Just as the Democratic Party has chosen the hill upon which they will die as immigration, it appears the Libertarian Party has chosen legal weed as their hill. Which, to me, shreds their credibility.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Libertarians don't want open borders...
- Thread starter Twangbanger
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Just as the Democratic Party has chosen the hill upon which they will die as immigration, it appears the Libertarian Party has chosen legal weed as their hill. Which, to me, shreds their credibility.
I don't know that they chose it. It's just about the only thing libertarians can agree on...and its achievable.
The Libertarian Party position is, "Libertarians believe that if someone is peaceful, they should be welcome to immigrate to the United States".
So then most people should be free to come here just because they want to.
Other than a few restrictions, sounds like the Libertarian Party is for open borders in practice.
This unworkable position is one reason I've backed away from at times voting Libertarian.
https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/
So then most people should be free to come here just because they want to.
Other than a few restrictions, sounds like the Libertarian Party is for open borders in practice.
This unworkable position is one reason I've backed away from at times voting Libertarian.
https://www.lp.org/issues/immigration/
I think someone else has already touched on this, but this immigration policy works hand in glove with the NO welfare policy (Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, SS, subsidies, etc etc etc). You can't have liberal immigration without abolishing handouts.
My question is, "what does it matter if people are immigrating if they're contributing?" People will always create more than they consume, which is why they're employable in the first place. Human beings are a hell of a resource.
If they say they support open borders, they're logically inconsistent. Their stated position is: "if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense." Of course this means a very liberal border policy, but it requires a border, and it requires a decision whether or not to let someone come in across the border. That's not an open border.
Another logical inconsistency: "Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals." What happens when the people who are denied entry because they aren't peaceful, cross the border anyway. Are they not illegal immigrants then? Libertarians say the immigration policy is too complicated for people who want to come here legally, so the skip the line. Well, I agree with that. I think the process for immigration should be simplified. But they're also being logically inconsistent if they think theirs isn't still a system in practice, in which the border needs protected, and that people coming in who don't meet even their single criterion, are breaking the law. That still makes them criminals. There must still be the concept of illegal aliens.
And I like the term illegal aliens better than illegal immigrants. Many people who come here illegally aren't immigrants. They come and go. The term "illegal aliens" properly captures the essence. I've heard people say they hate that term because it's like we're saying they're from another planet.
I'm sorry. I'm not going to change a term because you're ****ing ignorant. It just means they're foreign nationals who are not here legally. And that can mean immigrants, or visitors. But also there's a problem with the overall practicality of making "peaceful" the lone criterion for immigration. We don't live in a world which is compatible with that. They say it's part of the free market principle, that people should be able to come and go as they please. And they're right about that. But. The world isn't free market, and the US isn't even free market. It's more free market than some places, but we're still a ***damn welfare state. And we still have a lot of cronyism going on. Human nature is what it is, and unless people can move about peacefully and freely in a truly free market, without burdening other people, then an openish border that doesn't also vet people's potential burden on society isn't practical.
Not true. I'm not saying this in respect to immigration, per se. People in general have varying degrees of competence and productivity. When I worked in a union shop as a support engineer, I saw a lot of examples of this. Out of the roughly 25 people I supported, maybe a handful produced a very disproportionately large output. A dozen were mediocre, to competent. The rest were dead weight. Didn't do ****, and bragged about not doing ****. Probably union protection fosters bad attitudes at least a little in some people. But still, not everyone is competent, and not everyone is even employable.
That said, I would not have a problem with the Libertarian position on immigration if the world worked more like they think it does. And, if we had such a system where there's no burden if peaceful people immigrate here, whether they're competent or productive or not, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There are a lot of bankruptcy lawyers that would probably disagree with this... Just sayin'...
I am Libertarian NOT because I support everything the national party stands for, but rather because I support the fundamental ideology of the party. I don't agree on everything, just like I'm sure most republicans don't read their national platform and blindly support it, nor the democrats either.
FACTOID: We have a nanny state. I don't like it. I rail against it, but the reality is that we have a nanny state. This then allows for a welfare state. So long as we have a welfare state that means LAWFUL citizens and/or LAWFUL foreign workers have contributed to this system. Ergo, anyone who comes here in violation of our border control laws and takes advantage of any aspect of our welfare state is a de-facto thief! I don't believe the vast majority of them are malevolent or evil or have bad intentions, but this does NOT change the reality that they are thieves. As thievery is a violation of property rights it becomes a criminal act that should be punished.
Or, we can take action to better control who enters our country and how they behave within it. One side of this is active border control. Another side of this slapping the
out of companies that incentivize such illegal behavior by providing employment that entices them here in the first place. Yet another course of action in our control is to fix a broken and outdated immigration system.
We were built on immigration. The vast majority of our ancestors came here after the 13 colonies formed a federal government that was acknowledged around the world. However, when our ancestors arrived there was no homeless program nor aid for needy children nor laws forcing medical providers to provide free emergency care nor etc etc etc.
The national Libertarian Party is wrong. Please don't hold that against the Libertarian Party of Indiana, which is far more reasonable and grounded in the real world.
Regards,
Doug
FACTOID: We have a nanny state. I don't like it. I rail against it, but the reality is that we have a nanny state. This then allows for a welfare state. So long as we have a welfare state that means LAWFUL citizens and/or LAWFUL foreign workers have contributed to this system. Ergo, anyone who comes here in violation of our border control laws and takes advantage of any aspect of our welfare state is a de-facto thief! I don't believe the vast majority of them are malevolent or evil or have bad intentions, but this does NOT change the reality that they are thieves. As thievery is a violation of property rights it becomes a criminal act that should be punished.
Or, we can take action to better control who enters our country and how they behave within it. One side of this is active border control. Another side of this slapping the
out of companies that incentivize such illegal behavior by providing employment that entices them here in the first place. Yet another course of action in our control is to fix a broken and outdated immigration system.We were built on immigration. The vast majority of our ancestors came here after the 13 colonies formed a federal government that was acknowledged around the world. However, when our ancestors arrived there was no homeless program nor aid for needy children nor laws forcing medical providers to provide free emergency care nor etc etc etc.
The national Libertarian Party is wrong. Please don't hold that against the Libertarian Party of Indiana, which is far more reasonable and grounded in the real world.
Regards,
Doug
Let's say for argument'a sake everybody who comes here creates more than they consume and doesn't use any social programs.
It still would create a demographic invasion of millions of people showing up who don't speak the language, have no understanding of the American culture, and are un-assimilated.
For example, a couple of months ago there was a story that reported 150,000,000+ people from Central and South America said they come to the USA of they could.
Let's assume they're all wonderful people, and they all come here.
That would still cause a huge upheaval of our American Culture.
Add into that, the hundreds of millions of people from around the world who would show up here too.
The USA would cease to exist.
We can't have immigration at a level of more than the immigrants can assimilate to American Culture.
If they say they support open borders, they're logically inconsistent. Their stated position is: "if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense." Of course this means a very liberal border policy, but it requires a border, and it requires a decision whether or not to let someone come in across the border. That's not an open border.
Another logical inconsistency: "Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals." What happens when the people who are denied entry because they aren't peaceful, cross the border anyway. Are they not illegal immigrants then? Libertarians say the immigration policy is too complicated for people who want to come here legally, so the skip the line. Well, I agree with that. I think the process for immigration should be simplified. But they're also being logically inconsistent if they think theirs isn't still a system in practice, in which the border needs protected, and that people coming in who don't meet even their single criterion, are breaking the law. That still makes them criminals. There must still be the concept of illegal aliens.
And I like the term illegal aliens better than illegal immigrants. Many people who come here illegally aren't immigrants. They come and go. The term "illegal aliens" properly captures the essence. I've heard people say they hate that term because it's like we're saying they're from another planet.
But also there's a problem with the overall practicality of making "peaceful" the lone criterion for immigration. We don't live in a world which is compatible with that. They say it's part of the free market principle, that people should be able to come and go as they please. And they're right about that. But. The world isn't free market, and the US isn't even free market. It's more free market than some places, but we're still a ***damn welfare state. And we still have a lot of cronyism going on. Human nature is what it is, and unless people can move about peacefully and freely in a truly free market, without burdening other people, then an openish border that doesn't also vet people's potential burden on society isn't practical.
In addition to all of your excellent points, I will also point out that freedom of association is still an inherent right, and one that remains constitutionally protected.
A society has the natural right to decide with whom that society will associate as a society. An "open borders" policy violates that right.
I’m going to have to gnaw on that for awhile. I don’t generally think it’s logically consistent to extend to groups the concept of inherent rights. Depending on the context groups can have rights but it’s not obvious those rights are inherent to a group per se. A group is a social construct.
But if you want to say that the inherency of the individual’s right to freedom of association, confers to the group upon some mutual contract, and apply that as the right for the group to freely associate, I could go along with that. But it’s not an inherent group right at work. It’s the collective individual rights working in some kind of contractual arrangement.
Sorry about getting into the weeds with that. It’s conceptually important, but not functionally unimportant to your point.
"Freedom of association" cannot exist in the context of an individual. Association, by definition, assumes more than one individual. Thus, the freedom of association must extend to any group of individuals who collectively exercise that freedom to associate with each other.
ETA: ...or who collectively exercise that freedom to choose not to associate with others.
(Also, an individual may choose to exercise the freedom of association by choosing not to associate with any other individuals.)
This idea intersects with the friction between cultural conflict and cultural diffusion. Cultural conflict occurs when different cultural beliefs clash. We are seeing a significant cultural conflict today between young folks who want massive social programs and those of us strongly opposed. With cultural diffusion this is when cultures exchange ideas in a somewhat soft scale, like some businesses giving Muslims time off for afternoon prayers. Those businesses are changing their corporate culture in a very mild way to accommodate someone else's cultural need.
A massive influx of a group from south of the border into the United States would bring their own culture with them and overwhelm our own. In "some" areas this is not a problem, or a simple minor annoyance. For example, they may push for laws supporting a siesta in the middle of the day. While this may be annoying, or even welcome, it would not disrupt our entire culture.
However, when it comes to our cultural respect of equal rights between the sexes, or absolute respect of firearms ownership, or labor laws respecting the right of workers to a basic degree, or the need to embrace the free market and capitalism to the maximum extent possible - THIS would greatly erode values and ideals that I believe make us great as a culture! Adopting ideas and ideals from other cultures is a very good thing when you can cherrypick what you believe is good and bad. This allows for a process of evaluation to determine what should be kept and what should stay.
Even the cultural ideal of embracing democracy means we embrace the willingness to LOSE! In 2008 there wasn't a civil war started by republicans when Obama won. In 2016 there wasn't a civil war started by democrats when Trump won. Now, I freely admit there has been much screaming and yelling and gnashing of teeth, but for all of that the democrats haven't revolted. In all fairness had it been anyone but Trump I doubt we would see the vitriol as strong as it is, but that is another issue. In a lot of smaller cultures the dominant winner shares all power ONLY with those of their own tribe or group. We do that too, of course, but nowhere near to the extent of others. If we were to be overwhelmed by another culture without their having time to absorb our important values what we have would indeed be lost.
In the opening scene of "The Newsroom" Jeff Daniels claims that many other countries "have freedom" so we are not special. I love the scene, but he IS wrong! Our freedom of firearms ownership, our absolute embrace of free speech and expression, our protection of spousal privilege, and many other nuanced views on rights. In Germany the law prohibits displays of Nazism. Canada restricts handgun ownership.
In the simplest of ideas I believe our country is great due to our culture, and not that our culture is great due to our country. I want our cultural identity protected because I deeply believe it is worth protecting! This then means a slow limit on cultural diffusion.
Regards,
Doug
Associations cant exist without individuals. Groups aren’t monolithic. It requires individuals choosing to associate themselves with the group. Group criteria is arbitrary. It’s the individual’s right to associate that’s at work, not a group’s right. It is a mutual consent among the individuals to belong to a group. At the group level it requires rules and mechanisms to resolve conflicts among the individual members to make the association work. That kinda throws “inherent” out of the conversation at the group level.
I don't know... I find the democrats pretty revolting myself.
[video=youtube;TYpYs9GBXwY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpYs9GBXwY[/video]
A group is merely a collection of individuals. Exercise of freedom of association is each individual in the group individually acting on a desire to associate with each other individual in the group (and, since it is relevant to the context of this thread: acting on a desire *not* to associate with others outside of the group).
Unless I'm missing something, you seem to be overthinking the concept.
Now, the larger the group gets, the more difficult to define common terms for exercise of freedom of association - in which case, social compacts are used to define what those terms are. In our case, we have the Constitution.
Yes. A group is a collection of individuals, and not a monolith. You’re describing the same attributes I have, but are saying that means it’s the the group that has the inherent rights. And I’m saying the inherent rights can only belong to individuals, not group’s.
It’s not overthinking. It seems pretty simple. A social construct, which a group is, isn’t alive, doesn’t have a single thought; it is the people who choose to associate together who think, perhaps even similarly, yet are diverse. That thing can’t have inherent rights. People have inherent rights. So maybe the source of the disagreement is in the definition of what is an inherent right.
In this, you and I agree 100%. Rights are inherent to the individual, not to the collective.
At the same time, freedom of association requires more than one individual, otherwise the right is meaningless (except for an individual who exercises the freedom of association by choosing not to associate with anyone). Also, even with two people, the decision to associate with another must be mutual.
They know a whole lot about their lofty ideals, and know absolutely nothing about politics, much less the world outside of their head.
Doesn't seem to be much difference from them and the new breed of democrats, except democrats have brand loyalty working for them.
This country really doesn't have the time for ideologues.
