Over at the Cabal, but in the public area where anyone can read, I just posted a longish think piece (as in thinking-out-loud piece) on “Principles in a world of Realpolitik. It focuses on how applying libertarian principles immediately to the real world sometimes works (or would work) brilliantly well, but sometimes would lead to disaster.
As I say, I am just thinking aloud and I’ll welcome comments, including spirited disagreements, here or at the Cabal.
The subject of principles came up here in a couple of recent threads. The subject of principles comes up a lot around serious freedomistas of course. And it doesn’t always come up comfortably. Case in point: immigration.
In theory, I believe in open borders. In Libertopian Neverland, there would be open borders. Or to put it more clearly, there would be no national borders, while groups of property-owning voluntaryists would be free to fence off any tracts of land that they happened to own, and fence them off so thoroughly that they could freely deny access to anybody they wished.
But here, in the real world, I find myself thinking more along the lines of, “Nations and their borders exist. Some of the people of these nations hate the hell out of each other, and some of those people would like to cross borders to do harm. Or they harmlessly cross borders but raise their children in culturally benighted enclaves that breed cruelty, religious savagery, and acts of terror against the innocent.” Obama allowed, even encouraged, this problem to become much worse, and to whatever extent such a thing as a national interest exists, the U.S. government has long let down its own people when it comes to immigration issues (and trade, which I’ll get back to in a minute).
In this world, as it presently exists, I see no way to say, “Open the borders and let everybody in.” But I also recognize that my position isn’t “pure” in anarchist terms.
At the same time, I’ve tsk-tsked about people who have forgotten their libertarian principles on a related issue: how Trump is handling this long-neglected immigration issue: with unconstitutional executive orders. I shake my head that people who ought to know better don’t recognize that the dictator you like eventually gives way to the dictator you don’t like, and you shouldn’t excuse either dictator for using the same tools.
Continues in that vein …
Actually, as the US Constitution and US Code currently stand, I think the suspension order is constitutional and legal.
For the Constitutional part, please refer to this. You’ll also find my own personal position on immigration towards the end. Sorry; it’s a bit longish, but the subject is a little more complicated than recent public indoctrination camp alumni usually realize.
As for the legal basis, see 8 U.S. Code § 1182(f): Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”
—–
(And since discussion of this topic, at least since Friday’s signing, invariably causes some snowflake to whine about TRUMP’s anti-Muslim discrimination in picking out MUSLIM countries for the restriction, allow me to note that those nations were called out by Congress and the OBAMA administration in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries “of concern” in February 2016). Seven countries which represent a whopping @13% of the world’s Muslim population. Claire’s LF regulars can ignore this paragraph; it’s really for snowflakes drifting through.)
The concept of open borders sounds good. So did the communes of the 60’s (or was it the 70’s, I can’t remember). It doesn’t work, no matter how much we want it, or idealize it, it just doesn’t work, and it never has worked. At some point, common sense and reality has to overcome idealism.
How can one agree with private property rights and disagree with national borders? In my narrow-minded, old-school mind, they are equivalent. I guess I don’t quite get the anarchism, no government thing. Oh well!
Milton Friedman once said;
“I have always been amused by kind of a paradox. Suppose you go around and ask people: ‘The United States, as you know, before 1914 had completely free immigration. Anybody could get on a boat and come to these shores. If you landed on Ellis Island, it was an immigrant. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?’ You will find hardly a soul who will say it was a bad thing. Almost everybody will say it was a good thing.
“But then, suppose I say to the same people: ‘But now, what about today? Do you think we should have free immigration?’
“’Oh no,’ they’ll say. ‘We couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Boy that would, uhh, that would flood us with immigrants from India and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a bare subsistence level.’
“What’s the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today?
“Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There is a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense in which we had it before 1914, is not possible today.
“Why not? Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.”
Bear, I replied to those points on the Cabal thread. I’d be interested if you can address the point I made there. Thanks!
“Why not? Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.”
