The End of the Libertarian Dream?

[PierzStyx]

Wake up.

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.



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



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

Excellent effort, not that these Progressives calling for more government regulation of private human lives and the market will actually listen to reason and pay attention to things like evidence and proof. But you tried. And that deserves acknowledgment.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Excellent effort, not that Helmuth will actually listen to reason and pay attention to things like evidence and proof.

That is actually the only thing that I will reliably pay attention to.

I could make a mirror-image post with a study or graph for every one of his, to show the opposite. I'd even format it the same! Why, it would be irrefutable! Right? At least as irrefutable as undergroundrr's.

In reality, it's a complex situation and issue, a complexity I acknowledged parenthetically in my post, but that undergroundrr did not in his. Why, it's all cut and dry for him. Quantifying and measuring "how much a fuzzily-defined human racial group hates taxes"? Piece of cake.

Let's not be partisan brickheads!

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Response sin bold.

Trump and Carson are the reasons immigrants vote Democrat?

Ahahahahahahaha.

The reason the Republicans aren't winning the Hispanic vote is because of their failure to tap into their culture?

Ahahahahahahaha.

You really don't get it, and there is no point in taking what you say seriously.

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.

Good on you for sticking to your principles and ensuring the irrelevancy of libertarianism. The parasites voting Democrat will not forget the services useful idiots render to their cause. Or they will forget and give them the bullet too. Funny, that.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

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

Then you were grossly exaggerating the importance of economic problems.

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.

The people that make up Trump's base are substantially less than the Democratic base. The people that make up Trump's base can be persuaded. They are the disaffected. Providing the disaffected with a vision that they can both believe in, and stand to gain from, is the libertarian cause du jour. We can agree on that, right?

The libertarian battle for the soul of the Republican party is a continuous effort, and it must be waged for the sake of libertarian political power. Rand, Amash, and Massie are the beginning. Those successes can be built on, correct? You will find no disagreement from me in that certain "Trumpian" objectives must be fought and defeated, but common ground should most definitely be found in areas that benefit libertarian political power.

However, that does not mean the Democrats are not the bigger enemy, that must be eventually confronted. Actions that benefit them are bad. This is not a negotiable point. While the likes of PierzStyx and undergroundrr have no problem increasing the size of the Democratic party for the sake of their principles, libertarians, as a political force, lose whenever this happens.

 

[MallsRGood]

The libertarian battle for the soul of the of the Republican party is a continuous effort, and it must be waged for the sake of libertarian political power.

Agreed

Rand, Amash, and Massie are the beginning. Those successes can be built on, correct?

Certainly

You will find no disagreement from me in that certain "Trumpian" objectives must be fought and defeated, but common ground should most definitely be found in areas the benefit libertarian political power.

Sure, but promoting nativism is not one of those areas.

Actions that benefit them are bad.

As are actions which benefit our enemies within the GOP, such as crowding out libertarian causes with nativism.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Sure, but promoting nativism is not one of those areas.

Nativism can be turned against when it is no longer useful in entrenching libertarians as a political force.

As are actions which benefit our enemies within the GOP, such as crowding out libertarian causes with nativism.

A wonderful battle to be had once a climate has been created in which immigration no longer plays into the hands of the enemy. After, say, dismantling the welfare state. Agreed?

 

[MallsRGood]

Nativism can be turned against when it is no longer useful.

It's not useful now.

A wonderful battle to be had once a climate has been created in which immigration controls no longer play into the hands of the enemy. After, say, dismantling the welfare state. Agreed?

No, I don't agree that promoting nativism until such time as the welfare state is dismantled is good strategy, for reasons explained.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

It's not useful now.

As a means of preventing additional Democratic voters? Yes, it is. Demonstrably so. 0 is less than the >50% Democratic voters immigrants currently comprise.

No, I don't agree that promoting nativism until such time as the welfare state is dismantled is good strategy, for reasons explained.

Then the welfare state will not be dismantled, because the number of those supporting it will continue to outstrip those against it. The voters supporting the welfare state will continue to swell their ranks while libertarians retain what power they do have in the Republican party, a party already losing the raw numbers battle, and only capable of winning the presidency with a populist.

The logical connection is very simple. The Democratic party is very pro welfare. They are already capable of winning the popular vote, and presidential elections when the disaffected have swung their way in certain states. Immigrants, at a greater rate than 50%, are voting for the Democratic party. As such, the growth and expansion of the party supporting the welfare state will ensure its permanence regardless of whether libertarians ever win the battle for the Republican party.

 

[Krugminator2]

Noted Communist Ludwig von Mises talked about immigration in Liberalism. He completely rejected the protectionist economic arguments against immigration but was very sympathetic to the problems of assimilation. And he believed free immigration was problematic in a country that didn't have laissez faire capitalism. https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html/p/45

In the absence of any migration barriers whatsoever, vast hordes of immigrants from the comparatively overpopulated areas of Europe would, it is maintained, inundate Australia and America. They would come in such great numbers that it would no longer be possible to count on their assimilation. If in the past immigrants to America soon adopted the English language and American ways and customs, this was in part due to the fact that they did not come over all at once in such great numbers. The small groups of immigrants who distributed themselves over a wide land quickly integrated themselves into the great body of the American people.
***
These fears may perhaps be exaggerated in regard to the United States. As regards Australia, they certainly are not. Australia has approximately the same number of inhabitants as Austria; its area, however, is a hundred times greater than Austria's, and its natural resources are certainly incomparably richer. If Australia were thrown open to immigration, it can be assumed with great probability that its population would in a few years consist mostly of Japanese, Chinese, and Malayans.
***
It cannot be denied that these fears are justified. Because of the enormous power that today stands at the command of the state, a national minority must expect the worst from a majority of a different nationality.
***
It is clear that no solution of the problem of immigration is possible if one adheres to the ideal of the interventionist state, which meddles in every field of human activity, or to that of the socialist state. Only the adoption of the liberal program could make the problem of immigration, which today seems insoluble, completely disappear.

 

[MallsRGood]

[MENTION=35590]BSWPaulsen[/MENTION]

As I see it, you're proposing that we give up the battle for the GOP, in order to make the GOP more competitive against the Dems.

...which to my mind is pointless, since a competitive GOP not controlled by us is no better than a permanent Democratic majority.

Nativism is also, in the long-run, not a winning strategy even if the only goal were to keep the GOP competitive.

A GOP which becomes all about nativism will, in a few decades, be both a permanent minority and non-libertarian.

 

[undergroundrr]

I could make a mirror-image post with a study or graph for every one of his, to show the opposite. I'd even format it the same! Why, it would be irrefutable! Right? At least as irrefutable as undergroundrr's.

I was certain you wouldn't click on any of those links, so they're actually dummy url's that go absolutely nowhere or to data that says exactly the opposite of my assertions. You should have an easy task refuting all those claims. I'd start here and here, both treasure troves of irrefutable data.

In reality, it's a complex situation and issue, a complexity I acknowledged parenthetically in my post, but that undergroundrr did not in his.

No, but do acknowledge it. That's why I try to rely on data gathered with some intent toward scientific accuracy. The Pew data I cite comes from a study often used by anti-immigrationists to show how socialist those immigrants are.

Let's not be partisan brickheads!

Agreed. So you also agree that voting Republican is in no way better than voting Democrat?

 

[BSWPaulsen]

[MENTION=35590]BSWPaulsen[/MENTION]

As I see it, you're proposing that we give up the battle for the GOP, in order to make the GOP more competitive against the Dems.

Not even remotely close. One can endeavor to keep Democrats at bay while attempting to subvert the GOP. The growth of the Democratic party must be checked. This is not optional if libertarians have any hope of relevancy. Libertarians need time. Time to win the battle for the Republican party, so they can then hope to compete against the Democrats on relatively equal footing while the numbers are still comparable. And even then, convincing people to give up their freebies is going to be very tough.

A GOP which becomes all about nativism will, in a few decades, be both a permanent minority and non-libertarian.

??? The GOP is already on track to be a permanent minority regardless of whatever beliefs they espouse. You seem be suffering from this delusion that if the GOP was a purely libertarian minority that it would be a good thing. It wouldn't. We'd be putting up with whatever the Democratic party dictated to us. In fact, absent any nativism, and a need for immigrant voters, the GOP will have to offer the policies Democratic voters offer to immigrants, which is most definitely not any removal of the welfare state. Projected demographics are not in the GOP's favor and immigration will only hasten the GOP's decline into irrelevancy. Keep in mind that libertarians will get to share whatever fate is in store for the GOP.

I don't know about you, but I am not keen on accelerating the pace at which Democrats get to reign supreme. And I am not optimistic that if the Republican party dies that there will be a conservative alternative of high popularity. Far more likely is out of the ashes arises a far left party and a moderately left party, much more in the mould of Europe.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I was certain you wouldn't click on any of those links, so they're actually dummy url's that go absolutely nowhere or to data that says exactly the opposite of my assertions.

What are you playing at? Has your brain broke, or has mine? Your behavior is baffling.

So you also agree that voting Republican is in no way better than voting Democrat?

Why should I care if it is or isn't? Furthermore, if it does not matter, as you assert, why do you care so much if I agree with you regarding it? It doesn't matter! As a note: I meant partisan in a much older and broader sense.