Category Archives: libertarianism

UPDATE IV: What’s One More Extra-Constitutional Power Grab? (‘Meanwhile, At The Border . . .’)

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Democrats, English, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Private Property, Republicans, Welfare

As measured by the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, the president’s speeches are written at an eighth-grade level. (And we’re not talking simple as in straightforward, precise and concise; but simple as in laden with emotion, and full of hot air and appeals to feelings.)

Read his “Remarks on Immigration.”

As an example of Obama’s eighth-grade writing, take this run-on ramble—a paragraph with the most awful syntax. BHO just adds clauses as he goes. This man’s mind is every bit as disorganized as was Bush’s.

As I said in my speech on the economy yesterday, it makes no sense to expel talented young people, who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans — they’ve been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be part of this country — to expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents — or because of the inaction of politicians.

What a dreadful cur!

It is, of course, incongruous to profess libertarianism, while supporting free-for-all immigration, affirmative action, anti-private property Civil-Rights laws, and public education extended to all trespassers—these are policies that violate private property, which is the cornerstone of libertarianism.

Most illegal aliens do not come to the U.S. to wage war, but the reality is that, once in the country, almost all wage welfare. Would that the American Welfare State did not exist. But since it does and is, unfortunately, likely to persist for some time to come, it must stop at the Rio Grande.

UPDATE I: Van Esser at NumbersUSA writes the following:

Perhaps I’m missing something but I can’t find a provision of the US Constitution that authorizes a president to act because he/she just can’t wait for Congress. The Obama Administration must have found the language. Otherwise, the new administrative amnesty-in-place for illegal aliens under the age of 31 would be considered an extra-constitutional directive by fiat.

As far as his Orwellian overreach, Strongman Obama is no different than “The Decider” when it comes to flouting our Constitution. Republicans fuss a lot when Democrats sidestep a Constitution that has long been a dead-letter. Democrat do the same.

It’s a meaningless dance.

Big Man Obama gave the great, late, Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd, palpitations. Byrd, RIP, was “a stern constitutional scholar who always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.” According to Politico.com, this old Southern gentleman, after whom Republicans were always chasing for his past indiscretions, warned about Obama’s executive-branch power grab. Chief Obama created a number of new, extra-constitutional White-House fiefdoms: one on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change.

AND now on immigration.

Ditto “The Decider.” He habitually sidestepped the chain of command in the military and winked at the Constitutional scheme. Under The Decider’s dictatorship, matters that ought to have been the business of the people or their representatives were routinely consigned to the executive branch.

So quit the posturing, Republicans. The Obama “Get-Out-Of-Deportation-Free-Card” is business as usual in the republic, RIP.

UPDATE II (June 17): BHO claimed that deportation of criminal aliens was up 80 percent. Bush did close to nothing to defend against the invasion from the south. Compared to that standard, it is probably true that Obama has bested Bush in enforcement. But when the numbers are so miniscule, percentage increases are huge. So, if Bush deported 50 illegal aliens, to exaggerate; then at 90, Obama can boast of kicking out 80 percent more.

UPDATE III: DAVID FRUM via VDARE.COM:

Every serious economic study of immigration has found that the net benefits of present policy are exceedingly small. But that small net is an aggregate of very large effects that cancel each other out. The immigrants get higher wages than they would have earned in their former country. The affluent gain lower prices for in-person services. Lower-skilled native-born Americans face downward wage pressure. In any other policy area, people who consider themselves progressive might be expected to revile a policy whose benefits went to foreigners and the rich, and whose costs were born by the American poor. Immigration policy baffles that expectation.

UPDATE IV (June 18): ‘Meanwhile, At The Border . . .’ via The Center for Immigration Studies:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency charged with guarding the U.S. borders, has written a secret draft policy that would let its agents catch and release low-priority illegal immigrants rather than bring them in for processing and prosecution. The policy, which has not been signed off on, would be the latest move by the Obama administration to set new priorities for the nation’s immigration services, and would bring CBP in line with other Homeland Security Department agencies that already use such “prosecutorial discretion.”
The policy was detailed in an internal memo obtained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and reviewed by The Washington Times, which confirmed the document.
According to the memo, the draft policy “provides circumstances when to pursue enforcement actions … and includes detailed discussion of several factors CBP personnel should consider when exercising discretion.”
Opponents say it amounts to another “backdoor amnesty” for illegal immigrants and could give the administration a tool to pressure Border Patrol agents not to pursue some people.

To continue the theme of this blog post, how is this different from policy under Bush? On this front it isn’t.

…the underlying reason why America’s deportation system remains inexplicably paralyzed by federal litigation and rigged in favor of relief from removal:
Internationalists in the Bush and Clinton Administrations have decided to confine immigration enforcement only to the U.S. borderlands…until there’s no enforcement at all, because the U.S., Mexico and Canada will have been merged into one unit behind a new “North American security perimeter.”
This shared Canada-U.S-Mexico “security perimeter” is exactly what the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America has in mind for America someday.

[VDARE.COM]

UPDATED: The Philosophy of Liberty (The Claims Of Kids)

Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Objectivism

Accolades are owed to a team that has rendered the philosophy of liberty in the simplest, purest of ways, to better popularize it. Ken Schoolland distilled liberty in words, and Lux Lucre (a very Randian label, given that lucre means money or profits) produced the animation. Watch it. Read it.

“The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.
A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.
At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without wilful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles.
You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.
You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.
Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.
You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.
Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.
This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical.
Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.
Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act – especially when it is easier to do nothing.”

UPDATE (June 6): THE CLAIMS OF KIDS. Great points as always, Myron (in Comments). We here at BAB have an interest, not a claim, in your sticking around. Your commitment to your daughter, of course, is voluntary, although I recall participating in long, theoretical, libertarian discussion threads as to whether our children have a legal claim on us. In other words: should you be jailed if you secede from taking care of them? A fascinating, but futile, debate.

UPDATED: The Kochtopus Convenes, Again

China, Free Markets, libertarianism, Liberty, Neoconservatism, Objectivism, Political Philosophy, South-Africa

Last year, RT interviewed me about “Libertarianism Lite,” in anticipation of what is supposed to be libertarian officialdom’s Event of the Year, Freedom Fest.

The Kochtopus is set to convene again. With the exceptions of Tom Woods and Peter Schiff, it’s the same old guard, bedecked with a bimbo version of Penn Jillette for hip value.

The Andrew Napolitano-Koch Connection has been established. (See LewRockwekll.com.) I was never a huge fan of Freedom Watch, which, in my opinion, had that distinct CATO/Beltway, left-libertarian bent.

By way of an example, take the “War Street Journal’s” Stephen Moore, a natural star of any Kochtopus Convention. Moore was forever appearing in furtherance of freedom on Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch.

No wonder Moore, like Neal Boortz, is Hannity’s in-house freedom fighter too. One of Moore’s books was “Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer.”

“Bush’s bailout society” was an instantiation of the principles upon which “Bush’s ownership society” was founded: credit for those who are not creditworthy. But not even a full-throated support of the Bush affirmative action in housing loans amounts to an indictment among America’s incestuous (oft-libertarian) teletwits.

If you’re after some dry-as-dust, dispassionate, desiccated disquisitions on conventional aspects of the free market about which we all agree—and which Mises and Rothbard already covered better—Freedom Fest is the “happening” place for you.

My guess is that a demonstration for George Zimmerman around the corner would draw a real crowd.

UPDATE: In Reply to a thread on Facebook, written by writers who can’t tell their Left from their Right. Both of the FF speakers lauded on the thread are open-border, left libertarians, and one belongs to an outfit that honored the decidedly anti-capitalism Desmund Tutu, with whom I once took afternoon tea, as he was a friend of my father’s, before “forgetting” father’s contribution to “The Struggle.” It’s in my book; a book about the reality in the New South Africa, as opposed to the parallel reality peddled by left libertarian think tanks.

The other chap is known for his anti-Israel irrationalism, exposed in “Libertarians Who Loathe Israel” & “FOAMING AT THE MOUTH OVER ISRAEL.” Being so “intellectually honest” (NOT), this one character has practically boycotted all my work from the shrinking forums he controls, even though it jibes with his, for the most (although mine is actually fun to read). Intellectual honesty, Yeah, right.

‘The Cannibal’ Has Another Convert

Ilana Mercer, Ilana On Radio & TV, libertarianism, Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Private Property, South-Africa

In attendance at the New York Junto gathering, where I was the month of May’s featured speaker, was Jay Taylor, a New-York based investor and broadcaster who invests and broadcasts in the Austrian tradition.

I was delighted to hear that the topic of the talk—“Natural Rights in ‘Into the Cannibal’s Pot’: Abstractions or Facts of Life?”—resonated with Jay.

Here’s what the New York money and media man has written:

“It is most important your insights are aired as widely as possible so I was going to have my producer at Voice America track you down if I didn’t hear back from you. [I reply to every single inquiry I get. It may take time—a week or two, or more—but I answer all civilized, normal, sane interlocutors. Few are the people who get struck off my list of interlocutors. I can count 2 individuals in total in the last 5 years. And that took years of displays of incorrigible, maladaptive and manipulative irrationality, the kind that verges on malevolence.]
I really loved your talk and the following discussion. It was very enlightening. What I would most like to achieve in our discussion is to help people see how the loss of property rights is dangerous to liberty and even our safety. And I would like people to realize that applies to America as well as anywhere else.
Then I would like to have that point hammered home to my many “liberal” friends who may have their hearts in the right place but just don’t understand human nature.
You opened up a huge number of philosophical questions that I am personally struggling with, having come from a very religious Mennonite background in Ohio. Where do Natural Rights come from? “We hold these truths to be self evident. That we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I think it was originally property?)”
I think you are actually quite good at addressing topics and questions when they are raised. I thought you did a great job at NY Junto. … I think you did a great job of explaining the connection between private property and liberty. I will do everything I can to promote your book and the ideas contained therein…

I will be on The Jay Taylor Radio Program sometime in June.