PDA

View Full Version : The End of the Libertarian Dream?




CPUd
03-04-2017, 04:42 PM
The End of the Libertarian Dream?

Long on the fringes of American politics, small-government conservatives were closer than ever to mainstream acceptance. Then two things happened: Donald Trump and Jihadi John.

By TIM ALBERTA March/April 2017


Justin Amash can’t seem to concentrate. His eyes keep drifting toward the TV behind me, mounted on the wall inside his congressional office. The 36-year-old representative from Michigan, who arrived in Washington six years ago as a self-described libertarian Republican, is rattling off a list of concerns about the newly inaugurated president, but he is distracted by C-SPAN’s programming: Mick Mulvaney, his close friend and colleague from South Carolina—and a similarly libertarian-minded Republican—is getting grilled during his confirmation hearing to become director of the Office of Management and Budget. Arizona Senator John McCain had just finished his inquisition and was particularly harsh, scolding Mulvaney for voting to slash military spending and withdraw American troops from Europe and Afghanistan. It was a tense exchange, and Amash savored every moment of it. The ascent of Mulvaney to such a powerful position in the federal government, libertarians believe, proves that their ideology has invaded and influenced the Republican mainstream in a manner unimaginable a decade ago.

There is, however, a complicating factor: Mulvaney’s new boss is President Donald Trump.

In campaigning for the presidency, Trump frequently sang from the same hymnal as libertarian primary rival Senator Rand Paul, warning against regime change and nation-building abroad, decrying the allied invasions of Iraq and Libya (never mind that Trump initially supported both), and promising to disengage from a self-immolating Middle East while re-evaluating American involvement in NATO. The election of an ideologically unmoored reality-TV star was startling to many libertarians, but at least it suggested some progress in their struggle with the GOP’s interventionist wing. “The silver lining is that Trump proved you can win the Republican nomination, and the presidency, by criticizing neoconservative foreign policy,” says David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute.

“I think the McCain-Graham wing of the party is withering,” Amash tells me in his office, referring to South Carolina’s hawkish senator. “It was dominant 10 or 15 years ago on foreign policy matters and surveillance and other things. But today, it’s a rather weak force compared to a decade ago in D.C. And it’s almost nonexistent at home.”

And yet, Trump also pledged to oversee a massive military buildup. He threatened to “bomb the shit out of” the Islamic State; suggested killing the families of terrorists; expressed an interest in seizing Iraq’s sovereign oil; advocated the return of torture; and, in his inaugural address, declared he would eradicate Islamist terrorism “from the face of the Earth.” When I mention all this, Amash bursts out laughing. “Not exactly a libertarian philosophy,” I say. “No,” he shakes his head. “It’s not.”

There are areas, certainly, in which Trumpism and libertarianism will peacefully co-exist; school choice, as evidenced by Trump’s selection of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, is one example. Deregulation is another. But by and large, they cannot be reconciled. Where libertarians champion the flow of people and capital across international borders, Trump aims to slow, or even stop, both. Where libertarians advocate drug legalization and criminal justice reform, Trump and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, seek a return to law-and-order policies. Where libertarians push to protect the First and Fourth Amendments, Trump pushes back with threats of banning Muslims and expanding the surveillance state. And where Mulvaney has dedicated his career to the argument that dramatic fiscal measures are needed to prevent the United States from going bankrupt, Trump campaigned unambiguously on accumulating debt, increasing spending and not laying a finger on the entitlement programs that make up an ever-growing share of the federal budget.

Sooner or later, something has to give. “Mick knows the numbers. And he’s going to get to, at some point, a soul-testing moment,” Mark Sanford, his fellow South Carolina representative and a self-identified, lifelong libertarian, tells me. “Do I go with, you know, what Donald is saying? Or do I go with what I know to be mathematic reality?”

This disconnect captures the sense of uncertainty and conflict that libertarians—whether they are Republicans, Democrats or adherents of the eponymous third party—feel in the age of Trump. After generations of being relegated to the periphery of American politics, they are seeing some of their most precious ideals accepted and advocated for at the highest levels of government. But in many policy areas, there has never been a president who poses a greater threat to what they hold dear—one who is poised, potentially, to reorient the GOP electorate toward a strong, active, centralized and protectionist federal government. The Trump presidency, then, is shaping up to be a defining moment for the libertarian movement.

But it won’t come down to intraparty disputes over marijuana, or sentencing reform, or government data collection. Rather, the viability of libertarianism—for the next four or eight years, and potentially much longer—will be determined to an overwhelming extent by the relative stability of international affairs and the level of security Americans feel as a result.

Not long ago, libertarians were having their long-awaited moment, with Rand Paul—supposedly the candidate who could rebrand their once-fringe ideology for a new generation of Americans—gracing magazine covers and converting Republicans to a philosophy of laissez-faire at home and restraint abroad. But the reason he isn’t president today, his allies say, owes equally to the rise of Trump and that of another disruptive phenomenon.

“Two people were Senator Paul’s undoing in the presidential race,” Chip Englander, his campaign manager, tells me. “Donald Trump and Jihadi John.”

Libertarians call it “the Giuliani moment.” It was May 15, 2007, and the former New York mayor stood across from Ron Paul on a debate stage in Columbia, South Carolina. They had nothing in common—personalities and ideologies aside, Rudy Giuliani was comfortably leading the GOP presidential field, while Paul was polling in the low single digits—but they would soon produce an inflection point in the party’s modern history, one that triggered a decade of unprecedented progress for libertarians.

As a panel of Fox News moderators mocked his opposition to the Iraq War, Paul argued that American intervention in the Middle East was “a major contributing factor” to the September 11 attacks. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” he asked. “They attack us because we’ve been over there.” Giuliani, whose candidacy arose from his heroic handling of 9/11, pounced, calling it “an extraordinary statement” and asking Paul to withdraw it. The crowd roared with approval, but Paul didn’t budge. “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback,” he responded.

