MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Libertarian’

Watch “Jacob Hornberger: 2020 Libertarian US Presidential Candidate Announcement” on YouTube

Posted by M. C. on November 3, 2019

Great news!!!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Trump and Libertarians – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on October 1, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/10/laurence-m-vance/libertarians-and-trump/

By

I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party. I don’t vote, so I’ve never voted for the Libertarian Party candidate in any presidential election. If I did vote, I would have probably clamped my nose in a vice and voted for Donald Trump before I would have voted for the pathetic 2016 Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld.

I don’t believe anything—no matter how good it sounds—that comes out of the mouth of any politician, and especially those who run for president. I don’t even get excited if they say “zero tariffs, zero subsidies, zero non-tariff barriers” because they will say whatever they think people want to hear if they think it will increase their chances of getting elected.

Donald Trump is no exception. I was never part of the “Libertarians for Trump” movement (but neither am I a member of the “never Trumpers”). I took every “good” thing Trump said during his presidential campaign with a truckload of salt. Now that Trump has been in office for over half of his term, I think it should be clear that Trump has been a disaster for liberty and limited government…

It is a myth that Trump has cut the number of federal employees. The federal leviathan is as big, as powerful, and as intrusive as ever. Have any federal assets been sold?…

Although Trump talked about reducing the national debt during his presidential campaign, that debt now exceeds $22 trillion and is expected to reach $23 trillion by the end of 2019. By the end of Trump’s first term, he will have added over $5 trillion to the national debt…

Trump is said to have cut federal regulations. To give credit where credit is due, I believe he has rescinded some of President Obama’s regulations. But what major federal regulations has Trump cut? No one ever lists them. The federal government still regulates every facet of American life from the amount of water that toilets are allowed to flush to the size of holes in Swiss cheese.

Trump’s tax cut “is also undoubtedly the smallest, not the biggest, individual tax cut in history,” according to David Stockman, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan. And don’t forget that Trump’s individual tax cuts are only temporary. Trump should be praised, however, for getting the corporate tax rate permanently cut. But not, of course, for increasing refundable tax credits, a form of welfare.

Americans still live in a virtual police state. If you have any doubt, then just see the many articles on this by John Whitehead that regularly appear on this website.

The federal war on drugs continues unabated. Has the budget of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) been cut? Have any of its employees been laid off? True, Trump commuted the life sentence of drug trafficker Alice Johnson. But over 2,000 federal prisoners are serving life sentences for nonviolent drug crimes…

Trump has been absolutely horrible on foreign policy. U.S. soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan. U.S. troops still occupy hundreds of foreign military bases and are still stationed in over 150 countries. The United States has never been closer to war with Iran. Trump has brought home from North Korea the bodies of some dead U.S. soldiers, but not one living U.S. soldier has been brought home from some country where he has no business being…

Trump’s trade policies have been an absolute disaster for the economy. Trump is an ignorant protectionist and economic nationalist, through and through…

The United States may now be the world’s top oil producer, but it hasn’t resulted in something far more important—U.S. disengagement from the Middle East…

Crumbs indeed are what we are getting from Donald Trump as far as liberty and limited government are concerned. Trump may be “better” than Hillary, Obama, and Bush, but not by enough to cheer him.

Be seeing you

aipac

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on Why the State Is a “Parasite on Society” – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion.

The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/doug-casey-on-why-the-state-is-a-parasite-on-society/

By Doug Casey, founder, Casey Research

Allow me to say a few things that some of you may find shocking, offensive, or even incomprehensible. On the other hand, I suspect many or most of you may agree – but either haven’t crystallized your thoughts, or are hesitant to express them. I wonder if it will be safe to say them in another five years…

You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian, I’m an anarcho-capitalist. In other words, I actually don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. Why not? The State isn’t a magical entity; it’s a parasite on society. Anything useful the State does could be, and would be, provided by entrepreneurs seeking a profit. And would be better and cheaper by virtue of that.

More important, the State represents institutionalized coercion. It has a monopoly of force, and that’s always extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the State comes out of a barrel of a gun.” The State is not your friend.

