Why I am not a Libertarian
Surprise! The pro-war (Waritarian?), pro-Open Borders Cato Institute endorses -- Open Borders:
A new study from the libertarian CATO Institute concludes that legalizing the more than eight million undocumented workers in the United States would have significant economic benefits for the country, while simply enhancing border enforcement and applying restrictive immigration laws would actually hurt the U.S. economically.
Got that? ECONOMIC BENEFITS are all that matter. I'm sure they're right when they say there's money to be made in opening the borders to the Third World -- Big Business is always hungry for more cheap, easily exploitable labor. American workers may suffer, but who cares? Libertarian ideologues don't give a rip about them. To Libertarians, it all comes down to the Golden Rule, which they understand as, "Whatever makes me the most gold." Here's how one writer paraphrased this belief:
"For the economist, all human beings are alike, not of course because they have some higher calling in common but because they all rationally pursued objectives that are equally irrational. Homo economicus is cold, rational, and utilitarian; he is gifted in calculating but empty of substance. Human beings are indistinguishable in their way of being; they can only be distinguished by their incomes, their levels of consumption or productivity. Here, everything that Peguy loves, all that he celebrates–good manners and morals, fine workmanship, beautiful language, simple joys, bonds of the flesh, the honor of the poor, the genius of Homer–none of this has any meaning. We are indeed in the world of equality by default."
Which is why leftist egalitarians and Big Business support Open Borders.
By the way, check out the Cato Institute's sources:
The new report, written by Professor Peter B. Dixon and Research Fellow Maureen T. Rimmer at the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University in Australia, relies on an economic model used by the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security, as well as International Trade Commission.
Well. No question about the objectivity of THAT data. If you can't believe the departments of a globalist empire, who can you believe?
posted by Old Rebel @ Monday, August 17, 2009
10 Comments
Links to this post
10 Comments:
Libertarians seem not to have recovered from reading Ayn Rand in college, no matter how many decades have washed under the bridge since.
rex osborne,
Well, that's the problem with ideology and youth -- both view reality as a nagging parent: an annoying limitation on their freedom.
this is an absurd article, i frequent this blog but now i question it, you are clearly confusing libertarians and anarchists, in a past article you praise ron paul now you disparage his very believes, for shame, libertarians are Constitutionalists, they are much more likely to win office then a neo confederate but will greatly expand the opportunities of a neo confederate all the same to pursue his goals of seccession, you should be hopeful that a libertarian gains office, theyre your best hope for a limited government that allows seccession and states rights like ron paul has preached, dissapointed in you mike, youre burning bridges and isolating yourself, you need us libertarians like I need a free South, but to finish on a better note... lets burn that bridge to mexico!
First off, the classic definition of a libertarian--and the one I subcribe to--is that the government that governs best is that which governs least. That applies to all governments--federal, state, county, local and so forth.
Paleoconservatives reject the idea of a big federal government. Instead, the have no problem with states, counties and municipalities taking a very statist approach. It is not big government that paleoconservatives hate; they simply hate it at the federal level. Big government--particularly in the area of morality and behavior--at the state and local levels is a core tenent of paleoconservatism.
classicalliberal2237,
While I preach practical politics, knowing full well the necessity of allying with those with whom I share common goals, that doesn't obligate me from embracing their philosophy. I agree with the practicality of working with like-minded groups.
But neither does advocating cooperation prevent me from clarifying my own beliefs to readers of this blog, or in trying to describe what a free South would be like. Like 'em or hate 'em, my core beliefs are central to what I'm saying, and understanding them will (hopefully!) make this blog more meaningful.
There are libertarians who are for Open Borders, for example, apparently blind to the historical fact that no nation, no society, can cohere without boundaries, just as no living thing can survive without a sustaining memore, skin, purpose, etc. Different cultures have different historical memories of what it means to be free, so it only makes sense that the like-minded stick together to achieve the kind of nation they want to inhabit.
The pro-war Cato Institute claims to be libertarian, as does that overstuffed lump of malevolent egotism that calls itself Neal Boortz. And let's not forget that the (now-estranged) founding philosophy of political libertarianism, Objectivism, provided numerous cheerleaders for Bush's (now Obama's) War on Terror, more accurately described as DC's War on Freedom.
That's why I'm not a libertarian.
A Libertarian,
Darned if I can remember advocating a local version of the FBI, KGB, or Stasi. Must be old age.
Old Rebel,
There is no libertarian consensus on open borders. It seems as if libertarians retain the flavor of their former political affiliations. I tend to call myself a "paleo-libertarian" and am not for open borders.
Cato sold out to the Establishment years ago and do not speak for all libertarians, especially those grounded in the humanities rather than Ayn Rand.
Classic Liberal,
Don't worry. Old Rebel may have painted with too broad a brush. I think the LoS and Paulities share the same Constitutionalist roots. Rebel's right to slam Cato. They are certainly not my libertarianism, and apparently not yours.
A Libertarian,
I don't know which paleoconservatives you have been hanging out with, but I'm not aware of any paleoconservatives who want local governments running their lives.
On most issues, I consider myself a libertarian but when it comes to issues such as border security, libertarians just sound nutty. I consider myself a nationalist libertarian - secure the borders and protect your nation from outside forces (whether they be cultural or economic) but, otherwise, let people live their own lives. Libertarianism in the extreme cannot work unless the entire world is libertarian; otherwise, it is like a lamb lying down amongst lions.
I'm also not sure how bringing in millions of people a year when millions of Americans are out of work is supposed to help the economy. But what do I know?
I support keeping the borders closed to illegal immigrants and removing illegal immigrants from our country. National defense--in the terms of protecting citizens and lawful residents from aggressors--is a legitimate government function.
Otherwise, leave people free to run their own personal affairs. What you do in your own private life is your business. I don't beleive that paleoconservatives share this view; my view is that paleoconservatives believe in local government-imposed morality. However, I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong.
How the hell is Cato "pro-war"? What war are you referring to??
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home