The End of the Libertarian Dream?

[helmuth_hubener]

My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job.

BSWPaulsen, where have you been? Excellent, incisive posts! Thank you; I enjoyed them.

"This land is your land..." = Socialist hymn (written by a socialist)

"This land is my land, period, not yours" = Individualist attitude

As Ayn Rand said in Anthem, the sacred word is not "We" but "I" (OK, "Ego").

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You cannot believe how frustrated I was listening to Tom Woods and our 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.

Tom Woods did not say this. Tom Woods simply said Rand should have been more bold and less PC. More willing to turn over apple carts. More, in short, like Tom Woods.

And that certainly would have been lovely!

But in the end, eleganz has it right: Nobody was Trump and nobody was going to be Trump. Period.

 

[undergroundrr]

Why would anybody want anybody to be anything other than who they genuinely are?

It's just depraved, with somebody we are promoting to hold reins of power, to insist that they delude the populace.

Rand isn't a nihilistic boor and he couldn't convincingly play that role for 10 seconds straight if he wanted to.

 

[merkelstan]

rand has a place in the universe for occassionally trying to do good things

 

[BSWPaulsen]

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?

In which scenario does Bob end up liking immigrants?

Neither.

Good God man, you cannot be so daft as to honestly believe either scenario makes Bob appreciable of the "other" taking his job. He could find a better job and he still won't like the man that took what was his.

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

Rights violated without recourse are not rights. At no point in mankind's past, present, or future will rights ever have any meaning whatsoever absent the force to sustain them. Those in positions of power must be held to account, at the point of a lance if necessary, in order for those subject to power to have rights.

As for the parts of your post I didn't quote? What's the point in arguing those fine points that see libertarianism condemned to irrelevancy? If you cannot win over the disaffected, the people that fuel real change, then you have no future.

Trump won over the disaffected. He knew their usefulness. People like you call them economically inefficient and happily invite foreigners, whom are presumably more efficient, to replace them. You tell them that if the economy were good, they wouldn't even care that they were replaced.

... And then you'll scream about your rights as a noose is placed around your neck. Your pleas that you were championing human rights, their human rights, will fall on deaf ears.

Tragic stuff. I wonder if there are any classical plays treating this dichotomy.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

BSWPaulsen, where have you been? Excellent, incisive posts! Thank you; I enjoyed them.

"This land is your land..." = Socialist hymn (written by a socialist)

"This land is my land, period, not yours" = Individualist attitude

As Ayn Rand said in Anthem, the sacred word is not "We" but "I" (OK, "Ego").

I typically lurk the forums, happily reading the posts of you, tod evans, Anti Federalist, and osan. If I see the last post in any thread is by any of you four it is worth reading.

(My apologies to those I am forgetting, there are others whom have given me pleasurable reading overs the years too!)

 

[MallsRGood]

In which scenario does Bob end up liking immigrants?

Neither, but he ends up disliking them a lot more in the scenario where economic conditions are worse.

Rights violated without recourse are not rights. At no point in mankind's past, present, or future will rights ever have any meaning whatsoever absent the force to sustain them. Those in positions of power must be held to account, at the point of a lance if necessary, in order for those subject to power to have rights.

Two possible interpretations of what you're saying:

A. People actually enjoy only those rights which they can enforce (or which someone else can enforce on their behalf).

B. People should enjoy only those rights which they can enforce (or which someone else can enforce on their behalf).

A is obviously true, and I've said nothing to the contrary.

B is the abnegation of ethics altogether, "whatever is is good."

Now, assuming you're only saying A, I suppose your argument is that, by not supporting Trump's nationalistic leftism, we libertarians are somehow dooming ourselves to irrelevance; that if we don't endorse the violation of the rights of immigrants, we won't be able to effectively defend other rights which we value. But this makes no sense, considering that these people you think we ought to ally with don't respect any of those other rights either.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Rand isn't a nihilistic boor and he couldn't convincingly play that role for 10 seconds straight if he wanted to.

Not PC =/= nihilistic boor. Tom Woods is an extremely intelligent, engaging, brilliant, and often confrontational man, who does not shy away from being controversial. In short: he's a real man.

Does Rand have it in him to be like that? You bet he does. Read some of his old letters to the editor from his youthful years. For that matter, listen to his victory speech when he won the Senate seat. That speech is the Rand everybody loved. Conservatives loved that speech. They did. My own mother did. The Rand on FIRE!!

That's what people wanted, were dying for. A wrecking ball. One man applied for the job.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I typically lurk the forums, happily reading the posts of you, tod evans, Anti Federalist, and osan. If I see the last post in any thread is by any of you four it is worth reading.

(My apologies to those I am forgetting, there are others whom have given me pleasurable reading overs the years too!)

Aww! :o

Thanks. That made my day.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Neither, but he ends up disliking them a lot more in the scenario where economic conditions are worse.

You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it.

A. People actually enjoy only those rights which they can enforce (or which someone else can enforce on their behalf).

Of course.

Now, assuming you're only saying A, I suppose your argument is that, by not supporting Trump's nationalistic leftism, we libertarians are somehow dooming ourselves to irrelevance; that if we don't endorse the violation of the rights of immigrants, we won't be able to effectively defend other rights which we value. But this makes no sense, considering that these people you think we ought to ally with don't respect any of those other rights either.

I've taken the Machiavellian approach on this. If a principle should aid the enemy, then it must be suspended until such a point that it no longer does.

As it is, the progressive/statist/authoritarian clowns in the Democratic party benefit more from open borders policies than anyone else. With the expansion of their power base the relevancy of libertarians is further diminished. If uncontrolled immigration brought about a more libertarian society I would absolutely agitate for it. If we had a dominantly libertarian society at this moment, then it could be considered.

But it doesn't. There is a good reason the Democrats would love nothing more than "immigration reform". They know it is a potent tool for giving them power. They'll even tell you so. Open borders libertarians are given the choice of being useful idiots, or violating their principles. I would much rather violate my principles than be the tool of my own destruction. Many think there must be a third path on this issue, but they're only fence sitters trying to avoid choosing between two bad decisions. When you are not in power you rarely get decisions in your favor, and so it has been with libertarianism.

And make no mistake, some of the allies in the anti-immigration camp are questionable at best. However, questionable though they may be, they are useful in maximizing what power libertarians have now and unlike the progressives, a dialogue with them isn't impossible because there is something in common with them for now. Persuasion is not possible when two sides are diametrically opposed.

 

[undergroundrr]

You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it.

Socialist fervor happens regardless too and is no more deserving of support.

An anti-immigrationist has a right to his property and absolute control over what does or doesn't trespass on it. He doesn't have the right to use proxy force to keep "other" types of persons he finds objectionable out of line-of-sight, line-of-hearing or line-of-smell when they're not on his property. It's never going to be proper for him to demand government assistance to build a public property "moat" to keep them away.

 

[MallsRGood]

You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it.

Tribalism is a permanent human characteristic, yes, and economic problems make it worse.

I've taken the Machiavellian approach on this. If a principle should aid the enemy, then it must be suspended until such a point that it no longer does.

I'm a pragmatist as well, but free immigration doesn't aid the enemy.

As it is, the progressive/statist/authoritarian clowns in the Democratic party benefit more from open borders policies than anyone else. With the expansion of their power base the relevancy of libertarians is further diminished. If uncontrolled immigration brought about a more libertarian society I would absolutely agitate for it. If we had a dominantly libertarian society at this moment, then it could be considered.

But it doesn't. There is a good reason the Democrats would love nothing more than "immigration reform". They know it is a potent tool for giving them power. They'll even tell you so. Libertarians are given the choice of being useful idiots, or violating their principles. I would much rather violate my principles than be the tool of my own destruction. Many think there is a third path on this issue, but they're only fence sitter trying to avoid choosing between two bad decisions.

And make no mistake, some of the allies in the anti-immigrant camp are questionable at best. However, questionable though they may be, they are useful in maximizing what power libertarians have now and unlike the progressives, a dialogue with them isn't impossible because there is at least some similarity. Persuasion is not possible when two sides are diametrically opposed.

There is very little difference, from a libertarian perspective, between the average GOPer and the average Dem. The average native voting GOP and the average immigrant voting Dem are both enemies. This is especially true of the more vociferously anti-immigrant GOPers, who tend to be the most statist in general. Take Trump as a paradigm case: he is both the most anti-immigrant and the most anti-market GOP POTUS ever. If I had to choose between a competitive GOP run by Trumpians and a minority party GOP run by more conservative elements, I'd choose the latter.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Tribalism is a permanent human characteristic, yes, and economic problems make it worse.

There you go. Was it so hard to concede anti-immigrant fervor exists regardless of economic problems?

I'm a pragmatist as well, but free immigration doesn't aid the enemy.

You can propose hypothetical circumstances where free immigration does not aid the enemy. Like a state without a welfare system.

This isn't that situation. On average Democratic voters are added with each additional immigrant. This is no surprise, because it's hard to convince people not to vote for free shit. There's a good reason Clinton won the popular vote; Americans love free shit. Finding out foreigners do too surprises precisely no one, but adding more people to the free shit army is bad politics.

There is no meaningful difference, from a libertarian perspective, between the average GOPer and the average Dem.

The average native voting GOP is just as much an enemy as the average immigrant voting Dem.

Republicans are bad, but they at least have a place in their party for libertarians. Republicans are the blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut. The democrats take your nuts. And the average immigrant (and, lest we forget, American!) votes for the party that takes your nuts. More nut takers need not apply.

The only hope for libertarians lies in ideologically subverting the Republican party in its entirety. That is something at least possible, and worth working towards... But make no mistake, a conflict with the Democrats would still be on the horizon. Should the Democrats gain supremacy, then libertarians are screwed altogether. Progressives have no use for freedom.

 

[undergroundrr]

On average Democratic voters are added with each additional immigrant... Republicans are bad, but they at least have a place in their party for libertarians.

Ah, the old "they're voting for socialism."

Republicans are ALWAYS for more war and less welfare. Democrats are ALWAYS for more welfare and less war.

Republicans end up giving us more welfare anyway.

Democrats end up giving us more war anyway.

There's no advantage to voting for one over the other.

I won't speak for all the other ethnicities, but Hispanics hate taxes more than Americans, value hard work more than Americans, are less likely to take welfare than Americans and identify libertarian as often as Americans by the second generation. We owe it to ourselves to come to terms with this brand of differentness.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Republicans are ALWAYS for more war and less welfare. Democrats are ALWAYS for more welfare and less war.

False.

Hispanics hate taxes more than Americans

False (but pretty hard to prove either way)

value hard work more than Americans

False (but again hard to prove)

are less likely to take welfare than Americans

Very False (very easy to prove)

and identify libertarian as often as Americans by the second generation.

Also false.

I wish there was more interesting to say, but... that one word sums it up!

 

[PierzStyx]

Libertarians call it “the Giuliani moment.” It was May 15, 2007, and the former New York mayor stood across from Ron Paul on a debate stage in Columbia, South Carolina. They had nothing in common—personalities and ideologies aside, Rudy Giuliani was comfortably leading the GOP presidential field, while Paul was polling in the low single digits—but they would soon produce an inflection point in the party’s modern history, one that triggered a decade of unprecedented progress for libertarians.

As a panel of Fox News moderators mocked his opposition to the Iraq War, Paul argued that American intervention in the Middle East was “a major contributing factor” to the September 11 attacks. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” he asked. “They attack us because we’ve been over there.” Giuliani, whose candidacy arose from his heroic handling of 9/11, pounced, calling it “an extraordinary statement” and asking Paul to withdraw it. The crowd roared with approval, but Paul didn’t budge. “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback,” he responded.

I didn't know about Ron in 2008. But I came across this clip on YouTube in 2011 and it lit a fire under me. Everything since has came out of this. And I will always repect Dr. Paul for it.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Socialist fervor happens regardless too and is no more deserving of support.

An anti-immigrationist has a right to his property and absolute control over what does or doesn't trespass on it. He doesn't have the right to use proxy force to keep "other" types of persons he finds objectionable out of line-of-sight, line-of-hearing or line-of-smell when they're not on his property. It's never going to be proper for him to demand government assistance to build a public property "moat" to keep them away.

Ah, the old "they're voting for socialism."

Republicans are ALWAYS for more war and less welfare. Democrats are ALWAYS for more welfare and less war.

Republicans end up giving us more welfare anyway.

Democrats end up giving us more war anyway.

There's no advantage to voting for one over the other.

I won't speak for all the other ethnicities, but Hispanics hate taxes more than Americans, value hard work more than Americans, are less likely to take welfare than Americans and identify libertarian as often as Americans by the second generation. We owe it to ourselves to come to terms with this brand of differentness.

Sigh.

Look, undergroundrr, between the giant, misguided red herring in your first attempt to reply to me, and you regurgitating points I have roundly dismissed previously I wasn't going to bother, but maybe me repeating the point will sink in this time.

Even if we assumed all you wrote is true about immigrants (and it most assuredly is not, but I will concede just for the sake of argument), then the fact the majority of them are voting Democrat means open borders policies are suicidal for libertarians. If you think the fact 12% of them identifying as libertarians is a win for libertarianism, then you are hopeless. Now, if you want to discuss with me a way to control immigration so that the 12% becomes 100%, then that is a discussion worth having.

There is nothing hazy about this. Open borders libertarians have two choices: be useful idiots for the Democrats, or violate their principles in order to maximize their political power. In no way, shape, or form, will the current circumstances permit uncontrolled immigration to increase the power and influence of libertarians.

 

[undergroundrr]

False.

Wake up.

False (but pretty hard to prove either way)

False (but again hard to prove)

Hispanics, more so than the general public, believe in the efficacy of hard work. Three-in-four (75%) Hispanics say most people can get ahead if they work hard. By contrast, just 58% of the general public say the same.

Very False (very easy to prove)

https://www.cato.org/publications/e...mmigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

Also false.

I wish there was more interesting to say, but... that one word sums it up!

https://fee.org/articles/hispanics-are-just-as-libertarian-as-other-americans/
https://panampost.com/editor/2016/08/18/latinos-twice-likely-support-libertarian-candidates/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/08/hispanic-libertarians
https://townhall.com/columnists/rac...-the-hispanic-millennial-libertarian-n1887818

 

[PierzStyx]

Response sin bold.

Even if we assumed all you wrote is true about immigrants (and it most assuredly is not, but I will concede just for the sake of argument), then the fact the majority of them are voting Democrat means open borders policies are suicidal for libertarians. If you think the fact 12% of them identifying as libertarians is a win for libertarianism, then you are hopeless. Now, if you want to discuss with me a way to control immigration so that the 12% becomes 100%, then that is a discussion worth having.

The fact that you think that if all immigrants voted for Republicans then it would somehow be better for libertarians is both adorable and deeply saddening at the same time.

And like most nationalists you miss the entire point of why immigrants vote Democrats. When the Republicans elect a violent nationalist like Donald Trump willing to violently attack and violate almost every right you have and run people like Ben Carson who talked about drone bombing people while they crossed the border, then you end up voting for Democrats out of mere survival instinct. The greatest, and most idiotic, problem with the Republican Party is its constant failures to tap into the Hispanic immigrant culture, a culture that is heavily religious, anti-abortion, family oriented, and often anti-gay marriage.

And the fact that you want to use violence to dominate how other people live act and think to grant you a political majority just demonstrates that you aren't a libertarian.

There is nothing hazy about this. Open borders libertarians have two choices: be useful idiots for the Democrats, or violate their principles in order to maximize their political power. In no way, shape, or form, will the current circumstances permit uncontrolled immigration to increase the power and influence of libertarians.

If you define libertarian as "a proponent of large government and violent regulation of people in violation of the free market and basic human rights of liberty and property" then you are certainly correct.

But last I checked that wasn't a libertarian. That sounds more like Progressivism to me, which of course is all nationalism is.

Open borders are the only free market and libertarian solution. Free markets, free will, and free men. Nothing less will suffice.

 

[MallsRGood]

There you go. Was it so hard to concede anti-immigrant fervor exists regardless of economic problems?

I never claimed that economic problems were the only cause of anti-immigrant hysteria.

Republicans are bad, but they at least have a place in their party for libertarians.

Yes, but the larger the Trumpian faction becomes within the GOP, the less space there is for libertarians.

It's suicidal for libertarians not to oppose this trend.

The growth of the GOP helps us not at all if in the course of growing it loses what little remains of its small government ethos.