...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/libertarian-politics-success-failure-donald-trump-era-214847

angelatc
03-04-2017, 04:45 PM
Justin Amash can’t seem to concentrate. His eyes keep drifting toward the TV behind me, mounted on the wall inside his congressional office

That means you're a low energy bore.

enhanced_deficit
03-04-2017, 04:58 PM
It would depend on who is asking the question... but in some cases , answer is yes.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XQl4cBX4reI/WCLQjj39HtI/AAAAAAABk4w/VUE7zpJnYLgm6Jx9emMWpbqFMIBlXZrHACLcB/s1600/hillary%2Bclinton%2Bsupporters%2Bcrying%2Bmeme.jpg

MallsRGood
03-04-2017, 04:59 PM
Excellent article


The more important fight will take place on Capitol Hill. With the vast majority of Republicans already capitulating to Trump, libertarian-minded lawmakers are positioned as the most vocal bloc of intraparty opposition. Ron Paul was a lonely voice of dissent in Bush’s GOP, and benefited politically when the party faithful eventually came around to some of his arguments. Today, there’s a much larger contingent in the Congress oriented toward libertarianism—Amash, Sanford, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and others in the House; Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the Senate—and it has already shown a willingness to tangle with Trump where others in the party have passed. The aggressiveness with which libertarians check Trump’s overreach, at home and abroad, will correlate with the movement’s credibility, and popularity, if Republican voters turn against the president’s policies.


But what if they don’t? Knowing the Libertarian Party just nominated its most experienced presidential ticket ever and won just 3 percent nationally, the grave fear among libertarians is that Trump’s actions will represent the very worst of his campaign promises—intervening militarily, adding to the debt, abandoning trade, restricting civil liberties—and that the GOP electorate will love him for it.


“If the Republican Party becomes thoroughly Trumpist,” Boaz says, “there’s not much room for libertarians.”

That pretty much sums it up.

If Trump becomes unpopular, and libertarians are his big critics within the party, great opportunities await us in 4 to 8 years.

...much as for Ron after the Bush years.

But if Trump remains popular and/or libertarians give up and join him, we're done for the foreseeable future.

Suzanimal
03-04-2017, 05:00 PM
http://i.imgur.com/QgK79hkm.png

CPUd
03-04-2017, 05:41 PM
Excellent article



That pretty much sums it up.

If Trump becomes unpopular, and libertarians are his big critics within the party, great opportunities await us in 4 to 8 years.

...much as for Ron after the Bush years.

But if Trump remains popular and/or libertarians give up and join him, we're done for the foreseeable future.

He is right about Mulvaney, and if he breaks with President Donald, it will happen sooner rather than later.

MallsRGood
03-04-2017, 06:04 PM
He is right about Mulvaney, and if he breaks with President Donald, it will happen sooner rather than later.

Yea, Trumpster's losing his mojo quickly.

I see a totally different landscape by fall.

Matt Collins
03-05-2017, 05:34 PM
In a "where do we go from here" article on the Ron Paul liberty movement, Politico just added this gem:



Tony Fabrizio, the Paul campaign’s pollster, says. “With all respect to Rand … I think he wanted to prove he and his father were different. And that created natural tensions. By trying to please both sides, he wound up pleasing neither.”


The entire article is a pretty thought provoking read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/libertarian-politics-success-failure-donald-trump-era-214847

klamath
03-05-2017, 05:52 PM
Rand tried to bring the country together, but the country wanted to drive the divide even farther. They wanted to tear each others throats out and that is exactly what they are doing now. All that's left is the popcorn.

RonZeplin
03-05-2017, 06:14 PM
VP candidate in 2020?

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/93d7856/2147483647/resize/1003x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fa4%2Fa9%2F 8f9f245c4c69916d9429a48da03a%2Fresize-alberta-spot3-byrexfeaturesap.jpg

dannno
03-05-2017, 06:19 PM
Rand tried to bring the country together, but the country wanted to drive the divide even farther. They wanted to tear each others throats out and that is exactly what they are doing now. All that's left is the popcorn.

That was more thought provoking than anything in the politico article.

anaconda
03-05-2017, 07:00 PM
Rand tried to bring the country together, but the country wanted to drive the divide even farther. They wanted to tear each others throats out and that is exactly what they are doing now. All that's left is the popcorn.

Good analysis. I do wonder from time to time if Rand knew that fanning the flames of the right would prevail in the general election, might he have made any changes. I hope he is proud of the approach he took, however. Had Rand won the Presidency, the shadow government would probably have been even more ruthless than they have been with Trump. I'm glad he's in the Senate, for the time being.

eleganz
03-06-2017, 03:45 AM
Lol here we go again.

Rand was considered top tier in polling before Trump arrived to the scene and took up all the attention. Rand had his anti-establishment messaging, he was supposed to be the "fuck you vote" until the even bigger "fuck you vote" came along.

Tony Fabrizio isn't saying what any normal f'ing person that follows Rand doesn't know. No matter what Rand did, he wouldn't be able to please the entire libertarian block because a small portion of the movement already had their minds made up about him.

The most ridiculous thing was when supporters and critics were blaming Rand for not being more like Trump because what Trump was doing was working. Nobody was Trump and nobody was going to be Trump, period.

RonPaulMall
03-06-2017, 10:43 AM
The most ridiculous thing was when supporters and critics were blaming Rand for not being more like Trump because what Trump was doing was working. Nobody was Trump and nobody was going to be Trump, period.

Trump never would have even gotten off the ground if Rand had run a good campaign. The whole "America First" platform was just sitting there for anybody to pick up. Nobody did, so Trump came in and ran with it. Rand is a guy who doesn't even believe in birthright citizenship, but voters didn't even hear about it until Trump brought it up first and that was after Rand had already convinced most GOP voters he was pro-amnesty with his wishy washy rhetoric.

CaptUSA
03-06-2017, 11:13 AM
Trump never would have even gotten off the ground if Rand had run a good campaign. The whole "America First" platform was just sitting there for anybody to pick up. Nobody did, so Trump came in and ran with it. Rand is a guy who doesn't even believe in birthright citizenship, but voters didn't even hear about it until Trump brought it up first and that was after Rand had already convinced most GOP voters he was pro-amnesty with his wishy washy rhetoric.

Lol - I know you don't believe this!

Trump was lifted off the ground by a media that wanted a show. It had NOTHING to do with policies. Klamath had it right in post #2. Rand was (is) trying to find serious ways to fix the country's problems. Nobody wanted seriousness. They still don't. They want to be entertained. And part of that entertainment is rooting for one team and chastising another.

Seraphim
03-06-2017, 01:13 PM
VP candidate in 2020?

http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/93d7856/2147483647/resize/1003x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fa4%2Fa9%2F 8f9f245c4c69916d9429a48da03a%2Fresize-alberta-spot3-byrexfeaturesap.jpg

I said this a while back. If Trump pulls through on half of his platform he's getting a second term and Rand will have real shot to be President in 2024.

asurfaholic
03-06-2017, 01:39 PM
Rip America.

anaconda
03-06-2017, 07:11 PM
Rip America.

We might as well split into two countries. How would this happen theoretically? Without violence.

NewRightLibertarian
03-06-2017, 08:40 PM
Duh. Imagine if Rand had hired Bannon back when he was rising in like 2011-2012? Talk about wasted potential. So heartbreaking

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
03-06-2017, 09:49 PM
Rand was accused of being mean to women "reporters", so he went on the Megyn Kelly show and apologized. Kelly accused Trump of being mean to women so he told Kelly to go fukk herself. People like a fighter.

Also, in that same (first) debate, Rand in the first 90 seconds started ranting about how Trump wasn't a "real Republican." He squandered his father's outsider branding and positioned himself as a party hack.

That's why Trump beat Rand.

Matt Collins
03-06-2017, 11:16 PM
Trump never would have even gotten off the ground if Rand had run a good campaign.That's not true. No one was able to beat Trump because not only was the enviroment ready for Trump, but no one was willing to say and do what Trump did in order to win.

That being said, even if Rand had actually run a good campaign (he didn't) he wouldn't have beaten Trump. However, there is no excuse for doing as lousy as he did in Iowa.

Matt Collins
03-06-2017, 11:17 PM
No matter what Rand did, he wouldn't be able to please the entire libertarian block because a small portion of the movement already had their minds made up about him.Actually, if Rand had handled things differently from the beginning, such as the Romney endorsement, then most of Ron's people would have stuck with him. He did worse than Ron did in Iowa '08, which is really inexcusable.

eleganz
03-07-2017, 06:08 AM
Trump never would have even gotten off the ground if Rand had run a good campaign. The whole "America First" platform was just sitting there for anybody to pick up. Nobody did, so Trump came in and ran with it. Rand is a guy who doesn't even believe in birthright citizenship, but voters didn't even hear about it until Trump brought it up first and that was after Rand had already convinced most GOP voters he was pro-amnesty with his wishy washy rhetoric.

This is completely delusional.

If only Rand ran a good campaign? The only good campaign is the one that wins.

eleganz
03-07-2017, 06:10 AM
Actually, if Rand had handled things differently from the beginning, such as the Romney endorsement, then most of Ron's people would have stuck with him. He did worse than Ron did in Iowa '08, which is really inexcusable.


Equally inexcusable for someone with your supposed experience to compare the political climates of different presidential election cycles.

Working Poor
03-07-2017, 07:17 AM
I said this a while back. If Trump pulls through on half of his platform he's getting a second term and Rand will have real shot to be President in 2024.
After Trump it will be a democrat that gets elected.

Brian4Liberty
03-07-2017, 10:12 AM
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/libertarian-politics-success-failure-donald-trump-era-214847


In a "where do we go from here" article on the Ron Paul liberty movement, Politico just added this gem:

The entire article is a pretty thought provoking read:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/libertarian-politics-success-failure-donald-trump-era-214847

They did a story like this about Sanford a few weeks ago. Another article by Politico featuring lamentations of libertarian politicians. Divide and conquer.

Matt Collins
03-07-2017, 09:57 PM
This is completely delusional.

If only Rand ran a good campaign? The only good campaign is the one that wins.Yes, but "winning" doesnt always acheive electoral victory. Ron Paul won, but he didn't get elected. Rand's Presidential campaign did neither.

Matt Collins
03-07-2017, 09:59 PM
Equally inexcusable for someone with your supposed experience to compare the political climates of different presidential election cycles.You must have a reading comprehension problem. I never wrote that Rand was able to have won the nomination.

MallsRGood
03-07-2017, 10:14 PM
Equally inexcusable for someone with your supposed experience to compare the political climates of different presidential election cycles.

Indeed, Trump didn't beat Rand.

ISIS and Mexicans did.

If the election had been held in 2014, President Paul would be entering his second year.

Likewise, in any other cycle, one not dominated by ultra-nationalism, Trump would've been laughed out of the room.


VP candidate in 2020?

Not if Trump's the POTUS candidate

Matt Collins
03-07-2017, 11:30 PM
Indeed, Trump didn't beat Rand.

ISIS and Mexicans did.

If the election had been held in 2014, President Paul would be entering his second year.
LOL, you really believe that? :rolleyes:

fr33
03-07-2017, 11:40 PM
We might as well split into two countries. How would this happen theoretically? Without violence.
It would have to be at least 3 different countries. Probably more. I look forward to it.

MallsRGood
03-08-2017, 12:39 PM
LOL, you really believe that? :rolleyes:

Yes I do.

Look at the polls c. 2014 (Rand was leading them).

...The GOP was moving rapidly toward Rand on foreign policy.

...Snowden had just made the police-state very unpopular.

...The immigration issue was still dormant.

Rand was "the most interesting man in politics."

Perfect opportunity (except there was no Presidential election that year to win).

Ender
03-08-2017, 12:48 PM
Lol - I know you don't believe this!

Trump was lifted off the ground by a media that wanted a show. It had NOTHING to do with policies. Klamath had it right in post #2. Rand was (is) trying to find serious ways to fix the country's problems. Nobody wanted seriousness. They still don't. They want to be entertained. And part of that entertainment is rooting for one team and chastising another.

Yep.

KrokHead
03-08-2017, 09:21 PM
http://i.imgur.com/QgK79hkm.png

Thank you, down but not out!

AuH20
03-08-2017, 09:29 PM
Yes I do.

Look at the polls c. 2014 (Rand was leading them).

...The GOP was moving rapidly toward Rand on foreign policy.

...Snowden had just made the police-state very unpopular.

...The immigration issue was still dormant.

Rand was "the most interesting man in politics."

Perfect opportunity (except there was no Presidential election that year to win).

Rand was too milquetoast to make a dent. I don't think he's too keen on human psychology.

MallsRGood
03-08-2017, 09:33 PM
Rand was too milquetoast to make a dent. I don't think he's too keen on human psychology.

Good thing you voted for Trump then, huh?

:rolleyes:

Do you feel like you're winning and/or yuge yet?

AuH20
03-08-2017, 09:36 PM
Good thing you voted for Trump then, huh?

:rolleyes:

Do you feel like you're winning and/or yuge yet?

Yes, Trump was the right choice due to all the incredible maneuvering behind the scenes that's arrived with his coronation. Regardless of what he does, he's likely to provoke a reaction from the hidden ones.

nikcers
03-08-2017, 09:41 PM
Yes I do.

Look at the polls c. 2014 (Rand was leading them).

...The GOP was moving rapidly toward Rand on foreign policy.

...Snowden had just made the police-state very unpopular.

...The immigration issue was still dormant.

Rand was "the most interesting man in politics."

Perfect opportunity (except there was no Presidential election that year to win).

