Various people have asked me what I think of Ron Paul's presidential campaign, and whether it will be good for libertarianism. Here's my take:
Ron Paul deserves credit for his strong commitment to limited government on many issues, including taxes, regulation, federal spending, and federalism-based limits on federal government power. Nonetheless, I am skeptical that his candidacy will provide much of a boost to libertarianism. There are also a number of major nonlibertarian elements to Paul's issue positions, some of which are extremely disturbing. The worst is his highly statist position on immigration. I should also note that I strongly disagree with Paul's foreign policy positions. But I'm not going to focus on those issues in this post, because I think libertarianism leaves room for extensive disagreement in that field.
I. Why Ron Paul's Candidacy Won't Provide Much Help to Libertarianism in the Long Run.
The big problem with claims that Paul's candidacy will provide a major boost to libertarian prospects is that he has virtually no chance of winning the Republican nomination or even coming close to doing so. Virtually all polls have Paul running under 10%. Despite the understandable enthusiasm of Paul's supporters, I doubt that he will even come close to winning a single primary, let alone the nomination. I don't see how libertarian ideas are helped by becoming associated with a presidential campaign doomed to abject failure. To the contrary, if libertarianism more generally becomes closely associated with Paul, his virtually inevitable crushing defeat will be viewed as a major setback for all of us.
Some Paul advocates compare him to Barry Goldwater or George McGovern, presidential candidates who advanced their ideology's longterm prospects despite suffering overwhelming electoral defeat. The big difference between Paul and these predecessors is that they managed to win control of their respective political parties, even though they went on to lose in the general election. Paul, by contrast, has no realistic chance of taking control of the Republican Party.
II. How Libertarian is Paul?
Even if Paul has no chance of winning and little chance of providing a major boost to libertarian prospects, it might be reasonable to support him as a protest candidate, in order to express support for libertarian views for its own sake. I might be willing to go along with this view if it were not for the fact that some of Paul's major issue positions are distinctly nonlibertarian.
As the Club for Growth describes here, Ron Paul has opposed virtually all free trade agreements. Few ideas are more fundamental to libertarianism than free trade. As the Club has documented, Paul also has opposed school voucher programs. In both of these cases, in fairness, Paul claims that his position is based on the idea that some other approach - unilateral free trade or home schooling - is even more libertarian than what he opposes. Even if he is correct on these points, I see no libertarian virtue in supporting the far less libertarian status quo against free trade agreements and school vouchers respectively. Even if trade agreements and vouchers are not the optimal libertarian policies, they are surely superior to the status quo of tariffs and government monopoly schooling.
Perhaps worst of all, Paul has bought into the conservative nativist line on immigration. He not only favors a massive crackdown on illegal immigration but even seems to endorse the view that immigration should be "reduced, not expanded" whether legal or not. To my mind, the freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles. From a libertarian perspective, our relative openness to immigration is one of the most admirable aspects of America.
Unlike in the case of free trade and school choice, Paul doesn't even pretend to argue that his position is based on the idea that there is some other policy that will be even more libertarian than the one he opposes. Instead, he clearly endorses the big goverment option of a "allocat[ing] far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower" to cracking down on illegal immigration and perhaps reducing legal immigration as well.
Lastly, like David Bernstein, I am troubled by Paul's refusal to repudiate the Stormfront neo-Nazis, racists, 9/11 "Truthers," and other assorted wackos who have endorsed him. Paul is not responsible for the views of these people, and I do not believe that he personally agrees with them. However, his apparent unwillingness to distance himself from them suggests that he is insensitive to the despicable nature of their views, and the significant damage that association with them could do not only to his campaign, but to libertarian causes more generally.
On some of the above issues, I might be willing to swallow Paul's shortcomings if he had a real chance of winning. A successful campaign necessarily requires compromise, and I'm not naive enough to believe that I can find a viable candidate that I agree with on everything. A libertarian protest candidate, however, must be judged by higher standards. If I am to support a candidate not because he is the lesser evil among those with a chance of winning, but as a statement of libertarian principle, he better actually reflect those principles. By that standard, Paul clearly falls short.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
I'm glad he's around to shake things up a bit.
You can also make a case that libertarian theory would only require free immigration from other countries that are also libertarian; allowing the government of a non-libertarian country to foist off its problems on us isn't really libertarian, any more than the government buying things on the free market is libertarian.
I have a different opinion on Paul as a protest candidate than Prof Somin. As a protest candidate I am willing to tolerate Paul's unwillingness to compromise for the greater good. Since I know he will never control the Presidency I can forgive the fact that in that office he would likely sacrifice opportunities to advance liberty because they weren't the "optimal" libertarian position. Were Paul a real candidate several of his positions would give me pause.
I suspect that I am not alone in this position. While a lot of people will defend all of Paul's specific positions, I think even more simply treat him as a symbol of libertarianism as they rally around a general message of liberty. That seems particularly to explain why Paul's campaign is not as closely associated with him than is the case for other candidates
A better solution would be to simply cut taxes. If parents get to keep more of their own money--and as people generally become wealthier--they'll naturally end up creating more demand for alternatives to public education. The only disadvantage is that no libertarian policy wonk gets to see his pet scheme put into practice.