That, too, Comrade X. No matter how you look at it, immigration is a complex issue. Can’t be reduced to “You’re an ignorant, xenophobic bigot!” vs “You’re a terrorism enabler!”
Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today?
For one thing, there’s a pretty strong theme of “The 1914 immigration let my noble forefathers in. Today’s immigrants are different.”
It’s illuminating to go back and read what was contemporaneously written about (SNOWFLAKE TRIGGER WARNING) “dagos,” “micks,” and “chinks” as they arrived.
OTOH: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yluUCjH6ONs
Claire; done. Or at least I tried.
“It’s illuminating to go back and read what was contemporaneously written about (SNOWFLAKE TRIGGER WARNING) “dagos,” “micks,” and “chinks” as they arrived.”
That’s absolutely true (and something I’m trying to be aware of and avoid — not always successfully — as I think out this dilemma).
So sad to see tentative or conditional support here for ANY guv policy, Also fairly surprising that readers here, at least to some extent, seem to accept the proposition that present day, just now, open borders somehow wouldn’t “work,” whatever that means.
On the other hand, I’d assert that the claim that border and immigration restrictions keep anyone safe(er) is entirely without merit. Though of course, parallel policies have sure worked with drugs, right? Besides, I remain far more than skeptical of the guv fear mongering story that bad guys everywhere are trying to get in to get us.
But even if U.S. apparatchiks’ scare propaganda were true I would oppose their “solution.” Restrictions on freedom of movement are only supported by ends justifying the means arguments anyway, that is, if guv closes the borders (morally wrong, morally gray, however one sees it), then we will be safer. Yet all we are given is the present moment; we cannot know that this is true.
And in any present moment our best guide to action will always be principle. Whatever her faults, and however she said it, I believe that Rand had it right about this: there is no conflict between principle and the practical. Perhaps a principle has been poorly founded, needs to be changed, but otherwise it is the principled action which works, that furthers life, and thus is moral.
As a guide for coping with guv while watching it wither (or not watching at all), I still like Rothbard’s formulation best, however he said it. Paraphrased: never place oneself in support of ANY infringement of individual rights and remain ready to support ANY reduction in guv power, no matter which reductions might come first.
If I have any faith at all, it would be that upholding individual rights ALWAYS works.
Beautifully said, firstdouglas. I take it, then, that if you had your druthers, all U.S. borders would be opened immediately.
I can see this having certain positive results: the drug war would have to end; trade restrictions would be impossible to enforce, and we’d be rid of a few abusive government agencies. But I also see both economic disaster and much more terrorism in the U.S.
What’s your scenario for immediately opened borders? What happens near-term and longer term?
Alexander Hamilton once said;
“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”
And the faith of Troy will await us IMHO, something I think is being witnessed in Europe today however those Europeans historically have been less than shy of killing their invaders once given a chance.
To me border control is a very humane thing to do if you don’t like death and destruction on a scale of millions.
I think Bear has the legality of this correct. In the long run Trump’s executive orders will stand (with perhaps a small amount of judicial excision). It is entirely legitimate for the Chief Executive to instruct his executive agencies on how strictly to enforce the laws, and to the extent those laws give him discretion (as they do) it is entirely legitimate for him to decide how to exercise it And I would push a little farther: contra Milton Friedman, pre-1914 we did have some border restrictions. It’s just that they were mostly limited to the Chinese, of whom we permitted very few to immigrate. Clearly, under the Constitution the federal government has always had the power to restrict immigration (indeed, that’s one of its few specific powers); it’s just that for much of our early history we simply chose not to exercise it very much. And undoubtedly that was largely due to the fact that we had a huge continent to populate and there was ample room for the immigrants, especially out west. That is no longer true, or at least not as true as it once was.
