Today Jacob Hornberger, in his daily email, offered as the first reading an essay on immigration by Charles Johnson. Jacob offered the version from FEE, entitled there: Why Free Immigration is a Right.
Now to speak in such terms is to speak of positive rights – as there is no right to enter, only a right to leave (absent some voluntary agreement to stay under certain conditions).
It is interesting that Jacob did not offer the version as originally published at C4SS, where it is entitled Against All Nations and Borders. It isn’t only the title that is different, but I will come to this momentarily.
Johnson opens his piece as follows: “Liberty has nothing to do with national interests.” He makes a compelling, and in pure theory perfectly accurate, argument.
But then he might as well write “Liberty has nothing to do with human nature.” Because for all of recorded human history, humans have voluntarily grouped themselves with family and kin – those of similar cultural characteristics.
Too many shallow thinkers on this topic fail to differentiate between “nation” and “state.” Or, for those of the communist bent, they understand the difference perfectly well and want to destroy both. As Johnson is often featured at C4SS, in his case I suspect the latter; C4SS comes closer to being an advocate of communism than it does an advocate of liberty. Nationalism is an anathema to communism.
Simpleton or communist; which is it?
It is interesting that FEE changed the title of Johnson’s piece. It is also interesting that FEE dropped the last sentence from Johnson’s piece:
National borders are a bloody stain on the face of the earth. Burn all nations to the ground.
This, of course, also being the version Hornberger would rather you do not see.
Why is that? If you are so proud of the idea, why hide it? I give Johnson and C4SS at least credit for this much. But Hornberger and FEE?
Jacob, an advocate of limited government, cannot avoid the reality of “borders” that his position entails. His cognitive dissonance on this point is glaring (here and here, as examples). His only way to avoid this – at least the only intellectually honest way – is to advocate for one world government; a position shared by communists of all stripes.
I asked this of FEE, in the comment section to the republished and modified version of Johnson’s piece. Why change it? Why hide the communist intent? Why hide the desire to follow the advice of Antonio Gramsci? C4SS certainly doesn’t hide their love of the man.
Checking the FEE post again, eight days after my comment, still no reply….