8 years of Obamacare meant lower class people got the stick. Most of those people had their hours cut and replaced by Hispanics that will come to work for a 3 hour shift and speak more languages. Those are the people who gave us Trump, and I don't blame anyone but democrat policies. Trump probably helped get Obamacare passed which is the ironic part.

MallsRGood
03-08-2017, 09:46 PM
8 years of Obamacare meant lower class people got the stick. Most of those people had their hours cut and replaced by Hispanics that will come to work for a 3 hour shift and speak more languages. Those are the people who gave us Trump, and I don't blame anyone but democrat policies. Trump probably helped get Obamacare passed which is the ironic part.

An important point

Anti-immigrant hysteria wouldn't have gained any traction in a better economy.

nikcers
03-08-2017, 09:50 PM
An important point

Anti-immigrant hysteria wouldn't have gained any traction in a better economy.
unemployments gone down though!! under 30 hours a month wherever I look for mcjobs, before Obamacare you could not stay hired if you worked less then 50 hours a month in a lot of jobs.

MallsRGood
03-08-2017, 09:55 PM
Comparisons to the 30s are easy to make..

God help us if we have another crisis and the bottom really falls out.

nikcers
03-08-2017, 10:10 PM
Comparisons to the 30s are easy to make..

God help us if we have another crisis and the bottom really falls out. Rand Paul called it in 2012 : https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=42m15s "they would vote for Mitt Romney if he said he would be reluctant for war or wanted to audit the fed" (https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=42m2s)

Lets hope his next prediction doesn't happen, or hasn't happened.
https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=45m45s "2008 on steroids" it has happened, we have destroyed currencies and out of that you get something bad.

Krugminator2
03-08-2017, 10:55 PM
Lets hope his next prediction doesn't happen, or hasn't happened.
https://youtu.be/D9goWokTORY?t=45m45s "2008 on steroids" it has happened, we have destroyed currencies and out of that you get something bad.

Rand and especially Ron are hopeless on anything to do with macroeconomics. They are going to be predicting a currency crisis until the end of time. Doom and gloom predictions are good for donations. Not so good as a representation of reality.

nikcers
03-08-2017, 10:57 PM
Rand and especially Ron are hopeless on anything to do with macroeconomics. They are going to be predicting a currency crisis until the end of time. Doom and gloom predictions are good for donations. Not so good as a representation of reality. NO if you listend Rand said that in an economic crisis people will elect "the next Hitler". I was just explaining how the "silent majority" elected Trump in because of democratic policies. You could say Trump isn't the next Hitler though, but I am hoping that he isn't at least.

AuH20
03-08-2017, 11:05 PM
Rand and especially Ron are hopeless on anything to do with macroeconomics. They are going to be predicting a currency crisis until the end of time. Doom and gloom predictions are good for donations. Not so good as a representation of reality.

Especially with the collusion of the various central banks, which can stem off unforeseen disruptions.

BSWPaulsen
03-08-2017, 11:33 PM
An important point

Anti-immigrant hysteria wouldn't have gained any traction in a better economy.

Ahahahahaha.

Too funny.

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 12:58 AM
Ahahahahaha.

Too funny.

You disagree?

nikcers
03-09-2017, 01:38 AM
Especially with the collusion of the various central banks, which can stem off unforeseen disruptions. Financial MAD doesn't work in the age of bit coin and gold, unless they make it illegal to own bitcoins or gold. If they do that then maybe, just maybe. they can print money forever. /s

nikcers
03-09-2017, 01:44 AM
You disagree?
I think race had very little if anything to do with it. If anything the biggest determining factor was Trump's constant promotion on every form of media constantly 24 hours a day. For a while the media was colluding with the DNC with a "pied piper" strategy. If any other candidate had that much air time you would need more time in the day.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 11:03 AM
You disagree?

It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned.

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

AuH20
03-09-2017, 11:10 AM
It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned.

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

There would be no anti-immigration fervor if they weren't being granted predatory privileges by the state. immigrants as a whole are treated better than U.S. veterans who voluntarily agreed to a contract of service with the USG.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 11:18 AM
There would be no anti-immigration fervor if they weren't being granted predatory privileges by the state.

The stock answer from AuH20? I am genuinely surprised to see it from you. I guess someone had to trot out this old, tired non-answer. Maybe you're just playing along for the sake of conversation.

The state exacerbates it with the welfare state. But to believe it wouldn't exist absent the state is nonsense. The state's meddling is not the cause of anti-immigrant fervor and never will be. It existed before states and it will exist after states.

History has amply demonstrated that humans are territorial. Attempts by outside groups to displace a population by en masse movement typically produces the discontent one expects. No state is required for humans to be both territorial and discontent when their territory is encroached upon.

Why do you think libertarianism places great emphasis upon property rights? Territorialism.

AuH20
03-09-2017, 11:25 AM
The stock answer from AuH20? I am genuinely surprised to see it from you. I guess someone had to trot out this old, tired non-answer. Maybe you're just playing along for the sake of conversation.

The state exacerbates it with the welfare state. But to believe it wouldn't exist absent the state is nonsense. The state's meddling is not the cause of anti-immigrant fervor and never will be. It existed before states and it will exist after states.

History has amply demonstrated that humans are territorial. Attempts by outside groups to displace a population by en masse movement typically produces the discontent one expects. No state is required for humans to be both territorial and discontent when their territory is encroached upon.

Why do you think libertarianism places great emphasis upon property rights? Territorialism.

A certain segment of the population will always distrust others, but the recent flouting of the law along with other material benefits has really juxtaposed the state's preference for the immigrant population over the nativeborn. Citizens are subject to surveillance and intense legal scrutiny, while the noble immigrant can break numerous 'common sense' laws without even a fine. Driving while drunk and without insurance? Not a problem for the nongringo since he is a member of the protected class.

I'm not even an advocate for the state to whimsically dole out privileges to whatever focus group, but even the layman can start to connect the dots on this act of lunacy.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 11:39 AM
A certain segment of the population will always distrust others, but the recent flouting of the law and other material benefits has really juxtaposed the state's preference for the immigrant population over the nativeborn. Citizens are subject to surveillance and intense legal scrutiny, while the noble immigrant can break numerous laws without even a fine. Driving while drunk and without insurance? Not a problem for the nongringo.

About the only thing all members of this site have in common is agreement the government's policies, as of today, exacerbate anti-immigrant fervor. Chiefly through the welfare system.

But believing that the state of the economy, or the state, is the cause of anti-immigrant fervor? No. If the government treated immigrants less favorably than they do now that anti-immigrant fervor would still exist. Discontent with immigrants will always be highest in the populations most affected by large numbers of immigrants.

Individuals have varying reasons for their anti-immigrant attitudes, and boiling it down to "distrust of others" is a false conclusion. Territorialism works much better in all cases. My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job. Typically all anti-immigrant arguments boil down to some version of one of those categories, if not a combination thereof. All of it amounts to my territory, conceptually.

Son_of_Liberty90
03-09-2017, 11:44 AM
It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned.

The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

It also doesnt help in places like France and Sweden where immigrants dont want to integrate into swedish culture and shut themselves off in their own enclaves of society encouraged by the government breeding more hostility and division

Son_of_Liberty90
03-09-2017, 11:47 AM
About the only thing all members of this site have in common is agreement the government's policies, as of today, exacerbate anti-immigrant fervor. Chiefly through the welfare system.

But believing that the state of the economy, or the state, is the cause of anti-immigrant fervor? No. If the government treated immigrants less favorably than they do now that anti-immigrant fervor would still exist. Discontent with immigrants will always be highest in the populations most affected by large numbers of immigrants.

Individuals have varying reasons for their anti-immigrant attitudes, and boiling it down to "distrust of others" is a false conclusion. Territorialism works much better in all cases. My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job. Typically all anti-immigrant arguments boil down to some version of one of those categories, if not a combination thereof. All of it amounts to my territory, conceptually.

Nationalism has varying degrees. What you're describing sounds like hard ethno-nationalism. On the other hand there are levels of nationalism that would say if the immigrant integrates into X,Y,Z culture and value system, the nativist/nationalist would welcome them/her. The problem arises in cases where the immigrant not only refuses to integrate but pushes their value system onto the culture, like muslims pushing for Sharia law in Europe.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 12:06 PM
Nationalism has varying degrees. What you're describing sounds like hard ethno-nationalism. On the other hand there are levels of nationalism that would say if the immigrant integrates into X,Y,Z culture and value system, the nativist/nationalist would welcome them/her. The problem arises in cases where the immigrant not only refuses to integrate but pushes their value system onto the culture, like muslims pushing for Sharia law in Europe.

No. What I'm describing is any country with an existing population that has certain cultural mores, expectations, and so on having a significant influx of others that do not share those distinctions.

Hell, we can even do this in the USA. Take any sparsely populated western state and introduce a large number of Californians. Same country, often separated by less than 200 miles, and yet the people couldn't be more different. What they want from government, culture, and so on are very different.

In public I've made the joke (a few times, here in Arizona) that the wall shouldn't be with Mexico, it should be with California. Instead of laughter it gets a lot of agreement. At this point it is less a joke and more an observation with some degree of merit.

In order to avoid strife and discontent, to have a harmonious society, integration is critical. Ethnicity matters much less than a shared belief in ideals like those found in the 2nd amendment. What Europe has going on in suicidal, but it's not my problem.

undergroundrr
03-09-2017, 12:50 PM
Good article. Yes, people are taking their eyes off the ball. trump was given unprecedented free media coverage. He was depicted as the ultimate outsider even though everything about his past belied it.

As far as the general public, a disconcerting number of them equate what he's doing with super-capitalist laissez-faire. As far as they're concerned, he is a libertarian president. That's even true among some here.

I'm extremely pessimistic about libertarianism as a political force. I think trump's election has set back the prospect of a significantly libertarian President by 20 years, as though Ron never happened.

I have more hope for congress and local politics. The statistics for YAL in the article are encouraging.

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 12:56 PM
Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him?

Of course it does.

Scenario A: Bob loses his job, quickly finds another one as good or better.

Scenario B: Bob loses his job and cannot find another one, or can only find a worse one.

...in which scenario is Bob angrier?


Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord!

Yes, we libertarians are opposed to subsidizing inefficient producers at the expense of the rest of society.


It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration.

And standing tall among those reasons is discontent with the state of the economy, which can be readily blamed on immigrants.


Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them

Correct


The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.

Yes, if those in positions of power wish to violate immigrants' rights, they can do so.

Alternately, if those in positions of power wish ignore the nationalist rabble and pursue free immigration regardless, they can do that.

Might doesn't make right, but it determines whether or not reality accords with what is right.

juleswin
03-09-2017, 01:11 PM
Lol here we go again.

Rand was considered top tier in polling before Trump arrived to the scene and took up all the attention. Rand had his anti-establishment messaging, he was supposed to be the "$#@! you vote" until the even bigger "$#@! you vote" came along.

Tony Fabrizio isn't saying what any normal f'ing person that follows Rand doesn't know. No matter what Rand did, he wouldn't be able to please the entire libertarian block because a small portion of the movement already had their minds made up about him.

The most ridiculous thing was when supporters and critics were blaming Rand for not being more like Trump because what Trump was doing was working. Nobody was Trump and nobody was going to be Trump, period.

Thank you very much for saying this. Rand could have done the exact thing Trump did or customized Trumps style to fit him and he would have still not get the nomination. These people in power are selected or the media and TPTB get the people into voting for the right candidates.

You cannot believe how frustrated I was listening to Tom Woods are so called allies make the same silly points like Paul just needed to act like an incestuous, horny, flip flopping, loud mouth for the press and voter to cover and vote for him respectively.

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 02:20 PM
My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job.

BSWPaulsen, where have you been? Excellent, incisive posts! Thank you; I enjoyed them.

"This land is your land..." = Socialist hymn (written by a socialist)

"This land is my land, period, not yours" = Individualist attitude

As Ayn Rand said in Anthem, the sacred word is not "We" but "I" (OK, "Ego").

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 02:24 PM
You cannot believe how frustrated I was listening to Tom Woods and our so-called allies make the same silly points, like Paul just needed to act like an incestuous, horny, flip flopping, loud mouth for the press and voter to cover and vote for him respectively.

Tom Woods did not say this. Tom Woods simply said Rand should have been more bold and less PC. More willing to turn over apple carts. More, in short, like Tom Woods.

And that certainly would have been lovely!

But in the end, eleganz has it right: Nobody was Trump and nobody was going to be Trump. Period.

undergroundrr
03-09-2017, 03:14 PM
Why would anybody want anybody to be anything other than who they genuinely are?

It's just depraved, with somebody we are promoting to hold reins of power, to insist that they delude the populace.

Rand isn't a nihilistic boor and he couldn't convincingly play that role for 10 seconds straight if he wanted to.

merkelstan
03-09-2017, 03:20 PM
rand has a place in the universe for occassionally trying to do good things

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 03:42 PM
Of course it does.

Scenario A: Bob loses his job, quickly finds another one as good or better.

