsidies (from among a child tax credit, paid leave, or “universal” child care) in its multi-trillion dollar spending bill.

Ditto Bernie Sanders, who in 2019 indicated his support for population control to fight climate change, but in 2021 pronounces himself “delighted” by the expanded child tax credit and thunders that “we must now either make this Child Tax Credit expansion permanent or, at least, extend it for a number of years.”

I’m agnostic on the relationship between population and climate change, but I can’t help notice a contradiction when prominent progressives who claim to believe that overpopulation is a problem simultaneously support paying Americans to have more kids.

And that’s exactly what schemes like the child tax credit come down to. It’s a time-worn truism: If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, penalize it.

True, those same progressives generally support using foreign aid to subsidize “family planning” elsewhere, but if overpopulation is the concern, that amounts to bailing water out of the bow of the boat and pouring it into, rather than off, the stern. At best.

At worst … well, paying rich white people to breed and paying poor black and brown people not to sounds like something I’d expect to hear from a Tucker Carlson guest panel on “replacement theory.”

In addition to being agnostic on the relationship between population growth and climate change, I’m agnostic on the desirability or undesirability of population growth as such.

Assuming certain conditions — conditions which prevail in the United States, where contraception is inexpensive and widely available — it seems to me that population growth is largely self-regulating.

The costs of having children correlate strongly with the conditions affected by population. Prices will reflect food aplenty, or not enough. Childcare will be easily found and inexpensive, or scarce and costly.  Wages will be high and unemployment low, or vice versa. More or fewer people will choose to become parents based on those conditions.

Government subsidies in either direction disrupt the complex but largely rational operations of that “market.”  To at least some degree, they encourage having children when conditions say not to and discourage it when conditions say to go ahead.

Lowering taxes for everyone would be better policy than spending tax money on encouraging, or discouraging, parenthood.


Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

65 thoughts on “Thomas Knapp: If You Want More of Something, Subsidize It (Population Edition)

  1. Andy

    This is true. Since the government wants more crappy immigrants, who will mindlessly vote for Democrats and support the socialist gun grabbing agenda, they subsidize the crappy immigrants with tax payer funds, and they also use libertarians like Tom Knapp, who push for open borders and unlimited, unrestricted immigration, regardless of what other policies or conditions are in place, as “useful idiots” to provide pro-freedom rhetoric as a cover for their anti-liberty agenda behind the mass immigration. It is even worse with Tom Knapp, since he thinks that non-citizens, including illegal aliens, should be able to vote in all elections.. Such a policies would only benefit the Marxists and the globalist ruling elite.

    Tom Knapp practices a form of libertarianism which I call Suicidal Libertarianism.

  2. George Phillies

    It depends on the country. China has far too many people for its supplies of water and arable land. The Untied States population is going to fall, unless there are changes. So ‘if you want more of something, subsidize it’ is a true position.

  3. Nathan Norman

    Tom is not being honest here. Tucker Carlson has never had anyone on his show advocating a race-based child subsidy. Has Tom even watched Tucker? I’ve watched Tucker every day since his Fox News show premiered so I know this as a fact. I even used to watch Tucker occasionally when he was on CNN and MSNBC. I am more familiar with him than probably anyone here. I predict he will be president some day.

  4. Jared

    Andy,

    You call it suicidal libertarianism, but it’s just libertarianism. Freedom of movement and assocation are natural rights, and the consensus of economists on both sides of the aisle is that a free and open immigration policy is a net positive for the economy. The people whose lives and property are subject to the laws of a jurisdiction should not be excluded from participating in its governance just because they haven’t proven their worth to the political establishment, passed some ideological litmus test, or jumped through enough bureaucratic hoops to receive the right kind of government papers.

    If your version of libertarianism is unattainable without unlibertarian right-wing cultural protectionism, then why not identify as something else? “Post-libertarianism” is all the rage among Hoppeans.

  5. Andy

    Jared, it has NOTHING to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism is about PROPERTY RIGHTS. PROPERTY RIGHTS means the RIGHT to EXCLUDE people. If there is no exclusivity to property, then there is no property rights, and without property rights THERE IS NO LIBERTARIANISM.

    Left wing “pc” Social Justice Warriors like Tom Knapp and apparently this Jared character, will be the DEATH of libertarianism.

  6. Jared

    NN,

    I suspect Knapp might have been referring to Carlson’s own comment that new voters “imported” from the “Third World” who favor Democrats over Republicans are “disenfranchising” the existing electorate. And he embraced the word “replacement,” guaranteed to land him in hot water because it’s something of a White nationalist term of art, but he went there anyway.

    The old GOP talking point that Republicans, being good law-and-order conservatives, support legal immigration and oppose only illegal immigration is patent BS. The most watched Trump conservative in America prefers illegal immigrants from Western Europe to legal immigrants from Latin America. They’ve given up on winning over Hispanic immigrant voters and are now just stoking anti-immigrant nativism in the Republican base.

  7. Jared

    Andy,

    Sorry, I had no idea this whole country was your justly acquired property. Please don’t evict me.

    It sounds like you’re in the “abandon libertarian principles in order to save libertarianism” camp, and you’re trying to square your position with your stated philosophy by anointing yourself to represent other property owners. If a church wants to shelter undocumented immigrants from south of the border, what business is that of yours?

  8. Nathan Norman

    “If a church wants to shelter undocumented immigrants from south of the border, what business is that of yours?”

    Because they have children who vote away our rights. Duh!

  9. Jared

    NN,

    Some people like the idea of shutting the door and locking it behind them, especially if they see fellow immigrant laborers as competition. Some immigrants had to go through years of bureaucratic hell to obtain citizenship and feel cheated by border crossers. Many Cuban and Venezuelan Americans in particular react viscerally to any politics that smells socialistic, understandably so, and Team Red’s anti-Marxism rhetoric appeals to them. Still, others are turned off by the “Latinx” PC nonsense that serves no other purpose than to make White progressive commentators and social justice activists feel enlightened. But large swaths of Hispanic naturalized citizens buying into Trumper fearmongering about the threat of a Southern invasion by vicious Third World barbarians who steal red-blooded American jobs and can’t appreciate our middle-class American values is not the most plausible explanation.

  10. Andy

    “Nathan” hit the nail on the head with his comment at 12/26/21 at 18:04. Not only do their children statistically vote away our rights, their parents do as well. They also use a disproportionate amount of welfare money and other taxpayer funded services. This is why Democratic Party campaign consultants are so giddy over immigration turning states Blue.

    Look what happened in Virginia after this once Red state turned Blue, which has been ADMITTED to have happened in large part due to foreign immigration. Once Virginia turned Blue they enacted several tyrannical gun control laws. This is what the left does. Take away the guns = no more liberty.

    What we have today, and have had for several decades now, is a WEAPONIZED immigration system, as in immigration has been weaponized by Marxists and globalists to implement their agenda.

  11. Nathan Norman

    Why is Knapp not engaging with us on here? I challenged him once on his blog five years ago and he deleted the comment and banned me forever. I believe he did the same to Milnes. He also blocked me on Twitter. He accuses Andy of being a government agent whenever Andy challenges him. Why does Knapp fear dissenting opinions?

  12. Andy

    “Nathan Norman” said: “Andy of being a government agent whenever Andy challenges him. Why does Knapp fear dissenting opinions?”

    Tom may have been at least partially joking when he hurled that accusation at me, or maybe he was in part throwing it at me since I had been saying for years that I suspected that the Libertarian Party is infiltrated with plants, although I generally did not name any specifically, unless it was somebody obvious, like Bill Weld.

    Regardless of this, awhile back I contacted Stefan Molyneux, and much to my surprise, he actually responded to me. I asked him if he’d be willing to participate in a public debate I wanted to put together on how to properly apply the libertarian philosophy to borders and immigration policy. Stefan said that he was willing to do it, and he did not even ask for any money, other than travel expenses, as I wanted to have it at a public venue, as I suggested Austin, Texas, which was where the 2020 LP National Convention was supposed to be. The people on the LNC were too cowardly to make a debate like this an official part of the event, so I figured we could rent a room at the same hotel, or maybe another hotel in the same area. I wanted to livestream the debate, and keep the video online for people to watch it for years to come. Stefan wanted to debate somebody who was at least relatively well known, and who had some credentials. I contacted Bryan Caplan, Alex Nowrasteh, Jeffrey Miron, and Daniel Beir, all of from the Cato Institute. Caplan, Nowrasteh, and Miron all turned it down. Bier never responded. I also contacted Jeffrey Tucker. He turned it down. I contacted Jacob Hornberger. He turned it down. When Hornberger was running for the LP’s presidential nomination, I shamed him for turning it down under one of his videos on YouTube, and he gave some lame response. I did end up voting for Hornberger at the convention, but only in the last round, when it was down to him, Jorgensen, and Vermin Supreme. Anyway, I tried to contact Nick Gillespie from Reason. He never responded. A friend of mine contacted some woman who is an India Indian (although she might be an American citizen, I am not sure) who is part of Reason, on my behalf, and she turned it down. I forget her name. I tried to get a hold of Adam Bates, who used to be with the Cato Institute, but who is now with some immigration group. He never responded. I contacted Steven Horwitz. He turned it down, and he had what I would call kind of a nasty, self righteous response, which I thought was a lame excuse. I also contacted Larken Rose, and he dodged by first few attempts, but I finally got him to respond under one of his videos on YouTube, and he had what I thought was a lame, and kind of nasty response (note that I never said where I stood on this issue in any of these communications with any of these people), which I thought was disappointing. He said that he hates and does not care about the Libertarian Party (I suggested that the debate take place in Austin, during the LP National Convention week, in order to get more publicity), and he thought debating Molynuex was pointless, because Molyneux won’t change his mind on the issue. I pointed out to him that the purpose of the debate is not so much to change the mind of the opponent, but rather, to change the minds of the audicience watching the debate. I also pointed out that I KNEW that Larken Rose had attended at least two Libertarian Party State Conventions in Pennsylvania, even though he was not a member of the party, because I was at one of the ones he was at and I spoke to him there for about 4 hours. This was in 2013, where he was a guest speaker. The other one he was at was in 2012 in Philadelphia, or maybe it was somewhere close to Philadelphia. He was one of the presidential debate moderators at that one. I know this because there’s a video of it on YouTube. After I brought these things up to Larken he did not respond to me after that

    So, after getting turned down by all of these more well known, and more credentialed people, I asked Tom Knapp if he would debate Stefan Molyneux. I figured I could pitch it to Molyneux that Knapp is with Rational Review and the Center for a Stateless Society, and that he runs the Knappster blog, and that he has written articles that had appeared on multiple sites and publications. Well, much to my disappointment, TOM KNAPP TURNED IT DOWN. He said that would not debate somebody like Stefan Molyneux, because he basically thinks Stefan Molyneux is a bad guy and a “cult leader”. I thought that this was a ridiculous excuse, because the same charge could be far more accurately leveled at just about any Democratic or Republican Party politician, and I don’t think that’s a fair description of Stefan Molyneux, the guy who is such a “horrible” person that he promotes peaceful parenting (sarcasm intended), at all, but even if it was true, this would STILL NOT be a valid reason to not debate him. This same excuse could be used to not debate just about any Democrat or Republican. I brought these points up to Tom, and he never responded to them.

