Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Libertarian open borders

Libertarians often argue for open borders. They usually claim to be following abstract general principles, and ignore the fact that they are letting in people who will destroy all those abstract principles. Here is an example:
He thinks that as a matter of fact, banning certain immigrants would help prevent an illiberal culture from forming. He might respond that, given the facts, we don’t need to censor people, indoctrinate them, or ban certain religions. He might be right. But we can still ask him, “Would you in principle be willing to do those things, if the facts were different? If, e.g., allowing people to convert to Islam turned out to be just as dangerous as you think allowing immigrants from Afghanistan, would you favor banning Islam, in order to maintain a liberal culture committed to the rule of law?” We doubt he’d say yes.
Yes, we can have free speech, freedom of religion, and democracy as long as we do not let in too many people who are opposed to those principles.

Islam is not just a religion. It is a belief system that is opposed to those libertarian principles.

If half the population wants basic freedoms, and the other half are opposed, then that is a recipe for war. Yes, it is sometimes to fight for freedom. I have no problem saying that. The strange ones are the Libertarians and cuckservatives who promote policies that will ultimately destroy what they stand for.


Anonymous said...

I used to listen to Free Talk Live, a libertarian radio show out of NH. They were always for open borders and secession. So, I posed the question - after secession and you create open borders, a flood of Chinese enter the Independent State of New Hampshire. So many that in fact they outnumber the natives. Do you honestly believe New Hampshire will remain what it was or will it become a vassal state of China? The Chinese government could send trustworthy citizens to New Hampshire and literally take it over in a generation. The answer on FTL was that it seemed unlikely. But it was a poor answer because the likelihood of such an occurrence is dependent on whether or not New Hampshire would be a free and independent state or not. As it is part of the US it benefits from what controls on immigration that do exist. A free, independent and open border New Hampshire would have no such protection, even if that protection is deeply flawed.

Libertarians, who I have some respect for, mostly do not realize that they are what they are in large part due to their genetics. Change the genetics of a nation, and you change the nation.

Roger said...

Thats right. There are already communities in California that have already been taken over by the Chinese. No, not a vassal state, but they have different priorities and objectives.