Scenario B: Bob loses his job and cannot find another one, or can only find a worse one.

...in which scenario is Bob angrier?

In which scenario does Bob end up liking immigrants?

Neither.

Good God man, you cannot be so daft as to honestly believe either scenario makes Bob appreciable of the "other" taking his job. He could find a better job and he still won't like the man that took what was his.



Yes, if those in positions of power wish to violate immigrants' rights, they can do so.

Rights violated without recourse are not rights. At no point in mankind's past, present, or future will rights ever have any meaning whatsoever absent the force to sustain them. Those in positions of power must be held to account, at the point of a lance if necessary, in order for those subject to power to have rights.

As for the parts of your post I didn't quote? What's the point in arguing those fine points that see libertarianism condemned to irrelevancy? If you cannot win over the disaffected, the people that fuel real change, then you have no future.

Trump won over the disaffected. He knew their usefulness. People like you call them economically inefficient and happily invite foreigners, whom are presumably more efficient, to replace them. You tell them that if the economy were good, they wouldn't even care that they were replaced.

... And then you'll scream about your rights as a noose is placed around your neck. Your pleas that you were championing human rights, their human rights, will fall on deaf ears.

Tragic stuff. I wonder if there are any classical plays treating this dichotomy.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 03:52 PM
BSWPaulsen, where have you been? Excellent, incisive posts! Thank you; I enjoyed them.

"This land is your land..." = Socialist hymn (written by a socialist)

"This land is my land, period, not yours" = Individualist attitude

As Ayn Rand said in Anthem, the sacred word is not "We" but "I" (OK, "Ego").

I typically lurk the forums, happily reading the posts of you, tod evans, Anti Federalist, and osan. If I see the last post in any thread is by any of you four it is worth reading.

(My apologies to those I am forgetting, there are others whom have given me pleasurable reading overs the years too!)

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 04:11 PM
In which scenario does Bob end up liking immigrants?

Neither, but he ends up disliking them a lot more in the scenario where economic conditions are worse.


Rights violated without recourse are not rights. At no point in mankind's past, present, or future will rights ever have any meaning whatsoever absent the force to sustain them. Those in positions of power must be held to account, at the point of a lance if necessary, in order for those subject to power to have rights.

Two possible interpretations of what you're saying:

A. People actually enjoy only those rights which they can enforce (or which someone else can enforce on their behalf).

B. People should enjoy only those rights which they can enforce (or which someone else can enforce on their behalf).

A is obviously true, and I've said nothing to the contrary.

B is the abnegation of ethics altogether, "whatever is is good."

Now, assuming you're only saying A, I suppose your argument is that, by not supporting Trump's nationalistic leftism, we libertarians are somehow dooming ourselves to irrelevance; that if we don't endorse the violation of the rights of immigrants, we won't be able to effectively defend other rights which we value. But this makes no sense, considering that these people you think we ought to ally with don't respect any of those other rights either.

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 04:15 PM
Rand isn't a nihilistic boor and he couldn't convincingly play that role for 10 seconds straight if he wanted to.

Not PC =/= nihilistic boor. Tom Woods is an extremely intelligent, engaging, brilliant, and often confrontational man, who does not shy away from being controversial. In short: he's a real man.

Does Rand have it in him to be like that? You bet he does. Read some of his old letters to the editor from his youthful years. For that matter, listen to his victory speech when he won the Senate seat. That speech is the Rand everybody loved. Conservatives loved that speech. They did. My own mother did. The Rand on FIRE!!

That's what people wanted, were dying for. A wrecking ball. One man applied for the job.

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 04:19 PM
I typically lurk the forums, happily reading the posts of you, tod evans, Anti Federalist, and osan. If I see the last post in any thread is by any of you four it is worth reading.

(My apologies to those I am forgetting, there are others whom have given me pleasurable reading overs the years too!)

Aww! :o

Thanks. That made my day.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 04:49 PM
Neither, but he ends up disliking them a lot more in the scenario where economic conditions are worse.

You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it.



A. People actually enjoy only those rights which they can enforce (or which someone else can enforce on their behalf).

Of course.



Now, assuming you're only saying A, I suppose your argument is that, by not supporting Trump's nationalistic leftism, we libertarians are somehow dooming ourselves to irrelevance; that if we don't endorse the violation of the rights of immigrants, we won't be able to effectively defend other rights which we value. But this makes no sense, considering that these people you think we ought to ally with don't respect any of those other rights either.

I've taken the Machiavellian approach on this. If a principle should aid the enemy, then it must be suspended until such a point that it no longer does.

As it is, the progressive/statist/authoritarian clowns in the Democratic party benefit more from open borders policies than anyone else. With the expansion of their power base the relevancy of libertarians is further diminished. If uncontrolled immigration brought about a more libertarian society I would absolutely agitate for it. If we had a dominantly libertarian society at this moment, then it could be considered.

But it doesn't. There is a good reason the Democrats would love nothing more than "immigration reform". They know it is a potent tool for giving them power. They'll even tell you so. Open borders libertarians are given the choice of being useful idiots, or violating their principles. I would much rather violate my principles than be the tool of my own destruction. Many think there must be a third path on this issue, but they're only fence sitters trying to avoid choosing between two bad decisions. When you are not in power you rarely get decisions in your favor, and so it has been with libertarianism.

And make no mistake, some of the allies in the anti-immigration camp are questionable at best. However, questionable though they may be, they are useful in maximizing what power libertarians have now and unlike the progressives, a dialogue with them isn't impossible because there is something in common with them for now. Persuasion is not possible when two sides are diametrically opposed.

undergroundrr
03-09-2017, 04:57 PM
You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it.

Socialist fervor happens regardless too and is no more deserving of support.

An anti-immigrationist has a right to his property and absolute control over what does or doesn't trespass on it. He doesn't have the right to use proxy force to keep "other" types of persons he finds objectionable out of line-of-sight, line-of-hearing or line-of-smell when they're not on his property. It's never going to be proper for him to demand government assistance to build a public property "moat" to keep them away.

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 04:59 PM
You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it.

Tribalism is a permanent human characteristic, yes, and economic problems make it worse.


I've taken the Machiavellian approach on this. If a principle should aid the enemy, then it must be suspended until such a point that it no longer does.

I'm a pragmatist as well, but free immigration doesn't aid the enemy.


As it is, the progressive/statist/authoritarian clowns in the Democratic party benefit more from open borders policies than anyone else. With the expansion of their power base the relevancy of libertarians is further diminished. If uncontrolled immigration brought about a more libertarian society I would absolutely agitate for it. If we had a dominantly libertarian society at this moment, then it could be considered.

But it doesn't. There is a good reason the Democrats would love nothing more than "immigration reform". They know it is a potent tool for giving them power. They'll even tell you so. Libertarians are given the choice of being useful idiots, or violating their principles. I would much rather violate my principles than be the tool of my own destruction. Many think there is a third path on this issue, but they're only fence sitter trying to avoid choosing between two bad decisions.

And make no mistake, some of the allies in the anti-immigrant camp are questionable at best. However, questionable though they may be, they are useful in maximizing what power libertarians have now and unlike the progressives, a dialogue with them isn't impossible because there is at least some similarity. Persuasion is not possible when two sides are diametrically opposed.

There is very little difference, from a libertarian perspective, between the average GOPer and the average Dem. The average native voting GOP and the average immigrant voting Dem are both enemies. This is especially true of the more vociferously anti-immigrant GOPers, who tend to be the most statist in general. Take Trump as a paradigm case: he is both the most anti-immigrant and the most anti-market GOP POTUS ever. If I had to choose between a competitive GOP run by Trumpians and a minority party GOP run by more conservative elements, I'd choose the latter.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 05:13 PM
Tribalism is a permanent human characteristic, yes, and economic problems make it worse.

There you go. Was it so hard to concede anti-immigrant fervor exists regardless of economic problems?



I'm a pragmatist as well, but free immigration doesn't aid the enemy.

You can propose hypothetical circumstances where free immigration does not aid the enemy. Like a state without a welfare system.

This isn't that situation. On average Democratic voters are added with each additional immigrant. This is no surprise, because it's hard to convince people not to vote for free shit. There's a good reason Clinton won the popular vote; Americans love free shit. Finding out foreigners do too surprises precisely no one, but adding more people to the free shit army is bad politics.



There is no meaningful difference, from a libertarian perspective, between the average GOPer and the average Dem.

The average native voting GOP is just as much an enemy as the average immigrant voting Dem.

Republicans are bad, but they at least have a place in their party for libertarians. Republicans are the blind squirrel that occasionally finds a nut. The democrats take your nuts. And the average immigrant (and, lest we forget, American!) votes for the party that takes your nuts. More nut takers need not apply.

The only hope for libertarians lies in ideologically subverting the Republican party in its entirety. That is something at least possible, and worth working towards... But make no mistake, a conflict with the Democrats would still be on the horizon. Should the Democrats gain supremacy, then libertarians are screwed altogether. Progressives have no use for freedom.

undergroundrr
03-09-2017, 05:21 PM
On average Democratic voters are added with each additional immigrant... Republicans are bad, but they at least have a place in their party for libertarians.

Ah, the old "they're voting for socialism."

Republicans are ALWAYS for more war and less welfare. Democrats are ALWAYS for more welfare and less war.

Republicans end up giving us more welfare anyway.

Democrats end up giving us more war anyway.

There's no advantage to voting for one over the other.

I won't speak for all the other ethnicities, but Hispanics hate taxes more than Americans, value hard work more than Americans, are less likely to take welfare than Americans and identify libertarian as often as Americans by the second generation. We owe it to ourselves to come to terms with this brand of differentness.

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 05:30 PM
Republicans are ALWAYS for more war and less welfare. Democrats are ALWAYS for more welfare and less war.False.

Hispanics hate taxes more than Americans False (but pretty hard to prove either way)

value hard work more than Americans False (but again hard to prove)

are less likely to take welfare than AmericansVery False (very easy to prove)

and identify libertarian as often as Americans by the second generation.Also false.

I wish there was more interesting to say, but... that one word sums it up!

PierzStyx
03-09-2017, 05:42 PM
Libertarians call it “the Giuliani moment.” It was May 15, 2007, and the former New York mayor stood across from Ron Paul on a debate stage in Columbia, South Carolina. They had nothing in common—personalities and ideologies aside, Rudy Giuliani was comfortably leading the GOP presidential field, while Paul was polling in the low single digits—but they would soon produce an inflection point in the party’s modern history, one that triggered a decade of unprecedented progress for libertarians.

As a panel of Fox News moderators mocked his opposition to the Iraq War, Paul argued that American intervention in the Middle East was “a major contributing factor” to the September 11 attacks. “Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us?” he asked. “They attack us because we’ve been over there.” Giuliani, whose candidacy arose from his heroic handling of 9/11, pounced, calling it “an extraordinary statement” and asking Paul to withdraw it. The crowd roared with approval, but Paul didn’t budge. “I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback,” he responded.


I didn't know about Ron in 2008. But I came across this clip on YouTube in 2011 and it lit a fire under me. Everything since has came out of this. And I will always repect Dr. Paul for it.

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 05:43 PM
Socialist fervor happens regardless too and is no more deserving of support.

An anti-immigrationist has a right to his property and absolute control over what does or doesn't trespass on it. He doesn't have the right to use proxy force to keep "other" types of persons he finds objectionable out of line-of-sight, line-of-hearing or line-of-smell when they're not on his property. It's never going to be proper for him to demand government assistance to build a public property "moat" to keep them away.


Ah, the old "they're voting for socialism."

Republicans are ALWAYS for more war and less welfare. Democrats are ALWAYS for more welfare and less war.

Republicans end up giving us more welfare anyway.

Democrats end up giving us more war anyway.

There's no advantage to voting for one over the other.

I won't speak for all the other ethnicities, but Hispanics hate taxes more than Americans, value hard work more than Americans, are less likely to take welfare than Americans and identify libertarian as often as Americans by the second generation. We owe it to ourselves to come to terms with this brand of differentness.

Sigh.

Look, undergroundrr, between the giant, misguided red herring in your first attempt to reply to me, and you regurgitating points I have roundly dismissed previously I wasn't going to bother, but maybe me repeating the point will sink in this time.

Even if we assumed all you wrote is true about immigrants (and it most assuredly is not, but I will concede just for the sake of argument), then the fact the majority of them are voting Democrat means open borders policies are suicidal for libertarians. If you think the fact 12% of them identifying as libertarians is a win for libertarianism, then you are hopeless. Now, if you want to discuss with me a way to control immigration so that the 12% becomes 100%, then that is a discussion worth having.

There is nothing hazy about this. Open borders libertarians have two choices: be useful idiots for the Democrats, or violate their principles in order to maximize their political power. In no way, shape, or form, will the current circumstances permit uncontrolled immigration to increase the power and influence of libertarians.

undergroundrr
03-09-2017, 06:02 PM
False.
Wake up.


False (but pretty hard to prove either way)

https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/eekins/2014_07/30_beyondrace.jpg?h=376&w=375


False (but again hard to prove)
Hispanics, more so than the general public, believe in the efficacy of hard work. Three-in-four (75%) Hispanics say most people can get ahead if they work hard. By contrast, just 58% of the general public say the same. (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-their-views-of-identity/)


Very False (very easy to prove)

https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor



Also false.

I wish there was more interesting to say, but... that one word sums it up!

https://fee.org/articles/hispanics-are-just-as-libertarian-as-other-americans/
https://panampost.com/editor/2016/08/18/latinos-twice-likely-support-libertarian-candidates/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/08/hispanic-libertarians
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelburger/2014/09/08/the-surprising-rise-of-the-hispanic-millennial-libertarian-n1887818

PierzStyx
03-09-2017, 06:06 PM
Response sin bold.




Even if we assumed all you wrote is true about immigrants (and it most assuredly is not, but I will concede just for the sake of argument), then the fact the majority of them are voting Democrat means open borders policies are suicidal for libertarians. If you think the fact 12% of them identifying as libertarians is a win for libertarianism, then you are hopeless. Now, if you want to discuss with me a way to control immigration so that the 12% becomes 100%, then that is a discussion worth having.

The fact that you think that if all immigrants voted for Republicans then it would somehow be better for libertarians is both adorable and deeply saddening at the same time.

And like most nationalists you miss the entire point of why immigrants vote Democrats. When the Republicans elect a violent nationalist like Donald Trump willing to violently attack and violate almost every right you have and run people like Ben Carson who talked about drone bombing people while they crossed the border, then you end up voting for Democrats out of mere survival instinct. The greatest, and most idiotic, problem with the Republican Party is its constant failures to tap into the Hispanic immigrant culture, a culture that is heavily religious, anti-abortion, family oriented, and often anti-gay marriage.

And the fact that you want to use violence to dominate how other people live act and think to grant you a political majority just demonstrates that you aren't a libertarian.

There is nothing hazy about this. Open borders libertarians have two choices: be useful idiots for the Democrats, or violate their principles in order to maximize their political power. In no way, shape, or form, will the current circumstances permit uncontrolled immigration to increase the power and influence of libertarians.

If you define libertarian as "a proponent of large government and violent regulation of people in violation of the free market and basic human rights of liberty and property" then you are certainly correct.

But last I checked that wasn't a libertarian. That sounds more like Progressivism to me, which of course is all nationalism is.

Open borders are the only free market and libertarian solution. Free markets, free will, and free men. Nothing less will suffice.

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 06:07 PM
There you go. Was it so hard to concede anti-immigrant fervor exists regardless of economic problems?

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


Republicans are bad, but they at least have a place in their party for libertarians.

Yes, but the larger the Trumpian faction becomes within the GOP, the less space there is for libertarians.

It's suicidal for libertarians not to oppose this trend.

The growth of the GOP helps us not at all if in the course of growing it loses what little remains of its small government ethos.

PierzStyx
03-09-2017, 06:08 PM
Wake up.



https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/eekins/2014_07/30_beyondrace.jpg?h=376&w=375


Hispanics, more so than the general public, believe in the efficacy of hard work. Three-in-four (75%) Hispanics say most people can get ahead if they work hard. By contrast, just 58% of the general public say the same. (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/when-labels-dont-fit-hispanics-and-their-views-of-identity/)



https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor



https://fee.org/articles/hispanics-are-just-as-libertarian-as-other-americans/
https://panampost.com/editor/2016/08/18/latinos-twice-likely-support-libertarian-candidates/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/08/hispanic-libertarians
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachelburger/2014/09/08/the-surprising-rise-of-the-hispanic-millennial-libertarian-n1887818



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

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 06:19 PM
Excellent effort, not that Helmuth will actually listen to reason and pay attention to things like evidence and proof.

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

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

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

Let's not be partisan brickheads!

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 06:24 PM
Response sin bold.

Trump and Carson are the reasons immigrants vote Democrat?

Ahahahahahahaha.

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

Ahahahahahahaha.

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



If you define libertarian as "a proponent of large government and violent regulation of people in violation of the free market and basic human rights of liberty and property" then you are certainly correct.

But last I checked that wasn't a libertarian. That sounds more like Progressivism to me, which of course is all nationalism is.

Open borders are the only free market and libertarian solution. Free markets, free will, and free men. Nothing less will suffice.

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

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 06:37 PM
I never claimed that economic problems were the only cause of anti-immigrant hysteria.

Then you were grossly exaggerating the importance of economic problems.



Yes, but the larger the Trumpian faction becomes within the GOP, the less space there is for libertarians.

It's suicidal for libertarians not to oppose this trend.

The growth of the GOP helps us not at all if in the course of growing it loses what little remains of its small government ethos.

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

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

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

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 06:43 PM
The libertarian battle for the soul of the of the Republican party is a continuous effort, and it must be waged for the sake of libertarian political power.

Agreed


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

Certainly


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

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


Actions that benefit them are bad.

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

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 06:50 PM
Sure, but promoting nativism is not one of those areas.

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



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

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

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 06:52 PM
Nativism can be turned against when it is no longer useful.

It's not useful now.


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

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

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 07:01 PM
It's not useful now.

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



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

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

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

Krugminator2
03-09-2017, 07:01 PM
Noted Communist Ludwig von Mises talked about immigration in Liberalism. He completely rejected the protectionist economic arguments against immigration but was very sympathetic to the problems of assimilation. And he believed free immigration was problematic in a country that didn't have laissez faire capitalism. https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/html/p/45


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

MallsRGood
03-09-2017, 07:11 PM
BSWPaulsen

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

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

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

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

undergroundrr
03-09-2017, 07:18 PM
I could make a mirror-image post with a study or graph for every one of his, to show the opposite. I'd even format it the same! Why, it would be irrefutable! Right? At least as irrefutable as undergroundrr's.

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


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

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


Let's not be partisan brickheads!

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

BSWPaulsen
03-09-2017, 07:24 PM
BSWPaulsen

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

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


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

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

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

helmuth_hubener
03-09-2017, 09:54 PM
I was certain you wouldn't click on any of those links, so they're actually dummy url's that go absolutely nowhere or to data that says exactly the opposite of my assertions.
:confused: What are you playing at? Has your brain broke, or has mine? Your behavior is baffling.


So you also agree that voting Republican is in no way better than voting Democrat? Why should I care if it is or isn't? Furthermore, if it does not matter, as you assert, why do you care so much if I agree with you regarding it? It doesn't matter! As a note: I meant partisan in a much older and broader sense.