But this doesn’t address the moral issue. Personally, I’m with Claire on this: If the concept of a “country” means anything at all (and we have to recognize that the existence of countries is, and likely will remain for a very long time, an objective reality which we can’t simply ignore), in a very fundamental sense it means controlling who is permitted to enter the territory. It’s analogous (although obviously not identical) to property ownership. In a sense, the citizens of a country “own” it and can legitimately decide who to invite in and who to exclude. It doesn’t matter that that decision is made by our elected representatives; in a broad sense “we” all made it. That decision is a political question, to be decided by political means. Which is precisely what we have done, and are still in the process of doing. A welfare state simply cannot accept everyone; either we must eliminate welfare benefits for new entrants (which the courts have prohibited) or we must control their numbers (which is what we do now). Controlling the places of origin of prospective immigrants is simply a part of that decision. I do not accept the premise that there is some sort of “right” for foreigners to enter our country. They are permitted in at our sufferance, as guests. We have no obligation to accept anyone at all, and every right to carefully screen the ones permitted entrance.
And the countries which have been temporarily identified for severe visa restriction are the very countries from which almost all of the terrorists now bedeviling Europe come. These countries are home to roughly 1/7th of the world’s Muslims (which is why this is not a “Muslim ban”; if it were Indonesia and India would be on the list) but almost 100% of the terrorists. It makes perfect sense to stop and re-examine the process by which we decide whether they we worthy of admittance. Will it stop all terrorists from slipping in? Of course not; nothing is perfect. But it will surely stop some, and it will make it more difficult for others. The lock on my front door won’t stop all burglars, but it will stop some. That’s all anyone can reasonably expect.
I will concede that the way Trump approached this was ham-handed. Green card holders, who are legitimate US residents, should never have been included in the interdiction. I think the same is true for current visa holders, too, although his order requiring better tracking and monitoring of those who overstay makes sense (frankly, that should have been implemented years ago). And probably some consideration should have been made for those in transit; that caused unnecessary hardship. But all in all I think the executive orders were the right thing to do.
If borders were immediately opened, what then? Don’t believe I can offer a satisfactory answer to that question Claire, but a couple thoughts:
Whenever cultural respect for individual rights was reaching its high point (maybe 18th-19th Century somewhere?) can we agree that that climate had largely passed by the time that any of us were born? I would say that inevitably, each of us has had our outlook and expectations colored by our degraded society, never mind our best efforts for a clear view. And one consequence might be that ideas we haven’t yet thought to question and which we still take for granted just might not be true. In particular, here I am proposing–just as a possibility–that the increasing chaos seen likely in the immediate aftermath of border openings just may never come about. Perhaps, given that increase in individual liberty, life here might simply resolve into patterns which we all find more pleasing, helpful, and healthy.
But I admit that if I speculate, I’m also one who sees a certain amount of turmoil ahead after border openings. However, I have always regarded such coming trouble as no more than stored up karma, let’s say. Much as energy is contained in a coiled spring, the consequences of immoral guv policies are coming–and we can face them now or face them later.
Of course, immediate border openings probably aren’t going to happen. Any of these large scale changes we wish to see depend, first, on individual by individual improvement in moral outlook. And how can we expect to affect others’ outlooks if, ad hoc, we abandon our support of principle? I would rather suggest that, however unlikely, our support for freedom of movement might stimulate others to investigate freedom in its other aspects, if not regarding borders. For example, a border supporter, hearing of our principled opposition, might (after however many years) come to see that taxation is wrong, a rather different issue. But following that individual’s breakthrough on the different issue, and the similar moral improvements others might make, maybe the welfare state withers (ha!). Then only afterwards, the borders come down. Who knows, I’ve no real idea what the sequence might look like.
In fact, I haven’t much speculated as to what would happen short term, or longer. Just haven’t found much use in speculation. Day to day I just try to keep up with the trends well enough so that I might be able to avoid the waves of savages flowing by if ever our culture disintegrates just a little more. But aside from the people I know, and who know me personally, I see as much potential danger in most of my neighbors as I do in any newcomers who might move nearby. Though I do what I can, ultimately I’m only about as safe as the ethics each of my neighbors hold. And if a Glorious Leader ordered a roundup I don’t much doubt that many around me would help put me on the bus.
