Memo To Patri: I Got Yer Tradeoff Right Here

Patri,

You write on immigration:

If you believe (as Russell claims to) that in a country like the US, an influx of people hostile to freedom will reduce the freedom of people in that country, one is led inexorably to an uncomfortable conclusion. Namely, that the impact on freedom is the combination of gains from the increased freedom of the immigrants and losses from the decreased freedom of the residents. We can let in the coercers and be coerced, or we can coercively keep them out.I

Now, there is plenty of room for debate about the resulting net impact. But if immigrants truly are anti-freedom, then the real question is how to evaluate this tough tradeoff. Not whether libertarians can have their immigration and a small government too.

Do you really propose to trade the lives and liberty of some people against those of others? Anyone who endorses such a tradeoff as a matter of policy ought in principle to be willing to implement that tradeoff himself. Anyone endorsing a closed border ought in principle be willing to personally employ deadly force to keep people from crossing the border.

Eventually the moment of truth comes: You have a Mexican in your sights and nothing but your bullet can stop him from crossing into the United States. Now you get to make your “tradeoff”. Are you willing to trade his life for the marginal liberty you could retain for America by killing him? Could you conceivably defend such a tradeoff here and now as libertarian?

If you’re not willing in principle to shoot the Mexican then it should be clear that you ought not hire others to do it for you or endorse such as a matter of policy. And if you are not prepared in principle to do such a thing then what precisely are you proposing to trade? Preferring one outcome to another is no tradeoff in and of itself, your preferences don’t cost anyone anything. Only your actions can impose costs and produce benefits.

The life and liberty of others are not yours to trade. I think you would understand this perfectly well if you were face to face with the individuals in question but when you consider them collectively in the abstract you are seduced through a weakness for wonkery into imagining that men have no choice but to trade in such values.

25 thoughts on “Memo To Patri: I Got Yer Tradeoff Right Here”

  1. By the way, I’ve been using this example for years and while there are many who identify themselves as libertarians favoring closed borders I have yet to find a single one who admits he’d be willing to pull the trigger himself.

    Not one.

  2. Although it’s true in principle that any dispute has the potential to escalate to the point where deadly force is used, I think you’re distorting the issue by pretending one side will leap to the use of deadly force.

    Turn the question around: Is a Mexican in the US justified in killing INS (or whatever they are these days) agents to avoid being deported? How about (while still in Mexico) killing border patrol agents in order to effect a border crossing, or hiring others to kill on his behalf? You seem to think he is.

    Would you shoot your neighbor for playing his stereo too loud? If not, does that imply he has an absolute right to play his stereo as loud as he likes, whenever he likes?

    Most people, libertarian or not, would agree that use of deadly force is justifiable only under a very limited set of circumstances. A person’s unwillingness to use deadly force under the circumstances you describe merely represents a (sane) desire to refrain from use of deadly force when it is clearly inappropriate, and says nothing about immigration.

  3. Although it’s true in principle that any dispute has the potential to escalate to the point where deadly force is used…

    In any dispute with government, the final penalty is death.

    Is a Mexican in the US justified in killing INS (or whatever they are these days) agents to avoid being deported?

    No-Treason.com has a strict editorial policy against advocating attacks on cops and/or politicos.

  4. Weinberg,

    You can’t keep the wetbacks out without deadly force. All you can do is try to evade the fact that it’s being done far away by somebody else at your behest. And this is a particularly lousy place to try.

  5. I’m pretty much an open borders kinda guy, but I don’t udnerstand this. If I’m not willing in principle to treat my own sewage, should I not be allowed to contract out other people to do it for me?

    (Yes yes I know, next come the predictable responses pointing out that treating sewage and restricting movement of humans are not morally equivalent. But that’s a seperate argument and not the one Kennedy is making.)

  6. Why can’t ‘murkuns just git over the idea that they’ve been invaded without a shot being fired and let it alone.

    I also can’t believe gummint isn’t salivating at all that fresh meat (taxpayers) that would come with amnesty.

  7. Matt,

    You’re not willing *in principle* to treat your own sewage? Are you just going to let your excrement pile up to the detriment of your own health and comfort if nobody else is willing to deal with it? I strongly suspect you would take care of it yourself if you thought it needed doing and no one else was willing.

    And I strongly suspect that Patri would not shoot any Mexicans for crossing a line on a map if no one would do it for him. So I can’t imagine what the difficult tradeoff is.

  8. Matt,

    If you are opposed, as a matter of principle, to treating sewage, then yes, and it would be incosistent of you to ask someone else to treat it for you. Saying If I’m not willing in principle to treat my own sewage simply means that you don’t want to do it, not that you’re opposed to doing it.

  9. There’s a difference between saying something may be done and saying that it should be done. If you hold that something should be done then you should in principle be willing to do it yourself.

    Patri is saying that it may be that the border should be closed. Well if he were to conclude that it should be closed then he ought to be willing in principle to do what needs to be done to accomplish that. But since (I’m confident) he wouldn’t be willing to do it himself he’s in no position to argue that others should. Why should they and not he?

    Considered on a case by case basis, individual by individual, he wouldn’t use force to stop any peaceful individual from walking into America, yet for some reason he thinks the matter is more complicated if you think of these people collectively in the abstract. It’s not a whit more complicated, it’s just easier to evade the reality of what’s being contemplated.

  10. I just don’t think there’s any purpose served by this extreme rhetoric.

    Look, where I live there’s a pool and a hot tub, paid for by our association dues. If a tresspasser were to come in to use our pool, clearly we’d be justified him, by force if necessary. But obviously we wouldn’t just blow the guy away. One can argue that if this hypothetical tresspasser struck out at those who tried to eject him, and the situation escalated to the point where deadl force was used the trespasser would be the one morally culpable, but that’s really not so relevant as the fact that, realistically, it just isn’t going to happen.

    Now, I understand this is “No Treason” and the government doesn’t own the country and the situations aren’t precisely analogous and all that. Granted. True. But the form of your argument suggests that either you would gladly blow someone away for swimming in your pool without permission, or you feel morally obligated to allow any bum off the street to take a dip. I very much doubt if either is the case.

  11. I just don’t think there’s any purpose served by this extreme rhetoric.

    The purpose is to keep people from evading the essential details of the matter at hand. Essential details being:

    A) Deadly force is the only thing that will keep people from crossing a line on a map.

    B) Given A), if you judge that individuals should be kept from crossing said line then you ought to be willing in principle to be the one using deadly force against them.

    Those two points have to be dealt with or evaded in order to argue for immigration restrictions. Nobody on the restrictionist side of the debate is willing to touch them though.

    Friedman isn’t explicitly in one camp or the other but by not taking sides against the restrictionists he’s implicitly leaving the option open that he might judge it right to keep immigrants out with deadly force. Given that then he must logically be open to B) above as well: in principle, standing at the US border and pulling a Lon Horiuchi on the next young Mexican lady who tries to cross a line on the map. Now sure he could caveat it with saying that he’d issue all sorts of warnings or try and drag her back or whatnot but at the end of the day it’s either Mexican-gal-in-country or pull-the-trigger, because the conflict could eventually escalate to just that.

    But again, nobody’s willing to stipulate that. So if they won’t do it even in principle then how do they judge it proper to hire others to do it for them? It then obviously isn’t proper for them or anyone else to pull a Horiuchi on peaceful travellers.

    And then they’ve just repudiated the restrictionist argument on moral grounds. Because morality is deprecated amongst young-and-hip libertarian types though, they won’t stipulate this either.

    The present solution to this problem appears to be an attempt to treat individuals as a homogenous mass, as Friedman speaks of “anti-freedom immigrants” and such.

    It’s pretty easy to plan atrocities against verbal labels.

    But individuals aren’t a collective mass, they’re individuals. “Policies” are enforced on individuals, and again, no one’s looking to stipulate that they’d be willing to enforce restrictionist immigration policies on any individual in particular.

    Now, I understand this is “No Treason” and the government doesn’t own the country and the situations aren’t precisely analogous and all that. Granted. True.

    I agree it’s a false analogy.

    One can argue that if this hypothetical tresspasser struck out at those who tried to eject him, and the situation escalated to the point where deadl force was used the trespasser would be the one morally culpable, but that’s really not so relevant as the fact that, realistically, it just isn’t going to happen.

    Google News says: “Results 1 – 10 of about 50 for ‘trespasser shot’.”

    Seems to be a lot of unrealistic happenings in the news today.

  12. One can argue that if this hypothetical trespasser struck out at those who tried to eject him, and the situation escalated to the point where deadly force was used the trespasser would be the one morally culpable, but that’s really not so relevant as the fact that, realistically, it just isn’t going to happen.

    Why won’t it? In fact trespassers do get shot and the guy in the spa knows that the cops or guards aren’t wearing guns just for show. Just because most people yield before the situation goes Ruby Ridge doesn’t mean deadly force hasn’t been implicitly invoked against them.

    Remember Ruby Ridge? Randy Weaver’s “crime” was sawing off a shotgun for a for an FBI operative. And because he wouldn’t go paws up for the state they followed him into the hills, shot his dog, shot his young son in the back, and shot his wife in the head. Of course most people yield before that point – precisely because they know very well what the cops will do.

    I’m not using extreme rhetoric, I’m pointing out the underlying reality.

    Shooting the guy in my pool wouldn’t be my first step by any means but I certainly am willing in principle to use force up to and including deadly force to protect my property.

  13. The reason they have to go into illegal immigrant houses with guns is because illegal immigrants are CRIMINALS, and as such often have black market weapons. They bring drugs, murder, gangs, and even La Reconquista Communist radical groups like Aztlan who organized the 1 million marchers at LA.

    Why are you for rewarding lawbreakers?

    What about high-skilled, highly-educated foreigners who apply to wait in line?

    Over 35% of Mexican Illegal Immigrants are on welfare!

    Are you okay with the government taking money from someone else at the point of a gun to pay for these 35% of Mexicans who don’t work?

  14. Jonathan,

    Some of the best people I know are CRIMINALS with black market weapons.

    Are you okay with the government taking money from someone else at the point of a gun to pay for these 35% of Mexicans who don’t work?

    No, individually only an idiot would pay them welfare. Collectivelly your gang is an idiot.

  15. You are wasting your time and precisely because you are being reasonable. I suggest you don’t walk on any of these guys lawns. Based on their reasoning skills on this issue you might just get this response for walking on their lawn.. After all any other response, like putting up a fence, or removing any incentives present for going on the lawn are merely waypoints along a predestined result of putting a bullet in someone’s skull. No, to these guys, my yelling “Get off my lawn” is identical in every way to what this fellow did. After all, I am willing to call the cops, and that is “implicitly invoking deadly force”. I might as well have just poked a shotgun out my window and fired a warning shot past the fellows left ear.

    I also wonder why they always are so concerned about my wanting to shoot Mexicans. By their reasoning, because I am against illegal immigration I also want to shoot, Europeans too. What about the people facilitating their violation of the immigration laws? People like Wal-Mart executives, welfare and hospital administrators, soup kitchen volunteers, INS officials, members of congress, and the president. Why didn’t they ask me if I was willing to shoot any of those individuals?

    LOL, and they think that because no one takes them up on the challenge to say “I want to personally shoot a Mexican” that they have proven something. The entire argument is insulting to say the least, and assumes the worst possible motives on the part of anyone disagreeing with them. It never crosses their mind that the opposition doesn’t actually have such desires.

    They actually believe statements like: “Deadly force is the only thing that will keep people from crossing a line on a map.” Never seems to cross their mind that all my neighbors don’t cross the line on the map that delineates my back yard and there is a snowballs chance in hell they will be subjected to deadly force. In general they don’t cross the line because their is nothing it my back yard that they want bad enough to go there for, and also because they have their own back yards they don’t want me crossing over into. The fact is that the “deadly force” claim is true of some people, but not the kind I wouldn’t mind finding in my back yard. Someone who is not deterred by deadly force is exactly the kind of person I don’t want in my back yard, and exactly the kind of person who would deserve it. You see, to them, all people are of this type, the kind that can be deterred only by deadly force.

    Yep, it’s extreme rhetoric and no they aren’t going to concede the point.

  16. John Lopez wrote:

    A) Deadly force is the only thing that will keep people from crossing a line on a map.

    B) Given A), if you judge that individuals should be kept from crossing said line then you ought to be willing in principle to be the one using deadly force against them.

    I disagree with premise A). There are plenty of ways to deter people from crossing a “line on a map” other than deadly force.

    1) A really big wall. Sure, maybe some wanna-be “illegal” immigrants would resort to heroic measures like loading themselves into homemade rockets, or digging long tunnels under the Wall, etc. But the Wall would raise the transaction costs of crossing the line on the map, resulting in fewer “illegal” immigrants. If there was a mountain range like the Himalayas between the US and Mexico, mass “illegal immigration” from that country would probably not be nearly so large an issue.

    2) The government could subsidize the operators of “Maquiladora” (sp?) factories on the Mexican side of the border to pay wages of $10/hr, and subsidize continual expansion of said factories (and employee housing, etc.) as much as necessary. Such a measure would likely even draw some “illegal” immigrants back across the border. Expensive? Sure, but probably no more silly than most other Corporate Welfare.

    3) Set up a network of those “microwave pain guns” aimed south, designed to start with minor irritation and “ramp up” to greater pain the farther north the would-be “illegal” immigrant comes. It would be easy to make the case that this would be mean, even barbaric, but it does not involve *deadly* force.

    4) A few decades in the future, it might be possible to “erect” a “utility fog barrier” of autonomous nano-robots that would infiltrate the brains of people attempting to cross the barrier, and make them really…want…to go home.

    5) The Border Patrol could be equipped with sticky-foam guns and other non-lethal “weapons” that would enable them to capture “illegal” immigrants without hurting them and deport them. The would-be immigrants could decide to try again, and the whole thing would amount to something comparable to a giant game of paint-ball.

    6) A widespread “ostracism” of “illegal immigrants” by people living in the area they’re moving into, so that “illegal immigrants” have extreme difficulty getting jobs, buying things in stores, etc. Such a system could perhaps be based on a universal surveillance/sousveillance system incorporating cheap cameras, camera-phones, etc. with facial-recognition software linked to a database with photos of every “legal” citizen.

    Etc. I’m sure some of the bright posters here could think of other methods, if they put their minds to it.

    I do not *advocate* any of these measures. None of them would qualify as Pure Libertarian (TM) in nature. They are only cited as examples of methods of preventing “illegal immigration” that do not involve turning the “line on the map” between the US and Mexico into a WWI style “no-man’s land” laced with barb-wire, minefields, machine-gun nests and ongoing artillery bombardment.

    Of course, none of these measures, even if enacted with unlimited funds and support, could deter or prevent every single would-be “illegal immigrant” from crossing a line on a map. In the real world, even the strictest social sanctions do not prevent all murder, rape, child-molestation, etc. Raising the transaction costs by whatever means would lower the numbers of “illegal immigrants,” which is the most any attempt to block them–even a draconian “free-fire zone” employing deadly force–can hope to accomplish.

    IOW, your premise A) is not a “given.” IMO, a better case for unlimited immigration can be made based on the concept of the individual right of freedom of movement, or a simple rejection of the legitimacy of the State (and hence, its “borders,” “territory,” etc.).

    Question: Do you think your position in favor of unlimited immigration would be different if our southern neighber was a country like Afghanistan, New Guinea, or Mongolia under Genghis Khan? That is, a culture radically different from American culture (which is, AFAIK, the culture that spawns the most libertarians), whose people tend to practice non-individualistic customs like clan/race/religious warfare, throwing widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres, human sacrifice, etc.?

    Why or why not?

  17. P.T. Galt,

    1) A really big wall.

    Note that the Berlin wall kept people out about )( that long after the men with guns stopped protecting it. A similar wall across Mexico without guns would last a similar amount of time.

    2) The government could subsidize the operators of “Maquiladora”…

    Why not just hand out paychecks from the US embassy in Mexico and cut out the middle man? How many Congressmen are willing to vote for it?

    3) Set up a network of those “microwave pain guns”…

    …Which would be circumvented about )( that fast by tunnels from Mexico that popped up behind the pain guns.

    4) A few decades in the future, it might be possible to “erect” a “utility fog barrier” of autonomous nano-robots …

    … Designed to only let White Folks ™ pass by? Or will us citizens all have RFID chips stapled to our ears by then? Note that the latter is simply turning the violence away from Mexicans and onto Americans: “get an RFID chip or go to jail”.

    5) The Border Patrol could be equipped with sticky-foam guns and other non-lethal “weapons”…

    … Which would be “non-lethal” until the first time the INS foamed up somebody’s face and left them in the back of the wagon for ten minutes. Then what? Or what if the Mexicans spray themselves with anti-sticky foam spray?

    6) A widespread “ostracism” of “illegal immigrants” by people living in the area they’re moving into…

    …Which could be happening right now. Except that it isn’t, everyone likes cheap labor except when it takes “their” job.

    Question: Do you think your position in favor of unlimited immigration would be different if our southern neighber was a country like Afghanistan, New Guinea, or Mongolia under Genghis Khan?

    No, Afghanis could probably learn to mow my lawn just as easily as Mexicans.

  18. I don’t understand how your argument applies to mine.

    You seem to be applying dictionary preferences to a consequentalist argument. To say “The consequences of letting mexicans in is worse then keeping them out” is not at all the same as saying “We should not let mexicans in, no matter what it takes to keep them out”. There are no absolute conclusions being drawn here, only relative weightings. If the only way to keep mexicans out is to kill them, then I think it is very unlikely that it would be a net win for freedom to do so. If I did think it was a net win, then I would be willing to pull the trigger – because I would believe there was more death and destruction from letting them in than killing them.

    But since death is rather a large loss of freedom, I think that I would only find the balance of consequences to be anti-immigration if the mechanism for preventing immigration was something much less costly.

    You have a great point in that it is meaningless to consider consequences without considering an actual procedure for keeping out immigrants, with its actual costs, and actual level of success. But the fact that some procedures will sometimes result in “kill them or let them in” situations is not any kind of general argument. There is nothing inconsistent about a viewpoint which says “We should build a wall to keep immigrants out, but we shouldn’t shoot them if they manage to climb over the wall”. The wall may be a net positive, and the shooting a net negative, they are different things after all.

  19. John Lopez wrote:

    Note that the Berlin wall kept people out about )( that long after the men with guns stopped protecting it. A similar wall across Mexico without guns would last a similar amount of time.

    Key words: “really big.” The Berlin Wall was not very tall, and it was in the middle of an urban area. Furthermore, it was built to keep people caged inside an absolutely brutal dictatorship. People might be inclined to try to scale a 300 foot wall in the middle of the desert to escape a totalitarian state. They might be less inclined to do so for the opportunity to mow your lawn for a buck a day.

    And if the would-be “immigrants” break out siege engines and dynamite, the owners of the wall (let’s say it’s built by a consortium of private companies and landowners instead of the USG) would have a right to retaliate, wouldn’t they?

    Why not just hand out paychecks from the US embassy in Mexico and cut out the middle man? How many Congressmen are willing to vote for it?

    You’re kidding, right? How many Congressmen have voted for, what is it now, over a trillion dollars for the war in Iraq, which provides corporate welfare for defense contractors and Halliburton? Besides, it’s not really very different from extending Welfare State “benefits” to illegal immigrants. All that’s different is that the distribution center is moved south. Whether this is a policy that could or would be actually implemented (or whether it should be) is irrelevant to the key point. You claimed that it is impossible in principle to prevent “illegal” immigration without shooting people. That claim is refuted.

    3) Set up a network of those “microwave pain guns”…

    …Which would be circumvented about )( that fast by tunnels from Mexico that popped up behind the pain guns.

    If Mexicans (or anybody else) can build a 10-mile (or 20-mile, or 50-mile) tunnel through the desert “about )( that fast” we should be trying to get them to come here, and handing them U.S. passports at the border. Then, these super-people could be building orbital skyhooks, continental mag-lev train networks, and any other Big Projects that were economically viable. If they’d build that tunnel to mow your lawn for a buck a day, imagine what they would do for $10/hr!

    In my original post, I already brought up the notion of “heroic measures,” BTW. Even turning the U.S. southern border into a giant permanent re-enactment of the Battle of the Somme would not prevent all “illegal immigration.”

    4) A few decades in the future, it might be possible to “erect” a “utility fog barrier” of autonomous nano-robots …

    … Designed to only let White Folks ™ pass by? Or will us citizens all have RFID chips stapled to our ears by then? Note that the latter is simply turning the violence away from Mexicans and onto Americans: “get an RFID chip or go to jail”.

    I find it a little disingenuous for someone who fantasizes about having Dark Skinned Servants tending to the lawns of his manor house to play the Race Card. Regarding the RFID chips, they’re probably going to become ubiquitous without anybody “shooting people.” As they get smaller and cheaper, they’ll be put in clothing, pretty much everything you buy “so the makers can know what you like” a la Minority Report. Bank cards, currency (“so we can prevent money laundering, Ter’rism, and drug dealin'”), etc. You’ll be able to avoid ’em if you’re Amish, but…

    I can’t say I’m looking forward to RFID World. But it can be created without direct violence (“get an RFID or go to jail”). The nano-barrier I described would be quite spooky as a reality, but again: your claim was that it is impossible to prevent “illegal” immigration without shooting people at the border. That claim is refuted.

    5) The Border Patrol could be equipped with sticky-foam guns and other non-lethal “weapons”…

    … Which would be “non-lethal” until the first time the INS foamed up somebody’s face and left them in the back of the wagon for ten minutes. Then what? Or what if the Mexicans spray themselves with anti-sticky foam spray?

    Or, they could die in a car wreck driving across an “open” border. I guess that means it’s impossible to non-lethally permit all immigration too. IMO you seem to be trying to apply Aristotelian two-value logic to a quantum/”fuzzy logic” real world.

    No anti-immigration measure, whether enacted by a “government” on a “border” or a private landowner wanting to keep a hobo with a sleeping bag from climbing over her fence and camping out in her back yard, is ever going to be Absolutely Perfect, nor is a Pure Libertarian (TM) unlimited immigration policy going to be without some unintended consequences. Maybe the Pure Libertarians (TM) would be willing to accept those consequences, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

    No, Afghanis could probably learn to mow my lawn just as easily as Mexicans.

    Tell that to the French. The culture, traditions, and beliefs of would-be immigrants do matter, IMO. We’re fortunate to have a friendly neighbor to the south, whose people come from a culture that has passed through the Rennaissance and Enlightenment. Where I live, the signs are already in Spanish and English, and there’s already lots of Spanish/Mexican architecture, some of it built before any Gringos came to these parts.

    So Mexican immigration doesn’t bother me as long as the “Reconquista”/”Aztlan” nutjobs aren’t about to get real power.

    I am glad that we’re not receiving a million Muslim fundamentalists every year. I’m glad there are no gangs of young men who feel entitled to rape American women because they don’t wear burgas, and mobs burning down buildings and killing people because Mohammed gets portrayed in a South Park episode. I wouldn’t like very many of the policies voted in by people who vote the straight Shiite or Sunni or Wahabi ticket.

    Sure, the Afghan Pashtun could “learn to mow your lawn” as easily as a Mexican or anyone else. He’d just be alot less inclined to recognize your right to be Lord of the Manor instead of a dhimmi who should be respecting his authoritah.

  20. Patri,

    I’m not disputing that there is a theoretical tradeoff you can contemplate; I’m disputing your assertion that there is a tough tradeoff to weigh. Your response here suggests you’re quite unprepared to employ lethal force to close the borders which rules out all the political proposals on the table.

    There is nothing inconsistent about a viewpoint which says “We should build a wall to keep immigrants out, but we shouldn’t shoot them if they manage to climb over the wall”.

    And this is an option that needs to be weighed? Very well, propose a real wall between the U.S. and Mexico and I’ll show why the proposal is ridiculous.

  21. Galt,

    People might be inclined to try to scale a 300 foot wall in the middle of the desert to escape a totalitarian state.

    What’s to prevent some entrepreneur from blowing a hole in the thing or tunneling under?

    You’re kidding, right? How many Congressmen have voted for, what is it now, over a trillion dollars for the war in Iraq, which provides corporate welfare for defense contractors and Halliburton?

    The American voting public has a fondness for wars that involve killing lots of far-away brown people. Not so much for handing out individual direct cash bribes to foreigners. And defense contractors “create jobs” (I heard it on Fox News so it must be true).

    You claimed that it is impossible in principle to prevent “illegal” immigration without shooting people. That claim is refuted.

    Cash payments, no matter how lavish, won’t keep everyone out. Escalating payments soon reach the point of giving people Vegas money and airfare.

    If Mexicans (or anybody else) can build a 10-mile (or 20-mile, or 50-mile)

    Microwave pain guns work ten miles out? Wouldn’t the potential drug profits pay for that tunnel? And wouldn’t a microwave-pain-gun-fence tend to impoverish the hell out of this country anyhow, seeing as how nobody could come and go? (“Juche” doesn’t seem to be working out too good for the North Koreans)

    I find it a little disingenuous for someone who fantasizes about having Dark Skinned Servants tending to the lawns of his manor house to play the Race Card.

    No servant fantasies here, and you oughtn’t let it get under your skin so much. You’ll end up like Lawyer Kinsella.

    Regarding the RFID chips, they’re probably going to become ubiquitous without anybody “shooting people.”

    So what’s to prevent the Mexicans from buying them? Are you saying they don’t wear clothes and shoes?

    Or, they could die in a car wreck driving across an “open” border. I guess that means it’s impossible to non-lethally permit all immigration too.

    The difference would be that nobody but the participants would have anything to do with the deaths in the second case. Not so in the first.

    Maybe the Pure Libertarians ™ would be willing to accept those consequences, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

    There are negative consequences involved in removing any and all government prohibitions. Someone, somewhere, is free-riding off of every government law and will suffer negative consequences from that law’s repeal.

    That objection is really an argument for not repealing any law, ever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *