Friday, July 25, 2014

Another Rational Libertarian Heard From — Matt Bailey

Matt Bailey is one of those guys, like Matt Dillon or Walt Longmire, who doesn't say much, but when he does say something you'd better by God listen because he's thought it through. Unlike the "ideologically pure" libertarians I've been scrapping with lately, Matt doesn't get his ideology mixed up with reality, or vice-versa.

Ideological thinking can be both an enlightenment and a trap. An enlightenment, because an ideology is, or is supposed to be, a set of principles that, with the intervention of logic, leads to decisions. Those old Greek homos, as Al Sharpton calls them, seem to have been the first to come up with the basic idea of logic, that you can take facts that you know and from them, conclude that other facts are true.

And of course they seem also to have been the first to come up with ideology, at least philosophical ideology. They also came up with some of the first mistakes, as when Aristotle, through the use of reason, asserted that men have more teeth than women do. Instead of actually counting the teeth. I'm sure his logic was impeccable, as it was when he said that heavy things fall faster than light things, but, alas, it turned out that neither assertion was true.

Open-borders libertarian purists are much like old Ari, proceeding from the iron-clad principle of private property to the "imaginary borders" theme, concluding that libertarian absolutely requires us to accept anybody blundering across the border, because, of course, it's imaginary, yadda yadda yadda. When somebody objects to this, they are accused of "not being a real libertarian," i. e. heresy. If you laugh in their face at that, they go through the folderol about how it's immoral to restrict any human being's mobility. This issues from the self-ownership and private property mantra. Somebody's always restricting my mobility, one way or the other. Sometimes I do it myself. Even liberals like to use that argument, although it's usually couched in a call for empathy instead of property rights, which liberals don't believe in, anyway.

When that doesn't work very well, they go all-out and use the standard liberal made-up blather about how immigration is good for the economy (sometimes it is, sometimes it damn well isn't), and how all these immigrants just want to become Americans (some do, most don't), and how you're a racist for arguing with them about it. They can simply not accept the fact that their principles and logic lead them to a stupid conclusion. Their ideology no longer illuminates, but obfuscates.

No obfuscation with Matt Bailey.  He writes:

BORDERING ON THE ABSURD

So I don't say this very often, but Rick Perry is using the National Guard for something resembling their actual purpose in Texas, securing the borders. In point of fact, I doubt Rick Perry is really dealing with the problem severely enough.

I've always felt, and I will maintain, that trying to stop *workers* slipping across the border is an exercise in futility, akin to trying to stop the flow of drugs. They want work, and employers on this side want their labor, so there is really no stopping it. And they give their labor for their wages, often paying taxes and social security as they do so.

However, the current practice of a starving Central America dumping their parasites on a bankrupt America to further bleed her dry cannot be allowed to go on. 57,000 since October, according to an article I read. Don't think America can turn starving children back the borders? Count the number of starving children on this planet and you will understand that we *must* turn them back at some point, or our fortunes sink with theirs.

And notice that it is the *United States* who the shallow-witted claim is inherently responsible for feeding all the world's offspring of parents who cannot do it themselves. They have to pass through Mexico to get here, yet no one is proposing hanging the whole bill on the Mexicans.

Three options are available to us. Control who comes into this country (which will be difficult, costly, and ugly to be sure), watch these people crossing the borders starve to death in the streets (Which Americans will not do, and they will inevitably turn to crime rather than starve), or continue to allow them into this nation, which will bankrupt us. Choose wisely.
-------
Quibcag: She worked so well in that last quibcag, I decided to use Maria, from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!) again. Hope nobody minds. The second Quibcag is an oldie I'm reusing. Don't know where the illustration is from.
--------
Update: After this was posted, Matt Bailey wrote in:

I am an ideologically pure libertarian Rex. I just don't think forcing Americans to pay for socialist benefits to all the Third World's castoffs is a very good expression of pure Libertarian ideology. Under current conditions, allowing them in is plundering the pockets of taxpayers as sure as if they were picking pockets.

My reply: I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought Matt wasn't an ideologically pure libertarian. Hell, I consider myself ideologically pure.  But a lot of the jokers who claim ideological purity simply aren't being rational about it, and use their "purity" as an excuse not to think, but to chant slogans instead. Like pacifists who insist on immediate unilateral disarmament, they're being counterproductive and self-destructive. Matt (and I) are actually thinking about how to be effectively libertarian.

1 comment:

  1. I am an ideologically pure libertarian Rex. I just don't think forcing Americans to pay for socialist benefits to all the Third World's castoffs is a very good expression of pure Libertarian ideology. Under current conditions, allowing them in is plundering the pockets of taxpayers as sure as if they were picking pockets.

    ReplyDelete