This kind of argument against vouchers has been presented many times before in libertarian circles. I'm surprised Ilya Somin hasn't heard of it. Tyler Cowen has advanced a similar case against Social Security "privatization." Does that make him as disreputable as Ron Paul?
Finally, I think Mr. Somin misses the point when he argues that the failure of Ron Paul to win the nomination could be a setback for the libertarian movement. The point is, he's doing much better than anyone expected, despite all of his weaknesses. If politicians decide this is because of the libertarian part of Paul's message, they may decide they need to become more libertarian.
Can you give us a link for this. I could only find that he rejects incorporation of the establishment clause (which has some historical merit).
I'm in the middle of drafting a post about it, so here are a couple of links
Here he is discussing it in connection with the Fifth Amendment while discussing Kelo.
here he is discussing it in the context of the First Amendment.
My co-blogger Patrick points out that he seems to take an inconsistent position with respect to the Second Amendment.
What on earth is "Stormfront," and if Ron Paul has never endorsed their views or taken contributions from them, why should he be required to disavow them?
Does anyone doubt that among the 40+ million voters for Bush/Gore/Kerry (or the similarly huge number of Clinton/Giuliani/etc supporters) there is a sizeable crackpot contingent in favor of each? Doesn't this amount to one of those "David Duke supported Bush, so Bush is a Nazi" arguments?
I do agree with Ilya Somin that Paul doesn't seem to be creating any kind of sustainable libertarian coalition. I see a lot of single-issue types swarming around him; I haven't questioned them when I see them carrying signs around major events (for some reason, the World Series attracted a pro-Ron Paul demonstration ...), but I kind of doubt that the pro-legal marijuana crowd is also fervent about reducing taxes and the size of the federal government.
Then again, pretend we're starting from scratch here: what are the chances that one could gain control of both houses and the presidency through a coalition of
"federalists" who support a constitutional amendment banning abortion
supporters of big increases in federal spending, particularly in education, agriculture, and transportation,
supporters of massive military commitments overseas, supporters of "faith based initiatives,"
and supporters of federal legislation banning gay marriage?
Hardly sounds workable, but that's exactly what we had until a couple years ago ... is Ron Paul's "coalition" really any more irrational?
For the record, this is one of Dr. Paul's statements on international organizations and free trade agreements:
"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
- - - - - - - -
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
This last sentence is telling. Maybe he is signaling that his views on say "free trade" do not trump his view that American independence and freedom come first. Or maybe he is just saying that "free trade" agreements like NAFTA arent really "free" at all and in fact, bring on a whole host of restrictions and work to restrict America's freedom. If the latter be the case, then maybe he is being more liberterian than the libertarians who support NAFTA. Or maybe Dr Paul isnt properly classified as a libertarian at all - but ill leave that discussion up to others who know more on this topic than myself.
Ron Paul does bring some interesting ideas to the campaign, but a candidate has to be more than sum total of their positions.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the libertarian position. That freer and more prosperous society has rights also, including the right (and obligation) to be disciminating about who it admits.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/cox2.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18.html
http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/aen198.asp
Ken Arromdee makes as much sense as anyone above. But Ken says, for instance,
Ken, who's the white people, once they can legally work for less than they can now, that will be landscaping and roofing and chicken slicing or whatever undocumented workers do now? Please explain.
If Ron Paul doesn't want all levels of gov't to divest all the roads, I say he's a pansy of a libertarian.
I agree, but isn't "abject failure" a step up from the Libertarians' usual showing? I ask that seriously.
This may not have penetrated to the ivory tower, but resentment about Americas open borders crosses all sorts of political and class lines. The determined efforts of Americas political classes to fost a gigantic amnesty on the courty were not beaten back by that favorite bogy of the left, "conservative nativists".
Even the people of New York, not generally associated with "conservatism" or "nativism", drew the line at the latest attempt to treat those who came here illegally as if they were citizens.
Freedom of association (and non-association) can be abused. That doesn't make it void, anymore than theoretical abuses of property rights void the idea of property.
Why is it that the most feverent supporters of the free movement of labor are so heavily concentrated in medieval guild systems rather then in the free market?
The problem is that people look at his record to judge him, and other people bring up his record to defend him, but his record is that of a contrarian legislator. We don't know what he would do as an executive, except for what he says, such as continuing to support the people living off from the social programs. As a legislator, he might vote down school vouchers, but as an executive, he might support it.
I've donated to the guy, and here I can't even vote for him, thanks to NY state and their obscure election laws.
Thank you, Ilya, for the thought provoking and pejorative-free post.
You should hear conservative/libertarian law profs on the tenure track talk about unions and just cause discharge protections in employment. Me personally, I'm in favor of both those things and tenure, but it strikes me as more than a bit inconsistent to bash the former two while pursuing the latter.
Oh yeah, and vouchers are essentially and inevitably government subsidies of religious schools. Which may not be the pure libertarian position.
Now that I've gotten that off my chest, the rest of you can go back to debating Ron Paul.
Isn't that advancement for the cause of libertarianism, and isn't it much more of an advancement than just about anything else in the last two decades? I mean, for libertarians, what the hell else is there to look forward to?
