Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Immigration - Stefan Molyneux

[otherone]

Yes. We need more of the threads about hating America, the Constitution, our Founding Fathers and wanting the country to fall. Because those are great for the forum.

"Willkommen nach Amerika, Genosse."

[Tywysog Cymru]

That seems to be a heritable trait among white nationalists. One wonders how they expect to expand their ranks.

I guess polyandry will become necessary in the white nationalist community.

I heard that Stormfront has a dating site, I wonder what the male-female ratio is.

[AmericanSpartan]

I guess polyandry will become necessary in the white nationalist community.

I heard that Stormfront has a dating site, I wonder what the male-female ratio is.

So all you have is name calling and calling others "racists". Classic cuck tactic.

[thoughtomator]

I'm against the State bringing over refugees simply on account of the theft and redistribution of wealth required to facilitate this. But I'm also against the State initiating violence to prevent people who are, at their own expense, peacefully travelling across an imaginary land border that the State has claimed an illegitimate property right to.

The problem is not the people peacefully coming here, but the ones doing so who come to kill, steal, and engage in other crimes. And there are a LOT of them.

Open borders advocates have no solution to this problem.

[AmericanSpartan]

The problem is not the people peacefully coming here, but the ones doing so who come to kill, steal, and engage in other crimes. And there are a LOT of them.

Open borders advocates have no solution to this problem.

Or those that vote for statist/tyranny.

[Cabal]

The problem is not the people peacefully coming here, but the ones doing so who come to kill, steal, and engage in other crimes. And there are a LOT of them.

Open borders advocates have no solution to this problem.

This suggests that closed borders advocates have a solution to this problem, which thus implies that you actually (and inexplicably) believe the State to not only be some kind of benevolent protector, but also effective and capable at the job of protection, and also seems to suggest you believe the State has a particular interest in protecting you or any other mundane. Needless to say that's simply a laughable position on all counts that fails on multiple levels including theory, history, and consistency.

The State is not a benevolent protector, it is the supreme oppressor and aggressor.

The State is not effective and capable, it is inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.

The State does not have any particular interest in protecting mundanes or their rights, it has a particular interest in protecting itself and its ecosystem of special interests.

Further still, this argument you're invoking here is so... just bad. It's the same type of [statist] argument that has been used to rationalize and justify all manner of State violation of rights and liberties--from gun ownership, to the war on drugs, to privacy, and so on. (e.g. "Well what about the criminals who want to hurt people! We have to stop them from getting their hands on guns! We need stricter 'gun control' legislation and regulation! BAN GUNS! State, SAVE US!!!").

“We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its subjects by asking: which category of crimes does the State pursue and punish most intensely—those against private citizens or those against itself?

The gravest crimes in the State’s lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax.

Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State’s openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d’etre.”

And never mind the fact that many of these such people (who account for a marginal minority of the persons actually crossing the border) are ultimately a consequence of of other State policies to begin with (e.g. interventionism, nation building, war on drugs, etc.). But by all means, entrust the State to really care about you, and protect you, and provide 'solutions' to problems it has created. I mean, when has it ever let you down before? What could possibly go wrong?

[AmericanSpartan]

This suggests that closed borders advocates have a solution to this problem, which thus implies that you actually (and inexplicably) believe the State to not only be some kind of benevolent protector, but also effective and capable at the job of protection, and also seems to suggest you believe the State has a particular interest in protecting you or any other mundane. Needless to say that's simply a laughable position on all counts that fails on multiple levels including theory, history, and consistency.

The State is not a benevolent protector, it is the supreme oppressor and aggressor.

The State is not effective and capable, it is inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.

The State does not have any particular interest in protecting mundanes or their rights, it has a particular interest in protecting itself and its ecosystem of special interests.

