my fellow libertarians, an article in answer to the last one regarding borders .
 

Here is an outstanding answer to the other lew Rockwell article. .



Students For Libertyha>haBlogha>haI Want Lew Rockwell to Be Libertarian on Immigration

NOV
18
2015

I Want Lew Rockwell to Be Libertarian on Immigration


A recent editorial by Lew Rockwell is titled, ?Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal.? But this isn?t a new look at immigration from the libertarian perspective. It?s actually a reevaluation of libertarianism, where Rockwell decides border control matters more than the principles of liberty.

He?s not alone. An amazingly high number of libertarians switch sides when immigration is the topic. ?We have a welfare state,? they cry. ?These teeming hordes don?t appreciate our heritage of liberty.?

With this most recent piece, Rockwell?s upped the claim. He argues that politically unwelcome immigration violates personal property rights as understood by libertarians.

Rockwell?s approach is not libertarian because it violates the primary principle of libertarianism?

The Zero Aggression Principleha(ZAP):haNo one has the right to initiate force against peaceful persons. Since no one has that right, no one can delegate it to their most elite neighbors ? politicians.

ha

An important corollary to the ZAP is?

The Equal Liberty Rule:haEveryhahuman being is free to do what they believe is right, so long as they don?t violate the rights of others. My rights stop at the end of your nose.

Lew defends both of these concepts in other cases. But you cannot really make an exception to a principle without losing the principle itself.

Rockwell?s claim is that national borders are just extensions of private property rights.

He argues that public property (even roads) is actually owned by the taxpayers.haHe writes:

[I]mmigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on? and the result is artificial demographic shifts? Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

But are public spaces really, secretly private property?

Does a man in Cincinnati, with only the deed to his house, have the right to stop traffic in Phoenix, checking for citizenship papers? How else, other than through The State, can you assume control over property 1,000 miles away? Axiomatically, the larger the boundary you seek to protect, the bigger the ?government? you?ll need.

The result of this new property rights formulation is shocking to libertarian sensibilities ? people could be banned from common spaces by political majorities. An immigrant walking down a local street becomes, in Rockwell?s words, a ?forced association,? even if he?s on his way to a place where he?s quite welcome.

This new, forced association principle clashes with the ZAP.haTo stop aliens who are walking, job seeking, purchasing, and house renting, there will be cases where someone must be prepared to shoot them. Who, amongst the libertarians, is willing to pull the first trigger?

Still, let?s assume roads really are private property, owned by taxpayers. Then, we?re left with an ironic question?

Where do we draw the line?

Can your neighbors ban you from carrying guns to the shooting range because of forced association?Can your neighbors prohibit you from buying marijuana and driving it home to smoke it? haCould your neighbors decide that, since we have government healthcare, they can regulate what you can take home from the grocery store?


Rockwell might suggest that these actions differ from immigration restriction because they haviolate free trade rather than free immigration. He asserts these are not the same, because there isn?t a willing recipient with immigration. Leaving aside the bald anti-humanity of the idea that our worth is based on who wants to consume our services, the fact is, the immigrant has to eat and obtain shelter too. He?s going to do that by selling his services.

In fact, the demand for migrant labor is quite high. This is why, despite the nativist bent of the Republican grassroots, the country club elite that controls the GOP keeps trying to put some kind of ?amnesty? plan forward. They want to hire migrant workers.


As libertarians, we should be concerned about any method of suppressing this labor market. The State, through immigration restrictions, makes it cumbersome or impossible for businessmen to hire these workers. We abhor regulation elsewhere, viewing it as a violent intrusion into a voluntary relationship. On what principle do we suddenly shift ground?haForced associationhadoesn?t make the grade.

Most important of all, consider the following real life example. By accident of birth, a human being was born on the other side of a line. You want to hire them to work on your property. Border control means that, if I have political power, I have the right to use violent force to terminate this relationship between consenting adults. Do you really believe that?

Even if you do, can anyone call that view ?libertarian?"








:)






.

The only people who benefit from open borders, are those who wouldn't get in if checked.

Still, let’s assume roads really are private property, owned by taxpayers. Add schools, hospitals, social care, police, courts, prisons, and everything else migrants use.

In the UK those who can't afford to build and buy their own house, expect on to be provided by the taxpayer. At the lowest cost of a home, fitting 5 into it. That's $50,000 per migrant.

Only low skilled workers and non workers benefit from open borders, so it's left to the rich to pay.

I won't even bother with the debate on keeping criminals out.

Sweden and the UK know this first hand

Immigration these days serves as Viagra to the state and libertarians shouldn't support it. No need to be autistic with libertarian principles.

It doesnt bother you that Libertarianism is an all white movement? (over 99 percent)

It must suck to see your demographic moving into the minority. The way things are right now with the Latino and Black percentage of population..no Libertarian or any member of an all-white Party WILL EVER hold the Presidency..and as this trend continues it looks like soon no Libertarian could ever even reach Congress except in the reddest of red states.

Are you saying that other races are cognitively impaired or what?

Apparently you don't understand that there are different types of libertarians.

Central to libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle (the initiation or threaten of the initiation of force against a person or their property is wrong).

Because taxation breaks the non-aggression principle, the libertarian political movement is inconsistent in its philosophy.

This is why those of us libertarians who are consistent in principle, laugh at the libertarian political movement.

So no, libertarians like myself don't want a libertarian president, if we did, we would be more appropriate to call ourselves small-government, minarchist constitutionalists.

The other two parties spend millions of dollars in lawyers every year all around the country ensuring that no other political views are allowed on ballots or in to the process at all (debates, TV time, etc...) . . Doesn't that bother you, to know that you are being essentially held captive in a system which simply grows the power of two statist parties whose main concern is continuing and solidifying their power?




.

despite his theoretical gymnastics lew revealed that he really was just a paleocon all along.

which isn't surprising considering the company he keeps.

I'm with you 100 percent in my disgust and distrust of the 2 heads of the same party occupation of our gov. But that would never make me swing into a radically racist and classist political movement.

"Get your hoods on boy's - they won't let us hang em from a tree but we sure as hell can take away all their food stamps, health care. fire and police and close all their schools"

If you are a Libertarian you are a White Supremacist, although it may not feel like it..you are supporting policies that would negatively impact minorities in monumental ways while radically helping property owners (whites).

It's easy to point out the nice things about Libertarianism...like the non-interventionist view of our role in the world which I totally agree with..but its like if you were on set with a worn out 50 year old porn model with one fucked up titty, uterus falling out and herpes ringing her mouth and you said "But hey shes got a great tit!"

Fuck the KKK/White Power/Libertarian movement.

Wow... . You really don't have even the slightest idea of what the libertarian movement is about, do you?


Perhaps you could do some research and then come back to the discussion when you have a tiny bit of an idea of what you are talking about.

I would suggest Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, and Frederick Hayek, to start.

Have a great Sunday!






.

Actually, libertarian principles least oppress minorities compared to other philosophies.

Take the minimum wage law, a great example of the authoritarian nanny state the left loves so much. It ends up hurting the poor (and thus minorities) the most, by resulting in inflation and loss of jobs (the two things that impact minorities the most).

Take welfare and all of the various social programs. What's that saying? "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for lifetime?" In other words, stop treating minorities as permanent underclass by hand feeding them, and you'll see their prosperity improve drastically.

Take the war on drugs; a direct threat on the importance of property rights (self ownership). It impacts the poor and minorities the most.

If you at all care about minorities and the poor, you get rid of the state, which is a philosophy consistent with libertarianism.

pigshit




..

...love the intelligent rebuttals from this guy.

Now THAT is the kind of insightful and cogent reply to an intellectual discussion of a complex topic which needs to be more common here on gfy.com.







.