Saturday, July 12, 2014

Jonathan David Baird on the Border Crisis

When it comes to the issue of immigration, and especially our current outrageous border crisis, too many libertarians have their blinders on. They're so enamored of the abstract principle that people have the freedom of movement, that they forget the very practical principle of self-defense. One question I like to ask them:

If open borders is such a swell idea, why is it that virtually all liberals and neocons are enthusiastic supporters of it? Is it because they believe in human liberty, or is it because they see open borders as a tactic to destroy human liberty? (hint: it's the latter)

Me, I'm a libertarian nationalist, and I think open borders is just another trick to wipe out the American nation, which is about the only place on earth where libertarian ideas have a fighting chance. (The other such areas, Western Europe and the Anglophone world, are of course undergoing the same immigration invasion.) Eliminate us, and you eliminate liberty for a thousand years.

On a libertarian forum, in reply to this controversy, Jonathan David Baird recently wrote:

This is what is happening and this is why you can not confuse the Non-aggression principle with the No defense principle.

Crossing from one state controlled area to another state controlled area can happen for a variety of reasons.

1. fleeing oppression
2. seeking a better job and life
3. Invasion

THE MOTIVATION FOR CROSSING THE BORDER IS KEY TO DETERMINING IF THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO...

I think we all agree the first two situations are perfectly fine. I have no problem with people coming into our state controlled area seeking either of the first two options. I think we can all agree that number 3 is a situation we would and should oppose violently. Libertarians have a right to self defense. If a mass movement of people invaded your country with the purpose of aggressively installing a repressive regime should we not oppose that? I believe we have a right to oppose it.

For the current situation we can discount 1 as a motivation. The countries these people are coming from are no more oppressive than the United States for the most part. In fact we have a much higher rate of incarceration than any of them. We have become a police state.

Number 2 is the most likely response given when the immigrants are asked why they are coming. Great reason and one I agree with... most of the time.

However what if the motivation of the invaders is mercenary? Are they being enticed to invasion by plunder? Would you oppose an invader whose reason for coming is to plunder the wealth of your society? Would that not be an invasion?

So Number 2 is not as cut and dried as it seems. If the motivation for coming is a better life, but that better life is to be bought and paid for by the current inhabitants own collected wealth. There is no difference between those enticed by the welfare state and those who come to plunder. It is pure theft, because they have not contributed at all to the common pool enforced by the state. These would be parasites. Of course not all are parasites, but how to decide which are and which aren't? MOTIVATION.

In this case it is simple to determine the motivation...the state advertises for these people to come here. There are TV, radio, and print ads in Central and South America stating how to receive benefits when they get here. The head of our state has said that there is to be an amnesty for children and so those outside our society are sending their children here...those children have no means of support. They are not seeking jobs and could not work them if they were due to age, therefore they are an invasion of parasites being sent by their parents to live off the generosity of state enforced redistribution. That is a mercenary motivation.

Why would the state entice thousands perhaps millions of people to come here? The simple answer is number 3. Invasion. The elite within the state are afraid of the liberty movement. Because of this fear they are enticing people with monetary rewards to cross the border. These immigrants will then be beholden to the state and those within the state who give out these handouts. This in turn will insure that these outside forces will in the future vote for those elites against the will of the people.

There is no difference between a mercenary with a gun in hand taking your liberty and an immigrant paid to vote against liberty. In our society the vote is more powerful than the gun.

The immigrant's rights end where my nose begins. They have no right to what is in my pocket, they have no right to be paid to vote for the State policies that give them my money (which is aggression against my property and personal freedom), and they certainly do not have a right to bring disease into a society that has eradicated that disease. I have a right to self defense against anyone who would do these things. Until such time as the state is out of the picture we must view the motivation of these immigrants with suspicion and even prevention when their motivation is aggressive. This current immigration is aggressive.
--------------------
NOTE: Jonathan David Baird actually describes himself as a "pragmatic or frontier libertarian." I don't know how close that is to my own "Libertarian Nationalism," but when I quote him like this the two groups at least overlap on the issue under discussion. I quote a lot of people when they say wise things, no matter what political faction they identify with.--------------------
Quibcag: This is a serious statement, so it's illustrated by a very serious girl, Chiaki from Bodacious Space Pirates (モーレツ宇宙海賊パイレーツ Mōretsu Pairētsu)

2 comments:

  1. Aliens are excludable (which means may not be legally admitted) if the Immigration officer interviewing them thinks they will ever become a public charge.
    Aliens are deportable (read automatically get the boot) if they go on welfare.
    Aliens who commit any crime worse than a speeding ticket are both.
    Aliens entering illegally in the El Paso sector are prosecuted, not just run through a revolving door.
    apparently people are sloppy about enforcing these things elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dont disagree with him, and provide evidence. He might suggest you are an idiot, after making idiotic claims himself, then ban/block you, just like a true intellectual coward.

    Lets discuss your assertion any idiot can create wealth. Sounds like you blame the poor for being poor, because they dont have the intellect of an idiot.
    Hoist on your own petard comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete