Someone in charge 58

We are libertarian conservatives, “minarchists”, emphatically not anarchists.

Having a libertarian bent, we like much of what John Stossel writes in an article at Townhall:

Here’s my fantasy: Libertarians are elected to the presidency and to majorities in Congress. What would happen next? Well, if libertarians were “in charge,” you’d have more freedom and prosperity.

Freedom frightens some people. They say if no one is in charge there would be chaos. That is intuitive, but think about a skating rink. Before rinks were invented, if you proposed an amusement in which people strap blades to their feet and skate around on ice at whatever speeds they wish, you’d have been called crazy. There’s got to be speed limits, stoplights, turn signals. But we know that people navigate rinks safely on their own. They create their own order, with only minimal rules.

Society would work the same way — and does to a large extent even today. “Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government,” Thomas Paine, the soul of the American Revolution, wrote. “It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. … Common interest (has) a greater influence than the laws of government.”

Yes. Common interest is the wellspring of morality.

If libertarians were “in charge,” there would be laws to protect us from foreign enemies and those who would steal from us or injure us. Today, by contrast, under the rule of Democans and Republicrats, we’re drowning in rules — 160,000 pages’ worth. Micromanagement kills opportunity and freedom.

Maybe if there were a way to have more competition among governments, things would be better. Competition forces people to become more efficient and to get rid of stupid rules. What if we let people take over some unused land in America to create areas with fewer rules, simpler legal systems, smaller government?

Stossel quotes Michael Strong , who with his wife Magatte Wade founded the Free Cities Project.

Strong said, “We want to encourage thousands of people to create new governments that have different rules, each competing for customers with the best education and best health care, the most peace and prosperity you could imagine.”

We expect that where government interfered least with the economic life of the people there would be the greatest prosperity. Where it had nothing at all to do with education or health, the people would stand the best chance of being well educated and effectively cured. Where it most strongly protected liberty, they would probably endure the least crime. Where it armed the people most formidably they might least expect to be invaded.

Are there any free cities along the lines Strong and Wade envision?

“Hong Kong and Singapore are the best examples,” Strong said. “Now they are among the wealthiest places on earth.”

True – and proof that small government, doing little more than enforcing the rule of law, works well.

And there is a free city in Dubai because the emirate wanted to create a financial sector …

And did, though the emir had to abandon sharia law in the free city to achieve what he wanted:

“Dubai was brilliant,” Strong said. “They looked around the world. They saw that Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, Chicago, Sydney, London all ran British common law. British common law is much better for commerce than is French common law or sharia law. So they took 110 acres of Dubai soil, put British common law with a British judge in charge, and they went from an empty piece of soil to the 16th most powerful financial center in world in eight years.”

It’s what libertarians have said: Freedom works, and government, when it grows beyond the barest minimum, keeps people poor.

As liberty is most likely to bring prosperity, why are libertarians a political minority?

Is it because many people fear it, and if so why?

Some want governments to be parental and care for them “from the cradle to the grave”. They think such welfare governments can guarantee that they’ll  be fed, housed, educated, medically treated all through their lives.

They could not be more wrong. The welfare states of Europe are rapidly going bankrupt.

And besides, what a government provides a government can withhold. To put yourself wholly in the power of a government is to put yourself not into safety but into danger. You are most safe when you control your own life, and the government does no more than guard your liberty. (And as everything governments do they do badly, it is wise to own a gun.)

Some need to feel that there is “someone in charge” – a king, a chief, a Secretary-General of the Communist Party, a powerful president, a Father in Heaven.

We don’t want someone in charge. Neither on earth nor “in heaven”. Throughout our earthly lives we want the rule of law, that wholly abstract authority, emotionless, fixed. (As Lord Denning, the British judge, said: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”.)

And we delight in a universe that does not have and does not need “someone” to make, maintain, rule, watch over, manipulate, or give a damn about it.

  • Don L

    I wasn’t able to post a ‘reply’ to below, so here’s a new post:

    George, here’s what you’ve posted:

    “I listen to a national syndicated libertarian radio talk show host regularly and he wants nothing to do with this mass outsourcing of our jobs and neither do I and he also wants our borders closed .  I have seen more outsourcing from big business tycoons ( who are CONSERVATIVES ) by the way and who are greedy and want more profits and NAFTA has actually harmed us and gotten out of hand… I’m fully for capitalism , free enterprise , the right to do trade with other countries , etc…”

    And:  “The Democrats  want the illegals coming in for their votes…”

    The latter first.  The illegals can’t vote…it is a tactic to get those already here,legal/naturalized hispanics, to vote democrat…helluva cost…the pols just don’t care.

    Now, it appears that what you are saying is that ‘big business tycoons’ (they call themselves conservative but they aren’t because they don’t protect US jobs) are massively outsourcing jobs because they are greedy and want more profit.  And, the national radio guy you listen to believes and proclaims this too (interesting you haven’t revealed his name…twice now?).

    George, you have fallen for the emotional fallacies promoted by the leftists/progressives/socialists.  It is so much easier to get people to respond to an emotional appealing lie than to get them to listen and understand boring truth. 

    Your post sounds like the economically-unaware noise coming from the ‘occupy’ children…the product of our institutions of higher learning…LOL.

    It has been my premise for many of my posts that 95% of Americans are absolutely ignorant of things economic…especially free market capitalism.  You state you are for free markets and capitalism and then make the negative comment about profit…revealing that you may be for free market capitalism but have no idea what the principles of it are.  You do the name calling ‘big business tycoons’ and apply the motive of greed right out of the marxist playbook of class warfare…and none of it is true…but it ‘feels’ good, when you don’t know.

    Further, it is my contention that in the 1890s the progressives set about taking control of childrens education…today history has been rewritten to their ends and economics and civics have been intentionally miseducated and the populace conditioned to ignore and actually be repulsed by any study of the topics.

    Indeed, George, and you are certainly not alone, I have invited you to read the material on my site.  You have been kind and said you would tell others of my site…but, per yopur postings of late, it seems that you have not availed yourself of the free info.  You believe, perhaps , you know all you need to or you are turned off by learning more about economics…sorta proving my premise.

