Wednesday, June 17, 2015:
Voters see an overly powerful government as a bigger danger in the world than an under-powered one.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015:
Voters see an overly powerful government as a bigger danger in the world than an under-powered one.
In a Twitter battle between myself and several other Anarcho-Capitalists, several arguments have been exchanged that serve either to justify concepts such as “open borders”, “freedom of movement” or “mass immigration, or to reject them from a libertarian point of view.
I will present some of these here, and may present more in the future. Suffice it to say that i was very unimpressed by the arguments in favor of “freedom of movement.” Continue Reading
Christopher Cantwell, whom i find myself disagreeing with slightly more (see here and here) than usual lately, has been banned from Facebook for making what is nothing but a common sense statement, as well as a libertarian statement.
This being, that if people in Cologne had the right to bear arms in order to protect and defend themselves, many rape victims would likely not have been rape victims.
This notion of the right to self defense, using firearms if necessary, against violent criminals is wholly alien to the left-liberal nation state, to the point that advocating it will get you banned from a social network platform. Obviously, the expectation is that you are not only a victim, but that you should accept and resign to such a fate, even as the state itself is happily importing your assaulters and rapists. To suggest otherwise is a “violation of terms.”
Cultural Marxism expresses itself as dividing society into two camps: the oppressing class, and the oppressed class. The oppressing class, according to cultural Marxists, consists always of Western, white, rich or privileged, heterosexual, able-bodied men. Being Christian will not help you. If you recognize yourself as fitting the above description, forget about ever being considered a victim of one or the other social ill. You are most likely considered a sexist, homophobe, racist and privileged person, at the very least at a subconscious level.
Can there be any doubt now that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Apparently there is doubt at Reason Mag that virtually all current mainstream politicians are fascists at heart. This despite their love for aggressive wars, imperialistic foreign policy, centralized economic policies that especially benefit big corporations and other special interests, a love for more and more surveillance of the population and a militaristic police state, cult-of-personality level president-worship, a desire to disarm the population, an ever-growing state apparatus in general, and other clear indicators. And this goes for virtually all mainstream politicians, because virtually all of them, left and right, support the above.
The only difference between them and Trump is that Trump dares to focus on the group of people that, by and large, spawns most terrorists and therefore national security threats. It is certainly generalistic, and collectivistic of Trump to cast doubt on the whole muslim community for what an extremist minority of them do. But at least he is not avoiding the elephant in the room entirely out of political correctness like the rest of them do. How stupid can you be, or how despicably hypocritical, to generate a continuous stream of muslim terrorists by waging endless wars on the Middle East and bombing people, after decades of propping up and supporting oppressive puppet regimes, and with unwavering, uncritical support for Israel, and then to pretend that there is no threat to be expected from people who adhere to the islamic religion?
This is not bigotry. This is a realistic assessment. What makes politicians despicable is not that they are ‘bigoted’ if they make such assessments, but that it is politicians themselves whom have largely created this problem, and continue to exacerbate it, with their foreign policy past and present.
It is easy to call Donald Trump a “bad person” based on some of the evidence used in the Reason piece. But as usual with Reason Magazine, this is simply a bunch of hypocritical bullshit disguised as a reasonable and ‘factual’ piece from a ‘libertarian point of view.’ It is sin by omission.
Because, from a libertarian point of view, a politician is by very definition a bad person, for the endless stream of lies, dishonesty, moral corruption, law-sanctioned criminality (aka criminal behavior that is law-sanctioned because the behavior is exhibited by government personnel), pro-fascist domestic policies, and other disreputable characteristics. Donald Trump would be no exception to any of this.
What he does seem to be an exception to, is that at least he is honest about all the shitty things he would want to do.
I understand, between the lines, from the likes of Peter Suderman, that politicians are kinder, nicer, more morally acceptable people if only they cover their immoral lard with sprinkles of dishonest sugar dust. Apparently he likes shit sandwiches so long as they look and smell like donuts.
After all, we can call the likes of Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama “civil” in comparison to Trump. But how many people are now DEAD because of the three current or previous presidents? How many civil and especially libertarian rights have they wiped their asses with? How many more did they wish they could violate (the second amendment being one example)? How many bombs have they dropped? How about torture? The Patriot Act? Rendition? Warrantless searches? No knock raids? The war on drugs? Executive decision making on executions without so much as a trial? The list goes on and on eternally of the various policies, agendas and rights violations that presidents – and politicians in general – impose on the people. That’s what they do. That’s why we’re libertarians.
But hey, they’re nice about it, aren’t they? They smile at you. They listen to you as if they care about your opinion. They shake your hands and kiss your babies.
And then they turn around and screw you. Because they’re politicians. Because they’re government. They’re the state. Because they get away with it.
There have been all kinds of soft or hard ways in which governments have always been bigoted to specific sets of people, mostly through laws. Whether it was women, blacks, gays, or simply freedom-loving individuals in general. Leftist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for right-wing people, and Rightist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for left-wing people. Both camps refuse to hide their contempt for libertarians. In the culture war, white heterosexual men are often talked about as one step up from Nazi’s by virtually all the groups that are somehow “oppressed” even today as a black man is president and a woman is one of the two main candidates for the next presidency, and as anyone on college campus who so much as sneezes politically incorrect is pressured and intimidated out of his position.
So is a bigoted politician really anything new? No. But an honest one may be. Trump simply says what he really thinks. He is refusing to don the mask that politicians usually wear to hide their contempt for societal groups, and to hide their fascistic fantasies.
I would never vote for someone like Trump, because a powermad statist is a powermad statist. But call me a fool: i have at least more respect and more admiration for an honest scumbag than for a lying and deceitful scumbag, who pretends he is making love to you when he is really sodomizing you.
Reason magazine is simply showing off its preference for meaningless and deceitful social justice platitudes out of the mouth of people no less evil, as proven by their votes and actions, than Trump.
Because social justice platitudes matter to politically correct, progressive faux-libertarians such as those at Reason.
Most of the discussion on what the libertarian position is on immigration is based on assumptions. The assumptions themselves are based on interpretations about how libertarians ought to think in a non-ideal, non-principled society such as the one we have today. We have various factors that do not involve principled libertarianism whatsoever but those involved in this discussion wish to insert what they think is somehow a principled libertarian position on the matter anyway.
I state that this is simply impossible, because any supposed libertarian position in the current circumstances must ignore the realities of the non-ideal society in order to make its case. It must ignore the reality of the cost of their position to innocent, non-violent citizens. It must ignore all non-libertarian consequences of the position they hold, if it were to put into place. For this very reason, their position simply cannot be ‘principled’, because there is no principled libertarian position that will directly result in the violation of the negative rights of innocent people.
There is a principled libertarian position, but this is only possible in ideal circumstances, or for the achievement of the ideal circumstances. Not for the achievement of a situation that makes things even worse for non-violent citizens.
A truly libertarian society, is a society based on the consistent application of the two staples of libertarianism: private property rights and non-aggression. The consistent application of these leads to market anarchism; that is to say: anarchism based on voluntary, non-aggressive interactions.
It is in this libertarian society, based on these two staples, that a principled stance can be taken. The principled stance would be that no one except private property owners would get to decide who gets access to the private property of those owners. It means that people who get such access, must have gotten permission from those owners in some shape or form. If there is no such permission, any entrance or use of another’s private property is considered trespassing. For obvious reasons, and as explained in previous articles, this renders notions of “open borders” or “freedom of movement” entirely meaningless, because the borders would be those of private property and they would clearly not be “open”, nor would there be freedom to move onto the private property of others.
And since, in an anarchic society, all occupied*, bought and/or homesteaded property would be privately held (even if private owners should decide to combine their properties with others to form ‘communal’ property), it is obvious there would be very little movement that is free indeed.
It is obvious from this ‘ideal’ situation, then, that there is no such thing as a libertarian position, principled or otherwise legitimate, where immigrants and refugees are “free to move” onto property that is currently owned. For whether private citizens own property, or the government does according to the legal reality of the day, the fact is that someone owns it, and that if the government didn’t take property by force from its rightful owner, than its rightful owner would own it.
Either way the immigrant or refugee cannot possibly have a “right” to move on currently owned property, which by definition includes all previously homesteaded land that is currently occupied*, all forms of produced infrastructure including roads, and all buildings.
It is for this reason that a libertarian position that declares that immigrants and refugees have a right to freedom of movement, is frankly horse shit. The position that immigrants and refugees have a right to freedom of movement on, or usage of currently owned property without express permission from the (rightful) owner, must ignore the very principle of private property rights, and therefore also the principle of non-aggression. The only thing a libertarian with a principled position can state, is that as far as he is concerned immigrants and refugees are welcome on HIS private property, and lambaste government and statists when they want to deny even this position. Those that somehow see a “freedom of movement” right in the current situation, are arguing not from a principled libertarian point of view, but from a progressive liberal point of view where private property rights are ignored in favor of progressive buzzwords like “compassion” or “tolerance” for poor people from war-torn areas.
Even if currently illegitimately owned property cannot be tracked to a rightful owner (because it is currently held by government for instance) this would not change the obvious fact that it is owned by SOME rightful owner somewhere, or a collection of them, which demolishes any notion of immigrants and refugees having a “right” to enter it or use it. The rightful owners have a right to make decisions on whom gets permission to enter or use it, but immigrants and refugees themselves do not have a right to enter or use it without permission from the rightful owner.
Of course, any property that truly does not have a rightful owner is open to homesteading for anyone, speaking from a libertarian standpoint. But let’s be realistic, how many immigrants and refugees would limit themselves to doing precisely that? For those that would, we would make an exception in this debate. But it is obvious that this debate is NOT solely about such “perfect” immigrants and refugees.
So the long story short, this debate on immigration and refugees revolves around the non-ideal situation of a multitude of aggressions being committed against non-aggressive people, where any stance you take will inevitably result in such aggression. Libertarians do not morally have to accept this, even if they must legally and politically. Libertarians can be against immigrants and refugees flocking into countries where they enter and use the property of others without their permission, regardless of what role the government ultimately plays in all of it.
Just because a burglar breaks open your door and declares the house to be his, does not mean that you must morally condone third parties walking in and sitting on the couch you paid for, much less claim they have some right to do so. Not even if the same burglar has vandalized and destroyed the third party’s house before it.
The only principled libertarian position on immigration, is that you get to decide, or SHOULD get to decide anyway, whether immigrants and refugees are welcome on your own property, and that they should have access to any property not currently owned by anyone legitimate.
All the rest is no more than ideology-fueled opinion mongering at the expense of what actually *is* the principled libertarian position.
*Occupied space is by definition owned. If it is occupied by an illegitimate owner, than the legitimate owner owns the space. If it is unowned land the moment it becomes occupied, it becomes owned by the occupant, at least for as long as the occupant occupies it, and longer if the occupant decides to homestead it and make it his.
“A kidnapper and rapist holds a couple hostage. The kidnapper repeatedly rapes the wife, then brings in an desperate, sex-starved outsider who would like to have a go. The husband says: “Well, he’s going to keep my wife hostage and keep raping her anyway whether you stay or leave; so you may as well have a turn. Bring your friends too, a lot of them. I’m not against strangers using my wife for their benefit. That would be bigoted,” — progressive Libertarian victim.
Some pro-immigration commenters (such as this one) may suggest that it is simply wrong from the libertarian standpoint to expect government to “fix” the problem of (mass) immigration, on the ground that immigrants are innocent (at least until proven guilty). Because, after all, stopping their travel is to commit aggression.
Sounds fair at first glance… But are the poor migrants and refugees innocent?
Do libertarians not insist that private property DOES exist? Is this fact changed because government violently confiscates it, renders it virtually null and void with laws and otherwise change the legal reality of property ownership? Do libertarians insist that government is right in what it does because, hey, the law says that it is?
Of course not.
Libertarians base their moral opinions on how things ought to be on the basis of libertarianism’s two main principles of private property rights and non-aggression. Not on the way things are.
But if libertarians fight “reality” with their own moral standards as based on the two principles mentioned above, where then does the argument come from that immigrants are innocent and non-aggressive when they enter property, and USE property, that libertarians believe is private in the libertarian sense, and legally ought to be private in any sense? Why is it, that suddenly the *reality* of not legally owning property is good enough reason for them to argue that immigrants have a right to enter or use property that government has confiscated from people?
If immigrants do NOT have such a right, then entering or using such property should be seen by libertarians as both immoral and – by libertarian standards – illegal.
But here, once again, the libertarian progressive wants to have it both ways. Rant against the government for violating what ought to be; yet excusing immigrants for violating what ought to be — private property rights.
To say that government should not act against people who make use of what is someone else’s private property in moral libertarian terms, is to say that government should also not act against criminals that commit acts that would be illegal even in a libertarian society. After all, the state is evil, and ought not to decide what is legal or what is illegal, and use force against what it deems illegal. This must be the logical conclusion of it.
Yet, what libertarian goes so far as to say that the police should leave murderers, rapists and thieves alone?
The fact of the matter is that immigrants are using and/or accessing property without permission from the legitimate owners, just as the state does. Whether the state does or does not give these immigrants permission to do so is entirely irrelevant from the libertarian standpoint. It is, then, no stranger for the government to do something about this, than it is that they actually apprehend criminals, despite being a bunch of criminals themselves.
As libertarians, we are not allowed to use private protection services against crime; we are forced to use the government monopoly on the service and so we do because we have no other choice. We are also not allowed to deny immigrants access to funds that rightfully belong to us, or property that rightfully belongs to us. We are forced to use the government monopoly on the “service”; so as libertarians why can’t we?
Of course no libertarian pro-immigration screed would be complete without the ad hominems of xenophobia, racism and all the other usual epitaphs that are easy tools for leftists. By their fruit shall you recognize them.
Again, it seems arguments in favor of (mass) immigration are made simply because of a (mass) immigration stance, and not from any libertarian principle. The writer of the piece i linked to above tries to make a case that, yes, in a libertarian society, private property owners would rule supreme, but one can’t help but notice the picture he uses in his article, of a fence dissolving into free, flying birds.
And that, if the author was honest, is his real stance. Not the one about private property rights being the decisive factor. Saying how things would be in a libertarian society is easy if you don’t believe it will happen any time soon anyway. It is how you feel about non-property owners violating the rights of property owners now that shows your true colors.
What is the libertarian position on immigration? Violation of private property rights is immoral, and using someone else’s stolen property for your own benefit is also immoral.
THAT is the libertarian position on immigration. Not using the reality of the government’s violent confiscation of private property as an excuse to say that, oh well, what does it matter that immigrants enjoy the spoils.
I haven’t been active on my blog a lot lately, because every now and then i simply need time off from all the madness and infuriating stupidity that washes over me when i familiarize myself with recent developments.
However, regarding the immigration/refugee situation, especially as a result of the war in Syria and the Paris attacks, i felt the need to throw in my own two cents. Probably because stupidity is trotted out by fellow libertarians.
There seem to be this group of libertarians who feel more inclined to liberal progressivism that they are to libertarianism. I can tell this from the well known buzzwords they tend to use which have a typical liberal slant to them.
In the case of the immigration issue, there seem to be two camps: a camp that thinks allowing a flood of refugees is foolish, and a camp which insists that open borders, and freedom of movement, are libertarian ideals and therefore limiting such would be unprincipled.
On the surface of it, it may seem that limiting immigration is anti-libertarian because it requires state action. But is it, for that specific reason, any less libertarian than making a spoiler clean up his own mess, or making a vandal compensate for the stuff he himself broke? The question is: is immigration in its current form a ”natural” phenomenon consistent with ideals of liberty, or is it the direct result of bad government action, and is the immigration itself also no more than government action?
Over at The Art of Not Being Governed, Sterlin Lujan takes what he considers to be the “principled” position by being pro-refugee, pro-open borders, pro-freedom of movement, and states that no government action can be an excuse to break these principles. He also lambastes those libertarians he thinks do so, such as Christopher Cantwell apparently did in this piece.
The short story is: Christopher Cantwell got it right, as he usually does. And Sterlin Lujan gets it wrong. Whether Lujan gets it wrong willfully or because he simply can’t reason consistently, i don’t know.
The long story is this: libertarians are fooling themselves if they promote freedom of movement, open borders, a pro-refugee stance or anything similar. Libertarianism promotes no such things. What libertarianism promotes, are private property rights, and the non-aggression axiom.
When these libertarian principles are applied consistently, it means there can be no public property as it is currently understood. It means that all property that is owned, is privately owned. Thus the principled position would be that all property is private, including homesteaded or bought land, roads, buildings and basically everything that has been either built or homesteaded. The question must then inevitably arrive: how on Earth could there be anything like “freedom of movement” or a “pro refugee stance” in which a society as a whole is forced to accept mass immigration?
The answer is: there can’t. When all property is private, any and all that wish to enter it must have express permission before they do so. Realistically, what does this mean for the majority of refugees or immigrants? It certainly does not mean mass movement. It does not mean any kind of positive rights. It means asking permission to enter the property of EVERY SINGLE property owner, including those who own roads.
However, the alleged “principled” libertarians mysteriously forget about all of this when they proclaim their preference for freedom of movement, open borders and a pro-refugee stance. They wish to forget about real-world phenomena like the attraction of a welfare state on immigrants, of them getting all kinds of benefits paid for by taxpayers. For the principled libertarian, because these are delivered by the government, they are illegitimate, and thus should not be considered as a reason to be against mass immigration anyway. But note how these same libertarians do not apply the same logic to real-world phenomena like public property, public roads, and all other things that are not libertarian at all but which “principled libertarians” have no problem with for immigrants to use, knowing that they never could if libertarians had their ‘principled’ society.
Their principled libertarianism (if it were truly principled) would NEVER allow for mass immigration, but here suddenly the existence of government force is used to explain the opposite, that mass immigration is somehow libertarian, even though it is government action and ONLY government action that enables it.
Long story short: open borders are a fiction, and so is freedom of movement, in both the real AND the ideal libertarian world. It simply does not exist except in the fantasy of liberal progressives. The chances of large numbers of immigrants getting permission to enter private property is virtually non-existent. A very strict selection of who gets to enter would likely be applied. All the rest would be trespassers. One private property owner with a kind enough heart to allow entrance to immigrants would not know if the next would be just as kind-hearted, and would therefore run the risk of having them all stay on his own property. Would his kindheartedness still be as great?
That this supposed “principled” libertarian has liberal progressive fantasies becomes clear once he tries to claim that “anarchism is a philosophy of compassion and peace.”
Except that it’s only half true. Anarchism is the logically consistent result of its two real principles: that of private property rights and the non-aggression axiom. There is no such thing as a “compassion” axiom. Compassion is an individual preference, not a component of the anarchist philosophy. There is nothing anti-anarchist or un-anarchist about being an uncompassionate, cold hearted, hateful son-of-a-bitch, as long as he doesn’t violate anyone’s rights to his private property and respects non-aggression. Lujan is trying to smuggle typical feel-good liberal progressive verbiage into the meaning of anarchism, thereby committing the same faux pas that he claims anti-immigration libertarians are making.
Lujan tries to explain how those who question mass immigration and refugee admittance are not ”principled” libertarians, but exposes himself for not being one at all either. He does this by promoting a concept that would be non-existent in a principled libertarian society, and by pretending anarchism is about something that has nothing to do with it.
The issue of mass immigration is difficult, for how can one oppose it without demanding government action? At the same time, being in favor of it has nothing to do with any libertarian principle, and is ultimately going to be violative of what SHOULD be private property rights in any libertarian society that is principled. For a concept that would not even exist in a libertarian society, these libertarians are willing to overlook the myriad of government transgressions already employed in favor of such immigration.
Libertarians who want government action against it, are employing the wrong means. Libertarians who are in favor of it, are employing the wrong philosophy.
It’s seems easier to me to convince libertarians not to use the state than it is to convince one who is completely wrong about the entire issue to begin with.
When Donald Trump in a fit of politically incorrectness claims that immigrants from Mexico contain many criminals, among which rapists, he is branded a racist.
Yet here is the Huffington Post, a left-wing publication, basically confirming that rape of women from Central America that want to reach the United States through Mexico is a big problem.
Obviously, this big problem must then be a Mexican problem. This does not mean it is a problem that does not, or could not exist in other countries. But what it does mean is that there is such a big problem in Mexico, and that therefore Mexican people are not exempt from the facts just because they are considered a minority when they migrate.
It is true that many immigrants are good people looking for a better life (whether they go about it in the right way is another matter); but it is also true that – logically, especially when it comes to illegal immigrants – a percentage of those immigrants must be criminals. And i don’t mean criminals in the sense of being illegals, but in the sense of engaging in crimes of aggression such as invasions of private property; theft; assault, murder and/or rape.
From the point of view of someone who believes that illegal immigration is a bad thing in itself, is it really so outrageous that criminal elements being among illegal immigrants is just another good reason to be opposed to them entering the United States? Not only is this not outrageous; it would be downright stupid to think that opponents of illegal immigration have no specific reasons for opposing it. And if there is to be a good reason at all, the addition of migrant criminals to an already existing pool of domestic criminals certainly is one. The politicians that try to avoid naming the specific reasons for their opposition to illegal immigration are merely being politically correct hypocrites, trying to cater to potential Hispanic voters as well as to those who oppose illegal immigration.
The comments of Trump may be politically incorrect; they are also in a way a fact and a logical conclusion.
And the politically correct do not like facts. Facts disturb the peaceful, tolerant and ideal dreamworld.