Further still, this argument you're invoking here is so... just bad. It's the same type of [statist] argument that has been used to rationalize and justify all manner of State violation of rights and liberties--from gun ownership, to the war on drugs, to privacy, and so on. (e.g. "Well what about the criminals who want to hurt people! We have to stop them from getting their hands on guns! We need stricter 'gun control' legislation and regulation! BAN GUNS! State, SAVE US!!!").



And never mind the fact that many of these such people (who account for a marginal minority of the persons actually crossing the border) are ultimately a consequence of of other State policies to begin with (e.g. interventionism, nation building, war on drugs, etc.). But by all means, entrust the State to really care about you, and protect you, and provide 'solutions' to problems it has created. I mean, when has it ever let you down before? What could possibly go wrong?

So why do you support allowing more people into this nation that will support or even demand that the goverment be more corrupt/tyrannical?

[Danke]

That was excellent.

[AmericanSpartan]

That was excellent.

It is flawless

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[thoughtomator]

This suggests that closed borders advocates have a solution to this problem, which thus implies that you actually (and inexplicably) believe the State to not only be some kind of benevolent protector, but also effective and capable at the job of protection, and also seems to suggest you believe the State has a particular interest in protecting you or any other mundane. Needless to say that's simply a laughable position on all counts that fails on multiple levels including theory, history, and consistency.

The State is not a benevolent protector, it is the supreme oppressor and aggressor.

The State is not effective and capable, it is inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.

The State does not have any particular interest in protecting mundanes or their rights, it has a particular interest in protecting itself and its ecosystem of special interests.

Further still, this argument you're invoking here is so... just bad. It's the same type of [statist] argument that has been used to rationalize and justify all manner of State violation of rights and liberties--from gun ownership, to the war on drugs, to privacy, and so on. (e.g. "Well what about the criminals who want to hurt people! We have to stop them from getting their hands on guns! We need stricter 'gun control' legislation and regulation! BAN GUNS! State, SAVE US!!!").



And never mind the fact that many of these such people (who account for a marginal minority of the persons actually crossing the border) are ultimately a consequence of of other State policies to begin with (e.g. interventionism, nation building, war on drugs, etc.). But by all means, entrust the State to really care about you, and protect you, and provide 'solutions' to problems it has created. I mean, when has it ever let you down before? What could possibly go wrong?

And yet, that "laughable position" is the very genesis of our nation. Give the Declaration of Independence a read - were the authors naive and/or Statists?

[r3volution 3.0]

The problem is not the people peacefully coming here, but the ones doing so who come to kill, steal, and engage in other crimes. And there are a LOT of them.

Open borders advocates have no solution to this problem.

Sure we do, it's called the criminal justice system.

The methods for suppressing crime are the same, regardless of where the criminal happened to have been born.

[ProIndividual]

The anti-immigration argument for libertarians amounts to "we need to use coercion of immigration restrictions in the otherwise free labor market in order to deal with the symptoms of the coercion used in the welfare state."

That's not radical (it does not go to the root of the problem). The root of the problem is the disease of the welfare state, not the symptom of it.

So, let's apply this reasoning consistently, shall we?

We need minimum wage laws to deal with the symptom (diminished standards of living) created by over-regulation and crony capitalism.

We need a drug war to deal with the symptom (drug abuse and the diminished productivity and healthcare costs) created by bad parenting and childhood trauma and socialized healthcare via the state.

We need occupational licensing to deal with the symptom (unaccountable tradesman) created by state-granted limits on full tort liability.

We need NSA spying to deal with the symptom (terrorist threats) created by state interventionism and occupations overseas that piss people off and make them want to en masse kill us.

Need I go on?

Reformists and the logically inconsistent support treating symptoms of coercion with more coercion to mitigate those symptoms instead of just attacking the root cause; the disease of the original coercion that causes the issue. Radicals go to the root of the problem (and no, "radical" is not a synonym for "extremist" - the latter is a pejorative term for the former, usually applied to those who use radical beliefs based on invalid premises, like a religion, to fanatically attack civilians to make them too afraid to stand up against their horribly premised ideas).

