Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › libertarian and immigration
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) libertarian and immigration (Read 1454 times)
genepool
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 889
Joined: Dec 19th, 2014
libertarian and immigration
Sep 20th, 2015 at 12:49am
Print Post  
Option 1: every country is libertarian

Not a very good option. That means one single rules for every body. Some society may think that taxing ganja and meth is better than taxing income.

Also what about if I and my pals want to make our own country? Shouldn't be a problem in a libertarian society. What about if I want that country to be unlibertarian?

Option 2: every country choose to be what they are immigration is free. This is what many libertarians think.

Sounds good. Just pick the country you want to go. Don't like it here, moves to other.

The problem is say country A is very well governed. Say that country allow every immigrants in. Soon that country will have too many voters voting for anti libertarian movement. Imagine if Israel allow any arab to be citizen. Then israel will be filled with civil wars like syria. This is the problem with europe right now with their muslim immigrants.

This is used very successfully by US. Every states have their own government and people are free to move to other places.

Many european countries allow many arabs to come in. Many fear that the arabs will simply implement sharia there. Basically it makes problems flow to better governed country.

Option 3: Countries choose what they do and then decides who to allow

Oh wait a crappity smacking minute. Isn't this what's going on right now? The drawback is many people are stuck in unlibertarian country and they can't get out. Also this justifies many unlibertarian rules.

Option 4: Make some free trade zones. Ask powerful countries for protection. Pay tax.

Not fully libertarian but good enough.

Option 5: Combination of 2 and 3. Countries decide who can immigrate. People decides who wants to go. However, immigrants must pay or contribute something to the country they're coming into. I suppose emigrant should be compensated when they move out too. So  citizenship is like stocks. If you move from Indonesia to Singapore, you pay. If you move from Singapore to Indonesia you can sell your singapore citizenship to others that want to move otherwise.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10014
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #1 - Sep 20th, 2015 at 7:59pm
Print Post  
heres the Libertarian Party's official platform on immigration:

______________________________________________________________________________

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

http://www.lp.org/platform
_______________________________________________________________________________

So basically they are saying that people should be free to come and go as they please. But I cant think of one nation on the planet where this actually happens.

I suppose thats because there aren't any Libertarian countries. 

They're trying to start one [Liberland], but running into many political and logistic snafus, so prospects aren't good for them. And even there, they are being very selective about who gets selected to be a citizen.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Tom Palven
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1988
Location: North America
Joined: Sep 27th, 2011
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #2 - Sep 21st, 2015 at 6:22am
Print Post  
Gene,

Everything in your post is about countries.  Countries are nation-states. 

You are thinking in the context of STATISM.

Statism is collectivism, and is the direct opposite of individualism and INDIVIDUAL  liberty.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dissident Right
Ex Member


Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #3 - Sep 21st, 2015 at 7:21pm
Print Post  
Unrestricted human movement is insane, because diversity + proximity = war.

It's even more insane from the perspective of libertarianism, because something like 0.0012% of the world's population is libertarian.

The Libertarian Party platform should read, "Economic freedom demands the restricted movement of socialists, communists, progressives, and other people who reject natural law, as well as financial capital across national borders."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
stevea
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 992
Location: Ohio
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #4 - Sep 22nd, 2015 at 6:35am
Print Post  
TP & DR suggest an interesting question.

As a libertarian, do you support your neighbor's right to be communist, socialist, statist ?
I believe the answer is clearly 'YES'.

Of course no one has a right to impose force on anyone who doesn't agree to it.  We can see examples of this sort of voluntary submission - Quakers are a sort of religious communism.   Amish/Mennonites create a sort of social safety net to their members - provide funds for medical care, rebuild barns etc, but at a social cost.   Paying for insurance is a means of voluntarily paying a "tax" to socialize risk.
--

But there is a problem.  As soon as we get human social organizations as big as a primitive village - then the group mind turns toward warfare and other impositions of force.   Groups of humans do things commonly that would be considered psychopathological in an individual.  Not always, but often.  Think about Japan or Germany in WW2.   These otherwise sane, well organized states created some self-identity as rightful masters or others, and then used force to impose their will on others.

Allowing humans to have organizations for the imposition of force is vastly dangerous for everyone.  That danger extends certainly to police agencies that nominally try to enforce and protect rights & liberties, but instead often devolve into reducing liberties unnecessarily.

--

In Libertopia should we allow the immigration of non-libertarians ?
My answer is a question - how can we insure that liberty will be preserved for all ?

The current USA is proof-by-example the a Republican form of government doesn't work, is unstable.  Those great words in the bill of rights are openly, blatantly ignored.   Consider the 4th amendment that prohibits government searches w/o warrant, vs the millions of warrentless government TSA searches.  Totally incompatible by any rational logic, yet SCOTUS has created some pretzel-logic covered with pixie-dust to claim it's OK.   In brief - popular sentiment (even when whipped up by demagogues & fear mongers) beats the foundation document.   Nice words, even chiseled in stone, ensure nothing.

Government is nothing but a powerful mechanism for the imposition of force, and is therefore very dangerous.    How shall we 'program' such a dangerous machine when we know that the 'rules' will devolve over time to a reflection of popular sentiment ?  We can't control sentiment.  The sheep want what the sheep want.

A rule based system that involves human (re)interpretation seems to not work at all - devolves into meaninglessness in ~200 years.

I don't think immigration control gets you anywhere unless you also deport 'native' ppl who don't don't respect others rights.  How can that be done w/o central force of a dangerous nature ?

An anarcho-lib would suggest no government, but that has to be tested before it can be believed.   How such a society settles disputes seems the main hurdle.  It suggests decentralized use of force, that also appears dangerous, tho' perhaps less so.  Is there law ?  Who interprets it ?  How is right/wrong decided ?


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #5 - Sep 22nd, 2015 at 5:05pm
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Sep 22nd, 2015 at 6:35am:
TP & DR suggest an interesting question.

As a libertarian, do you support your neighbor's right to be communist, socialist, statist ?
I believe the answer is clearly 'YES'.

Of course no one has a right to impose force on anyone who doesn't agree to it.  We can see examples of this sort of voluntary submission - Quakers are a sort of religious communism.   Amish/Mennonites create a sort of social safety net to their members - provide funds for medical care, rebuild barns etc, but at a social cost.   Paying for insurance is a means of voluntarily paying a "tax" to socialize risk.
--

But there is a problem.  As soon as we get human social organizations as big as a primitive village - then the group mind turns toward warfare and other impositions of force.   Groups of humans do things commonly that would be considered psychopathological in an individual.  Not always, but often.  Think about Japan or Germany in WW2.   These otherwise sane, well organized states created some self-identity as rightful masters or others, and then used force to impose their will on others.

Allowing humans to have organizations for the imposition of force is vastly dangerous for everyone.  That danger extends certainly to police agencies that nominally try to enforce and protect rights & liberties, but instead often devolve into reducing liberties unnecessarily.

--

In Libertopia should we allow the immigration of non-libertarians ?
My answer is a question - how can we insure that liberty will be preserved for all ?

The current USA is proof-by-example the a Republican form of government doesn't work, is unstable.  Those great words in the bill of rights are openly, blatantly ignored.   Consider the 4th amendment that prohibits government searches w/o warrant, vs the millions of warrentless government TSA searches.  Totally incompatible by any rational logic, yet SCOTUS has created some pretzel-logic covered with pixie-dust to claim it's OK.   In brief - popular sentiment (even when whipped up by demagogues & fear mongers) beats the foundation document.   Nice words, even chiseled in stone, ensure nothing.

Government is nothing but a powerful mechanism for the imposition of force, and is therefore very dangerous.    How shall we 'program' such a dangerous machine when we know that the 'rules' will devolve over time to a reflection of popular sentiment ?  We can't control sentiment.  The sheep want what the sheep want.

A rule based system that involves human (re)interpretation seems to not work at all - devolves into meaninglessness in ~200 years.

I don't think immigration control gets you anywhere unless you also deport 'native' ppl who don't don't respect others rights.  How can that be done w/o central force of a dangerous nature ?

An anarcho-lib would suggest no government, but that has to be tested before it can be believed.   How such a society settles disputes seems the main hurdle.  It suggests decentralized use of force, that also appears dangerous, tho' perhaps less so.  Is there law ?  Who interprets it ?  How is right/wrong decided ?



There's way to much tribal nonsense in this post to reply point by point.
Mostly I'm impressed with your complete misunderstanding of individual liberty and the proper role of government,  of how societies are created, sustained and destroyed, and your total misunderstanding of how our Constitution has been misinterpreted and ignored.

The Constitution did not fail, people failed to hold the government within the bounds of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be legally changed by "interpretation". It can only be changed by legitimate Article V procedures, including ratification by the People.

The Common Law, local police and local courts can (and should) handle almost every violation of rights by barbarians.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9693
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #6 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 6:38am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 22nd, 2015 at 5:05pm:
The Constitution did not fail, people failed to hold the government within the bounds of the Constitution.


The house of straw didn't fail, the wolf merely blew it down. (You see how that works?)

What about that post is "nonsense"? If you knew 49 out of 100 people in your democratic society were totalitarians, would you invite in three more, knowing exactly what would happen?

stevea wrote on Sep 22nd, 2015 at 6:35am:
In Libertopia should we allow the immigration of non-libertarians ?
My answer is a question - how can we insure that liberty will be preserved for all ?


I'll answer your question with a question. As the Supreme Fuhrer of Libertopia (the people want you in that position because you always make the libertarian decision and choose to preserve freedom) do you recognise Bob's right to sell his house in Libertopia to that socialist over there? And do you recognise that socialist's right to go on whatever land the landowners will let him on?

The thing is, you now have to occlude freedom no matter what you do. You know that new guy represents a threat to freedom, but freedom requires you to respect his freedom. Now he's in, and he gets a voice. This smells bad in a world where there are already places for his ideology, but only one Libertopia.

Freedom can't stand on its own. In its pure form, it must destroy itself. There's nothing wrong with the impure form, and it's 100% valid to decide to always make the choice that preserves the most freedom possible. But this is freedom preserved only on the back of authority - the only way it can be preserved.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 42658
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #7 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 9:23am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Sep 23rd, 2015 at 6:38am:
The house of straw didn't fail, the wolf merely blew it down. (You see how that works?)

What about that post is "nonsense"? If you knew 49 out of 100 people in your democratic society were totalitarians, would you invite in three more, knowing exactly what would happen?

NO, I don't "see how that works". We have lots of laws against theft, but people still steal. That doesn't mean laws against theft "fail". If the laws against theft aren't enforced, they still haven't "failed", people just haven't enforced them.

If you're stupid enough to have a democratic form of government, you have to suffer the consequences of all sorts of bad majority decisions, including keeping people out (or deporting them or killing them) because you think they have bad ideas.
If you have a government limited in its power by law, crackpot ideas held by majorities can't be enacted into law.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Dissident Right
Ex Member


Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #8 - Sep 23rd, 2015 at 10:43am
Print Post  
stevea wrote on Sep 22nd, 2015 at 6:35am:
TP & DR suggest an interesting question.

As a libertarian, do you support your neighbor's right to be communist, socialist, statist ?
I believe the answer is clearly 'YES'.

The "obviously true but naive" answer is:

Yes, as long as we're talking about pure stateless "anarchy". If there is any kind of state, no matter how limited or rigorously defined, then my commie neighbor better not have the right to vote, serve on a jury, hold public office, or in general have any influence whatsoever on anything the state does.

The realistic answer is:

HELL. F UCKING. NO. Commies inherently reject the Rule of Law. If there is no state, they will work secretly and tirelessly to create one. If there is a limited state in which they can't participate, they will work secretly and tirelessly to undermine and intrude upon it. And if there is a state and the commie can vote and hold office, you are already f ucked. The idea of a "private commie" is a fantasy. All commies want to impose, and all commies are willing to cheat.

Quote:
But there is a problem.  As soon as we get human social organizations as big as a primitive village - then the group mind turns toward warfare and other impositions of force.

The more immediate problem (with commies, anyway) is that this is their goal from the start. For non-commies (who are also non-libertarian), this is definitely a big problem.

Quote:
In Libertopia should we allow the immigration of non-libertarians ?

No. If they want to immigrate they can convert. Period. And since people will lie about conversion, we can't give them political privileges until they prove themselves trustworthy.

Quote:
My answer is a question - how can we insure that liberty will be preserved for all ?
[…]
Nice words, even chiseled in stone, ensure nothing.

Bingo. Liberty is enforced by people. Laws are enforced by people. If people don't believe the nice words, you're shit out of luck.

Quote:
I don't think immigration control gets you anywhere unless you also deport 'native' ppl who don't don't respect others rights.  How can that be done w/o central force of a dangerous nature ?

The problem in a nutshell. It's not a question of justifying the tactics used to disenfranchise and/or deport such people. Nothing makes them "right". But I'm also not willing to accept the consequences of letting people who reject the Rule of Law stay.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9693
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: libertarian and immigration
Reply #9 - Sep 24th, 2015 at 1:58am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 23rd, 2015 at 9:23am:
NO, I don't "see how that works". We have lots of laws against theft, but people still steal. That doesn't mean laws against theft "fail". If the laws against theft aren't enforced, they still haven't "failed", people just haven't enforced them.


Good laws are adequately reinforced. If they fall over when people blow air on them, they suck. They must be made of bricks strong enough to weather the storm, because there is a damn storm. If they blow over, they have failed. A law against theft that people can reinterpret to mean no stealing specifically cabbages has failed. A law against theft that provides a penalty adequate to discourage the act and recourse for victims in the case of lax enforcement is less likely to fail.

Here's a great big structural reinforcement for you: Have a non-enforcement clause inside the rule against theft. If the victim can't get justice, make it legal for him to exact restitution himself. Now the courts can't just not act out of laziness. They have to make a positive decision about what happened.

Jeff wrote on Sep 23rd, 2015 at 9:23am:
If you're stupid enough to have a democratic form of government, you have to suffer the consequences of all sorts of bad majority decisions, including keeping people out (or deporting them or killing them) because you think they have bad ideas.
If you have a government limited in its power by law, crackpot ideas held by majorities can't be enacted into law.


How likely is it that a country of socialists won't eventually have the socialism they want? Furthermore, honestly, how fair is this to them if they don't get what they want? Do you think people don't have a right to have the kind of government they like?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › libertarian and immigration
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy