Borders Neither Open or Closed: Richman Gets it Right

When I first read the title, I didn’t think so: TGIF: Let the Refugees In.  Yet Sheldon Richman’s conclusion is doubly tasty as it comes from about as left a left-libertarian as one can find – and certainly one of the more thoughtful (and civil) of the genre.

After highlighting the extensive government scrutiny that potential immigrants undergo before being allowed to enter the United States, Richman offers:

Of course the government's role in scrutinizing refugees makes (most?) libertarians uncomfortable. (For one thing, it's tax-financed, though it need not be.)

Quite true.

But that's the way it's going to be for the foreseeable future.

In fact, for this otherwise-consistent-with-the-NAP function it is the only option available in this world we live in today.

Nevertheless, we can take up the question of how a completely libertarian -- by that I mean stateless -- society would handle this matter.

I have suggested, more than once, how this would likely proceed: for a stranger to be allowed to enter a new community (no need to get hung-up on artificial state lines as a stateless society will have none; further, remember: we have a right to “go” as we please, we do not have a right to “come” without permission), some combination of a letter of adequate employment and / or a letter confirming housing and / or a letter from a sponsor assuring that the newcomer would not place an undue burden on the community would be required.

We can be confident that a free society would devise methods of joint suretyship by which strangers could be vouched for, giving others confidence in dealing with them safely.

That’s what I said.

In fact such mechanisms were devised long ago and would quickly be updated to be fully consistent with individual rights if the state were to leave the field.

Richman offers the example of the Frankpledge – one more of countless examples from the Middle Ages that point to governance solutions in a decentralized world. 

I am aware of other, more recent, similar examples.  This is as libertarian as one might hope to get in this world we currently live in.  It has happened before; it still happens today in some countries and under specific conditions.

The borders to my property are not open, nor are they closed.  The conditions under-which I allow either goods or people onto my property are managed by me.  My position on borders is merely to extend this fundamental property right to the next, logical, step.

Unfortunately, there is only one, very un-libertarian, agency available.  As no one has yet to send me all of their Federal Reserve Notes or their bank account digits, and no one has written to me of their commitment to stop using all streets and sidewalks, I suggest every so-called libertarian puritan has found some way to make peace with this un-libertarian agent.

Hypocrites, one and all.  The lack of bank transfers I have received proves your hypocrisy.  You have made peace with the money and credit of this un-libertarian agent; you have made peace with its streets and sidewalks.

On what issues and on what basis does one choose to make peace with this un-libertarian agent?  Is it random – whatever makes one feel good, righteous, in with the cool crowd?  I make peace when the activity is one that would not be in violation of the NAP had not the financing been coercive.  I advocate for removing the coercive financing, but I deal with it on a daily basis.  I find living better than martyrdom.

Richman is suggesting that libertarians make peace with this agent of border management – a function that would be consistent with libertarian theory absent the coercive financing.  Richman gets it right. 

Libertarian Justice

A plane blows up in mid-air over a desert.  Apparently a bomb.  Over 200 dead.  Representatives of the victims place a $50 million reward for information leading to the capture of the perpetrators.

A horrendous night of murder and mayhem occurs in a major city.  Apparently several individuals coordinated attacks on several locations.  Over 100 dead.  Representatives of the victims drop 20 bombs on people who live 2000 miles distant from the scene of the crime and from any known location of any of the perpetrators.

Libertarian Open Borders

I wrote Open Borders: Case Study because the current circumstance in Europe offers a very good case study on this idea of open borders, an idea supported vociferously by many libertarians.  I used this real world case study from the real world we live in to suggest that this idea was perhaps not all that its advocates suggest it to be.

I received many comments – this might be the most commented-upon post I have ever written.  Many, obviously, took me to task for what I wrote.  That’s fine, I learn through such dialogue.

But what I haven’t seen is a libertarian open borders advocate, via this case study (as close to a social science experiment as one might ever hope to achieve in a real world setting), demonstrate the virtues of their idea.

I would welcome any links to such articles and commentaries – there must be dozens, judging by the numerous libertarian advocates of this position.

I understand the virtues for those fleeing war, but they aren’t the only individuals to be considered.  I am not looking for one-sided analysis.  Take into account the situation for all affected individuals.

I want a case study – not theory, not principle, not dreams of humans as something other than human.

Someone must have done so.  Please provide the links.

Why Culture Matters

In the little corner of the world occupied by libertarians of all stripes, discussion often ranges far and wide on matters that can be broadly labeled “culture.”  Posts and commentary can be found on issues ranging from those commonly labeled as “left-libertarian” (gay marriage, open borders, be nice to everyone, break down all hierarchical structures) to issues commonly labeled as “right-libertarian” (traditional lifestyle choices, managed borders, governance via family, church and community).

Why?  Why do libertarians find it necessary or valuable to comment on such matters?  Of course, a simple answer is that individuals who identify as libertarian have many other interests.  But it is clear that there is something more – the two spheres, “culture” and “libertarian,” seem to overlap inherently.  If it was random, we might expect to read just as many commentaries by (and passionate arguments amongst) libertarians on sports or cooking, for example.

What is it about culture that draws libertarian writers into its circle?  I will offer my thoughts on those traditionally labelled “right-libertarians.”  For the left – I have offered my thoughts plenty of times.

What Do I Mean by “Culture”?

Culture – in this context – is all of the behaviors in our lives that are not answerable by or even addressed by the non-aggression principle.  The non-aggression principle addresses when it is proper to use aggression; it is a political principle.  The NAP says nothing about many things: haircuts, clothes, religious affiliation (or not), car color, etc.  It speaks to the proper use of force, nothing more.

What is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism is the non-aggression principle built on a foundation of private property.  It is not appropriate to initiate aggression against the life or property of another; aggression is appropriate only in defense of life or property.

The definition is itself quite thin – I imagine in the abstract most people in the world would agree with this principle (one or both of the golden rule and silver rule, while not perfect matches, has/have a home in all of the various major religions of the world). 

The application of the principle sometimes becomes an issue.  For the majority this difficulty begins with the intellectual or emotional inability to apply the NAP to state actors: for too many, initiating aggression is acceptable if the aggressor wears a badge (or uniform or any other state-sanctioned license).

For those of us in this more radical corner (both left and right), we apply the NAP to all individuals – state actors or not; in fact, by applying it to all individuals, most of us find the concept of “state actors” inherently to be in contradiction to the NAP.

How to Achieve and Maintain a Libertarian Order?

What do I mean by “libertarian order”?  A society that respects private property and the non-aggression principle.  As there is much more to life, the rest will be filled-in by individuals, communities, churches, etc.  Libertarian theory has nothing to say about any of this.

While there are many different variants, it seems to me that the most reasonable path to achieve a libertarian order is through education.  It strikes me as self-evident that the biggest growth in the movement came via Ron Paul and supported by the foundation built by Lew Rockwell at the Mises Institute and LRC.  But I won’t argue if you work through different means toward the same ends – the more, the merrier.

How is a libertarian order to be maintained?  There is the rub, there is where culture comes in – and it is here where I believe the commonly labeled “left” and “right” part ways, and where I maintain that the “right” has it…right.

Despite the fairy-tales floated by certain left-libertarians, in a world populated by humans there will always be prejudices, biases, and preferences.  Further, it is an inherent characteristic of private property that it is exclusionary, and the owner has the right to “exclude” on any basis he chooses – call this “discrimination” if you like.  For a private property order to mean anything, the property owner’s right to discriminate must be respected.

In other words, in order to maintain a libertarian order, it must be recognized that humans are…human.  To act on the basis that humans will ever be anything else is to ensure future conflict – the surest path to maintaining support for state solutions.

Despite the fairy-tales floated by certain left-libertarians, in a world populated by humans there will always be hierarchy and there will always be governance – governance, not government (as that term is understood today). 

What?

Is it any surprise that people on the fringe look for rational explanations for what appears to be irrational behavior (i.e. “conspiracy theories”) on the part of government and military officials?

Intensifying pressure on the Islamic State, United States warplanes for the first time attacked hundreds of trucks on Monday that the extremist group has been using to smuggle the crude oil it has been producing in Syria, American officials said.

For the first time?!?!?!

American officials have long been frustrated by ability of ISIS to generate tens of million[s] of dollars a month by producing and exporting oil.

For the first time?!?!?! 

How many years has the US been bombing Syria?  Which so-called allies have been benefitting from the low-cost oil, therefore delaying action?  Rational people might wonder.

They have an excuse for the lack of earlier action:

Until Monday, the United States had refrained from striking the fleet used to transport oil, believed to include more than 1,000 tanker trucks, because of concerns about causing civilian casualties.

But what about the civilian casualties in a hospital?  No concern there.  A wedding?  Nope, no problem.

In any case, weren’t these guys bright enough to find a way of warning the drivers and destroying the trucks? 

To reduce the risk of harming civilians, two F-15 warplanes dropped leaflets about an hour before the attack warning drivers to abandon their vehicles, and strafing runs were conducted to reinforce the message.

They couldn’t have done this a year or two ago?

The area where the trucks assemble in Syria has been closely monitored by reconnaissance drones. As many as 1,000 trucks have been observed there, waiting to receive their cargo of illicit oil.

On Monday, 295 trucks were in the area, and more than a third of them were destroyed, United States officials said.

…116 tanker trucks had been destroyed.

One-thousand observed trucks, only 116 destroyed.  How many of you remember the Highway of Death at the end of the first Gulf War? 

Between 1,400 and 2,000 vehicles were hit or abandoned on the main Highway 80 north of Al Jahra (the "actual" Highway of Death). Several hundred more littered the lesser known Highway 8 to the major southern Iraq military stronghold of Basra.

The offensive action for which Highway 80 is infamous became controversial with some commentators alleging disproportionate use of force, saying that the Iraqi forces were retreating from Kuwait in compliance with the original UN Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990; and the column allegedly included Kuwaiti hostages and civilian refugees.

When they want to destroy trucks, they know how to destroy trucks.

You would have to wear a tin foil hat to take these stories at face value.  As is the case with virtually every tale told and every action taken by government officials, something doesn’t make sense.

Or it makes perfect sense.  Which story comports better with the reality, versions of the fairy tales like the one told above or the following? 

·        The United States and its allies have created, fed, and nurtured this beast now known as ISIS.

·        The US and its allies have pretended to fight ISIS, all the while fighting Assad’s forces with the objective of taking down the current Syrian government.

·        Russia enters the fight against ISIS and starts making serious headway, raising many unavoidable questions among western allies of the US.

·        ISIS (according to the official narrative) conducts a coordinated attack in a major western city.

·        As the bloodshed has been brought home, western allies decide this isn’t patty cake; they demand that the US gets serious.

·        Oil trucks get bombed.

That’s my working theory.  I readily admit it isn’t fully flushed out; it is still the early stages of this episode.

Break out the tin foil hat.

Circle of Death

I cannot let the events in Paris two days ago go without comment; at the same time, I don’t believe I have anything new or insightful to add.

I had been struggling with timing of this post, and then I read Butler Shaffer:

One reader informed me that bringing such matters to people’s attentions should not be done “when they are still mopping the blood off the floor.” This was the same appeal that was made during the Vietnam War; that people should await assessing government policies until after the war was over. I can think of no clearer evasion of one’s responsibilities than this.  It is precisely when the destructive effects of our thinking are manifesting themselves that we ought to think and speak with one another.

It’ worth a try.  Few pay attention to the atrocities of decades and generations past – the truth of which is generally available.  As time passes, the official narrative takes root.  People move on.

I write this assuming the general narrative being peddled – ISIS-trained extremists, etc.  I am certain that there are many layers to this story beyond or even outside of this rapidly forming narrative, but it is within this narrative that I will work.

Of course, there is the “why.”  Robert Wenzel has published a listing of US drone strikes in various countries in the regions of North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia (NAMECA).  This is a good start, but the reasons run much deeper and wider.  Countless tens of millions of families have had their lives ruined by actions of western militaries – primarily that of the United States, but others such as those of France and Britain cannot be excluded, especially if a longer history is considered.

The manipulations by France and Britain in the Middle East began more than 100 years ago.  The names may have changed, but the stories have not: control, manipulation, intrigue, factions, violence, and interventions – all of it in play then and since then.

World War One was used to divide the region into controllable puppets.  Since 1948, the Palestinians have been held like animals in cages.  Elected governments overthrown and repressive regimes supported.

September 11 brought on a new hell for those in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But this was not enough.  For many in the region, the violence has only intensified in the last several years: Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt. 

Day after day, year after year.  Your wife, father, brother, children all at risk, dying here and there due to the violence which you attribute to western interventionism.  Many will take no overt action in retribution or revenge, but it only takes a few.  For every action, there is likely born one or two who decide to plan an opposite reaction.  Multiplied by a few thousand western actions and it is surprising that there have not been more reactions.

Not to justify such violence – it is deplorable.  But it must be understood by anyone who actually cares to bring an end to any of this.

Instead, the ratchet seems to be continuing.  Tough times demand tough talk.  Unlike in Spain a few years ago, which very publicly pulled back from further interventions after a terrorist event in that country, France seems to be spinning up the machine even more – because doing what they have done over the last hundred years apparently hasn’t been enough.  The United States is right there with them.

Now everyone is focused on the individual stories in this Parisian tragedy: the student, the concert-goer, the gunman.  Yet, this many and more die every single day in NAMECA due to western interventions – does anyone in the west care?

Je Suis Paris – we are being inundated with outpouring of sympathy: watch American football games today for one example.  Nothing wrong with that if the context is properly understood; but where is the outpouring of sympathy for the others?  Who is Baghdad, Aleppo, Tripoli, or Damascus?

This event is a tragedy – no ifs, ands or buts.  The world is full of tragedies – and these are not to be considered in isolation.  This is a circle, and no one in a position to do so seems to have any interest in bringing it to an end.