The End of the Libertarian Dream?

[MallsRGood]

Comparisons to the 30s are easy to make..

God help us if we have another crisis and the bottom really falls out.

 

[nikcers]

Comparisons to the 30s are easy to make..

God help us if we have another crisis and the bottom really falls out.

Rand Paul called it in 2012 : https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=42m15s "they would vote for Mitt Romney if he said he would be reluctant for war or wanted to audit the fed"

Lets hope his next prediction doesn't happen, or hasn't happened.
https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=45m45s "2008 on steroids" it has happened, we have destroyed currencies and out of that you get something bad.

 

[Krugminator2]

Lets hope his next prediction doesn't happen, or hasn't happened.
https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=45m45s "2008 on steroids" it has happened, we have destroyed currencies and out of that you get something bad.

Rand and especially Ron are hopeless on anything to do with macroeconomics. They are going to be predicting a currency crisis until the end of time. Doom and gloom predictions are good for donations. Not so good as a representation of reality.

 

[nikcers]

Rand and especially Ron are hopeless on anything to do with macroeconomics. They are going to be predicting a currency crisis until the end of time. Doom and gloom predictions are good for donations. Not so good as a representation of reality.

NO if you listend Rand said that in an economic crisis people will elect "the next Hitler". I was just explaining how the "silent majority" elected Trump in because of democratic policies. You could say Trump isn't the next Hitler though, but I am hoping that he isn't at least.

 

[AuH20]

Rand and especially Ron are hopeless on anything to do with macroeconomics. They are going to be predicting a currency crisis until the end of time. Doom and gloom predictions are good for donations. Not so good as a representation of reality.

Especially with the collusion of the various central banks, which can stem off unforeseen disruptions.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

An important point

Anti-immigrant hysteria wouldn't have gained any traction in a better economy.

Ahahahahaha.

Too funny.

 

[MallsRGood]

Ahahahahaha.

Too funny.

You disagree?

 

[nikcers]

Especially with the collusion of the various central banks, which can stem off unforeseen disruptions.

Financial MAD doesn't work in the age of bit coin and gold, unless they make it illegal to own bitcoins or gold. If they do that then maybe, just maybe. they can print money forever. /s

 

[nikcers]

You disagree?

I think race had very little if anything to do with it. If anything the biggest determining factor was Trump's constant promotion on every form of media constantly 24 hours a day. For a while the media was colluding with the DNC with a "pied piper" strategy. If any other candidate had that much air time you would need more time in the day.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

You disagree?

It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned.

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

 

[AuH20]

It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned.

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

There would be no anti-immigration fervor if they weren't being granted predatory privileges by the state. immigrants as a whole are treated better than U.S. veterans who voluntarily agreed to a contract of service with the USG.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

There would be no anti-immigration fervor if they weren't being granted predatory privileges by the state.

The stock answer from AuH20? I am genuinely surprised to see it from you. I guess someone had to trot out this old, tired non-answer. Maybe you're just playing along for the sake of conversation.

The state exacerbates it with the welfare state. But to believe it wouldn't exist absent the state is nonsense. The state's meddling is not the cause of anti-immigrant fervor and never will be. It existed before states and it will exist after states.

History has amply demonstrated that humans are territorial. Attempts by outside groups to displace a population by en masse movement typically produces the discontent one expects. No state is required for humans to be both territorial and discontent when their territory is encroached upon.

Why do you think libertarianism places great emphasis upon property rights? Territorialism.

 

[AuH20]

The stock answer from AuH20? I am genuinely surprised to see it from you. I guess someone had to trot out this old, tired non-answer. Maybe you're just playing along for the sake of conversation.

The state exacerbates it with the welfare state. But to believe it wouldn't exist absent the state is nonsense. The state's meddling is not the cause of anti-immigrant fervor and never will be. It existed before states and it will exist after states.

History has amply demonstrated that humans are territorial. Attempts by outside groups to displace a population by en masse movement typically produces the discontent one expects. No state is required for humans to be both territorial and discontent when their territory is encroached upon.

Why do you think libertarianism places great emphasis upon property rights? Territorialism.

A certain segment of the population will always distrust others, but the recent flouting of the law along with other material benefits has really juxtaposed the state's preference for the immigrant population over the nativeborn. Citizens are subject to surveillance and intense legal scrutiny, while the noble immigrant can break numerous 'common sense' laws without even a fine. Driving while drunk and without insurance? Not a problem for the nongringo since he is a member of the protected class.

I'm not even an advocate for the state to whimsically dole out privileges to whatever focus group, but even the layman can start to connect the dots on this act of lunacy.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

A certain segment of the population will always distrust others, but the recent flouting of the law and other material benefits has really juxtaposed the state's preference for the immigrant population over the nativeborn. Citizens are subject to surveillance and intense legal scrutiny, while the noble immigrant can break numerous laws without even a fine. Driving while drunk and without insurance? Not a problem for the nongringo.

About the only thing all members of this site have in common is agreement the government's policies, as of today, exacerbate anti-immigrant fervor. Chiefly through the welfare system.

But believing that the state of the economy, or the state, is the cause of anti-immigrant fervor? No. If the government treated immigrants less favorably than they do now that anti-immigrant fervor would still exist. Discontent with immigrants will always be highest in the populations most affected by large numbers of immigrants.

Individuals have varying reasons for their anti-immigrant attitudes, and boiling it down to "distrust of others" is a false conclusion. Territorialism works much better in all cases. My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job. Typically all anti-immigrant arguments boil down to some version of one of those categories, if not a combination thereof. All of it amounts to my territory, conceptually.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned.

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

It also doesnt help in places like France and Sweden where immigrants dont want to integrate into swedish culture and shut themselves off in their own enclaves of society encouraged by the government breeding more hostility and division

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

About the only thing all members of this site have in common is agreement the government's policies, as of today, exacerbate anti-immigrant fervor. Chiefly through the welfare system.

But believing that the state of the economy, or the state, is the cause of anti-immigrant fervor? No. If the government treated immigrants less favorably than they do now that anti-immigrant fervor would still exist. Discontent with immigrants will always be highest in the populations most affected by large numbers of immigrants.

Individuals have varying reasons for their anti-immigrant attitudes, and boiling it down to "distrust of others" is a false conclusion. Territorialism works much better in all cases. My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job. Typically all anti-immigrant arguments boil down to some version of one of those categories, if not a combination thereof. All of it amounts to my territory, conceptually.

Nationalism has varying degrees. What you're describing sounds like hard ethno-nationalism. On the other hand there are levels of nationalism that would say if the immigrant integrates into X,Y,Z culture and value system, the nativist/nationalist would welcome them/her. The problem arises in cases where the immigrant not only refuses to integrate but pushes their value system onto the culture, like muslims pushing for Sharia law in Europe.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Nationalism has varying degrees. What you're describing sounds like hard ethno-nationalism. On the other hand there are levels of nationalism that would say if the immigrant integrates into X,Y,Z culture and value system, the nativist/nationalist would welcome them/her. The problem arises in cases where the immigrant not only refuses to integrate but pushes their value system onto the culture, like muslims pushing for Sharia law in Europe.

No. What I'm describing is any country with an existing population that has certain cultural mores, expectations, and so on having a significant influx of others that do not share those distinctions.

Hell, we can even do this in the USA. Take any sparsely populated western state and introduce a large number of Californians. Same country, often separated by less than 200 miles, and yet the people couldn't be more different. What they want from government, culture, and so on are very different.

In public I've made the joke (a few times, here in Arizona) that the wall shouldn't be with Mexico, it should be with California. Instead of laughter it gets a lot of agreement. At this point it is less a joke and more an observation with some degree of merit.

In order to avoid strife and discontent, to have a harmonious society, integration is critical. Ethnicity matters much less than a shared belief in ideals like those found in the 2nd amendment. What Europe has going on in suicidal, but it's not my problem.

 

[undergroundrr]

Good article. Yes, people are taking their eyes off the ball. trump was given unprecedented free media coverage. He was depicted as the ultimate outsider even though everything about his past belied it.

As far as the general public, a disconcerting number of them equate what he's doing with super-capitalist laissez-faire. As far as they're concerned, he is a libertarian president. That's even true among some here.

I'm extremely pessimistic about libertarianism as a political force. I think trump's election has set back the prospect of a significantly libertarian President by 20 years, as though Ron never happened.

I have more hope for congress and local politics. The statistics for YAL in the article are encouraging.

 

[MallsRGood]

Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Of course it does.

Scenario A: Bob loses his job, quickly finds another one as good or better.

Scenario B: Bob loses his job and cannot find another one, or can only find a worse one.

...in which scenario is Bob angrier?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

Yes, we libertarians are opposed to subsidizing inefficient producers at the expense of the rest of society.

It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

And standing tall among those reasons is discontent with the state of the economy, which can be readily blamed on immigrants.

Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them

Correct

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

Yes, if those in positions of power wish to violate immigrants' rights, they can do so.

Alternately, if those in positions of power wish ignore the nationalist rabble and pursue free immigration regardless, they can do that.

Might doesn't make right, but it determines whether or not reality accords with what is right.

 

[juleswin]

Lol here we go again.

Rand was considered top tier in polling before Trump arrived to the scene and took up all the attention. Rand had his anti-establishment messaging, he was supposed to be the "$#@! you vote" until the even bigger "$#@! you vote" came along.

Tony Fabrizio isn't saying what any normal f'ing person that follows Rand doesn't know. No matter what Rand did, he wouldn't be able to please the entire libertarian block because a small portion of the movement already had their minds made up about him.

The most ridiculous thing was when supporters and critics were blaming Rand for not being more like Trump because what Trump was doing was working. Nobody was Trump and nobody was going to be Trump, period.

Thank you very much for saying this. Rand could have done the exact thing Trump did or customized Trumps style to fit him and he would have still not get the nomination. These people in power are selected or the media and TPTB get the people into voting for the right candidates.

You cannot believe how frustrated I was listening to Tom Woods are so called allies make the same silly points like Paul just needed to act like an incestuous, horny, flip flopping, loud mouth for the press and voter to cover and vote for him respectively.