It's like saying I purposefully gave you AIDS, and instead of stopping me from giving more people AIDS by arresting me or whatever, you suggest the cure is to give you more AIDS to cure the AIDS I gave you to begin with. The problem is coercion initiated against non-victimizers....you don't cure that disease by using more coercion against non-victimizers...you remove the original coercion, logically, to fix the problem.

You can also say the AIDS metaphor holds even if I did cure the AIDS I gave you...I'm no hero for curing you, I'm a villain who gave it to you to begin with. Coercion is not a hero for curing symptoms of a problem it originally created. You haven't solved the actual problem, merely counteracted it temporarily.

Further, as I pointed out, if you were entirely consistent in your logic about "no open borders in a welfare state", then you wouldn't be a libertarian or in any way a liberty advocate, at all...you'd support minimum wage, the drug war, occupational licensing, and NSA spying. But you choose to apply this line of thought selectively, showing it isn't a principled position, but some arbitrary degree you're willing to draw a line on. It's anti-philosophical, and the antithesis of libertarianism. Stefan is wrong...and it pains me to see him be so inconsistent with his logic when he is so great on so many other subjects. He has done more videos in defense on Trump than he ever did about Ron Paul. That should tell you something, especially when Ron was far more libertarian and Trump is calling for fascist and neo-Mercantilist policies like deportation of millions of a minority group, registration of a mostly peaceful minority religious group, tariffs, etc.

[Danke]

"Willkommen nach Amerika, Genosse."

Those West Berlin Germans were better dressers back then.

[ProIndividual]

And yet, that "laughable position" is the very genesis of our nation. Give the Declaration of Independence a read - were the authors naive and/or Statists?

Of course they were naive statists...did you not notice the Constitution failed to constrain the state and legalized one existing (the former being a naive belief that it could ever restrain a govt, and the latter being belief in the legitimacy of the state, i.e. statism)?

But, to be fair, they instituted no immigration restrictions. The first one was put in place over racism in the 1880s. The Page Act before this in 1875 was about keeping out criminals (good), prostitutes (bad), and forced laborers (good). But this one below was the first immigration restriction libertarians would have a major issue with:

1882 Chinese Exclusion Act

Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
The Act was "a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China]." [2]

The Founders weren't in favor, largely, of immigration restrictions, as they believed in free markets. The exceptions are there, but few...most notably Franklin's hatred of "swarthy-skinned" Germans in Pennsylvania.

[heavenlyboy34]

The anti-immigration argument for libertarians amounts to "we need to use coercion of immigration restrictions in the otherwise free labor market in order to deal with the symptoms of the coercion used in the welfare state."

That's not radical (it does not go to the root of the problem). The root of the problem is the disease of the welfare state, not the symptom of it.

So, let's apply this reasoning consistently, shall we?

We need minimum wage laws to deal with the symptom (diminished standards of living) created by over-regulation and crony capitalism.

We need a drug war to deal with the symptom (drug abuse and the diminished productivity and healthcare costs) created by bad parenting and childhood trauma and socialized healthcare via the state.

We need occupational licensing to deal with the symptom (unaccountable tradesman) created by state-granted limits on full tort liability.

We need NSA spying to deal with the symptom (terrorist threats) created by state interventionism and occupations overseas that piss people off and make them want to en masse kill us.

Need I go on?

Reformists and the logically inconsistent support treating symptoms of coercion with more coercion to mitigate those symptoms instead of just attacking the root cause; the disease of the original coercion that causes the issue. Radicals go to the root of the problem (and no, "radical" is not a synonym for "extremist" - the latter is a pejorative term for the former, usually applied to those who use radical beliefs based on invalid premises, like a religion, to fanatically attack civilians to make them too afraid to stand up against their horribly premised ideas).

It's like saying I purposefully gave you AIDS, and instead of stopping me from giving more people AIDS by arresting me or whatever, you suggest the cure is to give you more AIDS to cure the AIDS I gave you to begin with. The problem is coercion initiated against non-victimizers....you don't cure that disease by using more coercion against non-victimizers...you remove the original coercion, logically, to fix the problem.

You can also say the AIDS metaphor holds even if I did cure the AIDS I gave you...I'm no hero for curing you, I'm a villain who gave it to you to begin with. Coercion is not a hero for curing symptoms of a problem it originally created. You haven't solved the actual problem, merely counteracted it temporarily.

Further, as I pointed out, if you were entirely consistent in your logic about "no open borders in a welfare state", then you wouldn't be a libertarian or in any way a liberty advocate, at all...you'd support minimum wage, the drug war, occupational licensing, and NSA spying. But you choose to apply this line of thought selectively, showing it isn't a principled position, but some arbitrary degree you're willing to draw a line on. It's anti-philosophical, and the antithesis of libertarianism. Stefan is wrong...and it pains me to see him be so inconsistent with his logic when he is so great on so many other subjects. He has done more videos in defense on Trump than he ever did about Ron Paul. That should tell you something, especially when Ron was far more libertarian and Trump is calling for fascist and neo-Mercantilist policies like deportation of millions of a minority group, registration of a mostly peaceful minority religious group, tariffs, etc.

You should read "Boundaries Of Order". Schaffer elucidates the libertarian position on how to handle land/territory boundary problems better than anyone I know of.

[ProIndividual]

You should read "Boundaries Of Order". Schaffer elucidates the libertarian position on how to handle land/territory boundary problems better than anyone I know of.

I may when I get a chance...but if you have an argument against anything I said, feel free to make it based on your reading of it. (And if you agreed with what I said, I couldn't surmise that, so sorry if I assumed incorrectly.)

[Sammy]

Stefan Molyneux is one of my favorite philosophers!
Stefan doesn't attack BTW cool Libertarian like Ron Paul,Lew Rockwell,Tom Woods or Dave Smith.
He attacks Leftarians like the CATO Institute,Reason Magazine & Gary Johnson!

[PAF]

Immigrants do not use force, even if they do utilize the welfare system (which they can NOT do without "documentation"). Incentives are freely given to them by fed.gov. It is the state which uses force by stealing our tax dollars and redistributes it. The state's solution is to continue redistribution, while restricting our freedom to travel freely, and then require us to provide "papers please".

If fed.gov wanted a free society, which they don't, they would know that there is nothing in the Constitution that requires redistribution and simply end it.

Restricting the freedom to travel freely opens up every can of worms I can possibly think of, including murdering each and every one of the Bill of Rights.

So, rationalize all you want, it will bite you in the end.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/s...11250786893824

[Brian4Liberty]

Stefan Molyneux is one of my favorite philosophers!
Stefan doesn't attack BTW cool Libertarian like Ron Paul,Lew Rockwell,Tom Woods or Dave Smith.
He attacks Leftarians like the CATO Institute,Reason Magazine & Gary Johnson!

Interesting, but Molyneux's logic fails when he starts talking race. It is not a matter of race. He is making generalizations based upon a subset of the global population (the US).

It is abundantly true that immigrants to the US are predominantly left-wing voters. If that weren't the case, the Democrats would be the biggest opposition to immigration.

What is the reason if it is not race? It is part of the culture where they came from, and the leftist conditioning once they get to the US. The US media and government education complex actually makes them worse, when it introduces cultural Marxism to their existing culture framework.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll go ahead and reiterate this:

The State is not a benevolent protector, it is the supreme oppressor and aggressor.

The State is not effective and capable, it is inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.

The State does not have any particular interest in protecting mundanes or their rights, it has a particular interest in protecting itself and its ecosystem of special interests.

That is exactly correct.

...and then there are non-funny "dee-foo" clowns, who are really not good folks.

They are just what they appear to be (charlatans).