I think that many, including supporters, which I am, misunderstand Dr. Paul label as a libertarian.
Dr. Paul has stated that he is addressing the issues at the Federal level. Hence, he argues,for example, that the Feds have no authority to ban the use of drugs. That is a State issue. The Feds can certainly regulate inter-state commerce but growing vegetables, or whatever, in your backyard is not inter-state commerce. And regulation is not prohibition.
As to the furor over the source of the $500 donation. Dr. Paul is on record stating that racism is a form of collectivism and he repudiates such ideas.
Nazis are national socialists. Can anyone really accuse Dr. Paul of being socialis(tic)? No. Is there a history that shows that Dr. Paul is racially bigoted? No.
Whoever gave the $500 wasted it if he expect Dr. Paul to advance socialism or [white] racial preferences.
True story from memory: The owner of a bordello, near Ponce, Puerto Rico, in late 1970's, died and left all her money to the Catholic Church. The amount was over one million dollars. There was a big debate as to whetherthe CC should accept the money. The CC, I think, did accept it. Does that mean that the CC was now endorsing prostitution?
Dr. Paul, like the CC, have never endorsed the views/life style of the donor and are under no obligation to the donor.
A similar argument applies to immigration. Libertarian theory is broad enough to accomodate many positions on immigration - except one: immigration restrictions whose purpose is to prevent foreigners from competing with locals in the market for goods or services cannot be justified. They are protectionism, not foreign policy. One sign of a protectionist immigration policy is when it doesn't discriminate among nations.
A country or society that regulates entry to such an extent is a collective where individuals have lost rights. Freedom of movement says you can live wherever you want. As log as you can pay for it.
That's gotta be one of the most basic freedoms people can have.
And it works well. Manhattan, for instance, has open borders. Anybody can live there. All you need to do is find a place to live. Mysteriously, it manages to thrive, even with all those people. The only thing that says you can't live there is perhaps your pocketbook. Not some elected official trying to engineer the population. (At least not directly)
How have I, as an American, "lost rights" by the practice of regulating who may immigrate to this country?
How has a person in China "lost rights" from such regulations?
No, that is not true. Manhattan is within the borders of the United States. It is not the case that anyone who wants to from anywhere in the world can live there. Manhattans borders are open only to Americans.
(And IIRC, Nozick even allows that they might have strings on leaving corresponding to a freely chosen condition upon entry in exchange for benefits.)
shecky: Anybody can live in Manhattan if they can enter the US. Manhattan, you see, is neither a society nor even a state, but merely a city.
Further, other people have a "basic freedom" to enter into compacts among themselves that might restrict the ability of others to buy in, later, to a given geographic area.
(For instance, a group pools resources to buy a housing development, and enters into a free compact that only their immediate kin can inherit or purchase the space there.
Nobody can buy in, but nobody's rights are violated, either. This is true even if they freely purchase and compact in an area the size of the United States.
This does not provide a pure-libertarian justification for immigration restrictions in the US, as the US was not constituted in such a manner - but it does tell us that there's no inherent right to live anywhere simply because you want to and could pay for it; other considerations can prevent that with no assault on your rights, such as they are.)
Also, you say individuals in such a country have lost rights. Which rights have they lost? They're not being prohibited from doing anything, remember - nor is anyone outside the country being prohibited from doing anything they want with their lives where they are.
"Freedom of movement" needs a clearer definition and justification before it'll be accepted as a basic right conferring the things you want it to confer.
I, for one, see a difference between the freedom to go anywhere, and the freedom to leave where you are to any place that will have you. Lack of the latter makes you imprisoned. Lack of the former means that other people's rights and yours conflict, which is inevitable and not obviously something that must be resovled in your favour.
That's the problem with arguments from basic freedoms; there are multiple ones, and they not just can but inevitably do conflict.
I'll admit my ignorance (agnosticism?) upfront but hasn't the libertarian view on US involvement in the world emanated from the view that excessive entanglements (as Washington called them) corrupted the US more than we corrupt others? That is, having an extensive involvement internationally necessarily leads to greater centralization of power, larger armies, the national security state, diminished sovereignty, et cetera?
And contra that, Paul's view is that our excessive entanglement has made us the enemies of others. That is, the world is not corrupting us; the US is corrupting (and angering) the world.
A non-libertarian view of why we need to lessen our involvement internationally.
Second: If the US should diminish its role in the world, another nation (or nations) will replace that vacuum. History shows that there has always been, if not a unipolar world, a multipolar one where several nations/states/powers balanced off one another.
So, what nation do the Paul supporters wish to supplant the US in its current dominant role? Because someone will replace us if we do withdraw from it.
If true, that would make Libertarian theory not broad at all, but extremely narrow. It permits one and only one position on immigration. But as it happens, there is nothing in libertarian theory which says anything of the sort. You'll look long and hard in the works of Smith, Mises, Hayek, or Friedman to find any such notions.
This is off the top of my head (I'm not actually a libertarian (I disagree with them about antidiscrimination laws and public libraries, among other things), but I'd imagine they'd have to do without (since the immigrant would not be motivated to come here if he can only make the same salary he could make in Mexico) or pay the immigrant more. Paying the immigrant more might make the minimum wage issue moot, but not the social services issue--to make a US job as attractive to an immigrant as one is now, the employer would have to pay the benefit that the immigrant now gets free from the government. This might not stop immigration, but would certainly lessen its impact.
Of course, it depends on exactly what problems you see as caused by immigrants. If you're offended merely by seeing brown people, I admit libertarianism won't do much to stop that. If you're concerned about the economic impact of immigrants, though, it should help.
I've always found it incongrouous that the most enthusiastic advocates of a world-wide free market in labor are so often themslves employed in positions which are more insulated from competition than the head of the AFL-CIO.
SIG3 and Sigi,
Shecky may want to express this better, but you're interfering with my ability to hire a Tuvalu throat singer at my wedding. Etc.
Maybe Ron Paul's schtick is that he's a Constitutionalist, not really a libertarian.
That may be. But the question was, what rights have they (you) lost?
Also, we should support pseudo-libertarianism so we can grow the movement incrementally? A little is better than nothing?
Right, gotcha. What's the HTML tag for an eye roll?
Boaz at Cato
Random blogger
Are you saying that all your desired immigrants will stay on your property, forever? That they and their children will never vote in our elections? That they will impose zero burden on the rest of us, be essentally invisible?
If you could say that, and make it be true, I'd go along with you. Since you can't, I won't.
Didn't we have this discussion back when the country was founded? No American has the right to import people. No foreigner has the right to come here.
I stopped reading after that weak opening sentence.
Can someone clarify Paul's position on free trade -- is he saying that the U.S. should not impose tarriffs on other nations regardless of what tarriffs other nations impose? If so, is that not putting the U.S. at a clear disadvantage, which is the point of having free trade agreements in the first place?
Short answer: Not if you're a consumer.
Long answer: If you're a mercantilist, or a government or media person unduly influenced by mercantilism, you want U.S. firms to sell lots of stuff into other countries and get paid. If you're Ron Paul, you figure the benefit to the U.S. of cheap stuff from other countries is reward enough; the net effect of dropping our tariffs is beneficial to us. Whether it's true or not, it's pretty standard economics.
Jerry F:
Relatedly, are there any agreements with foreign nations that Paul supports or any international organizations to which he thinks the U.S. should be a member?
Hah! Now you've gone beyond my expertise ;-)
And how, pray tell, am I doing that? If you wish to have a Tuvalu throat singer at your wedding, go to him. Give him money. Have your wedding where he is, if his singing matters so much to you.
I'm under no obligation to faciliate the destruction of the country, and MY property, in order to accomodate your whims.
This is the "spoiled child" aspect of libertarianism. If somebody cannot do exactly what they want, where they want, when they want, they act as if their constitutional rights are being violated.
I just saw your "never mind". So, never mind.
RO'R, you're asserting that a real libertarian would balk at reaching part of a libertarian goal until another part was included. Now there I really couldn't say. It's almost the inverse of Ilya's complaint that Ron Paul won't support half-way trade deals.
As far as supporting free immigration, given your prerequisites, we're not going to have the opportunity to find out, I don't suppose. But I doubt most people would really change their minds. Anyway, it's the jobs most people are flocking to, not the housing vouchers.
SIG 357, that's roughly my take as well.
Paul's position on immigration is sad, as is the loss of principle among many libertarians on this issue over the last decade. Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter" lists the overwhelming and enduring fear non-economists have of immigration as one of the main examples of voter irrationality, given that economists routinely and consistently from across the political spectrum note, on studying the issue, that there are and have always been net gains to the host country from immigration. (And if you don't like immigrants getting govt benefits, no libertarian is going to oppose a move to cut those benefits.)
But most disturbing is Prof. Somin's (to say nothing of Prof. Barnett's and Prof. Bernstein's) ahistorical view of libertarianism in the realm of foreign policy. All are experts in law, but none have PhDs in the history of social thought. When you talk with libertarians who have THAT background, it becomes clear that for several centuries, and certainly throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, libertarians have always been advocates of international peace through a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Consider Washington's Farewell Address urging the avoidance of entangling alliances to JQ Adam's recognition that his new nation should not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
Consider Cobden and Bright's Manchester school opposition to the Crimean and Boer Wars, Cobden condemning these from his seat in Parliament. Best known for their successful efforts to end the "Corn Laws", these principled free market proponents also fiercely opposed English involvement in foreign wars.
Herbert Spencer, the famous libertarian theorist, said of English soldiers fighting in (forgive the irony) Afghanistan,“When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves.” Then as now, there were government apologists screaming that the country would be in mortal danger if it didn't DO something, but libertarians typically saw through that kind of propagandistic rhetoric.
Yale founder of sociology William Graham Sumner gave a famous speech in the late 1800s about The Conquest of the United States by Spain, explaining that while the US had easily won a military victory against Spain, Spain had won on the field of ideas, as we moved from a republic to an empire, and took on the trappings and costs of empire: building up a fleet, higher taxes, a larger standing army, war, the draft, higher deficits, a growth in the power of the executive, until, like Spain, we would begin to wither and fade in history, bereft of the principles that gave a free republic birth. You can judge for yourself how prescient Sumner was.
During WWI, classical liberal Randolph Bourne spoke of War being the Health of the State. He would not have been surprised to see, had he lived long enough, a War on Poverty, a War on Drugs, and now a War on Terror, all related by the fact that they are wars without end.
So I disagree with Professor Somin that foreign policy is just something various libertarians are free to tack on to their political philosophy willy-nilly as they see fit. The connection previous generations of libertarians found between full free trade among the world's peoples, minimal political relationship among the world's governments and peace were seen for more than a century as fundamental to a libertarian world view. The destruction on 9/11, which comes not after years of non-intervention, but after decades of extensive US intervention in the Middle East, does not change that. Paul is right on the question of war and peace, an issue of such immense import that I can ignore his extremely poor position on immigration.
It'd odd then that nobody can ever quantify those supposed gains. The fact is that economic growth in America is comparable to that in other Western countries with much lower immigration rates.
No. But the tens of millions of distinctly non-libertarian immigrants will oppose it vehemently. And they are the people government is pandering to, not libertarians.
And there lies the real problem for libertarians with immigration. People are not fungible items like bushels of wheat or barrels of oil. They come preprogrammed with all sorts of ideas.
Libertarianism is a minority position in the US. And it is non-existent outside of it. The influx of tens of millions of people with distinctly socialist leanings kills any hope of limited government stone dead.
Libertarianism might indeed be a minority position in the US, but by claiming that it is non-existent outside of it, you are showing that you know little about what does or does not exist outside the US
As demonstrated in the past by the arrival of Pilgrim theocrats, Virginia planters, assorted Papists, and our own czarist law professors. SIG, much as I agree with your dismissal of modern libertarians, I'm afraid "Thoughtful" done blew you away. Sorry.
Since when does criticizing a candidate on ideological grounds bring with it the obligation to criticize people who support other, less desirable candidates?
I'm sure there are even bright five-year-olds who realize the massive downsides of that. If we ever declared libertarianism here, it would be gone within a short period as immigration was used as a means of political control (sound familiar?) For instance, further massive immigration from Mexico would give even more power to far-left racial demagogues like AntonioVillaraigosa. (Hint: he's not a libertarian and never will be). AV would use that power to push through completely non-libertarian policies.
Even worse, Ilya Somin would allow countries like China to obtain political power inside the U.S. by sending us people and making parts of the (former) U.S. essentially a Chinese colony.
And, by doing that, Ilya Somin would have violated the supposed libertarian precept of national defense.
There really is no way to deny that other countries would seek to take advantage of a libertarian U.S., so perhaps Somin should choose a more grown-up ideology.
In so far as legalized open borders - I don't agree with all of it, but this demonstrates the insanity of an American Libertarian supporting open borders.
Politicians ignore the stated law for campaign contributions from businesses that gain an unfair advantage over those who follow the rule of law.
No, he just disagrees with you on the best mechanism to promote the liberty of individuals. How can the Federal Government ensure that none of the 300 million citizens had their rights violated today? It can't. It is a false promise, which leads to a false sense of security that the Federal Government will take care of everything. The best it can hope to do is selectively protect rights here and there, which makes the situation politically charged.
I have a more cynical view of the Federal Government where we are doing pretty good if the Federal Government can insure that it itself won't violate anyone's rights today.
Just a me too. Open borders would be nice, but as part of a broader utopia, not as a starting point. The current situation is particularly bad, because so much immigration is outside legal channels. Others can say it better than I.
I'm more torn than usual this year. Just when I'd given up on the Libertarian Party, I've got a favorite son (Phillies) runnng for the party nomination. So where will my one protest vote do the most good? Getting my preferred Libertarian on the LP ballot, or raising the vote total of the closest-to-libertarian Republican? If I'm not going to vote LP, am I better off compromising even more, voting for the one of the candidates with a reasonable chance of winning his Democratic or Republican nomination who would do the least unlibertarian damage?
**Me: Absolutely correct. A dissenter tried to say that the flaw with your objection was the nonsensical suggestion that libertarians couldn't do anything until they could do everything. THAT is nonsense -- and there's a perfrect example from 20 years ago the danger of out-of-balance libertarian advances in the S&L crisis. Deregulation while keeping FSLIC protection was a disaster.
bitern said in response to someone else:
**Me: nonsense. In terms of proportion, compared to the 'native' American population, in terms of more shared core values, and the whole-hearted and, for most, irrevocable commitment to the new country, your reference to the past is way off base. Crossing the ocean on a one-way trip meant our predecessors had to buy in to the fundamental idea of America. And it was not un-PC back then for various public and private instititutions to expect/push a modicum of assimilation. By comparison, for a large portion of th eimmigrants from Mexico, their stay is just an extended commute, if not effectively a colonization -- being geographically adjacent changes things radically from the 19th century paradigm of immigration.
FWIW I am NOT a Paul supporter due to his foreign policy.
It takes a lot of blood, sweat, energy, and effort to migrate to another country. I doubt many posters here could manage spending a week outside in bitter heat or cold while crossing a desert and evading animals and patrols, climbing barbed wire fences, etc. All the more difficult for VC posters if they had to come, not from nearby Mexico, but countries further south. Are these posters really serious in their belief that people put themselves--and sometimes even their entire families (young wives, infant children)--through all that just to get here so they can get govt. benefits? If that's what they're coming for, why are people so upset they're after our jobs (picking lettuce, mowing yards, cleaning houses, etc.)?
And for all those non-economists in border states concerned that Mexicans are taking "their" jobs, what are their thoughts on intra-national immigration? An Arizonan who loses a job to a new arrival is equally out that job whether the new arrival is from Mexico or Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Peru. Shouldn't they really be favoring an end to free travel and movement within the United States?
And if people oppose Massachusetts liberals moving to other states to take advantage of government benefits, libertarians are in favor of eliminating the benefits.
(Granted, SIG357, as things currently stand, those damn former Massachusetts socialists might outvote us libertarians...but you do realize, don't you, your complaint isn't with immigration, it's with modern welfare-state democracy.)
Who cares, as long as I'm not paying for their misadventures with a debased currency?
I'm asserting that you cannot possibly attain the one goal (a "free" labor market) until you attain the other(ending taxpayer subsidization of at least imported labor).
How do you dismantle the welfare state if you're yearly importing millions of ready made welfare recipients on the path to voter registration?
It makes no sense at all.
Unless the plan is to bankrupt and collapse the nation so we start over from scratch.
People may flock here for the jobs, but many get the housing voucher and a lot more. Immigrants over the past 30 years are fully 50% more likely to be on welfare than the native born.
Heritage study shows average low wage immigrant consumes $20k per year more social services than they pay in taxes.
That is massive taxpayer subsidization of business labor costs. How libertarian is that?
How is the elimination of national sovereignty a libertarian principle? How is it that people from other countries have a “right” to immigrate to the US? Particularly since the reverse does not hold. An American of European decent cannot immigrate to Japan, Korea India and many other countries. You might get a temporary work permit, but you will not get citizenship.
Not repudiating whackos is probably something he picked up during his association with the Great Whacko Debating Society in 1988.
It is not nearly as factually incorrect as to assume the opposite, that they are the best their country has to offer, which most pro-immigration people seem to do.
It is an established fact that immigrants tend to vote for the more statist of our two parties. No assumptions are needed.
I have met a fairly large number of people from the former Soviet bloc here in America. They bring their assumptions of an all encompassing state with them.
All it takes is a short ride on a plane. Most illegal immigrants came here on a visa and never left.
Set saide the sneering reference to "non-economists", which suggests that people are unable to make accurate economic assessments of their own situation, a left wing trope.
Intra-national "immigration", as you put it, is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution. Americans are supposed to look out for their fellow Americans, ahead of looking out for people from Peru. Yes, really.
No, that is not correct. The modern welfare state exists because there are people who want it to. The people coming here as immigrants are the ones who desire it most. These two things, the welfare state and the immigrants cannot be separated.
If you want to get rid of the welfare state, starve it for clients. The Democrats are not frantic to flood the country with poor immigrants because they are nice people. They know they are growing the welfare state by doing so.
And the Republicans who support immigration know it too, but since they get to concentate the profits in their own pockets and distribute the costs to everyone else, they don't care. The worst elements in each party, working for the common ill.
I'm dropping off the thread, but .here
is a link you should read
This might explain why Ilya and Dr. Bernstein, who calls himself a libertarian, seem much more incensed about what they see as Ron Paul's deviation from "party line" positions, while not seeming to care much about, say, Fred Thompson's position on the drug entrepreneurship, or what Rudy Guiliani did to Michael Milken.
FYI, I come from outside the US. People look at you as if you are insane if you describe the libertarian position in other countries. They have never heard it before.
As for guaranteeing that immigrants won't be a "burden": if two American citizens have a child, can they guarantee the child or its descendants won't be a burden on anyone? If not, should we regulate procreation?
I'd be perfectly happy to see government "benefits" withheld from immigrants. As a libertarian, I'd be perfectly happy to see them withheld from citizens too.
The question of who may or may not vote is an entirely separate issue from immigration.
No, it is most emphatically not. For the Democrats, that is the entire point of immigration. If the people in America don't approve of your policies, just replace then with people who do. The Democrats have SAID that this is their thinking.
People ARE policy.
As an American, you HAVE bought into the arrangement known as America. Part of that arrangement is that you can't import your own people. If that irks you, you can always leave and try to find someplace else in the world which will indulge you. You wont.
As an American you are bound by American laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to illegals, you cannot rent to illegals. Your right to make money does not override everyone elses right to have a country. Without a country, you won't have any money. It's a classic commons problem.
I agree that Paul’s position on a return to the return to the gold standard is a major weakness. However his position, as I understand it, comes from our government’s abuse of fiat money. The dollar is falling and that’s going to hurt the economy of the US. Ron Paul is critical of the Federal Reserve, and I agree with him on that. Just listen to Ben Bernanke’s testimony before the House and Senate— it doesn’t inspire confidence. The Fed has failed us and continues to fail us. The Fed should have raised the margin requirement on stocks to dampen the stock bubble—it didn’t. It helped engineere another bubble— housing. It should have taken a firm stand on the expensing of options. This institution is now rotten and needs to be abolished. That does not mean a return to the gold standard. Been there done that.
Me: It is simply factually incorrect to assume, as many anti-immigration posters here seem to assume, that those emigrating to the US from country X are typical of the average citizen of country X.
Sig:It is not nearly as factually incorrect as to assume the opposite, that they are the best their country has to offer, which most pro-immigration people seem to do.
No reference. I know of no one who thinks they are the best other countries have to offer. [Those people obviously have less reason to leave.] I think the standard assumption is they are on average more industrious and more interested in living in a land of greater freedom and opportunity. Perhaps like our own ancestors.
Sig: It is an established fact that immigrants tend to vote for the more statist of our two parties. No assumptions are needed.
No references. Hispanics in California typically voted Republican before Republicans made it clear they thought they could get more votes by using "illegal immigrants" as scapegoats. Why would hard working people just starting out a family business, as many immigrants do, vote for the party in favor of higher taxes and more regulations on businesses?
[Me}I am confident many of those emigrating from Russia with the name "Volokh" are fully aware of these pre-conditions and can likely enunciate them and apply them in principled fashion far better than most native born Americans.
Sig: I have met a fairly large number of people from the former Soviet bloc here in America. They bring their assumptions of an all encompassing state with them.
I find it hard to believe that the average Russian immigrant is similar in most significant aspects to the average Russian. But on this blog we need not guess. Many of our hosts can enlighten us if they choose to.
Me: It takes a lot of blood, sweat, energy, and effort to migrate to another country.
Sig: All it takes is a short ride on a plane. Most illegal immigrants came here on a visa and never left.
No references. Are these plane-riding visa-overstaying immigrants the ones picking the lettuce or the ones playing welfare queens? I'd have thought they were the students getting graduate or higher degrees. We certainly wouldn't want educated foreigners making a home in our country. Think what it might do to the quality of our public schools!!
Me: And for all those non-economists in border states concerned that Mexicans are taking "their" jobs, what are their thoughts on intra-national immigration?
Sig: Set saide the sneering reference to "non-economists", which suggests that people are unable to make accurate economic assessments of their own situation, a left wing trope.
It is not a "left-wing trope", Sig. It's a well known and documented fact. See Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter", where he provides all the documentation. The entire problem with "non-economists", people not schooled in economic principles, is NOT that they can't make "accurate economic assessments of their own situation," it's that they improperly generalize their own situation to the nation. So, if they lost their job, America must be losing jobs.
Sig: Intra-national "immigration", as you put it, is clearly spelled out in the US Constitution. Americans are supposed to look out for their fellow Americans, ahead of looking out for people from Peru. Yes, really.
First, Sig, I guess you have a problem with hypotheticals. Of course it is against the US Constitution. My point is if you take the economics seriously, you'd be calling for an amendment to the US Constitution. Secondly, I'm not familiar with the ethical theories that say "treat your neighbor like yourself, if he's up to 3000 miles away as long as no arbitrary national boundries are crossed. Otherwise f-ck him." Sounds like nationalism to me, which has become a state religion of sorts, and ultimately has played a major role in warfare over the last century. I'm a little tired of it myself, but some people, it seems, just can't get enough.
Sig: The modern welfare state exists because there are people who want it to. The people coming here as immigrants are the ones who desire it most. These two things, the welfare state and the immigrants cannot be separated.
Yes. This is why immigration to America was so extensive 100 years ago, because of our huge pre-WWI welfare state.
And as a Southerner, you are bound by Southern laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to blacks, you cannot rent to blacks. Your right to make money does not override everyone else's right to have a southern state with a certain culture.
And as a German, you are bound by German laws. If those laws say you cannot rent to Jews, you cannot rent to Jews. Your right to make money doesn't override everyone else's right to have a country.
Thus the problem of legal positivism...the belief that everything the legislature does constitutes law (worthy of commanding allegiance).
And, not to keep rubbing salt in the wound or anything, but Sig: what you wrote above is not merely NOT a CLASSIC commons problem, it is not a commons problem at all in the sense economists talk of it. If you disagree, please clarify what is the resource used in common without well defined property rights and how is it being overused and undermaintained?
You say that "As an American, you HAVE bought into the arrangement known as America. Part of that arrangement is that you can't import your own people." I don't remember agreeing to anything. Can you show me my signature?
You go on to say, "If that irks you, you can always leave and try to find someplace else in the world which will indulge you." SIG357, I'm going to insist that you pay me yearly tribute and follow my rules from now on. If you don't like it, you can always leave and find someplace else where you don't have to abide by my rules.
If I don't have the right to push you around if you stay, why would you have the right to push me around if I stay?
No one has a right to have a country that violates the rights of individuals to associate peacefully.
I'm not saying that the Fed is infallible, but having an inelastic money supply would be a disaster. The dollar is based on the taxing power of the most stable government in the world, and the strength of the strongest economy in the world. The reason the dollar is sinking is not mainly due to deficit government spending, it is due to deficit consumer spending; our balance of trade is out of line and has been out of line for quite a while. We've gotten away with it because the dollar is such a strong currency because the Fed has done such a good job evening out shocks to the economy over the last 75 years.
If the Fed wants to pump the dollar up in relation to other currencies the prescription is simple: cut back on the money supply, raise interest rates to give foreign dollar holders a greater return on their money. Congress would also have to cut back on spending, or raise taxes, to service the debt. Now this would send the entire world into a steep recession, pop China's bubble economy, and a raft of other intended consequences. I'd just as soon keep things the way they are for at least a while longer, at least until I pick up that 52" LCD I have my eye on.
But a dropping dollar can help self correct the imbalance, it makes imports more expensive, and lowers the prices of our exports, theoretically that will eventually bring the balance of trade back into line and the dollar will rebound. Frankly that seems like the best solution to me, things ain't so bad now, and 9% unemployment seems like quite a drastic fix for the current level of the dollar.
In my mind, I am replacing "Paul" with "[Nader]" and "libertarianism" with "[liberalism]" (or whatever it is Nader stands for -- wackoism). The notion that the "protest candidate" should be judged by higher standards may be the most precisely correct response on this point that I've ever read.
However, based on my experience with Nader supporters, I predict that your arguments will not be taken well, if at all.
A bit further with the analogy: A trivial amount of research reveals that Nader's commitment to "Green" or even liberal issues is spurious at best (union-busting in his own offices; opposition to "feticide"; letter to Jeb Bush demanding Terri Schiavo be saved by any means necessary; etc. etc.). However, in general, Nader debates amongst liberals are nothing but a litany of polemics alternately accusing the other side of being sellouts and turncoats for supporting or not supporting Ralph Nader.
Having participated in a number of such discussions, I have never once managed to get anyone to engage, let alone acknowledge, the possibility Ralph Nader -- the candidate -- isn't even remotely the candidate that everyone (supporter or detractor) takes as a given that he is. (And not for lack of effort.)
I think that my -- and your -- premise in approaching these issues is flawed. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul are not judged by their environmentalism nor their libertarianism, respectively -- in fact, neither their positions nor those labels are relevant to the "discussion." They're merely proxies for secondary argument, an argument amongst people -- often at the "fringes" -- who feel not just disenfranchised and frustrated, but deceived, and about the visceral response they have to that feeling.
The key is that the issue isn't political per se -- the common conceptual element is conspiracy. Not necessarily "conspiracy" in the tinfoil-hat sense, but merely a pervasive, incessant feeling that the game is irretrievably rigged. That's what people like Ralph Nader and Ron Paul tap into -- an ideology of radical skepticism. (Not radicalism -- but a willingness to be skeptical about anything -- call it an ideology of distrust.)
Consider: if you read a few conspiracy websites, you'll quickly notice that they rarely discriminate between "stories" from the far-left, far-right, or any political "pole" ... the same sort of discordance exists among the supporters of radical anti-establishment candidates, and even the positions of the candidates themselves. Though you'll find neo-Nazis supporting Paul, you'll find even more former Naderites.
The radicalized strains of "libertarianism" and "liberalism" are vessels for these candidates not because of their principles, but because those political schemata can accommodate the level of skepticism and distrust necessary to sustain the conspiracy. Though political legitimacy demands that they profess principles, they can at the same time be repurposed.
So while generally the campaigns hew towards the commonplace principles and bywords of their chosen labels, they're also often stretched when necessary -- that conceptual flexibility is why they're useful. But ultimately, it's the ideology of distrust that's driving these campaigns, not whatever name they happen to use. Real libertarianism and liberalism recognize the contingency of politics and the possibility of deception, but their fundamental narratives are fundamentally functional, humanistic, rational. They have an internal logic which can be tested against reality.
But the ideology that drove Nader's campaigns and that now animates the Paul campaign is not about politics or even ideology, but meta-politics; a fundamental -- even epistemological -- viewpoint on the rationality of the political world. This viewpoint can't be challenged by demonstrating internal consistency; the presumption of rationality is in fact contrary to the basic principles of this radical doubt.
Political debate requires falsifiability. And even vehement politics can accommodate distrust or even a strong presumption of deceptiveness -- e.g., libertarians and the government; liberals and the market. But a politics that turns on "conspiracies" and inscrutability is not in fact political at all -- it's merely a dogma, and should be taken on those terms.
The US consumer has a negative rate of savings. Our total rate of savings (including corporate) is still very small. An economy cannot grow without investment from savings. Unfortunately almost all our investment capital comes from foreigners, and like oil we have become addicted to these capital inflows to sustain our economy. I can’t predict the future, but it sure looks like the dollar is headed for a free fall, and this will cause massive inflation in the near future. The Fed needs to raise interest rates even if this causes a recession, but it won’t because it’s trying to bail out Wall Street—another “Greenspan put.” I rather have a recession than destroy the dollar as the world’s currency. I would rather have elected representatives controlling the money supply instead of a bunch of private bankers. While flogging his book in an interview, Greenspan let the cat out of the bag. He advocates “suppressing” the salaries of skilled workers by “augmenting” (his words) immigration. In other words, destroy the middle class.
If I want to buy a product from a Japanese factory owner or a Brazilian farmer or a Swiss watchmaker, why is that a matter of foreign policy rather than a private matter between me and the factory owner, farmer, or watchmaker?
I too was born and raised in a different country. I have in my last count been to 34 different countries, and travel abroad for work probably half my time. My job requires me to follow politics and economics in se