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous.

The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society, mainly benefitting those who control it, and their cronies. It shouldn’t be reformed; it should be abolished. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.

People have a misconception about anarchists – that they’re violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual. An anarcho-capitalist simply doesn’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion – a very dangerous thing – if you want a government it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.

I could live happily enough with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else conceivable.

The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, but the US Government. And they’re far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly on the force to do anything they want with you. Don’t conflate the government with America; they’re different and separate entities. The US Government has its own interests, as distinct as those of General Motors or the Mafia. In fact, I’d probably rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.

Even under the worst circumstances – even if the Mafia controlled the United States – I don’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income every year. They couldn’t get away with it. But – because we’re said to be a democracy – the US Government is able to masquerade as “We the People,” and pull it off.

Incidentally, the idea of democracy is an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire. The average person has been propagandized into believing that it’s patriotic to do as he’s told. “We need libraries of regulations, and I’m happy to pay my taxes. It’s the price we pay for civilization.” No, that’s just the opposite of the fact. Those things are signs that civilization is degrading, that the members of society are becoming less individually responsible. And therefore that the country has to be held together by force.

It’s all about control. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.

Hark back to the ‘60s when they said, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” But let’s take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? That would delegitimize the State. I therefore applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote – although it’s out of apathy, not as a philosophical statement. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, “Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don’t like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing…”

Remember, you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. That’s because there are two kinds of people. You’ve got people that like to control physical reality – things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are naturally drawn to government and politics.

Some might ask: “Aren’t you loyal to America?” and “How can you say these terrible things?” My response is, “Of course I’m loyal to America, but America is an idea, it’s not necessarily a place. At least not any longer…”

America was once unique among the world’s countries. Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.

I’ll go further than that. It’s said that you’re supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here’s a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China. The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, and have the same worldview. But how much do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood and Washington? Not much.

How much do you really have in common with your fellow Americans who support Bernie Sanders, AOC, antifa, or Elizabeth Warren?

You probably have very little in common with them, besides sharing the same government ID. Most of your fellow Americans are actually welfare recipients, dependent on the State in some way. And therefore an active threat to your personal freedom and economic wellbeing.

Everyone has to be judged as an individual. So I choose my countrymen based on their character and beliefs, not their nationality. The fact we may all carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.

Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called “nationalism”; in serious cases it may become “jingoism.” The authorities and the general public prefer to call it “patriotism.”

It’s understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born, and the State that rules them. But that should be fairly low on any list of virtues. Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It’s scary any time, but most virulent during wars and elections. It’s like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole.

It’s actually dangerous not to be a nationalist, especially as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying the idea of America. Over the last 100 years the State has grown at an exponential rate; it’s the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it’s going to reverse. Even though the election of Trump in 2016 was vastly preferable to Hillary from a personal freedom and economic prosperity point of view, it hardly amounts to a change in trend.

The decline of the US is like a giant snowball rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you’ll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.

I’m quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. It’s been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined.

When there is another 9/11 – and we will have another one – the State will lock down the US like one of their numerous new prisons. I was afraid that the shooting deaths and injuries of several hundred people in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, might have been the catalyst. But, strangely, the news cycle has driven on, leaving scores of serious unanswered questions in its wake. No competent reporting, and about zero public concern. Further testimony to the degraded state of the US today.

It’s going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.

Regards,

Doug Casey
Founder, Casey Research

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Libertarian” Is Just Another Word for (Classical) Liberal | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on September 16, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/libertarian-just-another-word-classical-liberal

Long post…

But rest assured, Lew Rockwell reminds us, things could be far worse “were it not for the efforts of a relative handful of intellectuals who have fought against socialist theory for more than a century. It might have been 99% in support of socialist tyranny. So there is no sense in saying that these intellectual efforts are wasted.”

Moreover, the success of liberalism is demonstrated in the fact that non-liberals have long attempted to steal the mantle of liberalism for themselves. In the English speaking world, it is no mere accident of history that social democrats and other non-liberal groups often insist on calling themselves liberal. The effort to expropriate the term “liberal” in the twentieth century was a matter of political expediency. Liberalism was a popular and influential ideology throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century. So it only made sense to attempt to apply the term to non-liberal ideologies and coast on liberalism’s past success.3

Today, we continue to see the legacy of liberalism worldwide in discussions over human rights, in efforts to increase freedom in trade, and greater autonomy from state intervention.  The fact that socialists and other types of interventionists win victories proves nothing about the irrelevance of liberalism. They only remind us how much worse things would be were it not for liberalism’s occasional successes. Moreover, efforts by governments to co-opt liberal vocabulary for purposes of building state power are to be expected. We see this often in the call for government managed “human rights” efforts and in calls for globally managed “free trade.” These measures aren’t liberal, but governments know saying liberal things and professing to pursue liberal goals makes for great PR.

Meanwhile, the answer to gains made by social democrats and socialists lies in strengthening the intellectual movement that is liberalism, which over time translates into political action. If liberalism is eclipsed today by other ideologies, the fault lies with us who have done too little, and with the defeatists who declare intellectual fights to be irrelevant to real life, or not worth the trouble.

Liberalism — that is libertarianism — has a long and impressive history that is all too often neglected. But it is, as Raico contended, an indispensable part of “our own civilization.” We’d do well to know more about its history.

Be seeing you

Difference Between Classic Liberalism & Progressivism Defined

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Libertarian Difference – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 4, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/laurence-m-vance/the-libertarian-difference/

How different are libertarians from liberals and conservatives? Quite different…

Here are fifteen things that will give you an idea of how very different libertarians are from liberals and conservatives.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should dole out foreign aid. They just disagree on the amount, the countries that should receive it, and the strings that should be attached. Libertarians believe that all foreign aid should be private and voluntary.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should operate schools and fund education. They just disagree on the curriculum, teachers unions, and whether the government should issue vouchers. Libertarians believe in the complete separation of school and state.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should save Social Security for future generations. They just disagree on benefit amounts and the COLAs. Libertarians believe that the government should not transfer wealth from the young to the old or have anything to do with anyone’s retirement.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should have a DEA and wage war on drugs. They just disagree on the drugs that should be prohibited and the penalties for violating drug laws. Libertarians believe that the DEA should be abolished, the drug war ended, and all drugs legalized.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should seek to prevent, and prosecute violations of, victimless crimes. They just disagree on the crimes, the nature of the prevention, and the penalties for violating the crimes. Libertarians believe that vices are not crimes, and that every crime needs a tangible and identifiable victim with measurable damages.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should have gun control laws. They just disagree on the extent of background checks, the length of waiting periods, and the types of guns that should be prohibited. Libertarians believe that the government shouldn’t regulate guns any more than it should regulate scissors, hammers, axes, and other instruments that can be used to kill people.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should manage trade and have trade agreements. They just disagree on the goods that should have tariffs, the amount of the tariffs, and the nature of trade agreements. Libertarians believe in real free trade; that is, trade that is free of all tariffs, government regulations, and government interference.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should have Medicare and Medicaid programs. They just disagree on the requirements to receive benefits, the amount of the benefits, and what medical procedures should be covered. Libertarians believe that it is wrong for the government to force some Americans to pay for the health care of other Americans.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should dole out welfare. They just disagree on the amount, the requirements to receive it, and the strings that should be attached. Libertarians believe that all charity should be private and voluntary.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should have a space program. They just disagree on NASA’s budget and missions. Libertarians believe that all space exploration should be privately undertaken and funded.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should have anti-discrimination laws. They just differ on the groups that one should not be allowed to discriminate against. Libertarians believe that all discrimination laws should be repealed because they destroy the rights of private property, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, free enterprise, and freedom of contract.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should have refundable tax credits so that “the poor” can get a refund of taxes that were never withheld from their paychecks. They just disagree on the amount of the tax credits and the requirements to receive them. Libertarians believe that refundable tax credits are a form of welfare and that the government should never issue a tax refund in excess of what is withheld from paychecks.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should undertake and give out grants for scientific and medical research. They just disagree on what research should be conducted and funded. Libertarians believe that all scientific and medical research should be privately funded and conducted.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should prohibit people from selling their organs both while they are alive and after they are dead. They just disagree on the penalties for doing so and the extent of the government’s role in regulating organ donations. Libertarians believe that because your body is your own and, alive or dead, you should be able to do whatever you want with all or part of it, including sell it.