    The TEAPARTY Econ 10-pak is 10 pamphlets and booklets that will provide you a way of seeing things economic in a manner I trully believe you will truly enjoy.  I mean that.  You are curious and bright…you will be changed. http://teapartyeconomics.com/0003FreeTEAPARTYEcon10PackReviewsAndDownloads.html

    In addition, I have not been able to find a free version, I highly recommend to all the book “Economics In One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.  Although written in 1946 (basically published on my birthday in March) it is even more valid today: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232?tag=teapartyecono-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0517548232&adid=006GNVBREABABHJ96ZF3&

    Unions and government interference with wages (a price by any other name) is what forces employers to go overseas.  Free trade agreements are, for the most part, legalized cronyism.  But all of this is addressed in the free 10-Pack.

    Contrary to popular belief…I am not a know it all.  I am, however, knowledgeable about economics.  A few years ago I stumbled, quite accidentally, upon a way of thinking called Austrian economics and all the light bulbs went on.  And, I stated previously, It is the association of libertarians to Austrian economics that troubles me.  Economics is economics…period.  It is when libertarians extrapolate logical economic principles into unrealistic scenarios that the mess begins: Ron Paul’s, peace at all costs invites aggression (incidentally, economically war is hell… WWII did not end the depression…the death of FDR did); unprotected and unregulated borders…as Jillian pointed out, leads to the theft of our resources because of another countries failure and it’s the invitation to terrorists.  

    Enough,  again, I invite you to explore.  I do not want to convince you about Austrian economics…merely expose you so you can make your own judgement.  I trust however…it’ll blow your mind!

    Navy Blue baby…puke green marine.  LOL

  • Andrew M

    This article and the John Stossel quote about skating rinks reminds me a lot about how enormous flocks of birds, numbering in the hundreds of thousands of individuals, manage to form a cohesive whole that moves as a single unit. The amazing secret is that the group is acephalic – the birds do not end up colliding with each other by obeying entirely local rules which work on the individual level to demonstrate collective unity.

    One of my pet interests as of recent has been chaos theory, and the beauty it generates from minimal – but certainly not absent – regulation. It governs the shapes of clouds and coastlines, the crags of mountains, and the branching patterns of trees, always by repeating a self-similar pattern over the entire span of the whole object. For clouds, the pattern is billowy puffs of water vapor; for coasts, it is the twists and turns of the border between ocean and land. You can also demonstrate the power of chaos theory by the generation of computer fractals, such as the famous Mandelbrot and Julia sets.

    The logic of chaos theory is rooted in the concept of imaginary numbers, whose basic unit is the square root of -1, also called i. The patterns of chaos theory, be they mountains or computer images, use multiples of the imaginary unit combined with multiples of ordinary numbers to trace their mesmerizing patterns. Most importantly, the end result need not be visual phenomena  – it could be how to determine the presence of hurricanes from the microscopic disturbances of a butterfly flapping its wings.

    Now more than ever, I am convinced that the application of chaos theory can unlock human prosperity itself, for human prosperity must be the function of local rules which manifest into global harmony. Modern libertarianism is the closest approximation, by no means a perfect one but more perfect than any other and the one most malleable to refinement, we have to a natural order which permeates deeper than any state ideology, rule of kings, or kingdoms of gods. It taps into a moral core woven directly into every mind pining to project its internal love to eternal, external grace. With a simple set of locally enforced rules, humans can achieve a delight of life heretofore unknowable by the opacity demanded by true faith.

    Attached are some examples of chaos theory in action. This chaos has nothing to do with the cataclysm of Islamic authoritarianism or Socialist collectivism or even Atheist irredentism, but rather are examples of pure beauty, featuring nobody in charge. Enjoy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakKfY5aHmY – A flock of birds forms a single unit which moves in harmony using minimal rules, all of which are ultimately rooted in mathematical arrangements. Do you see a head bird ruling over the rest of the birds to make this happen? Neither do I.

    (The left image is an example of a Mandelbrot set, while the right image features a Julia set background in red and yellow with a purple Sierpinski pyramid in purple. Both of these images are stills from a program called Milkdrop which generates visuals that react to music. My computer generated them, but I take no credit for programming the underlying math.)

    • Liz

      Andrew – great videos!  I agree with the idea of natural law being what rules us, rather than people or religions. I don’t understand what you mean about atheists being irredentists.

  • Don L

    Just got this link from a friend…What agreat cartoon from 1948. 
    http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

    • Ralph

      Very simple cartoon, but very true. Thanks for the link.

  • Don L
  • Don L

    The following article, penned sometime in the Reagan era, holds true for all times.  Here is a link to the library page on my site…scroll down to the book  “The Economics Of Liberty” for more articles including “The Scourge of Unionism”.

    here’s that article on minimum wage:

    Outlawing Jobs:The Minimum Wage, Once MoreMurray N. RothbardN. . RothbardThere is no clearer demonstration of the essential
    identity of the two political parties than their position
    on the minimum wage. The Democrats proposed to
    raise the legal minimum wage from $3.35 an hour, to
    which it had been raised by the Reagan administration
    during its allegedly free-market salad days in 1981. The
    Republican counter was to allow a “subminimum” wage
    for teenagers, who, as marginal workers, are the ones
    who are indeed hardest hit by any legal minimum.
    This stand was quickly modified by the Republicans
    in Congress, who proceeded to argue for a teenage
    subminimum that would last only a piddling 90 days,
    afterwhich the rate would rise to the higher Democratic
    minimum (of $4.55 an hour). It was left, ironicallyenough, for Senator Edward Kennedy to point out theludicrous economic effect of this proposal: to induceemployers to hire teenagers and then fire them after 89days, to rehire others the day after.Finally, and characteristically, George Bush got theRepublicans out of this hole by throwing in the towelaltogether, and pumping for a Democratic plan, period.We were left with the Democrats forthrightly proposing abig increase in the minimum wage, and the Republicans,after a series of illogical waffles, finally going along withthe program.In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimumwage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. Thelaw says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyoneto hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour.This means, plainly and simply, that a large number offree and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed andhence that there will be a large amount of unemployment.Remember that the minimum wage law providesno jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are theinevitable result.All demand curves are falling, and the demand forhiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibitemployment at any wage that is relevant to the market(a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have littleor no impact) must result in outlawing employment andhence causing unemployment.It was left, ironicallyenough, for Senator Edward Kennedy to point out the
    ludicrous economic effect of this proposal: to induce
    employers to hire teenagers and then fire them after 89
    days, to rehire others the day after.
    Finally, and characteristically, George Bush got the
    Republicans out of this hole by throwing in the towel
    altogether, and pumping for a Democratic plan, period.
    We were left with the Democrats forthrightly proposing a
    big increase in the minimum wage, and the Republicans,
    after a series of illogical waffles, finally going along with
    the program.
    In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum
    wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The
    law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone
    to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour.
    This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of
    free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and
    hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment.
    Remember that the minimum wage law provides
    no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are theinevitable result.All demand curves are falling, and the demand forhiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibitemployment at any wage that is relevant to the market(a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have littleor no impact) must result in outlawing employment andhence causing unemployment.it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are theinevitable result.
    All demand curves are falling, and the demand for
    hiring labor is no exception. Hence, laws that prohibit
    employment at any wage that is relevant to the market
    (a minimum wage of 10 cents an hour would have little
    or no impact) must result in outlawing employment and
    hence causing unemployment.If the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy,permanently. those who would have been hired at ratesin between these two rates. Since the demand curve forany sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is setby the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, thismeans that the people who will be disemployed anddevastated by this prohibition will be precisely the “marginal”(lowest wage) workers, e.g., blacks and teenagers,the very workers whom the advocates of the minimumwage are claiming to foster and protect.The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodicboosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimumwage rates do not and never have caused anyunemployment. The proper riposte is to raise them onebetter; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderfulanti-poverty measure, and can have no unemploymentraisingeffects, why are you such pikers? Why are youhelping the working poor by such piddling amounts?Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100?$1,000?the minimum wage is, in short, raised from $3.35to $4.55 an hour, the consequence is to disemploy,
    permanently. those who would have been hired at rates
    in between these two rates. Since the demand curve for
    any sort of labor (as for any factor of production) is set
    by the perceived marginal productivity of that labor, this
    means that the people who will be disemployed and
    devastated by this prohibition will be precisely the “marginal”
    (lowest wage) workers, e.g., blacks and teenagers,
    the very workers whom the advocates of the minimum
    wage are claiming to foster and protect.
    The advocates of the minimum wage and its periodic
    boosting reply that all this is scare talk and that minimum
    wage rates do not and never have caused any
    unemployment. The proper riposte is to raise them one
    better; all right, if the minimum wage is such a wonderful
    anti-poverty measure, and can have no unemploymentraising
    effects, why are you such pikers? Why are you
    helping the working poor by such piddling amounts?
    Why stop at $4.55 an hour? Why not $10 an hour? $100?
    $1,000?It is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do notpursue their own logic, because if they push it to suchheights, Virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed.In short, you can have as much unemploymentas you want, simply by pushing the legally minimumwage high enough.is obvious that the minimum wage advocates do notpursue their own logic, because if they push it to such
    heights, Virtually the entire labor force will be disemployed.
    In short, you can have as much unemployment
    as you want, simply by pushing the legally minimum
    wage high enough.It is conventional among economists to be polite, toassume that economic fallacy is solely the result ofintellectual error. But there are times when decorousnessis seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde oncewrote, “when speaking one’s mind becomes more than aduty; it becomes a positive pleasure.” For if proponentsof the higher minimum wage were simply wrong-headedpeople of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour,but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into thestratosphere.The fact is that they have always been shrewd enoughto stop their minimum wage demands at the point whereonly marginal workers are affected, and where there isno danger of disemploying, for example, white adult maleworkers with union seniority. When we see that the mostardent advocates of the minimum wage law have beenthe AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effects of the minimumwage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competitionof the marginal workers as against higher-wageworkers with union seniority, the true motivation of theagitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have beenthe AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effects of the minimumwage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competitionof the marginal workers as against higher-wageworkers with union seniority, the true motivation of theagitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.This is only one of a large number of cases where aseemingly purblind persistence in economic fallacy onlyserves as a mask for special privilege at the expense ofthose who are supposedly to be “helped.”In the current agitation, inflation-supposedlybrought to a halt by the Reagan administration-haseroded the impact of the last minimum wage hike in1981, reducing the real impact of the minimum wage by23%. Partially as a result, the unemployment rate hasfallen from 11% in 1982 to under six percent today.Possibly chagrined by this drop, the AFL-CIO and itsallies are pushing to rectify this condition, and to boostthe minimum wage rate by 34%.Once in a while, AFL-CIO economists and otherknowledgeable liberals will drop their mask of economicfallacy and candidly admit that their actions will causeunemployment; they then proceed to justify themselvesby claiming that it is more “dignified” for a worker to beon welfare than to work at a low wage. This of course, isthe doctrine of many people on welfare themselves. It istruly a strange concept of “dignity” that has been fosteredby the interlocking minimum wage-welfare system.Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerousworkers who still prefer to be producers ratherthan parasites the privilege of making their own freechoice.is conventional among economists to be polite, toassume that economic fallacy is solely the result of
    intellectual error. But there are times when decorousness
    is seriously misleading, or, as Oscar Wilde once
    wrote, “when speaking one’s mind becomes more than a
    duty; it becomes a positive pleasure.” For if proponents
    of the higher minimum wage were simply wrong-headed
    people of good will, they would not stop at $3 or $4 an hour,
    but indeed would pursue their dimwit logic into the
    stratosphere.
    The fact is that they have always been shrewd enough
    to stop their minimum wage demands at the point where
    only marginal workers are affected, and where there is
    no danger of disemploying, for example, white adult male
    workers with union seniority. When we see that the mostardent advocates of the minimum wage law have beenthe AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effects of the minimumwage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competitionof the marginal workers as against higher-wageworkers with union seniority, the true motivation of theagitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.
    ardent advocates of the minimum wage law have been
    the AFL-CIO, and that the concrete effects of the minimum
    wage laws has been to cripple the low-wage competition
    of the marginal workers as against higher-wage
    workers with union seniority, the true motivation of the
    agitation for the minimum wage becomes apparent.
    This is only one of a large number of cases where a
    seemingly purblind persistence in economic fallacy only
    serves as a mask for special privilege at the expense of
    those who are supposedly to be “helped.”
    In the current agitation, inflation-supposedly
    brought to a halt by the Reagan administration-has
    eroded the impact of the last minimum wage hike in
    1981, reducing the real impact of the minimum wage by
    23%. Partially as a result, the unemployment rate has
    fallen from 11% in 1982 to under six percent today.Possibly chagrined by this drop, the AFL-CIO and itsallies are pushing to rectify this condition, and to boostthe minimum wage rate by 34%.Once in a while, AFL-CIO economists and otherknowledgeable liberals will drop their mask of economicfallacy and candidly admit that their actions will causeunemployment; they then proceed to justify themselvesby claiming that it is more “dignified” for a worker to beon welfare than to work at a low wage. This of course, isthe doctrine of many people on welfare themselves. It istruly a strange concept of “dignity” that has been fosteredby the interlocking minimum wage-welfare system.Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerousworkers who still prefer to be producers ratherthan parasites the privilege of making their own freechoice.% in 1982 to under six percent today.Possibly chagrined by this drop, the AFL-CIO and its
    allies are pushing to rectify this condition, and to boost
    the minimum wage rate by 34%.
    Once in a while, AFL-CIO economists and other
    knowledgeable liberals will drop their mask of economic
    fallacy and candidly admit that their actions will cause
    unemployment; they then proceed to justify themselves
    by claiming that it is more “dignified” for a worker to be
    on welfare than to work at a low wage. This of course, is
    the doctrine of many people on welfare themselves. It istruly a strange concept of “dignity” that has been fosteredby the interlocking minimum wage-welfare system.Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerousworkers who still prefer to be producers ratherthan parasites the privilege of making their own freechoice.It istruly a strange concept of “dignity” that has been fosteredby the interlocking minimum wage-welfare system.Unfortunately, this system does not give those numerousworkers who still prefer to be producers ratherthan parasites the privilege of making their own freechoice.

    • George

      I will pass on your website to others .     Oh by the way Don , I voted strictly Republican ticket last election because I certainly didn’t want Obama in there.   I’m fed up and  dissapointed with the Libertarian Party . Who did we have in our corner ?  Bob Barr ?    During the last election it was obvious in the end that the winner was going to be between  Obama and Mccain ( even though I didn’t care much for Mccain , I voted for him to hopefully keep Obama out of there  ).  Many people say that currently voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the  Democrats and  Republicans own the spotlight. It wouldn’t be if we had massive support but the harsh reality is one of those two will be the one .   I had complaints  about Mccain but I had a thousand times more about Obama so I admittingly chose the lesser of the two evils.  I’m gonna try to inform various sources about your website and try to get more publicity for it .   Keep up the work  Don  , even though you were in the second best branch of military service  (NAVY ——–except for the SEALS )  —-  ha ha   ( just kidding ) .   Keep plugging away ————————-it’s an uphill battle !  Semper Fi !!!!!!!!

      • Don L

        Jarhead!

        What was I gunna type…senior moment.

        Oh..

        In a backdoor way…It was good Obama did get elected…It woke folks up.  McCain, who I voted for in the same manner as you…crap choice, would have kept everyone asleep and run us down the drain anyway…he is a progressive.

        Anyway…the election svered the relationship between myself and my olde brother.  No big deal…we have never gotten along since we were kids. 

        He is a hardcore progressive and still thinks Nobama is wonderful.  I can’t deal with it. 

        So..leatherneck…thanks for passing my site along and, at the risk of drawing your wrath, you go there yourself!  Crap, I see you fuming at the ears on that one!  LOL

        Later

        • George

          Actually he did indeed wake people up and I was agreeing with you ( as you say —tongue in cheek ) .   Because Obama did get elected people are now seeing what a mess he made and how dangerous the socialist agenda really is . It would have indeed been business as usual if Mccain had won . I thought your post was going to continue for two miles. No , I’m not fuming , just messing with ya , but it appears that  some good did come out of that guy getting in , because he “shocked”  people into a reality check. That was a joke ( read the parenthesis ——-look who needs a sense of humor ).  No wrath here —-go enjoy your Bar-B-Q  and save me a drumstick.  Oh and HIGH FIVE for the SEALS  !!!!!  

  • Harold

    I said fear it because the post above said : “Is it because many people fear it, and if so why?”  Maybe disagree would be better, but fear is probably correct because of the implications I have pointed out.  Open borders do not imply a lack of the rule of law -where did I say we should have no law?  Surely the libertarian view is that we should have no law that interferes with individuals and employers choice.   Immigration law does exactly that. 

    If you don’t like my definition, then please come up with one of your own.  What does a libertarian believe?  As a quick working idea, one “rule” of libertarians is surely that the Government should not prevent an employer from taking on who they want.  If the employer wants a Mexican for half the wages an American would take, and the Mexican is happy to work for that, then why should the Government step in?  What principle that is consistent with libertarianism allows such interference?

    It is no argument to say “we have a law preventing that” so therefore my argument is invalid.  There are laws enforcing the size of showerheads in new buildings that libertarians disgree with.  Saying we should not have such law does not imply we should have no law.  There are laws preventing the employment of Mexicans.  To say we should not have such a law does not imply we should have no laws.

    I can see that some border control is necessary, but to comply with libertarian principles, can someone explain why employers should not be able to offer work to anyone they want for whatever they accept, and if so why that should not include Mexicans?  We can still (attempt to) prevent unemployed Mexicans from crossing the border illegally, but should we aspire towards an open border, even if at poresent this is not possible?

    • George

      Harold that is pure bullcrap !  We should NOT have open borders at all.  That is the most assinine thing I have ever heard. We are a soverign nation and a nation of laws. The role of the government is to primarily protect it’s citizens.     A person who works for a company here in the USA has to either be a USA citizen and have a valid and legal social security number  or be a visiting member of another nation with a visa and permission from the USA via a work permit to be employed in this country.

                        We cannot just let anybody and everybody just walk into our country and start working without  permission from the USA as to their status .     If they are not citizens of the USA and did not get government permission to enter our country then they do not belong here.  We already have  many millions of illegal aliens in America now taking away american jobs and don’t hand me this crap about those are jobs that Americans refuse to do.   I hear  American citizens everywhere saying they will scrub toilets or dig ditches if they could get a job.   What BS !  
                             
               Already we have illegals from Mexico coming into America illegally and working at jobs that should be for legal American citizens.  We have gangs entering here from  Mexico,  illegals from Cuba , Haitii and some from  Canada.  The overwhelming bulk are coming from Mexico.    You ask me about if I care about YOUR definition of libertarian and ask me for my own.  First of all , I do not have to redefine what libertarian is ( and especially not to satisfy you , that’s for sure ). I certainly do not  have to account to you for anything.

                          We have drugs pouring into the country from Mexico across our borders, and even child prostitution rings and slavery rings as well working off their debts as pushed  by ruthless racketeers . There have been confirmed cases of terrorist cell members entering our country illegally via an open border and unguarded seaports.    We must protect our sovereignty and our borders .  Anyone desiring to enter the USA can do so by the legal process and apply legally . To allow our borders to be open and allow people to flood at will into our soverign nation is not only stupid, foolish , assinine, and ridiculous but is a clear and present danger to the safety of  Americans , our economy , our soverignty and violates what we stand for. We are a nation of laws and our laws should be respected and adhered to—–plain and simple.  This is not ROCKET SCIENCE    !!!!!!!!!!!

    • Don L

      Duh…It was my post that used the word fear…and, it was the word used in the article which I copied…I’ll be OK some time next week!

      • George

        Don ——-calm down man !   

    • Jillian Becker

      Harold – 

      Your idea of free migration and therefore more competition, so good for the consumer, would be fine and dandy if the country the migrants entered had no welfare, no “benefits”. But as things stand, illegal immigrants into the US become immediate recipients of benefits, paid for with the taxes other people have paid: free education for their children, free emergency hospital treatment, and a great many other aids to prosperity, less visible but enormously helpful, that a thriving economy provides and the corrupt system in their own countries does not and cannot. Of course, if their own countries could offer them better opportunities they wouldn’t need to migrate. Libertarians advocate liberty universally, and oppose welfare everywhere. That’s the libertarian ideal. It is not the reality.       

      • Don L

        Excellent point!!!

      • Harold

        I am not talking about illegal immigrants – I have acknowledged that some border controls may be consistent with libertarianism, at least for now.  However, I believe my point remains that libertarians in principle support free movement of people, and that even now employers should be able to employ people from abroad. 

        One other thing libertarians approve of in principle is  outsourcing to cheaper countries.  This has a similar effect as free movement, without any benefit complications.

        I have respect for the libertarian viewpoint, even though I don’t entirely agree with it.  It is consistent, and underpinned by sound logic and theory, based on some assumptions which I beleive are a bit simplistic.  However, lots of people calling themselves libertarian seem to have the view that liberty for themselves is a good thing, but not for others.  For example, “buy American” type of campaigns should be robustly fought against by Libertarians.  I am not sure, but I think that some calling themselves libertarian may actually support this type of campaign.  Everyone here please prove me wrong.

        • George

          Harold , I don’t know where you’re getting this outlook or perception but let’s examine this matter further.  I am a conservative libertarian. I listen to a national syndicated libertarian radio talk show host regularly and he wants nothing to do with this mass  outsourcing of our jobs and neither do I and he also wants our borders closed .  I have seen more outsourcing from big business tycoons  ( who are CONSERVATIVES ) by the way and who are greedy and want more profits and NAFTA has actually harmed us and gotten out of hand. Every libertarian I have spoken to ad heard speak is in agreement with my position on this so I have NO idea where you’re getting this  Harold. Also, every libertarian I have conversed with and heard in the media has spoken out against the “anchor babies ” where a woman 9 months pregnant and is about to give birth sneaks across our border ( usually from Mexico ) and gives birth in an American hospital. The the American born baby becomes immediatly an American citizen and the mother and her family is granted citizenship to coincide ith the newly American botn infant.   Hospitals are going broke bankrupt in California becasue the illegals get free hospital care at the expense of paying patients whose rates go up to cover the costs of the illegal aliens who are milking the system .   The Democrats  want the illegals coming in for their votes  ( because they will vote Democrat to get their free medical and living  services )  and the Republicans want the illegals coming in to exploit them for cheap labor to increase their business profits by paying “peanuts” in low wages.   I’m fully for capitalism , free enterprise , the right to do trade with other countries , etc , but you’re putting a stereotype spin on an entire group ( the libertarian group as a whole )  and that is a prejudicial position. 
                            For the sake of argument Harold ,  I  too even have complaints regarding libertarianism ( and I’m not a PURITAN ) in that regard .   I’ve even debated with fellow libertarians with certain issues.    I do not agree with all that is libertarian and I refuse to be a “puppet” even for them. I like Wayne  A. Root , but I have a few issues with him as well that I don’t agree with. You’re “painting the broad brush” on an entire group from your personal contacts, observations, and exposures and you’re lumping everyone into the “camp” of your personal observations and contacts .   And that’s where I will draw the line.  

  • Ralph

    The operative word here is “illegal”. Nations have the right to control their borders; just as individual has the right to post no trespassing signs.

    I have no problem with people entering the US legally to search for work. That does increase competition for work which may result in lower wages. It does not necessarily translate into lower prices or a better product.

    Back to the post. Governments should be created to serve the people. People are not created to serve the government. A simple concept that has been lost. We don’t need someone in charge. We need government officals who protect basic individual rights.

    • George

      Absolutely Ralph. That is correct.   Thanks for displaying common sense. You nailed it right on target ! 

    • George

      Ralph , I actually believe you are reading my mind because your words are actually the same as  I believe .  I cannot understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.  Only legal citizens of the USA have legal citizen rights here  . If people enter this country ILLEGALLY then they are indeed CRIMINALS  because they became a crimnal when they broke the law and illegally crossed our border  and violated our national sovereignty which is a federal crime ( and a felony ).  People who proclaim that this is not a problem actually have a hidden agenda which violates our laws and also threatens our national security , economy, and culture.

  • Don L

    Hi Liz,
     
    AZ, where I live is one of the largest agricultural states in the country: cotton, corn, watermelons, pumkins, all the melons, all the citrus, durum wheat, the largest grower of roses in the world and many more.  Lots of mexican laborers.  They are hard working, honest and put Americans to shame as to a work ethic.

    Then there are the other illegals…   And, how ’bout that born here you are one of us nonsense?
     
    Closing the border physically and knowing who is coming across is appropriate.  You are right, a valid immigration system is needed.  Libertarians extrapolate principles of free market capitalism into levels of  incompetence.  In today’s world…a literally open border may make economic sense but it is an invitation to unintentional suicide.

    Theoretically, however, the libertarian writings go as far as refusing to defend if attacked as the invader’s economic policies are soon to fail anyway.  I don’t know if Ron Paul leans that far, but he sees no threat from Iran.  Gulp!
     

    • George

      Currently as a libertarian conservative I am ticked off at the wimpy positions that some in the libertarian camp have posited.  This is why I say I am not 100%.     I have had debates from within  the group itself and this is why I do not like labels or “group think” positions . And you’re right IMHO  regarding Ron Paul.    Don  , you are absolutely right in your statement —-   ”  Closing the border physically and knowing who is coming across is appropriate ”      I’m really fed up with ALL the political parties and groups.  Just my opinion.

  • Don L

    The libertaerian authors, Ron Paul, Kel Kelley, Jeffrey Tucker and othere write about.  And, it is true that the competition would improve everyone’s lot.  And, I don’t see any conflict in securing the border physically and allowing the legal immigration/work visa system to work. 
     
    Gov’t interference is at the heart of all economic inequalities.  Someone posted a site which had some comments about not having ever met a stalinist.  Well, OK…no one seems to be running around saying they intend to starve millions of people and sentence millions more to siberia.  It doesn’t alter the fact that central planning will always lead to it because socialism sees humans as numbers not people.  And numbers that can be manipulated by force if need be to fit the plan.
     
     
    I’d also like to see the min wage law eliminated and every reg and law in support of unions repealed.  That is not to say workers can’t or don’t have a right to unionize…but not at the expense of the entrepreneur’s rights.
     
    Harold, do you think the word ‘afraid’ is too strong…I think disagree might be more appropriate. 

    • Don L

      Wow, It took many many hours,,,the cartoons I posted this AM finally showed up?

      • George

        The cartoon illustrates exactly what I have been saying for so long Don and I’m glad you posted it.  Our borders need to be closed and guarded ———  no exceptions !

    • George

      Hi Don.  I don’t like to see the ever increasing minimum wage laws in place because the more government gets involved and makes a mandate of employers to pay more and more in minimum wage , the more it hurts the workers as well because companies won’t hire but so many people if they have to pay out a higher than they can afford minimum wage mandated by government.   It hurts the company because they are losing in having more workers  and it hurts the workers because it will result in layoffs because the employers can only afford to hire and keep a very minimum number of employees.
                      The other argument is that people have to make a sustainable and resonable wage  ( and not slave wages )   . I don’t want to see people digging ditches at $2.00 per hour .  The jobs at burger joints or the like are actually entry level jobs and are not meant to be occupations for a living to raise a family or career path. By the same token we can’t force employers to pay more than they can afford of pay “peanuts” to people doing “backbreaking and dangerous ” work.   I have heard both sides of the argument and I understand both points of view and I have pondered on the matter extensively. I’m  currently still doing research on this delema and it’s an interesting insight regarding worker/entrepeneural interactions. I have a question for you , but I have to go dig up a stored file and get back with you.   Take care Don. 

      • Don L

        Hi George

        The article post was supposed to be a reply to your post…it went awry as its own comment and the article ran together…?

        Anyway, it hopefully addresses your interest.

        Later

        • George

          I’m passing on your website to others.

  • Liz

    The way you (Harold) define Libertarianism makes it seem incompatible with the rule of law – as if to have maximum freedom we should have no laws (such as an immigration law). That doesn’t even make any sense, and no one is advocating that, so your argument is invalid.

    • George

      My sentiments exactly Liz .

  • Harold

    What is libertarianism?  Wikipedia has: “a political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society”.  You may have a differrent definition, but for now I would like to work with this one.  The principle is that individual freedom will encourage competition, and this will result in the most economically efficient outcomes.  Government interference is a bad thing because it interfers with the market, and reduces efficiency.    The government is interfering with the market by excluding Mexicans.  Would employers employ Mexicans for lower wages if they were allowed?  If so, what right has the Government to interfere?  There is nothing in the definition of libertarinism that restricts individuals to a particular nationality.    If we open borders, then people who are in most need will accept lower wages.  This will reduce costs, and lower prices.  Everyone will benefit.  

    If you want to exclude Mexicans, what is your justification?  Libertarians respect individual freedom, why should this not include Mexicans?  Are they not individuals?  If the principles of libertarianism do not apply universally, why should we respect them at all?  They just become special pleading to protect privileged positions.

    You may think this is just argument for its own sake, but this absolutely gets to the heart of the argument.  I cannot see how you can proclaim libertarianism and closed borders without contradiction. 

    • George

      Harold , I don’t need you posting some mile long Wikipedia definition of what Libertarianism is.  I have read online internet definitions and various groups have their interpreted definitions that are NOT necessarily the true definitions.   Also , just becaue YOU can’t cant’t see how someone can call themselves libertarian is besides the point .  I personally couldn’t care less how YOU can’t see anything as far as I’m concerned. I am a libertarian and I am also a conservative and I want our borders closed and every libertarian  have corresponded with acknowledges the same and a major libertarian conservative radio talk show host holds the same poition. So there is NO contradiction. 

        No one is excluding Mexicans whatsoever . People should not enter into our nation illegally.  No one ( regardless of ethnicity has a right to cross our borders illegally. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with excluding Mexicans . If any Mexican wants to immigrate here to America , then let them go through the legal process like everyone else. Any person crossing our border illegally is indeed a CRIMINAL and has indeed violated our national sovereignty and such a person is not an IMMIGRANT but an ILLEGAL ALIEN and a criminal indeed.  They became a criminal the moment they stepped over our border from another country illegally without permission from the USA.

              What part of tis don’t YOU understand ?  Who do you think you’re fooling.   Also, Liz did NOT imply anything of the sort as well and I agree with her .  Cut the crap !   I am a libertarian and I am a conservative and I am for closeing our  borders and this has nothing to do with zenophobia . Period !

      • George

        Correction I meant to say ” xenophobia ”  on last line.  Typo.

    • Don L

      I can’t help thinking y’all been talking past each other.  Or, maybe not…

      You aren’t saying that, in today’s day and age, that we should not be verifying who and what is crossing the border…you’re saying that immigration laws which interfere with rights to contract are wrong…such as portions of immigration laws which are foisted by unions…Right?  If that’s the case…I think we are all in agreement.  Then…what the F  do I know?  LOL

      Later Harold

  • Harold

    Part of the reason people are afraid of libertarianism is because it implies free movement of people.  Imagine the efficiency gains when we remove border controls with Mexico.

    Many consevatives do not like this aspect of libertarianism.

    • Liz

      What makes you think removing border controls with Mexico would be a good thing?  You want to import more drugs, murder, and welfare parasites? 

      • George

        You’re absolutely right  Liz.   We need our borders closed NOW  !!!!

      • Harold

        I do not say it is necessarily a good thing.  I say that if you are a libertarian, you think it is a good thing.  If you think it is a bad thing, you are not a libertarian.

        “Competition forces people to become more efficient and to get rid of stupid rules. ”

        Allowing the Mexicans to come and work freely would increase competition and drive down prices.   You can’t be a libertarian, and at the same time seek to deny freedom to entire classes of people.

        • George

          Harold ,  I am a conservative and a libertarian and I have no intent to deny anyone anywhere of any freedom whatsoever nor any class of people any denial of freedom.  Whatever source that you’re getting this nonsense from , I would like to know because I and all the libertarians I have met and have heard, read about share my convictions and positions.  Apparrently someone or some group claiming to be libertarians have promoted an agenda contrary to true libertarianism but the definition orc alim that you posit is not indicative of what  believe.  I am not saying this to be in any sense argumentative ( which is probably what you enjoy —I don’t  know )  but to set the record straight on where I stand.  I have heard that same argument made regarding other parties and political positions.  Furthermore , who are YOU to tell Liz what she can’t be ?

    • George

      I consider myself a conservative libertarian ( but NOT 100% ). I also have problems and complaints with the Libertarian Party just as I have with ALL the other parties.  I have never met a libertarian who is for open borders.   In fact the libertarians  I hear  about , read about and have met strongly push to close our borders ( which is what I’m  all for ).   I have even met libertarians who do not all agree. I was for the Libertarian Party at first in the early 1990’s when Andrea  Maraeu was running for president and declared he was going to pass the Fair Tax . I agree that the so called war on drugs is a farce and has been a dismal failure but going to the opposite  EXTREME  is not  the answer.   There may be a few pundits who proclaim to be libertarian and have a pacifist attitude but the ones I have heard on talk radio, spoken to in person and personally read about have all supported a strong national defense and military , the closing of our borders , support of the Fair Tax , less government intervention in our personal lives , etc.  
                   I have yet to see any one party that delivers exactly 100%  of what I would consider that meets the true needs of the people in a totally rational and just perspective.  People debate and argue based on their own biased viewpoints and perceptions and NOT in the best interest of everyone in general.  And then of course you have the arrogant “know it all” individuals who always proclaim that THEY have all the answers and ONLY their way or concept of things is correct , who make ad hominem attacks upon people who do not agree with them and EVERYONE must agree with THEIR outlook on society , culture, and patriotic virtues.  This is what rational dialogue is all about ( an exchange of ideas to learn and improve and share concepts ).

      • Harold

        “I have never met a libertarian who is for open borders”  I suggest you have never met a true libertarian.  If you want liberty for yourself so you can get maximum benefits, but not for others, that is inconsistent, if understandable.

        • George

          Harold , just because YOU say I have never met a true libertarian doesn’t make it so. Your definitions and concepts of things doesn’t make you the definitive arbiter of truth.  You’re entitled to YOUR opinion, viewpoint and perception like everyone else  but  considering the fact that you do not hang out with me or have never met me indicates that you have no idea  whatsoever who or what I have met. So don’t even go there with me with that nonsense. Sometimes I actually believe that you post on here just for the sake of trying to sabotage the discussion forum.  You don’t know what or who I have been exposed to or what my knowledge level is and this arrogance of yours is getting tiresome. Plain and simple !

  • I always find it sad how few of the commenters have blogs. I use google reader http://reader.google.com and seek to add new and interesting blogs to my morning reading list. It was my hope that I would find new bloggers via the commenters on disqus. But over the six months of so I have used it, it seems over 90% of the comments are entered by anons without blogs themselves.

    Cheers!

    • Steve

      I find it sad that you seem to find it necessary to have a blog to be taken seriously as a commenter.

      Get off your throne.

      In addition, I think the link you posted is inadequate to explain why libertarian thought is as flawed as your comments suggest. I am, however, an anonymous commenter whose thoughts don’t really matter anyway.

      • George

        Thanks Steve ————————  I’m with you !

  • Don L

    Within the article, this question:

    “As liberty is most likely to bring prosperity, why are libertarians a political minority? Is it because many people fear it, and if so why?”

    It isn’t that anybody fears it. It is because those who would lose power have controlled the compulsory schooling system of America for over 100 years.  In the late 18th century, progressive thinkers understood that a socialist take over of America required, not a revolution, an evolutionary strategy.  The first target was the education of children.  Look at our universities today.  How do you think the progressives are doing?  Americans have been made unaware of things economic and history has been rewritten.

    In 1956, the Hungarian communist party described an evolutionary strategy for taking over a society and they named it the Salami Tactic.  The idea is that you take little slices and no one will notice the salami is gone until it is too late.  Obama’s election has a silver lining…he violated the Salami Tactic principle…he sliced off too much.  The Tea Party Movement was born.  The country is at a tipping point and had he not been elected, the unnoticeable slicing would have continued and the balance would have gone all the way socialist. Now there is an opportunity to turn it around.

    Libertarian, republican, democrat, green…these are political ideologies.  They are not economic schools of thought.  Today, Americans have no idea what free market capitalism is.  And, if you don’t know what it is…well, you aren’t likely to have it.  Profit (loss is never mentioned), capital, entrepreneur and other elements of free market capitalism have been made to be seen as anti-American. The article’s question is close to the mark.  Indeed, there can be no exercise of rights, unalienable or otherwise, without economic freedom.The question that must be asked is not about a political idea, but, rather, who, how, when and why did they get me to not care about my liberty or my money?

    The notion of parties was foreign to our Founders. I think I saw a commenter mention Ron Paul affecting the libertarian party. Worse, he affects the Austrian School of Economic Thinking.  Like Republicans and democrats, libertarians are all over the map.  Economic thinking is the element to freedom.  And only the Austrian school mirroprs the Founder’s vision.  Keynesian, Supply-Side, Monetarists, Public Choice and the myriad other schools are all central planning “gov’t knows best” socialistic theories.  They have all failed.  Austrian economics has been 100% correct for more than 100 years.  It is this school of thought that progressives in all parties are afraid of. 

    Until Americans make the time to learn what free market capitalism (FMC) actually is…Nothing will change.  Only Ron Paul understands FMC…however, his flavor of libertarianism (extreme pacifism) will likely get us all killed.  None of the other candidates believes in free markets…they are all central planners…the current favorite Cain is hardcore central planning…he was a chair of the Kansas Federal Reserve…This is in your face Socialism.

    My website offers a free 10-Pack of pamphlets and booklets (some bonus material).  It is GURANTEED:

    Upon completion of this small 10-Pack, unlikely as it may seem, you will have acquired an understanding of economics and the economy to surpass 99.99% of the elected officials, the business & news talking heads and the ‘leading’ experts & economists. Importantly, you’ll KNOW how to determine who deserves your vote toward restoring liberty & prosperity to America.

    If interested:  teapartyeconomics.com 

    If you don’t KNOW what Free Market Capitalism IS: you can be convinced it exists when it doesn’t, you can’t tell when it’s falsely blamed for adversity and “…consent of the governed” can be covertly made meaningless.  Incidentally, the economic sytem currently inplace in America is best described as Centrally-Planned Market Creditism…we’re broke, in debt…heck of a plan.

    Interesting quotes:

    To attempt to deduce “should” from “is”, is to fail.

    Socialism attempts economic equalization from the emotional “should”. Austrian

    free market economics accepts inequality because it “is”.

    Profit is a product of the mind, of an entrepreneur’s success in anticipating the future state of the market. It is a an intellectual

    phenomenon of evaluation and imagination.

    It is precisely the necessity of making profits and avoiding losses that gives to the consumers a firm hold over the entrepreneurs and

    forces them to comply with the wishes of the people.

    Profits and loss withdraw the material factors of production from the hands of the inefficient and convey them into the hands of the more

    efficient.

    There would not be any profits but for the eagerness of the public to acquire the merchandise offered for sale by the successful

    entrepreneur, but the same people who scramble for these articles vilify the businessman and call his profit ill-got.

    Thanks for allowing the ramblings!

    Don L

  • born again pagan

    “I swear by my life and love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man or ask another to live for mine”
    Really should be required reading…especially for the OWS atavists

    • Keith

      Is that from “the fountainhead” or “atlas shrugged”? I forget.
      great quote though

      • Jillian Becker

        Keith – 

        It’s John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged – I think. 

        Right, born again pagan? 

  • TyS

    Libertarianism is currently poisoned by the stigma that is Ron Paul

  • The good news is that libertarians are completely irrelevant. Not a single nation on earth uses a libertarian system.

    Cheers!

    • TyS

      Unlike Leftism, Libertarians don’t resort to violent coups to take over.

      • George

        Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Steve

      Why do you think it’s good news that, in your opinion, Libertarians are irrelevant? Like to be led around by the nose, do you?

      • Well, libertarianism is a failed view, so, it is good that it is not used. See; http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html

        Cheers!

        • Steve

          Interesting link you’ve posted. I have started to read it and will continue as it seems to make good sense in a lot of areas.

          Thanks.

        • George

          I originally became a libertarian primarily from  the political stance of supporting the fair tax and less government intervention of our personal lives. Currently I am very dissapointed in the Libertarian Party and the libertarian stance per se as a whole. I have NEVER claimed to be libertarian 100% and I have even argued with fellow libertarians .  I voted straight Republican ticket last election . I even voted for Mccain/Palin ( even though I thought they were the worst choices on the Republican ballot ) but I sure as heck didn’t want Obama in office.  I now consider the Libertarian Party as weak and wimpy and I now don’t see much interest in defending the group for their failure to stand up for the principles I represent on a widespread public perspective.  IMHO  , I actually see them as being a dismal failure and I am overwhelmingly disappointed at their lack of “backbone” .  Friends ask  me who do I curently support as a political candidate and I’m still undecided because  they’re all a**holes as far as I’m concerned  ( some just less or more than others ). I’m becoming more and more dissapointed with the whole corrupt political party process each day. Perhaps I’ll start my own party  ( not really , only kidding ).   Politics sucks !!!!!