What might come? Couldn’t say. But I’m a lot more optimistic than a lot of the above might sound. Change can come in an instant. And if unlikely, out there on the edge of possibility is the chance that many might see the light NOW. I may as well admit that I’m pretty convinced that whatever we can imagine we can probably bring into being.
Expecting immigration restrictions / enforcement to solve the problems attributed to immigration is like trying to cure a tumor by wrapping a tight bandage around it. And not only will the expanded government power – police, surveillance, economic / labor regulation – required to actually have any effect be worse than the disease, such powers, once granted, will inevitably be exercised in many areas beyond immigration. Immigration is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem(s):
Doug Casey on the Migrant Crisis
A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall
“I remain far more than skeptical of the guv fear mongering story that bad guys everywhere are trying to get in to get us.”
That’s putting it way too mildly. The plain fact of the matter is that, as near to universally as makes no difference, “terrorism” in America (and the West generally) is facilitated – when not outright perpetrated – by “the guv” itself.
“In this world, as it presently exists, I see no way to say, “Open the borders and let everybody in.” But I also recognize that my position isn’t “pure” in anarchist terms.”
You have a knack for putting into words the things I haven’t figured out how to say.
This relates to the above, and has been making the rounds in my circle for the last 48. http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2017/02/trumps-reactive-autocracy.html
If we can abandon our principles when it seems to suit our purpose, why shouldn’t “they,” for theirs? And if we do so though misperceived necessity, then all we on the side of justice have left is a test of physical strength, which, optimistic though I am, I would expect to loose. Follows a couple comments and an edit to my earlier thoughts on this subject:
First, thanks, trying2b-amused, for pointing out that across the world no organization has created more incidents of random “terrorist” violence across the last many decades than has U.S. guv. From Operation Gladio, look either further back to earlier years or ahead to more recent, and these days, U.S. creation or instigation of such is easy to discover if one but looks. And yes, as I sort it, the same is true not only elsewhere, but also regarding so-called terrorist activity more recently across North America. Still, it’s nice not to be the only one saying so
And nice, trying2b-amused, in noting the unseen, rather than only the anticipated consequences, when you mention that “not only will the expanded government power – police, surveillance, economic / labor regulation – required to actually have any effect be worse than the disease, such powers, once granted, will inevitably be exercised in many areas beyond immigration. Immigration is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem(s).”
Finally, I’m imagining that I wasn’t all that convincing when I suggested that opposition to border restrictions might eventually result in lessening support for taxation, just as example. Stated another way, we can just never know the full effect of our own principled behavior.
While eliminating ALL welfare would go a long ways towards discouraging certain undesirable forms of immigration, I can only laugh at the idea of folks from non-Western Civ nations eventually conforming to a libertarian world view in any meaningful number. The idea of freedom is as foreign to them as sharia is to us. And they’ve proven time and again to have no interest in learning. How many “Hispanics for Ron Paul” bumper stickers have you ever seen?
It’s a simple case of trying to apply ideas that are valid WITHIN your tribe to the barbarians OUTSIDE the gate.
firstdouglas, I don’t know what “principles” you think we are abandoning here. I do *not* concede that “freedom of movement” is a universal principle; I do not accept any obligation to admit anyone who desires to enter into my property, and I feel the same about my country.
And while I accept as a general proposition that the grant of new powers to the fedgov always leads to their abuse, the power to control immigration (of which granting refugee or asylum status is a part) is neither new nor improper. It is one of the few legitimate core powers of the federal government. Implementing a rule to apply closer scrutiny to applicants from certain countries with a demonstrable history of supporting and exporting terrorism, and requiring that our State Department monitor visa holders to ensure that they don’t overstay their welcome, is not the abandonment of any sort of “principle” I would recognize.
I won’t dispute that much of what the US is doing in the middle east today could be considered “terrorism”. But that is a separate discussion, and does not have any effect on the issue of doing out best to exclude terrorists from our shores.
First, there’s been more (and in some ways more in-depth) discussion of this on the Cabal thread, including my latest reply. So please don’t forget to check over there.
But I agree with Laird and disagree with firstdouglas: Nobody’s talking about abandoning principles. Some people simple don’t share the principles that consider open borders an obvious good. Other people do share those principles, but are looking at the practical need to get from here to there.
Then I disagree with Laird and agree with firstdouglas: What the U.S. is doing in the Middle East is absolutely relevant. If not for that, I don’t believe we’d have the need to exclude foreign terrorists from our shores.
On the Cabal, RonJ observed that in a sense the entire immigration issue is a distraction: the real issue is all those other vile things the U.S. government’s been doing. The wars, the economic meddling, the drug war, etc. That may be the single best point anybody’s made in this discussion.
“Expecting immigration restrictions / enforcement to solve the problems attributed to immigration is like trying to cure a tumor by wrapping a tight bandage around it. And not only will the expanded government power – police, surveillance, economic / labor regulation – required to actually have any effect be worse than the disease, such powers, once granted, will inevitably be exercised in many areas beyond immigration. Immigration is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem(s):”
This, too. Whatever else one believes about the role of or need for national borders, immigration-related fears have always been used to create more government power (I went into this more on my most recent reply in the Cabal thread). Whatever else we think, believe, or advocate, we need to remember that. Government causes problems, then “solves” them in ways that cause more problems, and ad infinitum all the way to tyranny.
What principle is it, exactly ..which you are still upholding while you advocate the aggressive use of a tax funded agency for the accomplishment of your ends?
Who’s your question directed to, firstdouglas?
Directed to? Well, anyone here who’s motivated to take the time, I suppose. Appears that mine is the minority position, and I’ll certainly read any responses. I at least like to think that I’m still capable of changing my own positions when appropriate.
Though I suppose that your own seeming wavering, Claire, is what I find most disappointing. I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find agreement from Constitutional adherents.
As for the Constitution, I approve Lysander Spooner’s outlook, again paraphrased: whether the Constitution has authorized such usurpations as we have seen or has been powerless to prevent them, in either case it is unfit to exist. To me, the question as to whether immigration restrictions comport with the Constitution is fairly uninteresting.
And I suppose my own question (which principle is still upheld) is at least somewhat rhetorical. Maybe someone has an answer I can buy if I see it. But my points have been better made by better writers than me across these last hundred years and more.
Claire stated “What the U.S. is doing in the Middle East is absolutely relevant. If not for that, I don’t believe we’d have the need to exclude foreign terrorists from our shores.” I disagree. We may have (probably did) contribute to the rise of ISIS, but that’s merely the latest in a long line of Islamic terrorist organizations. The war between Islam and the west has been going on for a thousand years (see the Siege and Battle of Vienna 350 years ago); this is merely the latest flare-up. And regardless of whatever the US may have done, most European nations certainly didn’t participate in it. What explains the rash of terrorist attacks across Europe? Germany (and especially Sweden) have thrown open their borders, welcoming refugees and migrants by the millions, and have recoiled from involvement with the US in the Middle East. Yet they are hit with terrorist attacks almost weekly. No, US actions are not the proximate cause of this, although they might be contributing to recruitment efforts by ISIS. The problem runs much deeper, and even if we were to withdraw entirely from the Middle East (which I would support) I am not naïve enough to think that it would end this mess.
“Though I suppose that your own seeming wavering, Claire, is what I find most disappointing. I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find agreement from Constitutional adherents.”
Well then, as to your original question: “What principle is it, exactly ..which you are still upholding while you advocate the aggressive use of a tax funded agency for the accomplishment of your ends?” … I can only say that I, personally, have no “ends” to be accomplished in the present circumstances. I don’t like where we are now. I don’t agree with what Trump’s trying to do. I merely observe that I don’t believe it would be workable to go straight from where we are now in the real world to open borders overnight. My principle is open borders; the reality is how to find a path toward them.
I’m asking if anyone can show a path from now to the ideal and I notice none of those who say “ideal — now” have a good grasp on what would happen once their wishes were imposed.
As to wavering, that’s actually old behavior for me. I do admit that the question of immigration in a world of war, welfare, and economic chaos is one of the thorniest I’ve ever contemplated. I find myself seeing many sides of the issue. But I’ve long tried to look at practical reality along with lib/anarchist ideals. That’s not new for me. I believe we should be working in that direction; how and how fast are big questions.
I said this on the Cabal, but it bears repeating. The times in history when someone has abruptly tried to impose an ideal on a whole nation have turned out to be disasters, even when the ideals themselves have been beautiful or commendable. Johann Friedrich Struensee’s 18th-century attempt to turn the backward nation of Denmark into a pillar of the Enlightenment accomplished nothing but rage, hypocrisy, and his own eventual death. Pol Pot just wanted a lovely agrarian society — right this minute.
You might object that they tried to impose their wishes by decree and force and that’s true. But given our present reality — and I am talking only about present reality — there’d be no other way to impose open borders, either.
Well, briefly–thanks Claire. I’m reassured, I think.
And though I’m afraid I’m only repeating myself, I, at least, am not talking about imposing anything, not open borders nor anything else. I just support never going into agreement with expanded guv action, or with any guv action at all, really.
Just for example, even if I lived in a neighborhood enjoying hourly muggings and burglaries I’d oppose adding even one more tax funded local policeman. And even in that situation, if the opportunity arose to do away with local property taxes, with consequent loss of existing official “protection,” I’d go for it. Even though I would know that I hadn’t dealt with my security problem, yet.
When I previously repeated this quote from Yogi Berra, it caused offense, something I in no way intend. Yogi sagely noted that “[I]n theory, theory and practice are the same; but in practice, they’re not.” The practical effect of open borders will be our ruination. The catalyst for the Arab Spring may well have been our unwise military involvement in the Middle East, but it’s gone far beyond that now. Obama encouraged it with his support, which never waned, for the Muslim Brotherhood and in many other ways as well.
These people will no longer settle for our disengagement from the Middle East, They want a Caliphate, pure and simple. And the doctrine of taqiyyah (posted by Ellendra some time ago) gives them license to deceive infidels. The White House has already been claimed – by a white male American – for Islam. http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/bombshell-first-words-bergdahls-father-white-house-arabic I sent the link to a friend with experience in the area and was told my friend believed it “100% true.” The recent attacker at the Louvre had paint bombs in his backpack. Radical Moslems want to eradicate our culture. Obviously, not all are radical, but a survey of immigrants (in Michigan?) some time ago revealed that they believed they had been treated well but would prefer Sharia law.
Globalists, who have the utmost disdain for Libertarian principles, are all for unrestricted immigration, as they know very well what the practical effects will be. Sob stories about “children,” who in large part consist of teenage boys with beliefs almost totally at odds with ours and separated from their families and who can only be trouble when viewed as a group, serve to deceive. The difficult part is to figure what to leave in and what to leave out, as Bob Seger might have put it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiviKbxP9xM And as I think about it, I kind of do wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then. But I also know I can’t shut my eyes.
Trump, in his very ham-handed way, seems to be trying. I, for my part, am not trying too hard to keep up considering all the lies going around. http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/04/errors-from-the-press-are-piling-up-in-the-opening-weeks-of-the-trump-administration/ At this point I can only hope (didn’t Obama say something like that?) that some sensible vetting process ends up getting in place.
Claire> In this world, as it presently exists, I see no way to say, “Open the borders and let everybody in.”
Reaching in by magic and changing just one policy detail is fantasy. If you’re wishing, why not wish for all humans to convert to libertarianism? As the hypothesized scenario is fantasy, the leading-up-to and following-on effects are missing. As the cause and effect relationships are missing, we can’t draw any predictions from the scenario. It’s just wishing in a dream.
A more realistic hypothesis might be, somebody organizes a counterforce to remove border fencing faster than it can be built. Perhaps with a fleet of drones.
Laird> If the concept of a “country” means anything at all
It doesn’t mean anything good. A country is not the next step in the size scale of bodies for living creatures. A country is not analogous to a human body, a body-politic composed of citizens like a human body is composed of cells. Countries don’t operate like human bodies, bee hives, or ant colonies; the computation is arranged differently. The Leviathan book cover analogy is false.
AG> It’s a simple case of trying to apply ideas that are valid WITHIN your tribe to the barbarians OUTSIDE the gate.
It’s a simple case to use guns to apply the ideas. I don’t expect criminals to respect others. I expect criminals to be kept in prison, at their own expense, until they no longer desire to be criminals.
[…] Discussion, mostly regarding immigration, on “what would be nice” versus “what can…. […]
Even if we pretend that today’s immigrants are just as good, so what? They aren’t Us. A country is by definition, a specific not a universal. Dreaming of the Universal Republic is like dreaming of a square triangle. Give up the illusions of the French Enlightenment – they led and lead to the guillotine. America is White or it is nothing. The Statue of Liberty can stay – just stop teaching that it is about immigration. And of course take the Emma Lazarus poem off.
Before delving into the topic of immigration we must understand the foundations of Liberty and the primary reason why people gathered together in communities and established Nations in the first place; in short: to share a common defense, justice system, and commerce.
It is also important to understand the importance of sharing a common culture and heritage: Diversity creates division and division breeds dissent.
Until recent history our nation shared the unique culture and heritage of Liberty. The beauty of this concept is that all people educated and informed about the principles of Liberty could share in its bounty anywhere in the world.
Today, although we all chant it on the Fourth of July we really do not understand the meaning of the word Liberty.
We need to get reacquainted with our ancestors to gain a full understanding of our culture and heritage.
The attached link points us in the right direction. The Founders did not “Dream up” the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. These document’s philosophy and principles had been laid out from over 2,000 years of Western thought. The book “The Law of Nations” was heavily relied upon by the founders to draft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (It was in the room with them!) After having read this book I am convinced that it must be considered a companion volume to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. By forcing the Elected Officials and Judges to refer to this book in all Constitutional matters we ensure the adherence to the principles that made this nation a beacon of Liberty for the world.
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm
That’s right Lugh, we’ll just make it all how it is in your head. No universal republic, just a white republic! Why do you even opine anyway? On your theory, you’re not even here; there’s only the Great Collective. To the topic, though firstdouglas has well addressed the controlling principles, everyone’s chasing square triangles just as Lugh said.
There can never be a rational answer to borders/immigration issues in the absence of private property. That’s the real issue; the rest is trying to figure out what to do with a square triangle.
The first question one ought to ask is-
“What is the proper function of government?”
MY answer is- ‘to protect the rights of the governed’
When faced with an invasion of seventh century tribal savages who deny the concept of individual rights and who kill and enslave their moral superiors, is one obliged, by either morality or principle, to allow more to come in? I think not.
The second question one ought to ask is-
“to whose benefit?”
With regard to unrestricted ‘immigration’, the answer for most Americans is- “Not ours!”
Islam is entirely incompatible with Western Civilization, with the ideals of the Enlightenment and with individualism. In a truly free culture, Muslims wishing to emigrate to a free country would be free to do so, and either assimilate by learning better ways to behave, die, or leave.
In THIS culture as it presently exists, they are a pestilence to the body politic, feeding on a host weakened by decades of poisonous collectivist memes. There isn’t any doubt that there are a host of other issues America will certainly face in the near future, bankruptcy, both economic and moral, chief among them, but why add this problem to the mix?