Liberals and conservatives believe that the government should subsidize farmers and agriculture. They just disagree on the amount of the subsidies and the requirements to receive them. Libertarians believe that the Department of Agriculture should be abolished and that the government should have nothing to do with farmers or agriculture.

That, my friends, is a brief but adequate summary of the libertarian difference.

Be seeing you

706a7-rothbard2bmurray

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

I’m an Austrian Economist – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 4, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/03/walter-e-block/im-an-austrian-economist-what-does-it-mean/

By

Real Clear Markets

In addition to being a libertarian in political philosophy, I am also a member of the Austrian school of economics.

Austrian economics has nothing to do with the economy of that European country. It is so named because its founding fathers all emanated from that part of the world. They include such European scholars as Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. Hayek (Nobel Prize winner in the dismal science in 1974) and Joseph Schumpeter. Murray N. Rothbard and Israel Kirzner are the most high profile American Austrians. In like manner, the Chicago School of economics does not at all focus on the commercial well-being of that particular city. Rather, this perspective too takes its name from the fact that its progenitors were all in some way associated with the University of Chicago. Luminaries include Aaron Director, Henry Simons, Milton Friedman, George Stigler, Gary Becker and Ronald Coase.

Austrian economics diverges in several important ways from that followed by our colleagues in the mainstream of the profession. First and foremost, the praxeological school, at least insofar as I see matters, belongs in the realm of logic; it is not an empirical science. For the mainstream neo-classicals, logical positivists to the core, the be-all and end-all of proper empirical science is falsifiability and testability. All claims in economics are only tentative hypotheses, which stand or fall if and only if they can withstand empirical testing. While Austrians also entertain such hypotheses, we also deal in the realm of apodictic necessarily true laws. They cannot be tested nor falsified and yet are absolutely certain.

Let us consider some examples of the latter. 1. Whenever voluntary exchange occurs, both parties necessarily gain, at least in the ex-ante sense of anticipations. Joe sells an apple to Mary for one dollar. At the moment this commercial transaction takes place he values the money he receives more than the fruit he gives up. She more highly regards the foodstuff than the price she has to pay. We do not have a clue as to why these two folks have these preference rankings. It may be that the ordinary motives are in play. She sees a bargain, he fears the rotting process will soon occur, rendering his goods valueless; a dollar is far better than nothing. For all we know, however, the price is so low because he wants to ingratiate himself to her so that he can date her. Or perhaps she is poor, and he is “selling” her this apple to promote her self-esteem and is really doing this out of charitable impulses. But there is no testing possible here. We know it is undeniably true that both parties think this transaction will benefit each of them. Why else would both agree to the deal were it not for the fact that they hope to thereby improve their economic situations? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Libertarian Take on the Dissing and the Dousing of NYPD Coppers

Posted by M. C. on July 28, 2019

https://www.targetliberty.com/2019/07/a-libertarian-take-on-dissing-and.html?m=1

By Robert Wenzel

The NYPD is taking some pretty serious abuse on the streets and subways of The Big Apple these days.

Over the weekend, in two separate incidents, urban primitives with buckets full of water randomly soaked cops in Harlem and Brownsville. At one point, a copper got hit on the head by an empty plastic bucket. The bystanders cackled and cheered.

What is a libertarian to think of this dissing of the coppers?

On the one hand, coppers enforce a lot of laws that have nothing to do with the NAP, such as harassing those who sell untaxed cigarettes, “loosies.” The coppers do work for the state and they will enforce any laws the state tells them to enforce.

That said, street coppers do mostly protect the citizenry against government created urban primitives. They are, from this perspective, not unlike city bus drivers. In a PPS, bus drivers would still exist but they would work in the private sector. The coppers would also exist in a PPS. They would be “serving and protecting,” be much more efficient and not enforcing non-NAP “laws.” They would know they are working for their customers!

This isn’t, though, the world we have now. The world we have now is one of roaming urban primitives in the big cities. They have been “created” through government “schooling,” housing and minimum wage laws. At times they can be dangerous and I am sure glad coppers are around when they are a threat.

But we must realize the incidents like the ones above are blowback by urban primitives who are held back by oppressive state regulations. They know that the coppers, when all is said and done, are the muscle part of state operations.

In other words, this isn’t our fight. It is best we just let them fight it out to a draw. I don’t trust either side.

I don’t want to come across an urban primitive in a dark alley in the wee hours of the night. But I am certainly not happy about government coppers who are working at a time government regulation is getting more oppressive with each passing day.

Coppers may help us now against the random urban primitive but there may come a time when slipping a few bucks into the palm of an urban primitive will result in him helping us get free of the state at a time when it is important for us to do so. They will know the angles.

This is the status of the non-PPS world. In a PPS world, the coppers would indeed be our friends and urban primitivism would disappear with the end of government oppression.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Open Borders or Not? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on March 6, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/03/michael-s-rozeff/open-borders-or-not-not/

By

I’m against open borders. I think this self-evidently will destroy the country. The consequences will include cities and states unable to cope with the demands placed upon them in all spheres: policing, education, welfare, disease control, rodent control, proper housing, traffic control, etc. These burdens will be associated with costs being borne by taxpayers.

Open borders will have a negative impact on the country’s politics and political system, moving it to a less libertarian position. This is basically one of the arguments made by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in “A Realistic Libertarianism“.

In deciding questions of policy, I think in terms of 3 general outcomes. First, we have the existing system (position #1) of society and government. Will a proposed change in our current position #1 result in a more libertarian system (position #2) or a less libertarian system (position #3)? Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Case for Legalizing Blackmail | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 23, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/case-legalizing-blackmail

Due to Jeff Bezos’ public accusations against the National Enquirer, the topic of blackmail is in the news. Tyler Cowen wrote an article for Bloomberg in which he largely took it for granted that blackmail was a bad practice, but he at least linked to a 1985 law review article by Walter Block and David Gordon arguing that the practice should be legalized (if not necessarily praised).

Continuing the discussion, over at the website EconLog, David R. Henderson chimed in on the side of Block and Gordon, and also linked to Robin Hanson , who thinks nobody has ever offered a good argument for keeping blackmail illegal. On the other hand, at the same EconLog website, Scott Sumner rejects these defenses and argues that blackmail is a socially harmful practice that the government rightfully outlaws.

In the present article, I’ll summarize and elaborate upon Block and Gordon’s case for legalizing blackmail, and I’ll point out some of the major problems with Sumner’s arguments in favor of its current prohibition.

Blackmail Is Not Extortion

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Libertarian Critique of Birthright Citizenship | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2018

https://mises.org/wire/libertarian-critique-birthright-citizenship-1

One vexing current problem centers on who becomes the citizen of a given country, since citizenship confers voting rights.

The Anglo-American model, in which every baby born in the country’s land area automatically becomes a citizen, clearly invites welfare immigration by expectant parents. In the U.S., for example, a current problem is illegal immigrants whose babies, if born on American soil, automatically become citizens and therefore entitle themselves and their parents to permanent welfare payments and free medical care. Clearly the French system, in which one has to be born to a citizen to become an automatic citizen, is far closer to the idea of a nation-by-consent.

It is also important to rethink the entire concept and function of voting. Should anyone have a “right” to vote? Rose Wilder Lane, the mid-twentieth century U.S. libertarian theorist, was once asked if she believed in womens’ suffrage. “No,” she replied, “and I’m against male suffrage as well.” The Latvians and Estonians have cogently tackled the problem of Russian immigrants by allowing them to continue permanently as residents, but not granting them citizenship or therefore the right to vote. The Swiss welcome temporary guest-workers, but severely discourage permanent immigration, and, a fortiori, citizenship and voting… Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »