Category Archives: libertarianism

Prof. Paul Gottfried on 'La-Raza Libertarians'

IMMIGRATION, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism

The intrepid Professors Paul Gottfried writes the following in response to “La-Raza Libertarians“:

May Heaven bless you for raising these politically incorrect issues! Right now I’m looking at the tracts of a candidate for international relations at our college, who praises the West Germans for being so “wracked with guilt” that they handed over their country to Muslim immigrants.
As the descendant of people whom the Nazis chased out of Europe, I don’t feel compensated by the lunatic decision to deliver that straying continent into the hands of Islamicists. In fact I wouldn’t want these immigrants and asylum-seekers invading Europe from the Third World, whether or not they collect welfare benefits once they reach their destination.
It is essential that we keep making the distinction between favoring the free market whether here, in Israel, or in Europe, and encouraging the lunatic leftist ideology of open borders. What makes the view that you assailed yesterday particularly dishonest is that no one who expresses it wants us to stop Third World underclass immigration until we have abolished the welfare state. They are simply making excuses for not noticing who comes here.

—Paul Gottfried

The Logic of La-Raza Libertarians

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, The State

“Utopian libertarians are especially fond of claiming the welfare state is the sole reason illegal immigrants cost much more ($26.3 billion) than they contribute ($16 billion). Were it not for its provisions, they say, these unskilled, uneducated, non-English speakers would become a boon—not a burden—to the communities they infiltrate. In its determinism, the thinking of the love-in-at-the-border libertarian is indistinguishable from that of the left-liberal. Both see the social environment as the single most important determinant of behavior.
However, what of this cohort’s cultivated militant distinctiveness? What about crime and disease? Will these dissipate with the unlikely dissolution of the welfare state? I suggest the hippies have confused the causal sequence. The point of departure is the quality of immigrants entering the U.S, post the 1965 Immigration Act. For the kind of immigrant given preference under current policy, welfare is more of a magnet. Also ignored by La-Raza libertarians is the evidence of the rapid acculturation among post-1965 immigrants to U.S. largess: the longer these immigrants reside in the country, the likelier they are to receive welfare…”

More non sequiturs from open-border fetishists in my new WND column, “The Logic of La-Raza Libertarians.”

Standard Libertarian Immigration Non Sequitur

IMMIGRATION, libertarianism

Low-wage illegal aliens cost much more ($26.3 billion) than they contribute ($16 billion) to the economy. [See “The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget“] But to make light of their indisputable weight on the American welfare state, open-border libertarians advance a standard non-sequitur: “We don’t care if immigrants use a disproportionate amount of social services, because we believe all social programs should be scaled back or preferably junked,” as one put it.

From the fact that you oppose taxpayer-funded welfare for nationals, it doesn’t follow that extending it to millions of illegal newcomers is financially or morally negligible. (Or that this is congruent with the libertarian aim of curtailing government growth.) The argument is akin to declaring that because a bank has been robbed by one band of bandits, arresting the next lot is unnecessary because the damage has already been done.

It’s hard to imagine how immigration evangelizers would extend this logic to the cost of crime perpetrated by illegals. Let’s see: “We don’t care if illegal immigrants commit more violent crimes than locals, because we believe all violent offences, committed by nationals and non-nationals alike, are wrong and should be phased out.”

Shades of Waco?

America, Criminal Injustice, Law, libertarianism, Media, Morality, The State

Another prosecutorial team is on the make, this time in Utah, where the state has been pursuing Warren Jeffs, the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Prosecutors have been egged on by a histrionic media—cable coquettes, especially, with their mangled maternal instincts.

First came District Attorney Michael Nifong of the Duke “rape” case fame. By the admission of the accuser’s co-striper, her story lacks credibility. The accused has an alibi. The DNA found on the accuser is not his. And the lineup was in violation of procedures. Yet this DA run amok forges on, oblivious to the constitutional and procedural safeguards to which an accused is entitled. (Here’s another superb source on the case.)

Mary Lacy, Boulder County’s inept DA, arrested a man in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, based on no other corroborating evidence than a confession, a practice that was once prohibited, for obvious reasons. Lacy attended Patsy Ramsey’s funeral and was clearly personally invested in the intruder-theory of the case. Lacy and Nifong appear to represent a decaying legal system festooned with incompetents, who substitute the constraints of the law with their “grand” visions.

As to Jeffs, the mindless media has always been enthralled by child-abuse crusaders. Janet Reno, one of the most murderous DAs, established her career by launching the day care child sex abuse witch hunt that gripped the nation in the 1980s. She used fabricated accusations elicited from children (who never lie, right?) with the aid of highly suggestive techniques, to imprison her victims absent corroborative evidence. These cases served as a professional stepping stone for Reno, who went on to commit even greater crimes.

Here are the Jeffs arrest warrant and affidavit. It’s ludicrous. He is charged with being an accomplice to rape, no less. Such an accusation conjures visions of Jeffs holding the victim down while another commits the act. Jeffs, however, is charged, based on hearsay, with encouraging a girl, then under 18, to submit to intercourse with her husband, who was a little older. How does urging someone to consummate a marriage amount to being complicit in a rape, a very brutal crime indeed? By this standard or test, aren’t the girl’s parents also complicit?

The sect is wealthy and owns large compounds in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, South Dakota, and British Columbia. Despite the fact that they live in peace and are non-violent, the federal government has described Jeffs, who was unarmed and did not resist arrest, as extremely dangerous.

The polygamist was placed on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list in May, alongside Bin Laden. In this way, presumably, when the federal and state police storm these compounds and remove the children (with a view to seizing the valuable property too, no doubt), the public, dimmed and dulled by state-worshipping media, will shrug it off. After all, it’s all for “The Children,” isn’t it?

Question: Islam permits multiple marriages, doesn’t it? I have no doubt that devout American Muslims follow the dictates of their faith here in the US. Have you ever heard of any such prosecutions against members of that community?