Machan/Mercer Exchange

Founding Fathers, Government, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, The State

Tibor Machan posted a brief reply to “The Work Open-Border Libertarians Won’t Do” in the Comments Section of Barely a Blog. The meat of Machan’s reply:

“Refusing to extend welfare to illegal immigrants will amount to an arbitrary, indeed mean-minded policy based on nothing more than nationalism or even worse, such as preference for members of one’s own race or age group or some such nonsense.”

Machan’s line of reasoning proceeds from the premise that limiting the size and scope of the Welfare State no matter how is not necessary the most urgent—and hence the most ethical and moral—imperative. Rather, according to Tibor’s reasoning, given the reality of the Transfer State, apportioning welfare based on egalitarian, “fair,” and consistent criteria is the most pressing matter.

The premise of Machan’s reply seems to be that egalitarian treatment (of the world) is the proper purpose of policy. As a strict propertarian, I could not disagree more; As I see it, the imperative of policy is to limit theft, not extend its spoils fairly.

I also wonder about the worldview held by libertarians. The founders clearly recognized that some people were the responsibility of a limited, American, republican government; others not. What, after all, did John Quincy Adams mean when he counseled that America not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, but remain the well-wisher of the freedom and independence of all, but the champion and vindicator only of her own?

Machan’s reply, on the other hand, seems to suggest that “We Are the World”—that since we have the misfortune of laboring under the transfer state, we are obliged to extend its “benefits” to all who enter its orbit.

South African Jews: If Desperate, Go to Israel

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Israel, South-Africa

Israel’s overall death rate from crime is very low; lower than that of the US, which is, overall, about 6 in 100,000. Of course, in our ghettoes it rises to about 40 per 100,000, and thus closely approximates the rates I’ve documented for South Africa.

As readers of this blog (and of my columns) know, South Africa jostles with Iraq (but beats Columbia, I am told) for the title of the most violent place on earth: “The last statistics available, courtesy of the CBS, showed that between April 2004 and March 2005, 18,793 people were murdered in South Africa (population 47 million). In comparison, the ‘high crime’ United States (population 297 million) suffered 16,692 murders. Put differently, South Africa has 60 homicides per 100,000 people; the US approximately 6. And these are the official, filtered figures. According to Robert McCafferty of the United Christian Action, the South African Medical Research Council tallies 89 daily deaths, or 32,000 a year. Interpol’s statistics are also double those released by the South African Police Service.”

Remarkably, in 2004, Israel’s death by murder was 3.7 per 100,000 for civilians only; 4.3 when soldiers were included. (“Homicide rates in 2004 in a number of major U.S. cities, including the nation’s capital, exceeded rates of Palestinian fatalities at the hands of Israel’s army in the past year.”)

Ergo, if South African Jews are unable to immigrate to the US or Europe, they ought to consider Israel. They are far less likely to die there than in South Africa.

Paris’ Plight

Criminal Injustice, Hollywood, Individual Rights, Law

What’s being done to Paris Hilton is plain wrong.

Let me preface the above with this: She’s an ill-bred slut; a skunk with expensive clothes. She’s a stupid, rude, uneducated, and unkind woman (consider how she and her sidekick mocked those sweet quilting ladies on their reality show, and how they generally show contempt for the “yokels” with whom they slum it on the show).

Every time I’ve heard Paris speak, my impressions have been confirmed; she’s repulsive. As for her so-called allure, in “Sluts Galore,” I identified her as part of the “porn aesthetic,” sporting “sly, weasel-like looks.” I also thoroughly resent that her name mars one of my favorite fragrances, “Paris” by Yves Saint Laurent. (The allure of Paris the city, nothing can alter, except rioting Muslims.)

However, Hilton she was given unprecedented sentence for a low-level misdemeanor.

Here’s what Thomas Mesereau, a defense attorney for whom I have a great deal of respect, said. I praised his defense of Michael Jackson. (The article about that defense almost no one wanted to publish, including a large libertarian site.) Mesereau has said this about the legal plight of Paris—including the sentence, and the subsequent usurpation by the Judge of the sheriff’s authority:

“…you have a judge who is not following the law and who is willing to undermine our sheriff’s department. This judge absolutely has violated every procedure that applies to a situation like this. All her attorneys can do at this point is file an appeal, try and get her out on bail, as a misdemeanor permits one to do, and take it from there…

But I think the whole situation is a disgrace, because this judge undermined our sheriff and actually treated Paris Hilton far worse than anyone else would have been treated in this situation…

This judge knows darn well, because he’s in the criminal justice system, that people convicted of crimes like this, low-level misdemeanors, only spend a few days in jail, because they need to stop overcrowding, and they have to keep violent felons or people accused of violent felonies in jail.

I have had people go in the morning and leave that afternoon. Nobody gets 45 days like this. Nobody is told, you must spend all 45 days. He did it for the cameras. …And I think it’s highly improper…

I think equality should be the major message in our justice system, that, no matter who you are, you’re treated equally with everybody else.

This is a case of celebrity injustice. He did things with her because of who she is, and how much wealth she has, and because there were paparazzi and cameras around, that he wouldn’t have done with anybody else. And he’s created a difficult situation for our sheriff, who is a dedicated public servant, a very decent man. I know him very well.

And he’s trying to treat everybody equally. He didn’t treat Paris Hilton any differently from anyone else. And the judge tried to make it look like he had…”

Update: As usual, the media and the punditocracy are always wrong. Weeks after the fact, Greta Van Susteren of Faux News discovered (not due to any research she had conducted) that Hilton received more time than a wife batterer would. The Los Angeles Times did the journalist footwork (I can’t locate a link). After presiding over a gaggle of “experts” who hooted and hollered for Hilton’s head, Van Susteren has reversed her position.
About this you can be certain: mainstream media are always wrong. I put it down to cultural dumbing down: egalitarian hiring and the feminization of news.

In the chat I had with Jim Ostrowski of Paleo Radio last week, we agreed about the Hilton case, only I insisted on making the following distinctions (they are not mutually exclusive):
1) Hilton is a Ho—an unkind, classless slut. She’s huge because the market adjudicates popularity, not quality.
2) Hilton received unjust treatment by the legal system. (As a mother, I must say that the cry she let out to hers, “Mother, mother, this is unfair,” was horrible to hear.)

In this case, the injustice was by popular demand. The people—the pitchfork-hoisting, philosophical acolytes of the French Revolution—demanded Paris’s empty head, and got it.

Quarantine, Yes Or No?

Classical Liberalism, Ethics, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, The State

“I’m a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person. This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I’ve cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing.”

So said the patient “with a form of tuberculosis so dangerous he is under the first U.S. government-ordered quarantine since 1963,” on returning from a transatlantic trip to celebrate his wedding. The trip took him from Atlanta to Europe—Greece, Italy, the Czech Republic, France—and back to Atlanta via Canada and New York. By the man’s telling, he came back not because he realized he had exposed others to a deadly, highly infectious airborne disease, but because “he was afraid that if he did not get back to the U.S., he would not get the treatment he needed to survive.”
“Health officials said the man had been advised not to fly and knew he could expose others when he boarded the jets from Atlanta to Paris, and later from Prague to Montreal… He knew he had a form of tuberculosis and that it was resistant to first-line drugs.” Apparently he was also told to wear a mask. That too he ignored. If Andrew Speaker—that is the patient’s name—is as smart as he professes, he ought to have known not to expose people without their consent to any TB, much less to a strain associated with a 50 percent mortality rate.

Speaker returned to North America via Canada, driving into the US, a fact that demonstrates consciousness of guilt: He avoided American airlines, as he had been placed on a “no-fly alert,” which, it transpires, was overlooked at the border crossing. I suspect this case is akin, legally, to an individual infected with HIV not informing his sexual partners of his condition.

I’m trying to think of a libertarian argument against coercively confining a man who knowingly and intentionally uses his body as a lethal weapon against unsuspecting innocents. I can’t come up with one. Can you? Another libertarian has expressed a preference for “home confinement with an electronic monitor. This would seem to strike the balance between protecting his liberty interests and the safety of the public.” I like home confinement, only I really do not believe the authorities acted illiberally up until now: they gave the patient the goods (the info), and left it up to him to comply voluntarily. Andrew Speaker, on the other hand, ignored the information and acted recklessly. Should be given a second strike? If he strikes out again, someone could die—especially individuals with a low T cell count (suppressed immunity). Armed and dangerous is how he ought to be regarded. Would an electronic monitor provide ample warning in the event he violated the quarantine? By the time the authorities locate the quarantine violator, he may well have infected a host of people.
In the meantime, Diane Sawyer, who grills her subjects only in the sense Larry King interviews his, has elicited Speaker’s story. It’s a maze of contradictions and dissembling, and is accompanied suspiciously with “sexy” poses of Innocent Andy and a woman with a blond head the shape of Paris Hilton’s, a forlorn look, and big implants. His new wife, presumably. The fact that this is an educated man—a lawyer, no less—doesn’t help his case.