- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Libertarian presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen's platform is VERY appealing.
Posted on 7/4/20 at 9:48 pm to HempHead
Posted on 7/4/20 at 9:48 pm to HempHead
Libertarians are for open borders and free trade while also being in favor of eliminating all forms of entitlements and government subsidies. Open borders is the optimum policy in the absence of a welfare state, but a welfare state makes open borders national suicide.
Posted on 7/4/20 at 9:51 pm to kingbob
quote:
Libertarians are for open borders and free trade while also being in favor of eliminating all forms of entitlements and government subsidies. Open borders is the optimum policy in the absence of a welfare state, but a welfare state makes open borders national suicide.
I used to think the same way, but I have since revised my stance. I think a very, very limited legal immigration system is to be preferred, up until the point that there is a labor shortage.
I am interested in libertarian policy insofar that it does the best for the polity, not for the sake of ideological purity. That's where I see open ended immigration even with absolutely no entitlements being a detriment. It depresses wages for the lowest end workers, who quite frankly are the biggest danger for social unrest.
Posted on 7/4/20 at 10:11 pm to kingbob
quote:
Libertarians are for open borders
Not all libertarians support open borders.
Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property...
quote:
.....Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!
But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell out during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.
What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.
The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.
Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.
When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.
Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.
He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.
Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?
This post was edited on 7/4/20 at 10:12 pm
Posted on 7/4/20 at 10:53 pm to kingbob
quote:
Open borders is the optimum policy in the absence of a welfare state
Open borders is never the optimum policy.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)