leftlibertarian.org

This Sheldon Richman column from some months ago states the open-borders case as well as I've seen. William Norman Grigg's position is "in flux." So is mine.

As a matter of political theory, I understand immigration controls. The borders are not "imaginary." Your life and private property are protected by your country's government; some other country may have different laws and may not protect them in the same way. Moreover, the roads on which immigrants traverse were paid for by the natives, not the immigrants. The theoretical justifications for immigration controls would be economic, political, and national security.

1. Economic: Sometimes, the wave of immigrants arrives before there are enough jobs and residences for them, and this increases the rents and depresses the wages of the native population.

2. Political: If immigrants are quickly granted citizenship and the right to vote, there could be adverse consequences for the native population - particularly, for instance, if the immigrants tend to be collectivist and the natives individualist.

3. National Security: It is reasonable to prevent potential enemies from coming over. All the proof we need that the "War on Terror" is a complete fraud is that the Bush Administration refuses to do much, if anything, to protect our borders, coasts, and ports from the supposed swarms of Islamo-fascists who want to do us harm.

That said, Richman and Grigg may be right. The main burden immigration imposes is on the things government runs, funds, or heavily regulates, like schools and hospitals. As Richman writes, "When was the last time Kroger, Wal-Mart, or Blockbuster Video appealed to government to halt the tide of immigrants because it couldn't keep pace with the increased business?"

And it may well be true that the country is large enough to absorb the influx of immigrants. Whatever we do, we must not curb the civil liberties of Americans in order to fight immigration. And the cost of enforcement must not be greater than the alleged costs immigration brings.

Sheesh! Every time I make nonvoting, antipolitics statements like those I’ve made here recently about campaigning for Ron Paul, I get hit with scoldings for under-appreciating the "fine work" of libertarian candidates and their electoral efforts — comments like the ones you’ll find attached here.

So I feel compelled again to offer the same response I have so often before: some of my best friends are voters, but I’m a longtime nonvoter who believes “anarchists” and “radical libertarians” who rely on electoral politics to “liberate” themselves are both unimaginative and philosophically inconsistent. If it’s humiliating to be ruled, how much more humiliating is it to choose your own masters? I’ve talked about this many times before, including here, here, here, and in a recent interview with Sunni Maravillosa.

My libertarian critics should also check out a couple of nonvoting “classics”:

Abstain From Beans, by Robert LeFevre

Party Dialogue, by George H. Smith

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

1. More about my Krakow trip soon (really!). But in the meantime, here’s the Spooner paper I gave at the Krakow conference. It’s also the paper I’m going to present at the Molinari Society meeting in December.

2. Speaking of the Molinari Society, it’ll be holding its fourth annual Symposium in conjunction with the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association in Baltimore, December 27-30, 2007. Here’s the latest schedule info:

GVIII-4. Saturday, 29 December 2007, 11:15 a.m.-1:15 p.m.
Molinari Society symposium: “Anarchy: It’s Not Just a Good Idea, It’s the Law”
Falkland (Fourth Floor), Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, 700 Aliceanna Street

Session 1, 11:15-12:15:
chair: Jennifer McKitrick (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)
speaker: Charles Johnson (Molinari Institute)
title: “A Place for Positive Law: A Contribution to Anarchist Legal Theory”
commentator: John Hasnas (Georgetown University)

Session 2, 12:15-1:15:
chair: Carrie-Ann Biondi (Marymount Manhattan College)
speaker: Roderick T. Long (Auburn University)
title: “Inside and Outside Spooner’s Natural Law Jurisprudence”
commentator: Geoffrey Allan Plauché (Louisiana State University)

Also check out the schedules (happily not conflicting) of the AAPSS and ARS. 

3. The schedule for the Alabama Philosophical Society’s September 21-22 meeting in Orange Beach is also online; Charles and I will be attending that as well, speaking on Vegetarianism and Norms on the Margin and On Making Small Contributions to Evil respectively. It’ll be good to be back at our old venue; Orange Beach and Gulf Shores have been slowly recovering from the onslaught of Hurricane Ivan three years ago, and the conference has been held elsewhere the past three years. (Planning to attend? Tomorrow is the last day to make your hotel reservations at the conference rate.)

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The progressive would say that the discovery of right and wrong is an evolutionary process. We used to believe some cultures were better than others, now we believe all cultures are equal; we used to believe slavery was fine, now we believe it is wrong. Likewise, we used to believe dogfighting was fine, now we believe it is wrong. True, there is hypocrisy about prohibiting some forms of animal cruelty while tolerating others, but that's because society as a whole hasn't evolved to the point of outlawing all animal mistreatment. In the meantime, we should do what we can. Democracy is the means by which we evolve.

The classical liberal position on Michael Vick has been courageously advanced by Ilana Mercer over the past couple of weeks. Classical liberalism holds that everyone is equally free, so long as they respect the equal freedom of others. Cultures that respect individual freedom and private property are superior to those that do not. If more and more people become persuaded that something is wrong, they will stop doing it, but they shouldn't forcefully prevent their neighbors from doing it. It may well be true that morality and ethics may further develop through an evolutionary process, but individual freedom, not democratic coercion, is the means.

Rolling Stone describing the Bush regime’s war corporatism in The Great Iraq Swindle:

“…a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profit­eering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure — American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.”

Hat tip: End the War on Freedom

In response to my long anti-war, anti-army, anti-sympathizers rant “Dear Troops Supporter: What I Believe In,” dan512 posted a comment which I think deserves some reply. Now, I rarely answer to negative comments. If they are egregiously trollish, I just remove them. If they are mundane, I just ignore them. But this one is neither: [...]

I have been tagged by Brewrunner.

Here are the rules of engagement:

People who are tagged need to write these rules in their own blogs & share eight things about themselves that others might not know. At the end of the their blog post, they need to tag six people and list their (blog) names. Leave a comment on the blogs of the people they’ve chosen telling them they’ve been tagged and encouraging them to come over and read the eight things you’ve written on your blog.

1. I never saw Michael Jordan play live at the United Center, but I predict that 50 years from now I will think I remember that I did.
2. If I were filthy, stinking rich, I probably wouldn't own anything aside from a powerful laptop, a couple other high-tech gadgets, and an upgraded but limited wardrobe. I'd live in nice hotels. I'd hire out limos or take cabs everywhere. The only reason I'd want a mansion is for parties and a kick-ass home theater.
3. I've resolved never to criticize others for their writing style. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
4. I don't understand the concept of free will. It seems to me that anything I chose to do was the only thing I was capable of choosing in that moment of decision. Most of the time I "should" have made a better decision, but that wouldn't have been me making the decision. Everything that happens - including everything I make or let happen - happens for a reason.
5. For that reason, I'm finding it harder and harder to hate or judge other people for anything.
6. Ten years later, Princess Diana's death means almost as much to me now as it did then.
7. I like Lindsay Lohan and have nothing against Paris, Britney, or Nicole. I wish them all health and happiness.
8. I admit I'm uncomfortable with "tagging" people. If they don't want to do a blog post like this, I won't ask it of them. So anyone and everyone is invited to do this if they want.

El Ray further defends those activists who’d rather focus their efforts on personal freedom than pursue libertarian ends by political means. This short piece, “Objections to Self-Liberation,” is pulled from a larger article titled “SELF-LIBERATION WAYS: A Compilation and Evaluation,” which appeared in Innovator, Spring 1969:

Any self-liberation method (like anything else) has potential problems; there can be grounds for honest reservations. But most of the more vehement opposition stems not from real obstacles but from ignorance or psychological blocks of one kind or another. These include:

Belief in the omnipotence of evil: “There is no way to hide. With satellites, radar and computers (etc.) they will find you no matter where you go and what you do.” This objection ignores: (1) the limited resources of any State; (2) the much greater concern of rulers with rival power-seekers than with opt-outs; (3) available techniques for frustrating detection and identification — technology is a two-edged sword. Such remarks are usually a confession of inferiority feelings and envy; in essence one is saying, “I’m afraid to become free so I refuse to believe that it is possible.”

Appeal to collective duty: “Instead of ‘copping-out,’ you should join my crusade and help achieve freedom for everyone.” Besides presuming altruism, this ignores the really horrendous problems in reforming a large, far-gone State, and the poor record of previous collective endeavors. A free society probably must begin with free individuals.

Dichotomy between expression and conduct: “Statism is basically an intellectual problem and requires an intellectual solution. The way to gain liberty is not by ‘opting out’ but by disseminating rational ideas.” Not only is this only a partial truth (see my editorial in Winter 69 INNOVATOR) but unnecessarily either-or. Some opt-outs are among the most effective communicators — Dr. George Boardman, for example.

Equation of self-liberation with technical retrogression: “You are abandoning thousands of years of civilization with all the benefits of the market to slink off someplace and live like a savage.” Such an objection ignores what can be AND HAS BEEN accomplished. A modern remote homesteader who may have electric plant, freezer, power tools, stereo, jeep, and perhaps even amphibious airplane need not live like the pilgrims. Nor does the neo-nomad with “self-contained” motorhome live like the plains Indians. Products of “civilization” are used when appropriate; what the self-liberator probably does avoid is complete DEPENDENCE on these.

Utopian notions of liberty: “‘Self-liberation’ does not provide real liberty, freedom exists only when one can act without need to defy or evade coercion.” But the latter kind of freedom has never existed on earth. The American Frontier, one of the freest societies known, included bandits and protection racketeers eager to prey on cowards and fools. Even in a new laissez-faire country with (hypothetically) non-coercive government, there might be attack by private criminals and foreign States.

Low valuation of freedom: “For me, self-liberation would be more trouble than it is worth.” This is an honest objection and is probably the real objection of many persons who offer other excuses. Their ancestors in spirit were Europeans of a century or two ago who became very interested in the New World and did much talking about it — but remained where they were!

Liberty is the heritage of men with the will to be free.

B.W. Richardson has posted a splendid review of Ira Levin’s This Perfect Day. I’ve long argued that the book is one of the finest freedom novels of the past four decades, and it really should be on every libertarian’s “must read” list. The crime is that it’s long out of print. Interesting, since just about everything else Levin’s written, good and bad, is now readily available. Brian spent a whopping $13 on eBay for a tattered paperback copy of This Perfect Day, but adds, “I do not want this book to be out of my possession ever again.” Take his word for it. Levin’s novel is a treasure.

I know I promised that this would be a Ron Paul Free Zone, but Wendy McElroy posted this on her blog yesterday:

“I sympathize with Wally Conger's decision to declare his blog a 'Paul Free Zone' -- not merely because such discussion easily becomes tedious but also because any discussion of Ron Paul has the potential of alienating good friends. In my case, I am watching former anti-politicos as they sign get-out-the-vote petitions, do 'vote for my guy' mail-outs, and write Rah-Rah blog posts for a man who seeks a position of raw political power over their lives; there is no other way to describe the Presidency.”

Very well said.