[Video] Rand Paul: I agree with Milton Friedman; can't have open borders in welfare state

[green73]

Hayek probably wasn't even a libertarian. He advocated for universal health care and a welfare state.

And yet you use him as one of your examples...

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

I think having military bases on the border is good on many levels

1) Troops stationed at those bases can spend the money they make LOCALLY. Thus stimulating the local economy and providing jobs and money.
2) Having military bases along the border would not secure the border, but it is one less spot or area illegals, criminals, or terrorist can cross. I don't think you'd want to cross into the USA and passing through a military base.
3) If our troops die defending our country, they die on US soil.. not on some sand pit.

 

[green73]

That's the circular logic that Rothbardians use. They create their own narrow definition of libertarian and then declare their viewpoint the one true viewpoint. If someone doesn't agree, they are part of the sellout establishment.

Vernon Smith and Gary Becker are Nobel Prize winners in Economics and aren't Rothbardian. Gary Johnson probably has never read Rothbard. Rand Paul isn't Rothbardian. The Koch Brothers are probably the most important libertarians and aren't Rothbardian.

I didn't see this response earlier.

It's not circular logic. The Establishment hates true libertarianism because it is a direct threat to, uh, the Establishment. Ergo, you have "libertarians" in name only, who are proven time and again to be wrong, shills for the Establishment. Their logic never stands up.

You seem to think that the Nobel Committee means something. I'll remind you that they just gave the Peace Prize to Obama. The economics award is determined by the Swedish central bank. When Hayek got it, he had to share it with a commie.

You bringing up Gary Johnson and the Kochs is just hilarious.

 

[loveableteddybear]

I think having military bases on the border is good on many levels

1) Troops stationed at those bases can spend the money they make LOCALLY. Thus stimulating the local economy and providing jobs and money.
2) Having military bases along the border would not secure the border, but it is one less spot or area illegals, criminals, or terrorist can cross. I don't think you'd want to cross into the USA and passing through a military base.
3) If our troops die defending our country, they die on US soil.. not on some sand pit.

Hey!

There's a lot of sand on that southern border!

 

[Brett85]

I think having military bases on the border is good on many levels

1) Troops stationed at those bases can spend the money they make LOCALLY. Thus stimulating the local economy and providing jobs and money.
2) Having military bases along the border would not secure the border, but it is one less spot or area illegals, criminals, or terrorist can cross. I don't think you'd want to cross into the USA and passing through a military base.
3) If our troops die defending our country, they die on US soil.. not on some sand pit.

Exactly right. We should close down foreign military bases in countries like Germany and Japan and put our troops along the southern border.

 

[misean]

I didn't see this response earlier.

It's not circular logic. The Establishment hates true libertarianism because it is a direct threat to, uh, the Establishment. Ergo, you have "libertarians" in name only, who are proven time and again to be wrong, shills for the Establishment. Their logic never stands up.

You seem to think that the Nobel Committee means something. I'll remind you that they just gave the Peace Prize to Obama. The economics award is determined by the Swedish central bank. When Hayek got it, he had to share it with a commie.

You bringing up Gary Johnson and the Kochs is just hilarious.

The Koch brothers fund the Cato Institute, the George Mason economics department, the Reason Foundation, and a couple of other think tanks. They are the most important libertarians after Ron Paul.

Comparing the Nobel Peace Prize to a Nobel Prize in a science isn't a fair comparison. What Rothbardians have made a great contribution to economics on a scale of winning a Nobel Prize.

Gary Johnson was a governor and the Libertarian Party presidential candidate. It seems like that would qualify you as a top libertarian.

 

[green73]

The Koch brothers fund the Cato Institute, the George Mason economics department, the Reason Foundation, and a couple of other think tanks. They are the most important libertarians after Ron Paul.

Who can argue with that?!

 

[seyferjm]

The border issue is probably the only thing keeping from considering myself to be a full anarcho-capitalist. I just cannot accept them with how things are right now- the drug war, welfare state, an already oppressive government just looking for an excuse to crack down on us domestically. All it would take is one major slip-up for things to get worse than they are now. IDK really. I've been thinking about this issue a lot lately.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

The only bad thing I can think of is the military bases would be used to keep people in the USA lol.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah, Ron wasn't for open borders and was opposed to amnesty for illegals. On the amnesty issue he was a lot more hardcore and more conservative than Rand is.

I'm for 'open borders' and citizenship (E.G. voting), based on living criteria. If you've been here for over 10 years, then you should have the privilege of voting. The Government has no business in interfering in property rights concerning employment, travel, etc. To say they do is to completely nullify private property rights. We all ready have enough of that with property taxes, why even go further and let the Government tell folks who they can have, and who they can't have on their property whether it be through hiring, vacation, transience, etc. If you don't want 'outsiders' on your property fine, but you have no right to tell someone else that they can't either.

Property owners should be the deciders of immigration, not the Government. The Government can confer voting privileges in a manner of their choosing, but they have no right restricting immigration.

 

[Confederate]

The only bad thing I can think of is the military bases would be used to keep people in the USA lol.

Only a traitor would want to leave.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Exactly right. We should close down foreign military bases in countries like Germany and Japan and put our troops along the southern border.

That's a horrible idea. We should be closing down foreign military bases, and then downsizing the 'Standing Army (read: what you call Military)' until the proper defense is instituted (The militia), not transferring them from one geographical location to another which solves nothing.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Only a traitor would want to leave.

Only a traitor would start firing at Fort Sumter Johnny Reb!

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here merely pointed out the ridiculousness of having troops abroad defending borders when they don't even do that in the US. Not quite the same thing.

Bull. He has talked about bringing our troops home and putting them on the border, several times.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Only a traitor would want to leave.

That's not true. Did you think the people were traitors who left Germany after Hitler took over? I sure hope not.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Bull. He has talked about bringing our troops home and putting them on the border, several times.

And he is wrong. Close the bases, dismiss the troops - Victory! Open immigration via property rights and the Government can restrict voting privileges as much as they want. However, they have no legitimate authority to interfere in immigration (Read: property owners deciding who they want on their property).

 

[Brett85]

I'm for 'open borders' and citizenship (E.G. voting), based on living criteria. If you've been here for over 10 years, then you should have the privilege of voting. The Government has no business in interfering in property rights concerning employment, travel, etc. To say they do is to completely nullify private property rights. We all ready have enough of that with property taxes, why even go further and let the Government tell folks who they can have, and who they can't have on their property whether it be through hiring, vacation, transience, etc. If you don't want 'outsiders' on your property fine, but you have no right to tell someone else that they can't either.

Property owners should be the deciders of immigration, not the Government. The Government can confer voting privileges in a manner of their choosing, but they have no right restricting immigration.

I respect your opinion and think that people like yourself add a lot to the liberty movement. However, you should realize that there's virtually no chance that we'll ever have an anarcho capitalist as President or as a member of Congress. Rand isn't going to come out in favor of having no government involvement in border security when he's serious about winning the GOP nomination and becoming President.

 

[Qdog]

There's nothing unlibertarian about securing the border. Many libertarians believe in law and order and reject anarchy. Rand is in favor of legal immigration and supports creating a guest worker program that would allow people to come here and work without waiting in line to become citizens.

I agree with you. If I had my way, I might actually make it easier to legally immigrate, but I would enforce those regulations by securing the border. It doesn't matter how tough you are on paper if you are not willing or able to back it up. Even if we did have an "open border", as far as everyone is able to immigrate legally, we would still need to have a secure border, so that we can ensure criminals, terrorists, spies, etc are regulated, and so that we can actually document who is coming and going.

 

[Qdog]

If a law is worth having, then its worth enforcing. If we aren't going to enforce the dang law, then we probably dont need it.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree with you. If I had my way, I might actually make it easier to legally immigrate, but I would enforce those regulations by securing the border. It doesn't matter how tough you are on paper if you are not willing or able to back it up. Even if we did have an "open border", as far as everyone is able to immigrate legally, we would still need to have a secure border, so that we can ensure criminals, terrorists, spies, etc are regulated, and so that we can actually document who is coming and going.

You do realize that is impossible right? Have you ever looked at a map? We have criminals loose every day, but we don't have the Gestapo yelling papers and needing I.D. with biometric data everywhere do we (For now anyways)? No....ok then, why only the border?