Demonstrating his inability to understand a simple statement
– that libertarianism does not offer an answer to the question
of immigration and open borders – Jacob Hornberger asks: Should
Libertarians Support a Police State?
To which I reply:
Posts
Comments
Hornberger writes:
ReplyDelete"Our American ancestors tried to protect people from unreasonable searches by federal officials. They understood that a free society necessarily depends on external constraints placed on the power of government officials to conduct searches of people and their belongings. That’s what The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is all about. It prohibits federal officials from searching people’s cell phones and everything else without a search warrant issued by a judge."
Notice what he left out; the Founders' views on immigration and borders. They favored secure borders, immigration controls that favored English peoples, and yet they still managed to oppose a police state.
The police state what open borders brings. I get harassed at the airport because the state insists on importing angry people from the middle east. Not only that, the state brings them in and also refuses to check more than 1% of them because they are only 1% or so of travelers.
ReplyDeleteImmigration is a state funded program designed to attack the nation, which isn't the same thing as the state. Why is Hornberger in agreement and accord why this state program? (rhetorical question with an easy answer - he hates the nations of America and Europe, and not their evil states/governments).
I just wanted to pass this on Bionic, Justin Raimondo makes a couple of brilliant insights in this interview regarding the state of libertarianism. Also linked in the article is one of the most prescient articles Rothbard ever wrote (he predicts and encourages a Trump)
ReplyDeleteMy favorite insight Raimondo makes...
"These people have zero understanding of the Trump phenomenon—and I would go further and say they have no conception of the political. Conflating individualism with narcissism, they utilize ideology as a form of self-actualization rather than, say, a way to save the country." I can personally attest to this, especially coming to libertarianism from Ayn Rand. For the person, the ideology becomes part of their identity. Perhaps it functions in the psyche the same way religion has for millennia. Any deviation from dogma is sacrilegious.
Speaking for myself the NAP is an optimal legal framework (maybe just for my culture, idk) not the meaning of life.
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/four-questions-justin-raimondo/
Raimondo gets it, and certainly understands the history of the movement far better than do I.
DeleteAs to the Rothbard piece, coincidentally I recently read it. It is the first chapter of a compilation of his writing for the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Needless to say, Rothbard "got it" as well! And a few decades before most of the rest of us.
Suppose ISIS bought 5,000 pickup trucks and gave them to 10,000 Radical Islamic Somalis along with an AK-47 and tons of ammunition for each of them. They show up, two to a truck, on the US border claiming only that they want to visit Disney World. Would it be a “police state” to impede them from driving in a caravan to Disney World?
ReplyDeleteAs they would be "green," seeing that they are carpooling and allowed to drive in the far left lane...I see no problem.
DeleteMatt and UC might disagree!
:-))
Unless those ISIS laden trucks qere in some god-forsaken land, then Hornberger would be OK with sending uSA troops to intercept.
DeleteI so want to put a match to those strawmen.
Gee ... what if producers only cared about profit and decided to poison consumers? Need government. What if, assuming drugs were legal, recreational drug suppliers wanted to cut their drugs with dangerous powders? Need that FDA. What if those same suppliers wanted to destroy the upcoming generation? Need that DEA. Ask yourselves why Disney agreed to accept ISIS fighters armed with AK47s? And who gets to enter the US armed with AK47s? Talk about straw men.
ReplyDeleteMosin, your first several rhetorical questions suggest you mock the need for government in such cases. I agree. But your last one is confusing, not only because, but especially because, you use the phrase "gets to enter..." This implies both the present tense and the asking for and receiving permission.
DeleteLet’s start with the asking and receiving of permission. I ask, "asked for and received from whom?" Since you use the present tense, you seem to suggest “the government,” as this is the agent today.
Now, given your earlier rhetorical questions and your implied responses, I don’t believe “the government” is really what you meant to suggest. But it still begs the question: “asked for and received from whom?” WHO is always SOMEONE.
In other words, a managed – not open – border.
Then again, if there is no one to ask and receive permission from…well, then anyone who wants to do so is free to enter the US with AK-47s – or why not an entire army?
As long as there are state borders, even the minarchist state will (in fact, must) guard it from invasion. Prove this wrong, I beg you.
Bionic --
ReplyDeleteLet me try this ...
What if, back in the 80's, a bunch leftist from California decided North Carolina is the place to live? What if folks in North Carolina liked their culture and didn't want to see it turn leftist, even at the margin? What if the intent of those Californian leftist was purely the subversion of the way of life in NC? Would that have warranted a wall? What if skinheads, etc., from Michigan decided that Boston was too unpatriotic for them? You need to address why walled borders or immigration controls are justified only at the national level.
"You need to address why walled borders or immigration controls are justified only at the national level."
DeleteNo, I do not.
I have written perhaps two-hundred thousand words on this topic. Instead of you taking the honest approach and dealing with what I actually have written, you attempt to take me off on a tangent.
Start at the top of the following post:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/p/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html
Nice (sarcasm). Your unwillingness to address my question is interesting. Your reference to key strokes is not an argument, though it is a fallacy. And, if we are getting all huffy, please look up "begs the question." Those seventeen key stroke are in error. Makes me wonder about your one million other ones.
ReplyDelete