    Starchild stepped up and said that he would debate Stefan Molyneux, but I told Starchild I had a few other more well known libertarians I wanted to ask first, like Ian Freeman from Free Talk Live, but that if nobody else stepped forward, he could do it. Well, then things got crazy with the COVID hysteria, and the National Convention in Austin got canceled, and then there was the situation with the online convention, and then not knowing if part 2 of the convention in Orlando was going to happen or not, so this debate thing fell by the wayside. I wanted to try to resurrect the idea, but then Stefan Molyneux’s YouTube channel got banned, even though he never actually violated any YouTube policy, and he was relegated to posting videos to platforms like Bitchute and Odysee, which have less viewers, so Stefan decided to alter his approach, and although he still puts of videos, he does not talk about politics much any more, as in he mostly talks about philosophy or life in general.

    Anyway, I thought it was rather telling that some of the biggest voices for open borders and unlimited, unrestricted immigration, would not debate the issue. I think it is because they KNOW that they would lose, and they were afraid that they’d look bad and get exposed in public.

    Incidentally, Bryan Caplan does NOT support open borders, and unlimited, unrestricted immigration for Israel. That’s a blatant double standard and it exposes him as a hypocrite.

  13. Robert Milnes

    Yes, to the best of my knowledge, I am banned from Tom Knapp’s blog.
    And I point out to IPR readers that I have asked Tom, here in IPR comments recently, to verify that I asked him to put me in contact with David Nolan right about the time whatever happened to him happened reported as his death. A stroke? A stroke while driving? I do not trust the reports. But in any event Tom could verify what I commented. He has as yet failed to do so.
    Kevin Zeese reportedly died on the same day I became seriously ill with some sort of respiratory illness.
    I do not trust that report also. September 6, 2020.
    I wrote about this in BAN comments. I suspect a simultaneous attack upon me with immunosuppressants and Covid.

  14. Robert Milnes

    About the time BTP was being “disbanded” by Chair Darryl Perry, against my wishes, my email was blocked. First by paulie, then Darryl, then Tom Knapp.

  15. Andy

    “Robert Milnes
    December 27, 2021 at 03:51
    About the time BTP was being ‘disbanded’ by Chair Darryl Perry, against my wishes, my email was blocked. First by paulie, then Darryl, then Tom Knapp.”

    The Boston Tea Party was doing absolutely nothing, and other than getting Charles Jay on the ballot for President in 3 states in 2008, which was really due more to Charles Jay himself than it was to the party, the Boston Tea Party did not do much of anything during its entire existence. So when Darryl W. Perry pulled the plug on the Boston Tea Party, it was basically a mercey killing.

  16. Robert Milnes

    BTP WOULD HAVE done a LOT, if I had won in 2008 or 2012.
    But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
    Somebody suppressed it and me and my strategy.
    After an extremely close all online election,
    the first thing Darryl did was get on RT tv, which I found to be extremely suspicious. Touting the all female ticket.
    Then there was the Tiffany Briscoe/Pierre Crevaux fiasco. Resume exaggeration(lying) and election debate fraud which I have previously described.
    Clueless Kimberly endorsed Briscoe instead of me; if I won we would have had a fusion ticket. Progressive/Libertarian. Then she allowed herself to be photographed with Briscoe as if to say here is me with Tiffany, we are buds and comrades. No. She was not buds with Briscoe. NOBODY knew who Briscoe was!
    Turns out Briscoe could be traced back to the DP in Maryland, Crevaux her campaign manager back to the RP in Florida, by ME!I still believe the BTP should be revived. Perhaps a name change to Lexington Green party!
    No, the BTP was a definite threat to the duopoly. Therefore it had to be disbanded.
    I am very suspicious of paulie, Darryl and Tom.

  17. Robert Milnes

    Andy,
    Were you involved in BTP?
    There was a lot of anonymity online like it was.
    If not, then you cannot claim any firsthand knowledge about it, can you?
    I was there in 2008 and 2012.
    So was paulie, Darryl and Tom. So was William Saturn.
    Charles Jay disappeared to the best of my knowledge after 2008.
    I asked Mary Ruwart to join my ticket in 2008. She had refused the LP vp nomination which I think she should have accepted IF ONLY to keep it away from Wayne Root. Which he milked for years.
    Mary sent me a polite no email.
    BTP had multiple vp candidates in 2008, against my wishes. Including Tom.
    Interesting that one was Marilyn Chambers, who died early the next year.
    I have no idea what happened to Charles Jay.

  18. Andy

    Robert Milnes said: “No, the BTP was a definite threat to the duopoly. Therefore it had to be disbanded.”

    How was a party that basically had no money, and no ballot access, and that hardly any body even heard of, any kind of real threat to the establishment?

  19. Robert Milnes

    Andy, Plant Man,
    Take off your blinders!
    We had the makins.
    To possibly win> fusion ticket>get more contributions, support>polling rises> more>polling rises>lp support moves from Barr/Root/Johnson/Gray > Green/leftist support>get into debates> etc.

  20. Jared

    Jared: “If a church wants to shelter undocumented immigrants from south of the border, what business is that of yours?”

    NN: “Because they have children who vote away our rights. Duh!”

    Andy: “Not only do their children statistically vote away our rights, their parents do as well.”

    So, your reason for wanting government to deny the rights of people to hire undocumented immigrants or invite them onto their property is that that the immigrants, non-citizens, and their children, citizens, are more likely to vote for rights-infringing Democrats than for rights-upholding Republicans. And this, you believe, is the principled libertarian position on immigration.

    Got it.

  21. Robert Milnes

    I made a mistake years ago. I went directly to the solution, then repeatedly yelled and screamed it.
    Evidently nobody saw that; only a crazy spammer.
    It took me years to backpedal to Top Six-see?
    Evidently still not.
    So here we are, a new year. A “new” administration.
    Historically “traditionally” either a democrat or a republican. All is in order.
    A new election cycle. For me, my sixth.
    We have the makins.
    What will happen this time?
    I am only one person.
    Idk.

  22. Andy

    Jared, foreigners have NO RIGHT to come here.

    Also, if these churches are really concerned about these people, they can help them in the countries where they are from, and since they come from countries that have a far lower cost of living than here, they can help a lot more people by helping them in the countries where they are from rather than bringing them here. There’s no reason for a lot of these people to be here, and most Americans don’t want them to be here.

  23. Andy

    Jared said: “So, your reason for wanting government to deny the rights of people to hire undocumented immigrants or invite them onto their property is that that the immigrants”

    In the Free Market, May a Businessman Hire Any Immigrant He Chooses?
    By Hans-Hermann Hoppe

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/hans-hermann-hoppe/in-the-free-market-may-a-businessman-hire-any-immigrant-he-chooses/

    Thanks to Brian Doherty for his link to my work in his recent essay on immigration. But let me clarify one point with the following, drawn from footnote 23 of my Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem.

    It is incorrect to infer from the fact that an immigrant has found someone willing to employ him that his presence on a given territory must henceforth be considered “invited.” Strictly speaking, this conclusion is true only if the employer also assumes the full costs associated with the importation of his immigrant-employee. This is the case under the much-maligned arrangement of a “factory town” owned and operated by a proprietor. Here, the full cost of employment, the cost of housing, healthcare, and all other amenities associated with the immigrant’s presence, is paid for by the proprietor. No one else’s property is involved in the immigrant-worker settlement. Less perfectly (and increasingly less so), this full-cost-principle of immigration is realized in Swiss immigration policy. In Switzerland immigration matters are decided on the local rather than federal government level, by the local owner-resident community in which the immigrant wants to reside. These owners are interested that the immigrant’s presence in their community increase rather than decrease their property values. In places as attractive as Switzerland, this typically means that the immigrant (or his employer) is expected to buy his way into a community, which often requires multimillion-dollar donations.

    Unfortunately, welfare states are not operated like factory towns or even Swiss communities. Under welfare-statist condition the immigrant employer must pay only a small fraction of the full costs associated with the immigrant’s presence. He is permitted to socialize (externalize) a substantial part of such costs onto other property owners. Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private association is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever. This is not an “invitation,” as commonly understood. This is an imposition. It is like inviting immigrant workers to renovate one’s own house while feeding them from other people’s refrigerators. Consequently, because the cost of importing immigrant workers is lowered, more employer-sponsored immigrants will arrive than otherwise. Moreover, the character of the immigrant changes, too. While Swiss communities choose well-heeled, highly value-productive immigrants, whose presence enhances communal property values all-around, employers under democratic welfare State conditions are permitted by state law to externalize their employment costs on others and tend to import increasingly cheap, low-skilled and low value-productive immigrants, regardless of their effect on all-around communal property values.

    Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be understood only psychologically. One source can be found in the Randian upbringing of many left-libertarians. Big businessmen-entrepreneurs are portrayed as “heroes” and, according to Ayn Rand in one of her more ridiculous statements, are viewed as the welfare state’s “most severely persecuted minority.” In this view (and untainted by any historical knowledge or experience), what can possibly be wrong with a businessman hiring an immigrant worker? In fact, as every historian knows, big businessmen are among the worst sinners against private property rights and the law of the market. Among other things, in an unholy alliance with the central State they have acquired the privilege of importing immigrant workers at other people’s expense (just as they have acquired the privilege of exporting capital to other countries and being bailed out by taxpayers and the military when such investments turn sour).

    A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no authority) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative” — non-bourgeois lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose nondiscrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the normal price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders.” See further on this Democracy: The God That Failed, esp. chap. 10.

  24. Andy

    Jared said: ” And this, you believe, is the principled libertarian position on immigration.”

    Libertarianism is about PROPERTY RIGHTS. Property owners have a right to decide who can come onto their property, and under what terms. Since we live in a society that has a state, whether we like it or not, just like every other country in the world, the state has a monopoly on the function of regulating who crosses the border, and under what terms, and who can become an American citizen, and under what terms.

    WE DO NOT LIVE IN AN ANARCHO-CAPITALIST SOCIETY. If we did, THERE’D BE NO OPEN BORDERS, BECAUSE EVERYTHING WOULD BE PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND I SERIOUSLY DOUBT ANY SANE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD ENACT SUCH A POLICY ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY, AS IT WOULD DESTROY THEIR PROEPRTY VALUE.

    Given this reality, ANY policy that the state enacts in regard to borders and immigration is going to be a statist policy, including the policy you apparently support, of just let anyone enter with no questions asked, and you can’t kick them out once they are here. It is my position that this policy is actually an ASSUALT on liberty, NOT an expansion of it.

    So the question is which policy best defends liberty, and represents the interests and preferences of most of the existing population.

    Most people don’t mind if there are some foreigners, but most people do NOT want foreigners who are a burden to the taxpayers, or who otherwise pose a threat to liberty, or are hostile to the existing cutlure. Most people also do not want such a large influx of foreigners, particularly from alien cultures, to where they demographically replace the existing population.

    So having said this, while the state exists, its policy should:

    1) Cut off all welfare to foreigners, including their offspring. Also, cut off all taxpayer funded programs for people who enter the country illegally, including any offspring they have while here.

    2) Make it more difficult to become an American citizen. Anyone who enters the country illegally should be barred from ever becoming an American citizen. The same goes for their offspring. Increase the standards for who gets offered citizenship. Bring back the original interpretation for Birthright citizenship where one’s parents had to be citizens in order to get it. No more Anchor Babies. Make the citizenship test more difficult. Require a thorough understand of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and also include a test on free market economics. I would also include a special class on the right to keep and bear arms, which includes trips to a firing range.

    3) End the practice of demographic replacement levels of immigration. Most people, not just here, but also in every other country in the world, do not want to be demographically replaced.

    There could of course be tourists, and people traveling here on business or for special events, and some guest workers (although I question the need for that in some cases, when there are already lots of unemployed, or under-employed, people here, and when there a lots of Americans sitting around collecting welfare, as in if these Americans were kicked off of welfare, they could be doing a lot of these jobs; and also a lot of these jobs could end up being done by emerging robot technology), but these people would NOT be rewarded with handouts from the taxpayers, or be rewarded if they overstay their VISA.

    If such reforms were implemented, it would lead to better caliber immigrants.

  25. Andy

    Jared said: “is that that the immigrants, non-citizens, and their children, citizens, are more likely to vote for rights-infringing Democrats than for rights-upholding Republicans. And this, you believe, is the principled libertarian position on immigration.”

    The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
    Just look at the demographics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/

    By Adam Winkler
    Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA School of Law, where he teaches legal ethics and other subjects.
    October 19, 2015

    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.

    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.

    After the 2012 election, Republican officials said the party needed to do more to appeal to the growing population of racial minorities. Yet the party’s refusal to bend on gun legislation highlights the difficulty of such efforts. If the GOP compromises on guns to appeal to minorities, it might lose support among its core of white voters.

    Rural Americans tend to oppose gun control, with 63 percent saying that gun rights are more important than gun control. The country, however, is becoming less rural and more urban. Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of people living in cities, with big metropolitan areas experiencing double-digit growth.

    This shift, like that on race, is a boon for gun control. Urban residents strongly prefer gun control to gun rights (60 percent to 38 percent), for reasons that aren’t hard to understand. When gun violence is on your television news every night and police are commonplace, people may come to view guns more as a threat than a savior.

    Support for gun control is correlated, too, with levels of education. Gun rights are favored by a slim majority of those who attended only high school (50 percent to 47 percent). Among those with a college degree, however, 58 percent favor gun control, compared with 38 percent for gun rights. This demographic is also trending in a favorable direction for gun control advocates. Between 2002 and 2012, enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 24 percent.

    Other changes occurring in the United States further complicate matters for the nation’s leading gun rights organization. For years, the NRA focused on the interests of hunters and recreational shooters. As hunting declined precipitously after 1970 (when over 40 million Americans had hunting licenses, compared with 14 million today), the NRA’s justification for gun ownership shifted toward self-defense.

    There is one demographic change that helps the NRA. Americans are aging, and older people tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a slim margin (48 percent to 47 percent). Yet these numbers aren’t radically different from young people (48 percent to 50 percent), so even an aging population won’t be nearly enough to counter the other, stronger demographic shifts.

    Of course, the NRA will continue to fight, and fight hard, against gun control. But the heart of the organization’s power is the voters it can turn out to vote, and they are likely to decline in number. Unless the organization begins to soften its no-compromises stance on gun safety legislation, it’s likely to become increasingly marginalized in a changing America.

  26. Andy

    Tom Knapp has said that he thinks that non-citizens, including illegal aliens, should be able to vote in all elections, local, state, and federal.

    Do you agree with this, Jared? Does anyone here agree with this?

    Who here, if anyone, thinks that having non-citizens, including those who are in the country illegally, voting, will produce better outcomes for elections?

  27. Traditionalist

    Have those of you commenting here read Pat Buchanan’s book, _The Death Of The West_?

    It is essential reading for those who want to understand the issues you are discussing here.

  28. LibertyDave

    Andy’s and Nathan’s view on immigration remind me of Johnny from the Thomas Sowell quote, “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.”

    Andy and Nathan both show that they are letting their feelings of hatred of immigrants overcome their common sense and they are quick to believe any lie that supports their hatred.

    Normally I ignore ignorant bigots like them until they start to claim that their authoritarian immigration policies are libertarian. It is never a libertarian to take away someones rights based on where they are born. That is just as prejudice as taking away someones rights because of their race, sex, or religion.

    Property rights don’t give you the right to take away the rights of other people just because you don’t like where they were born. You don’t own your country like you own property.

  29. Traditionalist

    Dave, you deserve the liberty part of your name as little as Socratic Gadfly deserves the Socratic part of his. What kind of liberty do you expect to have if a billion paupers, criminals, terrorists, dopers and disease carriers pour in from every corner of the third world, turning the population mix of the United States akin to that of the United Nations? It’s particularly ironic that you accuse others of confusing feeling and thinking, and then immediately proceed to deploy a whole army of hysterical emotional buzzwords in lieu of any kind of evidence or logical argument of any sort.

  30. Jared

    LD,

    I only wish the national paleoconservatives and Hoppean advocates for decentralized fascism would quit calling themselves libertarian. It’s sick to rely on some mythic concept of exclusive collective ownership of a country, speculate about what decisions all landholders in Ancapistani America would make, and appeal to bigoted stereotypes of immigrants and foreigners as “libertarian” excuses to curtail the individual property rights of citizens, deny freedom of movement to non-citizens, and enforce cultural protectionism to establish a quasi-ethnostate.

    If the argument were about restricting immigration on the basis of insufficient infrastructure to support sudden rapid population growth or reasonable public health concerns about diseases from other parts of the world, that would be a fair in-house libertarian discussion between radicals and moderates. But it isn’t. It’s about ideological litmus tests, preemptive “physical removal” of presumed leftists, despising the poor and the alien, and wanting to prevent people who don’t look, sound, act, and think as they do from becoming their neighbors.

    The Rothbardian paleo strategists have in large part become the crass right-wing populists and nativists they sought to ally with in the 90s.

  31. Andy

    “Jared
    December 29, 2021 at 10:43
    LD,

    I only wish the national paleoconservatives and Hoppean advocates for decentralized fascism would quit calling themselves libertarian.”

    You don’t know what a libertarian is then. You think being a libertarian means being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This is NOT a libertarian, or, is at best a DUMBED DOWN version of a libertarian. Libertarianism, as PROPERLY DEFINED, is about PROPERTY RIGHTS and the Non-Aggression Principle.

    It is people like Jared who are the problem, as they want to turn libertarianism into being a left wing “PC” Social Justice Warrior.

    Also, what good is Jared’s supposed libertarianism, if he advocates libertarian SUICIDE by advocating that ANYONE, regardless of their ideology, and regardless of any other conditions that are in place, such as a defacto democratic welfare state, can pour into the country, and once here, they can’t be thrown out, no matter what they do?

    Self professed libertarians like Jared and Tom Knapp remind me of people who claimed to be high level martial artists who entered Mixed Martials Arts competitions like the Ultimate Fighting Championship, and got DESTROYED.

  32. Andy

    The guy who coined the term “anarcho-capitalism,” and who was known as “Mr. Libertarian.” agreed with me on this issue. Kudos to the late Murray N. Rothbard for having intellectual integrity.

    Nations By Consent
    By Murray N. Rothbard

    https://mises.org/library/nations-consent

    Libertarians tend to focus on two important units of analysis: the individual and the state. And yet, one of the most dramatic and significant events of our time has been the reemergence—with a bang—in the last five years of a third and much neglected aspect of the real world, the “nation.” When the “nation” has been thought of at all, it usually comes attached to the state, as in the common word, “the nation-state,” but this concept takes a particular development of recent centuries and elaborates it into a universal maxim. In the last five years, however, we have seen, as a corollary of the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, a vivid and startlingly swift decomposition of the centralized State or alleged nation-State into its constituent nationalities. The genuine nation, or nationality, has made a dramatic reappearance on the world stage.

    I. THE REEMERGENCE OF THE NATION
    The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.

    The modern European nation-state, the typical “major power,” began not as a nation at all, but as an “imperial” conquest of one nationality—usually at the “center” of the resulting country, and based in the capital city—over other nationalities at the periphery. Since a “nation” is a complex of subjective feelings of nationality based on objective realities, the imperial central states have had varying degrees of success in forging among their subject nationalities at the periphery a sense of national unity incorporating submission to the imperial center. In Great Britain, the English have never truly eradicated national aspirations among the submerged Celtic nationalities, the Scots and the Welsh, although Cornish nationalism seems to have been mostly stamped out. In Spain, the conquering Castilians, based in Madrid, have never managed—as the world saw at the Barcelona Olympics—to erase nationalism among the Catalans, the Basques, or even the Galicians or Andalusians. The French, moving out from their base in Paris, have never totally tamed the Bretons, the Basques, or the people of the Languedoc.

    It is now well known that the collapse of the centralizing and imperial Russian Soviet Union has lifted the lid on the dozens of previously suppressed nationalisms within the former U.S.S.R., and it is now becoming clear that Russia itself, or rather “the Russian Federated Republic,” is simply a slightly older imperial formation in which the Russians, moving out from their Moscow center, forcibly incorporated many nationalities including the Tartars, the Yakuts, the Chechens, and many others. Much of the U.S.S.R. stemmed from imperial Russian conquest in the nineteenth century, during which the clashing Russians and British managed to carve up much of central Asia.

    The “nation” cannot be precisely defined; it is a complex and varying constellation of different forms of communities, languages, ethnic groups, or religions. Some nations or nationalities, such as the Slovenes, are both a separate ethnic group and a language; others, such as the warring groups in Bosnia, are the same ethnic group whose language is the same but who differ in the form of alphabet, and who clash fiercely on religion (the Eastern Orthodox Serbs, the Catholic Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims, who, to make matters more complicated, were originally champions of the Manichaean Bogomil heresy).

    The question of nationality is made more complex by the interplay of objectively existing reality and subjective perceptions. In some cases, such as Eastern European nationalities under the Habsburgs or the Irish under the British, nationalisms, including submerged and sometimes dying languages, had to be consciously preserved, generated, and expanded. In the nineteenth century this was done by a determined intellectual elite, struggling to revive peripheries living under, and partially absorbed by, the imperial center.

    II. THE FALLACY OF “COLLECTIVE SECURITY”
    The problem of the nation has been aggravated in the twentieth century by the overriding influence of Wilsonianism on U.S. and world-wide foreign policy. I refer not to the idea of “national self-determination,” observed mainly in the breach after World War I, but to the concept of “collective security against aggression.” The fatal flaw in this seductive concept is that it treats nation-states by an analogy with individual aggressors, with the “world community” in the guise of a cop-on-the-corner. The cop, for example, sees A aggressing against, or stealing the property of B; the cop naturally rushes to defend B’s private property, in his person or possessions. In the same way, wars between two nations or states are assumed to have a similar aspect: State A invades, or “aggresses against,” State B; State A is promptly designated “the aggressor” by the “international policeman” or his presumptive surrogate, be it the League of Nations, the United Nations, the U.S. President or Secretary of State, or the editorial writer of the August New York Times. Then the world police force, whatever it may be, is supposed to swing promptly into action to stop the “principle of aggression,” or to prevent the “aggressor,” be it Saddam Hussein or the Serbian guerrillas in Bosnia, from fulfilling their presumed goals of swimming across the Atlantic and murdering every resident of New York or Washington, D.C.

    A crucial flaw in this popular line of argument goes deeper than the usual discussion of whether or not American air power or troops can really eradicate Iraqis or Serbs without too much difficulty. The crucial flaw is the implicit assumption of the entire analysis: that every nation-state “owns” its entire geographical area in the same just and proper way that every individual property owner owns his person and the property that he has inherited, worked for, or gained in voluntary exchange. Is the boundary of the typical nation-state really as just or as beyond cavil as your or my house, estate, or factory!

    It seems to me that not only the classical liberal or the libertarian, but anyone of good sense who thinks about this problem, must answer a resounding “No.” It is absurd to designate every nation-state, with its self-proclaimed boundary as it exists at any one time, as somehow right and sacrosanct, each with its “territorial integrity” to remain as spotless and unbreached as your or my bodily person or private property. Invariably, of course, these boundaries have been acquired by force and violence, or by interstate agreement above and beyond the heads of the inhabitants on the spot, and invariably these boundaries shift a great deal over time in ways that make proclamations of “territorial integrity” truly ludicrous.

    Take, for example, the current mess in Bosnia. Only a couple of years ago, Establishment opinion, Received Opinion of Left, Right, or Center, loudly proclaimed the importance of maintaining “the territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia, and bitterly denounced all secession movements. Now, only a short time later, the same Establishment, only recently defending the Serbs as champions of “the Yugoslav nation” against vicious secessionist movements trying to destroy that “integrity,” now reviles and wishes to crush the Serbs for “aggression” against the “territorial integrity” of “Bosnia” or “Bosnia-Herzegovina,” a trumped-up “nation” that had no more existence than the “nation of Nebraska” before 1991. But these are the pitfalls in which we are bound to fall if we remain trapped by the mythology of the “nation-state” whose chance boundary at time t must be upheld as a property-owning entity with its own sacred and inviolable “rights,” in a deeply flawed analogy with the rights of private property.

    To adopt an excellent stratagem of Ludwig von Mises in abstracting from contemporary emotions: Let us postulate two contiguous nation-states, “Ruritania” and “Fredonia.” Let us assume that Ruritania has suddenly invaded eastern Fredonia, and claims it as its own. Must we automatically condemn Ruritania for its evil “act of aggression” against Fredonia, and send troops, either literally or metaphorically, against the brutal Ruritanians and in behalf of “brave, little” Fredonia? By no means. For it is very possible that, say, two years ago, eastern Fredonia had been part and parcel of Ruritania, was indeed western Ruritania, and that the Rurs, ethnic and national denizens of the land, have been crying out for the past two years against Fredonian oppression. In short, in international disputes in particular, in the immortal words of W. S. Gilbert:

    Things are seldom what they seem,

    Skim milk masquerades as cream.

    The Beloved international cop, whether it be Boutros Boutros-Ghali or U.S. troops or the New York Times editorialist had best think more than twice before leaping into the fray.

    Americans are especially unsuited for their self-proclaimed Wilsonian role as world moralists and policemen. Nationalism in the U.S. is peculiarly recent, and is more of an idea than it is rooted in long-standing ethnic or nationality groups or struggles. Add to that deadly mix the fact that Americans have virtually no historical memory, and this makes Americans peculiarly unsuited to barreling in to intervene in the Balkans, where who took what side at what place in the war against the Turkish invaders in the fifteenth century is far more intensely real to most of the contenders than is yesterday’s dinner.

    Libertarians and classical liberals, who are particularly well-equipped to rethink the entire muddled area of the nation-state and foreign affairs, have been too wrapped up in the Cold War against communism and the Soviet Union to engage in fundamental thinking on these issues. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed and the Cold War is over, perhaps classical liberals will feel free to think anew about these critically important problems.

    III. RETHINKING SECESSION
    First, we can conclude that not all state boundaries are just. One goal for libertarians should be to transform existing nation-states into national entities whose boundaries could be called just, in the same sense that private property boundaries are just; that is, to decompose existing coercive nation-states into genuine nations, or nations by consent.

    In the case, for example, of the eastern Fredonians, the inhabitants should be able to secede voluntarily from Fredonia and join their comrades in Ruritania. Again, classical liberals should resist the impulse to say that national boundaries “don’t make any difference.” It’s true, of course, as classical liberals have long proclaimed, that the less the degree of government intervention in either Fredonia or Ruritania, the less difference such a boundary will make. But even under a minimal state, national boundaries would still make a difference, often a big one to the inhabitants of the area. For in what language—Ruritanian or Fredonian or both?—will be the street signs, telephone books, court proceedings, or school classes of the area?

    In short, every group, every nationality, should be allowed to secede from any nation-state and to join any other nation-state that agrees to have it. That simple reform would go a long way toward establishing nations by consent. The Scots, if they want to, should be allowed by the English to leave the United Kingdom, and to become independent, and even to join a Gaelic Confederation, if the constituents so desire.

    A common response to a world of proliferating nations is to worry about the multitude of trade barriers that might be erected. But, other things being equal, the greater the number of new nations, and the smaller the size of each, the better. For it would be far more difficult to sow the illusion of self-sufficiency if the slogan were “Buy North Dakotan” or even “Buy 56th Street” than it now is to convince the public to “Buy American.” Similarly, “Down with South Dakota,” or a fanion, “Down with 55th Street,” would be a more difficult sell than spreading fear or hatred of the Japanese. Similarly, the absurdities and the unfortunate consequences of fiat paper money would be far more evident if each province or each neighborhood or street block were to print its own currency. A more decentralized world would be far more likely to turn to sound market commodities, such as gold or silver, for its money.

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

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

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

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

    Enclaves and Exclaves
    One obvious problem with the secession of nationalities from centralized states concerns mixed areas, or enclaves and exclaves. Decomposing the swollen central nation-state of Yugoslavia into constituent parts has solved many conflicts by providing independent nationhood for Slovenes, Serbs, and Croats, but what about Bosnia, where many towns and villages are mixed? One solution is to encourage more of the same, through still more decentralization. If, for example, eastern Sarajevo is Serb and western Sarajevo is Muslim, then they become parts of their respective separate nations.

    But this of course will result in a large number of enclaves, parts of nations surrounded by other nations. How can this be solved? In the first place, the enclave/exclave problem exists right now. One of the most vicious existing conflicts, in which the US has not yet meddled because it has not yet been shown on CNN, is the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian exclave totally surrounded by, and therefore formally within, Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh should clearly be part of Armenia. But, how then, will Armenians of Karabakh avoid their present fate of blockade by Azeris, and how will they avoid military battles in trying to keep open a land corridor to Armenia?

    Under total privatization, of course, these problems would disappear. Nowadays, no one in the U.S. buys land without making sure that his title to the land is clear; in the same way, in a fully privatized world, access rights would obviously be a crucial part of land ownership. In such a world, then, Karabakh property owners would make sure that they had purchased access rights through an Azeri land corridor.

    Decentralization also provides a workable solution for the seemingly insoluble permanent conflict in Northern Ireland. When the British partitioned Ireland in the early 1920s, they agreed to perform a second, a more micro-managed, partition. They never carried through on this promise. If the British would permit a detailed, parish by parish, partition vote in Northern Ireland, however, most of the land area, which is majority Catholic, would probably hive off and join the Republic: such counties as Tyrone and Fermanagh, southern Down, and southern Armagh, for example. The Protestants would probably be left with Belfast, county Antrim, and other areas north of Belfast. The major remaining problem would be the Catholic enclave within the city of Belfast, but again, an approach to the anarcho-capitalist model could be attained by permitting the purchase of access rights to the enclave.

    Pending total privatization, it is clear that our model could be approached, and conflicts minimized, by permitting secessions and local control, down to the micro-neighborhood level, and by developing contractual access rights for enclaves and exclaves. In the U.S., it becomes important, in moving toward such radical decentralization, for libertarians and classical liberals—indeed, for many other minority or dissident groups—to begin to lay the greatest stress on the forgotten Tenth Amendment and to try to decompose the role and power of the centralizing Supreme Court. Rather than trying to get people of one’s own ideological persuasion on the Supreme Court, its power should be rolled back and minimized as far as possible, and its power decomposed into state, or even local, judicial bodies.

    Citizenship and Voting Rights
    One vexing current problem centers on who becomes the citizen of a given country, since citizenship confers voting rights. The Anglo-American model, in which every baby born in the country’s land area automatically becomes a citizen, clearly invites welfare immigration by expectant parents. In the U.S., for example, a current problem is illegal immigrants whose babies, if born on American soil, automatically become citizens and therefore entitle themselves and their parents to permanent welfare payments and free medical care. Clearly the French system, in which one has to be born to a citizen to become an automatic citizen, is far closer to the idea of a nation-by-consent.

    It is also important to rethink the entire concept and function of voting. Should anyone have a “right” to vote? Rose Wilder Lane, the mid-twentieth century U.S. libertarian theorist, was once asked if she believed in womens’ suffrage. “No,” she replied, “and I’m against male suffrage as well.” The Latvians and Estonians have cogently tackled the problem of Russian immigrants by allowing them to continue permanently as residents, but not granting them citizenship or therefore the right to vote. The Swiss welcome temporary guest-workers, but severely discourage permanent immigration, and, a fortiori, citizenship and voting.

    Let us turn for enlightenment, once again, to the anarcho-capitalist model. What would voting be like in a totally privatized society? Not only would voting be diverse, but more importantly, who would really care? Probably the most deeply satisfying form of voting to an economist is the corporation, or joint-stock company, in which voting is proportionate to one’s share of ownership of the firm’s assets. But also there are, and would be, a myriad of private clubs of all sorts. It is usually assumed that club decisions are made on the basis of one vote per member, but that is generally untrue. Undoubtedly, the best-run and most pleasant clubs are those run by a small, self-perpetuating oligarchy of the ablest and most interested, a system most pleasant for the rank-and-file nonvoting member as well as for the elite. If I am a rank-and-file member of, say a chess club, why should I worry about voting if I am satisfied with the way the club is run? And if I am interested in running things, I would probably be asked to join the ruling elite by the grateful oligarchy, always on the lookout for energetic members. And finally, if I am unhappy about the way the club is run, I can readily quit and join another club, or even form one of my own. That, of course, is one of the great virtues of a free and privatized society, whether we are considering a chess club or a contractual neighborhood community.

    Clearly, as we begin to work toward the pure model, as more and more areas and parts of life become either privatized or micro-decentralized, the less important voting will become. Of course, we are a long way from this goal. But it is important to begin, and particularly to change our political culture, which treats “democracy,” or the “right” to vote, as the supreme political good. In fact, the voting process should be considered trivial and unimportant at best, and never a “right,” apart from a possible mechanism stemming from a consensual contract. In the modern world, democracy or voting is only important either to join in or ratify the use of the government to control others, or to use it as a way of preventing one’s self or one’s group from being controlled. Voting, however, is at best, an inefficient instrument for self-defense, and it is far better to replace it by breaking up central government power altogether.

    In sum, if we proceed with the decomposition and decentralization of the modern centralizing and coercive nation-state, deconstructing that state into constituent nationalities and neighborhoods, we shall at one and the same time reduce the scope of government power, the scope and importance of voting and the extent of social conflict. The scope of private contract, and of voluntary consent, will be enhanced, and the brutal and repressive state will be gradually dissolved into a harmonious and increasingly prosperous social order.

  33. Andy

    Left-libertarians sound a lot like the Socialist Party.

    Socialist Party on Immigration
    Socialist Party Platform

    https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Socialist_Party_Immigration.htm

    Abolish all anti-immigrant laws, shut down ICE

    Abolish all anti-immigrant laws. Stop the raids and deportations and demonization of immigrants. Shut down ICE and the concentration camps and reunite families. The government’s war on immigrants must end. The border wall must be dismantled. Amnesty and citizenship for those without documents. Full rights for all!

    Source: PSL’s 2020 Ten Point Program (2020 Socialist Convention) , Aug 15, 2020

    Full citizenship rights upon six months residency

    We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. We oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty. We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.

    Source: Socialist Party Platform at 2020-2021 PSL Convention , Aug 3, 2020

    Don’t militarize the US-Mexico border; freely cross instead
    The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose. We recognize the central role global capitalism plays in forcing the immigration of people from the less developed to the more industrialized countries, often leading to further economic and social injustice.

    We oppose the militarization of the United States/Mexican border, and an increase in the service budget instead of the “military” budget of the INS.
    We defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people. We oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty.

    We oppose “guest worker” programs.
    We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.
    Source: Socialist Party USA: 2013-2015 National Platform , Nov 4, 2014

    End the militarization of the US/Mexican border

    The Socialist Party calls for an end to the militarization of the US/Mexican border, an end to police raids of immigrants, and we defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, & full civil and legal rights. We call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people, and full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.

    Source: Interview of Socialist nominee Brian Moore with OnTheIssues , Apr 3, 2008

    Full rights and equality for all undocumented immigrants

    All undocumented immigrants and residents in the United States should have full rights and equality now. That means equal wages, benefits, union rights, voting rights, and access to free, quality education, housing and health care. The government’s war on immigrants must end. Racist home and job raids must be stopped and concentration camp-style detention centers must be dismantled. The border wall must be dismantled.

    Source: Party for Socialism and Liberation website, pslweb.org , Jan 16, 2008

    Give sanctuary to illegal immigrants & full social services
    Brian supports these summary positions from the Socialist Party Platform:
    give equal rights to all immigrants and recognize their presence in large part is due to unfair US economic policies toward their countries, or bad human conditions.
    give sanctuary to illegal immigrants in the US, full social services
    impact immigration influx not with walls or guns or threats of imprisonment, but with fairer policies toward all other countries
    oppose English as the only official language

    Source: Presidential Socialist nominee website, VoteBrianMoore.com , Dec 23, 2007

    Amnesty for immigrants; grant them full rights

    We defend the rights of immigrants to housing, education, health care, jobs, and civil, legal, and political rights.

    We call for an unconditional amnesty program for undocumented people who should be accorded the same civil rights that other members of society possess.

    Source: Socialist Party Platform (via 2000 nominee David McReynolds) , Jan 1, 2000.

    MY COMMENT: See above where the Socialist Party advocates that immigrants can become citizens after being here for only 6 months. As nutty as that is, note that Tom Knapp actually beats this for nuttiness. Tom has advocated that non-citizens, including people who entered the country illegally, should be able to vote in ALL elections, local, state, and federal. Does anyone here really believe that this would not have disastrous results?

  34. Jared

    Andy: “You don’t know what a libertarian is then. You think being a libertarian means being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. This is NOT a libertarian, or, is at best a DUMBED DOWN version of a libertarian. Libertarianism, as PROPERLY DEFINED, is about PROPERTY RIGHTS and the Non-Aggression Principle.”

    No, actually, I don’t subscribe to that dumbed-down definition of libertarian. There’s quite a lot of libertarian space between Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s illiberal anarchism and Gary Johnson’s liberal centrism. PC social justice warriors aren’t the only ones who might take issue with a militantly right-wing, radically anti-egalitarian cultural program claiming to be the most authentic and necessary expression of libertarianism.

    You can stop claiming your position is based on respect for property rights, when it very obviously isn’t, and your opponents have the much stronger property rights argument. Your position is based in fear of demographic changes, as you and your co-ideologues make abundantly clear whenever you’re given enough rope.

    Quote Rothbard at me all you want. “Mr. Libertarian” who coined the term “anarcho-capitalism” also wrote that “cops must be unleashed to clear the streets of bums and vagrants” and “allowed to administer instant punishment” against a “parasitic underclass.” So, forgive me if I don’t venerate him as the libertarian gold standard and take greater inspiration from the individualist anarchists and liberal radicals of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    Do you really think I care to read through multiple pasted essays and a socialist party platform just because you can’t make your point in under 5,000 words?

  35. Traditionalist

    “PC social justice warriors aren’t the only ones who might take issue with a militantly right-wing, radically anti-egalitarian cultural program claiming to be the most authentic and necessary expression of libertarianism.”

    PC social “justice” warriors are indeed the only ones who take issue with a cultural program that seeks to keep our culture from committing assisted suicide. Well, them, and those who are without realizing it allowing themselves to be used as their dupes and pawns. I’d recommend another Pat Buchanan book, Suicide of a Superpower, but I don’t know if any of you read books. Perhaps you could start with something more easily bite sized, like the columns at https://buchanan.org/blog/columns

    Whether you call yourself a libertarian or not is, to me, besides the point (I don’t; conservative, traditionalist, nationalist and patriot are much better terms, I think). But the foregoing remains true: regardless of what you call yourselves, if you’re aiding and abetting the death, suicide, and conquest of the West – Christendom, European based nations, Western civilization, America, Europe, or whatever you choose to call it – you’re functionally on the side of the Bolshevik enemies of humanity. You can choose whatever rationalizations you want to arrive at your conclusions, but as always the results are what matter most.

    “You can stop claiming your position is based on respect for property rights, when it very obviously isn’t, and your opponents have the much stronger property rights argument. ”

    That argument is completely irrelevant when you allow the importation of a voting population with an entirely different cultural conception of property rights, propriety, and freedom than those derived from the culture you irrationally work to help kill off. At what point in the slow march to the gulags and killing fields do you begin to notice that your academic debates about who has the stronger property rights argument is no longer even theoretically relevant – only right at the end, when you personally are being beaten, starved, shot, or even less pleasantly put to death? Some point short of that?

    “Your position is based in fear of demographic changes, as you and your co-ideologues make abundantly clear whenever you’re given enough rope.”

    No rope is required, except for the traitors who have orchestrated the policies behind these demographic changes, fear of which is entirely justified and comes from a very healthy, natural and normal instinct for the preservation of our own selves, our nation, our culture, our faith, our traditions, our progeny, our heritage – in short, everything built up over millenia and worth preserving, building upon, passing on, and defending. Suppressing that healthy instinct is not ultimately possible, no matter what knots your twisted ideology devises to try to to keep it in check.

    “Quote Rothbard at me all you want. “Mr. Libertarian” who coined the term “anarcho-capitalism” also wrote that “cops must be unleashed to clear the streets of bums and vagrants” and “allowed to administer instant punishment” against a “parasitic underclass.” ”

    I’m glad an anarchist had at least occasional bouts of sanity. Anarchism is insane, but the quotes are entirely correct. Order on the streets needs to be restored, even if those with the luxury of being removed from those day to day realities clutch their pearls and decry those who don’t have such luxury doing what they have to do to protect themselves, among others. The same holds true of your academic arguments over your interpretation of property rights when it comes to victory on the global stage over Marxists, parasites, bums, vagrants, terrorists, globalists, elitists, Islamic fascists, Chinese supremacists, wolves in the sheep’s clothing of “liberals” and “progressives,” large scale and state sponsored organized crime, and other existential enemies we face.

    “…take greater inspiration from the individualist anarchists and liberal radicals of the 19th and early 20th centuries.”

    That’s foolish and suicidal, for many reasons. The wolves (some in sheep’s clothing, and some without) that your foolish policies seek to bring in won’t hesitate to tear you apart and feast on your bones while you draw inspiration from the idiocies that helped put them in a position to do exactly that and continue to argue pointlessly over whether doing anything to defend against their attacks violated your peculiar views of property rights.

    Aside from Christian concern that would seek to save you from the predictable consequences of such folly, the bigger problem with that is that your misguided principles are helping to to poke holes in the hull of the boat we are all in, and sink it with the rest of us inside. There are not enough life rafts or provisions for most of us, and it isn’t entirely clear whether any solid land or rescue will be within reach for any of us, if we don’t manage to patch the holes and bail out the boat in time – even if that means locking you in storage rooms where you can’t do any additional harm, or even, with great regret, throwing you overboard. Convincing you to stop helping poke those holes and to stop disrupting efforts to bail the boat don’t seem like the best use of very limited time and resources, but here is a small attempt, in case anyone not already convinced to join you in your murder-suicide death cult level folly is even marginally on the fence.

  36. Traditionalist

    “The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, …”

    “Interesting” theory. But how would a nation without a state protect itself from global menaces? Consider chemical and biological warfare, narcoterrorism, ideologically and religiously driven terrorism, economic warfare, cyber attacks, low yield nuclear weapons, aerial bombing, poison, infrastructural sabotage, social disintegration due to the multiple long range generational effects of cultural Marxism, large scale and state sponsored organized crime and terrorism, nuclear armed foreign adversaries, electomagnetic pulse weapons, and the many other ways a nation can be attacked.

    Aside from the self-marginalizing aspects of even tangentially bringing up the idea of a nation without a state in anything resembling a practical political context, you’d have to take some pretty massive leaps of faith to believe your ideology or anything it could conjure up is an adequate defense against all these threats, or ever could be. Few people will ever have the time to seriously entertain such leaps of faith, much less vote for anything that uses them as a basis for justifying its policies. Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that live action role playing as a political party or movement isn’t more successful than it is?

  37. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “That argument is completely irrelevant when you allow the importation of a voting population with an entirely different cultural conception of property rights, propriety, and freedom than those derived from the culture you irrationally work to help kill off. ”

    Yes. The Jared’s of the libertarian movement do not understand the concept of RECIPROSITY. There’s no liberty without reciprocity, as in if you want liberty, you need to be surrounded with people who also want it, and agree with what liberty is.

    So if your immigration policy is statistically speaking bringing in a super-majority of people who support socialism and gun control laws, then there is something wrong with your policy, because it is bringing in people who do NOT reciprocate libertarian values.

    Now somebody may bring up that many Americans do not reciprocate these values either, and this is true, however, this is not an excuse to bring more people to the country like this. Yes, lots of Americans don’t believe in liberty. Many of them work for the government, or are government contractors, or are on welfare.

    Having said this, there is still a fairly large liberty movement in this country, and there’s also still a fairly large gun rights culture. There is certainly overlap between the gun rights culture and the liberty movement, but not everyone who supports gun rights is really fully on board with the liberty movement, but even so, they at least support gun rights, and the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important issues, because if you lose that, you have basically lost any chance at having a libertarian, or even libertarian leaning, or even civil, society. I weight political issues, as in I place more importance on some issues than on others, and on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the least important, and 10 being the most important, I weight gun rights with a 10.

    Look at the statistics. If the immigration policy in place is bringing in a super-majority of people who support more socialism and more gun control, and less freedom in general, then there is something wrong with the policy.

  38. Andy

    Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2012/04/20/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/

    From the article: “When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government which provides more services than a smaller government which provides fewer services.

    Some 75% of Hispanics hold this view; just 19% say they prefer a smaller government. By contrast, just 41% of the public at large voice support for a bigger government.”

    MY COMMENT: Hispanic encompasses a very large group of people, and Hispanic is not a race, as Hispanics can be white, or Amerindian, or Mestizo (mixed race), or black, or even Asian. I don’t think that ALL Hispanics favor bigger government, however, a super-majority of the ones coming here DO favor bigger government. This is the problem, and this is why the Democrats want them, and a bunch of other people from a bunch of other places with a similar ideology, to come here.

  39. Traditionalist

    “Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.”

    Good point. The author doesn’t seem to realize that a modern state, with modern defense capabilities, is necessary to protect all of these things. Perhaps this is because, despite his contrarian streak, his analysis here applies to himself – be was born and raised among secular, leftist and usually Marxist Jews in New York City, never served in the military, never ran a business, and spent his whole life as an academic, political theorist, author, and political strategist within very cult-like, niche political movements. Despite his contrarian streak, he never escaped the historical context in which he was brought up, which consisted of trying to radically transform society based solely on ideology, not grounded in sufficient humility of any real world feedback loop about what works and what doesn’t.

    The closest he came to real world relevance was near the very end of his life, when Pat Buchanan noticed the ideas of himself and his close associates long and seriously enough to wisely reject them when it came to the issues of trade, tariffs, and other economic matters. Now, three decades later, we can see that Pat was right – idiotic “free” trade policies with China and Mexico (among others) have give our enemies on the global stage a huge leg up they did not have back at that time to give them additional resources to wage war against us.

    Pat never came any closer to practical political power than the very early primaries in 1996, but his ideas are exactly what brought Donald Trump to the presidency, and will again. If anything will save our civilization, it is those ideas that Pat Buchanan advanced, and not the folly of an anarchist, even one who managed to be right about cultural issues (even if only to stick it to the leftist Manhattan Jews and academics who formed his social milieu) and the necessity of police officers maintaining order on the streets while he pecked away at his typewriter about anarchy.

    People like Trump, with his practical business experience, General Flynn, with his military experience, and others grounded in the specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions that made Europe and then America great to begin with, and larger stage political theorists, strategists and communicators like Pat Buchanan (albeit now too old to run himself), Steve Bannon, and Tucker Carlson might save us – not Murray Rothbard or his ghost.

  40. Andy

    Traditionalist said: “The author doesn’t seem to realize that a modern state, with modern defense capabilities, is necessary to protect all of these things.”

    This gets back to the old debate of whether or not a purist libertarian society, that is an anarcho-capitalist society, would be capable of defending itself. There are people, myself included, who have put out ideas about how this could be done, but until we can put these ideas in practice, these are just theories/in the category of what ifs.

    Given that we do not live in an anarcho-capitalist society, this debate has little to do with our present reality. We live in a society with a state, and that’s not going to change any time soon, and even reducing the size of the state, is a monumental task.

  41. Andy

    More Than 90 Percent of Middle Eastern Refugees on Food Stamps

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/09/10/more-than-90-percent-of-middle-eastern-refugees-on-food-stamps/

    More than 90 percent of recent refugees from Middle Eastern nations are on food stamps and nearly 70 percent receive cash assistance, according to government data.

    According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) — chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest — in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

    Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).

    The high welfare rates among Middle Eastern refugees comes as the Obama administration considers increasing the number of refugees — who are immediately eligible for public benefits — to the U.S., particularly Syrian refugees.

    ORR defines refugees and asylees from the “Middle East” as being from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.

    Sessions’ staff notes that that from FY 2008 to FY 2013 the U.S. admitted 115,617 refugees from the Middle East and granted another 10,026 asylum. Additionally the U.S. granted green cards to 308,805 immigrants from those Middle Eastern countries identified by ORR as refugee nations, making them Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) eligible to apply for citizenship in five years and petition to have family members come to the U.S.

    As of 2013, Sessions’ staff notes, the top ten countries for refugee admission to the U.S. were Iraq, Burma, Bhutan, Somalia, Cuba, Iran, Congo, Sudan, Eritrea, and Ethiopia.

    “More broadly, concerning all immigration, the Migration Policy Institute notes that the U.S. has taken in ‘about 20 percent of the world’s international migrants, even as it represents less than 5 percent of the global population,’ and that 1 in 4 U.S. residents is now either an immigrant or born to immigrant parents,” Sessions staff highlights, noting that the Census is projecting that another 14 million immigrants will come to the U.S. by 2025.

  42. Traditionalist

    Dave,

    “advocates for decentralized fascism”

    What is decentralized fascism? What makes it fascism? Please explain what you mean. My understanding of Mussolini’s ideas is that centralization is an essential and inseparable element of fascism, force being the other essential element. This is represented in the symbol of fascism – a bound bundle of sticks, or fasci, which were used by Roman soldiers to beat people into compliance. The fasci, to Mussolini, represented both the unity of the nation and the force of the state used to keep everyone in line and bound to that unity. How can this concept be integrated with decentralization?

    “It’s sick to rely on some mythic concept of exclusive collective ownership of a country, speculate about what decisions all landholders in Ancapistani America would make, and appeal to bigoted stereotypes of immigrants and foreigners as “libertarian” excuses to curtail the individual property rights of citizens, deny freedom of movement to non-citizens, and enforce cultural protectionism to establish a quasi-ethnostate.”

    Anarchism is the only part of that which is sick. The decisions of landholders in actual America are pretty easy to see as actually expressed through voting, even if a century and a half of relentless marxist attacks has caused us to foolishly expand the electorate to non-landholders, among other groups that didn’t previously have the right to vote and should never have gained it. Collective elements in the ownership of property are derived from what it takes to defend that property, whether it be from foreign invasion, from attacks by criminals big and small, or from looting by a government which has expanded the electorate to include parasites and anyone who crosses the border, legally or not, and their progeny.

    Stereotypes reflect larger truths, even if some individuals deviate from their group mean. Bigotry is an entirely negative characterization; it’s as if you thought it to be bigotry to avoid stepping in a pothole, because of the off chance that it might actually land you in a pile of money. In the real world, we have to dodge numerous potholes in real time, and not stepping in one is rational discrimination, not the irrational kind you imply by using the loaded term bigotry. You also seem to think that protecting our culture is a bad thing, and that there is some sort of abstract freedom of movement which is more important than protecting our culture and property from any and all sorts of attacks, not all of which are obvious or immediate. Good luck in finding the potholes that provide a soft landing in a big pile of cash, but, to mix metaphors, you shouldn’t be allowed near the steering wheel of our ship and plow it into an iceberg because you don’t want to be “bigoted” against solid forms of water.

  43. Jared

    Pat Buchanan’s biggest fan: “a century and a half of relentless marxist attacks has caused us to foolishly expand the electorate to non-landholders, among other groups that didn’t previously have the right to vote and should never have gained it”

    Such as? 🙂

  44. Traditionalist

    “Given that we do not live in an anarcho-capitalist society, this debate has little to do with our present reality. We live in a society with a state, and that’s not going to change any time soon, and even reducing the size of the state, is a monumental task.”

    That’s right. It’s pointless to even speculate whether an “anarcho-capitalist” society is even possible. It’s particularly pointless when we are under relentless attack from all sides and our ship is taking on water. The left is clearly the enemy, and is attacking us from every direction – political, economic, social, cultural, educational, informational, judicial, religious, familial, and so on. It has to be actively resisted on all those fronts and in every possible way. If you allow the perfect to be the enemy of the lesser evil, your real world choices continuously become more and more bad, and both the greater and lesser evil become worse, more evil, and harder to escape over time. If you don’t stand up for what’s right, and what’s Right Wing, in any and all ways, you’ll have less and less left to defend as time goes on, and the available means to fight back will be less and less perfect.

  45. Traditionalist

    Jared

    Such as?

    Voting should be made much, much harder. The safeguards which kept undesirable voters away from the polls in the 18th and 19th centuries should all be brought back. The immigration law changes of 1965 must be repealed, and anyone who is here only as a result of those should be stripped of citizenship or residency and deported along with the illegals.

    And yes, the voting age should be raised. 21 was, roughly, an average midlife point in 1789, perhaps the equivalent of age 40 today. Most men were married with several children and gainfully employed heads of households at age 21 back then. Today that’s the exception rather than the rule at 21.

    Of course, incremental changes in the correct direction are welcome as well. As I said to Andy, making the perfect the enemy of the better, or even the better-than-otherwise, is a mistake.

  46. Jared

    No need to beat around the bush. You can just say you’d restrict the franchise to landowning, churchgoing white men. Given Andy’s fondness for voter demographics, Hoppean disdain for democracy in general, and belief in the vital necessity of bourgeois conservative cultural “reciprocity,” I don’t see how he could disagree with you.

  47. Traditionalist

    Andy
    December 29, 2021 at 15:33

    Excellent points. But they should go beyond mere rhetoric. Political defense of gun ownership and property rights is not sufficient. It’s important for each of us to personally own land, preferably as much of it and as far from cities as possible, to learn to live off that land to the best of our abilities, to own guns and know how to use them to hunt, to defend the homestead, and to hit targets; to have adequate stores of food, ammunition, water purification, and gold; to Buy American to the best of our abilities, to attend a religiously and culturally conservative church regularly, to marry a culturally and religiously conservative woman, to have and rear children (well above replacement) and teach them appropriate values, and then to help them pass those values on to their children and their children’s children in turn. To gain practical experience in sports, military service, law enforcement, business, and in other practical matters.

    Rhetoric and politics alone won’t save our culture or our nation. It must be defended on ALL fronts. Being grounded in those practical realities, as well as in the written wisdom of the centuries and millenia before us, and to learn it again and again by teaching it to the generations after us, is as important or more than anything which can be achieved in the political realm. I don’t know, and am not asking, what you yourself or anyone else here do outside of discussing ideas here. But I hope everyone here who can grasp the importance of saving our culture realizes that it will take a lot more than politics to save it. Of course, I don’t know how many people here actually even realize that we have a culture worth saving, or that its survival is far from assured.

  48. Traditionalist

    Jared,

    “No need to beat around the bush. You can just say you’d restrict the franchise to landowning, churchgoing white men.”

    I didn’t beat around any bush, and ideally, I would also say that literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses were all good ideas and should be brought back. It would also be wise to restrict the franchise to men who are married with children, and have never fathered children out of wedlock. Impractical wish lists aside, as I mentioned, I’d welcome even very small, incremental moves in that direction — not having children and illegals voting multiple times or votes flipped on questionable equipment hacked by the Chinese government or harvested or tallied by leftist activists, for example.

    In discussing practical politics it’s best to focus much more on those incremental moves that have some realistic hope of being enacted in the near future. Wish lists are nice, but you can discuss them on the train to the gulags too, or on the march to the killing fields, until you can’t. In the meantime, there are more practical matters to discuss when it comes to limiting the ongoing debasement of our voting population and process, a debasement which has been going for well over a century now, much like what’s happened to our money. Luckily, Republicans have recently started to notice, and actually take concrete measures to start fighting back.

    Let’s start with simple things, like Stop the Steal and Finish the Wall, Drain the Swamp, and Lock them Up.
    Hopefully it will be enough to Save America and Make America First Again (Buchanan’s slogan, later mostly adopted by Trump as Make America Great Again). With God on our side, it will be enough to Save Our Ship and move on to bigger and better things from there.

    Deo Vindice!

  49. Andy

    The voting restrictions I favor are:

    1) People who work for the government, contract with the government, or who receive various forms of welfare or other handouts, including the boards of corporations who receive them, are barred from voting, or donating to political campaigns.

    2) People should have to past a test on what the Constitution says, and maybe the Declaration of Independence as well, in order to be eligible to vote, or to donate to political campaigns.

    Also, make it more difficult to become an American citizen (see my suggestions above for some ideas on this).

    If these steps were implement, I bet elections in this country would have far better results, and this would be a freer, and more prosperous country.

  50. Traditionalist

    “Libertarians and classical liberals, who are particularly well-equipped to rethink the entire muddled area of the nation-state and foreign affairs, have been too wrapped up in the Cold War against communism and the Soviet Union to engage in fundamental thinking on these issues. Now that the Soviet Union has collapsed and the Cold War is over, perhaps classical liberals will feel free to think anew about these critically important problems.”

    Arrogant, and wrong. You aren’t particularly well equipped, and time’s up in any case. You declared victory far too prematurely, having left Communist China and Korea still in place, and your folly on trade issues allowed China in particular to grow and become a new superpower on the world stage. Meanwhile, the cultural Marxist fifth column has continue to weaken the defenses of the West from within through miseducation at all levels from small children to academia, secularization, debased and filthy pop culture ridden with Marxist propaganda both obvious and subtle, through attacks on traditional sex and gender roles, through importing third world populations and third world cultural traditions, through destroying what remains of self-reliance whether at the familial or national economic level, and through many other means.

    Communist Cuba still remains just off the US coast. Marxists continue to hold and take power in nations all over the world, or to sit in government coalitions, or to form credible opposition parties. in the few places where that isn’t the case, Fabian socialists and globalist crony capitalist “conservatives” vie for their pieces of the political pie in most remaining nations, while cultural conservatives and traditionalists are relegated to the barely tolerated fringes, or worse. “Classical liberalism” isn’t a concept the average person can even begin to understand anymore, which, in all fairness, is not all bad, because it helped lead us to this sorry pass to begin with.

    So, you had your fun, and did 30 years of “rethinking,” secure in your imaginary victory in the still very much ongoing war against globalist communism. Now it’s time to wake up to reality and get to work on rebuilding our defenses against this communist attack from both outside and within and our offensive capabilities to fight back against it. In case you have failed to notices, both the means of defense and the weapons for counterattack have suffered considerable wear, tear, and rusting while you were mentally masturbating and “rethinking.”

    Enough thinking, it’s time to fight back. The barbarians are already inside the gates, in the ivory towers, and in the senile president’s white castle. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it wasn’t sapped and weakened to the point where it could be sacked in a day either, but we don’t have 30 years left to beat back and expel the barbarians, much less to rebuild to the point of withstanding further attacks. It’s time for all honourable men, and any aspiring to be honourable, to answer the call of duty, whether that be Let’s Go Brandon! or Kill a Commie for Mommy, and Save America and the West…Save Our Ship! SOS! All hands on deck! And that includes women and their role on the homefront to continue our civilization, because we can’t do that without them.

  51. Traditionalist

    “First, we can conclude that not all state boundaries are just. One goal for libertarians should be to transform existing nation-states into national entities whose boundaries could be called just, in the same sense that private property boundaries are just; that is, to decompose existing coercive nation-states into genuine nations, or nations by consent.”

    No nation state will ever have perfect consent. Adequate defense against foreign enemies, hostile, alien cultures, and termites attacking the foundations of civilization from within, requires nation states that are big enough to fight back, put modern military forces at their borders, and employ all the other means of defense modern nation-states have to employ. Sorry, libertarians. Some of your consent will have to be violated. The only real practical alternative is to have 100% of it violated by people who don’t know or care what consent means at all, unless it’s for the perverse pleasure of violating in every conceivable way as much as possible. You don’t have to like it, but you’ll have to live with it.

    On that note, I am a fan of the poster with a picture of Trump’s smiling face and the word/slogan COPE underneath, styled after the famous one featuring the alien visage of the preceding and ineligible White house occupant and besmircher and the word/slogan HOPE, the latter being an obnoxious knock off of Big Brother with the word/slogan underneath being OBEY. Those are, realistically, your actual choices. They’ll get worse over time, the longer you pretend that anything like perfection is any kind of real option.

  52. Jared

    Trad,

    The God who instructed the Israelites to welcome the foreigner as they would their native-born because they were resident aliens in Egypt, and who condemns oppression of the poor in no uncertain terms, I’d wager to guess, is not on your side here, in Latin or any other language.

    This “Christendom” you wax nostalgic about was an ecumenical enterprise uniting different peoples and cultures from Palestine to Gaul. There was nothing nationalistic or ethnostatist about it. Byzantine symphonia is also a historical failure, as the imperium never could refrain from meddling in the affairs of the sacerdotum, including and perhaps especially during the reign of Justinian. The Roman state church and its comfortable hierarchs to a tragic extent forgot the prophetic radicalism and revolutionary egalitarian spirit of primitive Christianity. Many of the most highly regarded fathers of the church retained that spirit and were persecuted by this great “Christian empire.”

  53. Traditionalist

    Dave,

    “If the argument were about restricting immigration on the basis of insufficient infrastructure to support sudden rapid population growth or reasonable public health concerns about diseases from other parts of the world, that would be a fair in-house libertarian discussion between radicals and moderates.”

    It’s about those things, and many others. And you are delusional if you think your ivory tower in-house discussion has any meaningful context outside the real world and the real problems we face as a country, nation, people, society, or culture – whatever terms you find most accurate.

    “But it isn’t. It’s about ideological litmus tests, preemptive “physical removal” of presumed leftists, despising the poor and the alien, and wanting to prevent people who don’t look, sound, act, and think as they do from becoming their neighbors.”

    In other words, rational self-preservation and the preservation of our homeland and heritage. You make it sound like it’s a bad thing, or worse than bad perhaps, but it’s the most natural thing possible. It’s one thing to have Christian charity for our own poor kin and neighbors, and to help them get on their feet. Quite another to force us at the point of every government gun to share, from each according to his abilities and to each according to their needs, with the ever more quickly expanding ranks of well fed parasites and leeches, “refugees” from every mismanaged corner of the world and hostile culture and religion, and anyone who decides to join the ranks of the unproductive as time goes on. All this while expanding the voting base so ever more of the same can happen ever more rapidly. Fighting back against such a perverse process is purely defensive. Coming up with rationalizations that help that process along, no matter how noble you think they sound, is aiding and abetting that same attack.

    “The Rothbardian paleo strategists have in large part become the crass right-wing populists and nativists they sought to ally with in the 90s.”

    Crass is an inaccurate characterization, but to whatever extent the rest of that is correct – good! They have grown up and become adults. Good for them, and I hope the rest of you will see your way clear to undergo a similar process of growth and maturation as soon as possible, because we need your help on the culture war battlefield in the clash of civilizations, or the clash of civilization and barbarism.

  54. Traditionalist

    Jared,

    “The God who instructed the Israelites to welcome the foreigner as they would their native-born because they were resident aliens in Egypt, and who condemns oppression of the poor in no uncertain terms, I’d wager to guess, is not on your side here, in Latin or any other language.”

    You would wager incorrectly. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt, not “resident aliens,” and were directed by God to leave Egypt at great cost and conquer Canaan, which wasn’t exactly a pretty process either. Along the way, they suffered many trials and tribulations because they continuously didn’t heed God’s rules. There are many important lessons there.

    Certainly, I acknowledge that we should not oppress the poor. Indeed, the greatest help we can offer them is to help them with a hand up, not a handout, to teach them to be more self-sufficient. The same applies to foreign nations. Letting the poor, including the poor of every other country, vote on how and how much the rich should help them? Well, that’s a far cry from anything the Bible teaches.

    Imagine that, having at last crossed the desert and conquered the promised land, your “resident aliens” were forced first with having to support those who could work but chose not to through an ever expanding process of voting. Then, tired of dealing with their defending armies, the surrounding nations would send their armies in under the guise of refugees, soon joining the voting ranks to help themselves to whatever fruits of the labors of those who still bothered to work remained. Soon they would prohibit the teaching of the local religion to the next generation, and make it a crime to discriminate against the peculiar cultural traditions of the aliens among them, such as the Sodomites. Signs and official documents would have to be in an ever expanding babel of languages. The cults of different idols, some demanding blood sacrifice, would proliferate everywhere. The local population would be endlessly admonished that they must be tolerant. Crime and disease would rise more and more, but it would become a crime to even discuss honestly what was happening, or if not yet a crime, at least a reason to be shunned in polite society. Jezebels would lure every righteous man, and the local cultural traditions, language, religion, and everything else would become bastardized and displaced more and more with each day, year, or generation.

    This process, taking place over several generations, is what we are faced with in the here and now. What do supposed libertarians propose to do about it? Open the gates and just let the foreign armies in, because after all they should have freedom of movement too, and it’s not coercion if we just invite them in? Is the time to mount some defense when they rape, loot and pillage every city and the whole countryside, or some point earlier in this process?

  55. Traditionalist

    Jared,

    “This “Christendom” you wax nostalgic about was an ecumenical enterprise uniting different peoples and cultures from Palestine to Gaul.”

    I only used Christendom in the sense of Western Civilization and Christian heritage, which still exist (albeit weakened and under constant attack from many sides) today. You may be thinking of medieval Europe, or perhaps the Western Roman Empire and then the Holy Roman Empire, which was all quite some time ago.

    “There was nothing nationalistic or ethnostatist about it. ”

    European history shows otherwise. Nationalism, ethnostates, and conflict among smaller governmental units existed throughout the history of Christian Europe, just as it has in every other part of the world and every era of history. To propose that anything else is possible is utopian, ahistoric, and has led to the most extreme totalitarianism and the greatest mass murders in history just in the past century alone – and when you consider the bloody history of every preceding century, that’s saying quite a lot.

    “Byzantine symphonia is also a historical failure, as the imperium never could refrain from meddling in the affairs of the sacerdotum, including and perhaps especially during the reign of Justinian. The Roman state church and its comfortable hierarchs to a tragic extent forgot the prophetic radicalism and revolutionary egalitarian spirit of primitive Christianity. Many of the most highly regarded fathers of the church retained that spirit and were persecuted by this great “Christian empire.”

    All true, and all valid reasons for the Protestant Reformation, not so much justification for inviting the Islamic Caliphate, Chinese Empire, and other geopolitical foes to come in and take over – all democratically and with complete respect for ideal property rights, of course.

    “Liberty Dave isn’t the one replying to you. Evidently he has more sense than I do.”

    I responded to things he said above, as I have with you. Whether you, or he, choose to respond, when, how much, or how little is up to you.

  56. Jared

    Trad: “You would wager incorrectly. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt, not ‘resident aliens.'”

    “You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Ex. 23:9

    “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” Lev. 19:34

    “When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the stranger. I am the LORD your God.” Lev. 23:22

    “If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.” Lev. 25:35

    First they were refugees. Generations later they became slaves.

    “And Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation. But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them.

    Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, ‘Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, otherwise they will multiply, and in the event of war, they will also join those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land.’ So they appointed taskmasters over them to oppress them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Ramesses.

    But the more they oppressed them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread out, so that they dreaded the sons of Israel. The Egyptians used violence to compel the sons of Israel to labor; and they made their lives bitter with hard labor in mortar and bricks and at all kinds of labor in the field, all their labors which they violently had them perform as slaves.” Ex. 1:6-14

    It helps to read the Bible.

  57. Traditionalist

    Jared, my apologies for wherever I mixed up your comments with Dave’s. And yes. It helps to read the Bible – all of it, and to put verses in context. I’m not for oppressing strangers. But there are additional lessons you ignore even in the passages you select.

    The passages which call for charity and for kindness to strangers do not say that strangers and anyone who feely chooses not to work should be allowed to vote themselves however much of your harvest and anything else they wish as they want. That would, of course, be absurd. It would be equally absurd that they should make your laws, since that would make them conquerors, not strangers among us or those who fell on hard times and need charitable help.

    Consider Lot, who showed considerable kindness to strangers. He did not, however, allow the mob outside to vote themselves on what in his household they should help themselves to. What if he had?

    Consider too that the Egyptians could only manage the Hebrews who were outbreeding them in their own country by making them slaves. What should they have done instead – just let them take over their country and make their laws? Install a Hebrew pharaoh? Nothing In the Bible suggests any such thing. Even having enslaved the Hebrews, the Egyptians ended up dealing with all sorts of plagues, and that was with the Hebrews deciding on their own to leave. What if they chose to stay instead, and just take over?

    After they took back their promised land, where does God tell them to welcome other people’s who would outbreed them as they had the Egyptians, and to let them take over and help decide by voting who receives how much tribute, including those who choose not to work and however many strangers decide this sounds like a wonderful place to journey to?

    Does God tell them to let strangers vote on their laws, to accept free and open worship of all gods and idols everywhere, to let a Babel of languages proliferate everywhere, etc?

    Maybe you’ll find those passages in your bible – but I seem to have misplaced them in mine.

  58. Traditionalist

    Jared,

    I don’t know what you value, other than safeguarding your concept of who is the most libertarian of all, and who is a stranger among libertarians. Are you practicing what you preach when you do that?

    Applying your own logic, anyone who wants to “Immigrate” into the amorphous concept of libertarianism would freely do so. They could then choose to ignore all the traditions by which that concept had come to be defined. They would each get a vote on defining what it means going forward, and who should get however many of its benefits, whatever those are.

    Do you see what problems might arise for this concept, or whoever lived within it, if you did that? If you can, how would the same not apply to our country, or Europe, Australia, etc?
    If you can’t, I hereby declare myself to be a libertarian. I’m not changing any of my beliefs; I just want to vote on how your concept is defined going forward. I’ll move on if and when it suits me. Does that sound like a great idea to you?

  59. Jared

    So, in other words, “Fine. Yes, God does tell the Israelites to welcome aliens in the land, to treat them as they would natives and love them as they love themselves, but he never says you should allow the foreign filth into your country where they will outbreed you, pollute your democracy, leech off your wealth, and prey on your children! You have to read the Bible in full context. Checkmate, Christian libertarians.

    Btw, you’re ostracizing libertarians who agree with me—an ultraconservative white nationalist—on the brown immigrant threat by calling their view less libertarian than yours, so you’re the real hypocrite.”

    Yeah, I think I’m probably done here.

  60. Traditionalist

    You’re past done, and burnt to say, much like what will soon remain of any welfare state which allows the recipients of charity to decide who will receive it, and in what amounts, and then simultaneously lets everyone who can enter said country in the era of modern transportation vote on its laws. None of the Biblical passages you cite contemplate letting the recipients of charity decide on its amount, form, etc, combined with a system for letting every stranger vote to change the national language, religion, customs, and so forth.

    Absent those factors, which you just gloss over no matter in how many ways they are illustrated, you would be quite correct. If we were on a sea voyage and ran across some drowning men at sea, it would be unethical to allow them to drown; no one disputes this, least of all me. If some of the sailors fell ill and could not work, I wouldn’t call on starving them until they are able to earn their keep. But what if the sailors can simply vote on giving provisions to those who would rather not work, and the numbers of shirkers grows over time, while the number of those rescued grows and grows, until a dwindling number of sailors must catch enough fish to feed the growing ranks of those who prefer to take a leisurely cruise, and everyone votes on everything?

    If you choose to work, not only must you catch enough fish to feed everyone and get whippings when your catch is inadequate, but you must also scrub the deck and then dance and sing to entertain those not working. Weary of whippings and sleepless toil, sooner or later you join the ranks of the leisure cruisers, whereupon you discover that some of those rescued from the sea have a religious practice of poking holes in the hull, which may be why they ended up in the water to begin with. Now, our unhappy remaining few working sailors must also bail out the boat, but they’re set upon by the rescued drowning men, who attack them for interfering with their sacred hull holes.

    How long before everyone on this ship of fools starves, drowns, resorts to cannibalism, or some other such unhappy outcome? You might find the charred and gnarled remains of the last beleaguered survivors on a desert island and conclude that, yes, they’re probably done here.

    The Bible also says you should drink a little wine for your stomach’s sake. That doesn’t mean you should drink as much as you can hold down every day until it kills you, or let wine merchants vote on how much you should drink and pour it down your throat.

    Naturally, you avoided every question I posed, because your defensive mechanisms won’t allow you to seriously contemplate the question. But I’ll pose it again – perhaps someone who agrees with you will care to answer? I doubt it, but here it is.

    Let’s say that this concept of yours, “libertarianism,” is redefined every two or four years by a vote of all who decide to call themselves libertarians that day and cast a vote. They don’t have to do anything else, fit the prior definition, or change any of their views. Their sole reason for participating may be that they don’t like you, and would like nothing better than to see you all to die in a fire soon. Do you see any problems with defining “libertarianism” thus? Now, how about “USA citizen” or “legal resident” or “eligible for welfare and medical care and voting in our elections”?

    Is an allergic reaction to answering questions, no matter how simple and obvious those questions are, a part of your definition of your ideology? Or are you just well done being stuck in a logical conundrum, and there to remain for all eternity?

Leave a Reply

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