Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration

[Jules Troy]

Brant that was about the best post I've ever read. I for one am honored to have read it as well as all my interactions with you here and elsewhere.

Damn.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I think you are trapped in your basic cultural suppositions

Fair enough. I'll tootle off, then. Thanks.

[Jules Troy]

I actually considered putting Pup on my ignore list over this but I've never ignored anyone.

Nice little exit on his part though when outed for his homophobia...err complex cultural suppositions..

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf is something of a politcal-moral Utopian. I don't fit in his community. Now OL doesn't. I'll be reading at least two of his books this summer as I'm all about ideas and he's so thoroughly locked down with his ideas, obviously for long time now, I'm curious to find out more, especially if a community is his primary focus instead of individuals--human rights and rational self-interest. Wolf and I have always liked each other until now. I assume he doesn't like the idea of me fucking a man if not killing a man. Been there, done that. If I could do it again I'd at least avoid the killing. (Ironically, I've always been more comfortable around male heterosexuals. I don't like homosexual cliques and claques.) On the one hand I regret being so graphic, but on the other I needed to take the lid off the pot so everybody could see what's in it. Me too. I've spent my whole life looking into the pot--as long as I can remember me being a thinker--2 1/2 years old. I seldom saw things correctly, but I never stopped looking and trying to understand, not so much about things but people and how they relate to each other. That's why my math skills suck. That's why I'm not a scientist. I couldn't be a doctor either even though I was once the most highly trained combat medic in the world. I could do amputations in the field, internal medicine, emergency this and that, and theorectically after jumping out of an airplane with full combat gear. Doctors are not idea people. Theirs is a highly skilled trade.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Wolf is something of a politcal-moral Utopian. I don't fit in his community. Now OL doesn't. I'll be reading at least two of his books this summer as I'm all about ideas and he's so thoroughly locked down with his ideas, obviously for long time now, I'm curious to find out more, especially if a community is his primary focus instead of individuals--human rights and rational self-interest. Wolf and I have always liked each other until now. I assume he doesn't like the idea of me fucking a man if not killing a man. Been there, done that. If I could do it again I'd at least avoid the killing. (Ironically, I've always been more comfortable around male heterosexuals. I don't like homosexual cliques and claques.) On the one hand I regret being so graphic, but on the other I needed to take the lid off the pot so everybody could see what's in it. Me too. I've spent my whole life looking into the pot--as long as I can remember me being a thinker--2 1/2 years old. I seldom saw things correctly, but I never stopped looking and trying to understand, not so much about things but people and how they relate to each other. That's why my math skills suck. That's why I'm not a scientist. I couldn't be a doctor either even though I was once the most highly trained combat medic in the world. I could do amputations in the field, internal medicine, emergency this and that, and theorectically after jumping out of an airplane with full combat gear. Doctors are not idea people. Theirs is a highly skilled trade.

--Brant

For all practical purpose humans -cannot- be separated from community. Biologically we are neonate. We are born literally half baked from the oven. Biologically we cannot sustain ourselves for approximately two years during which we learn a language (if we are normally endowed) and we are loaded with some kind of social "software". Atomic humans separated from nurturing adult simply do not exist. This is our biological nature at work. So much of our lives are guided and determined by how we interact with the community into which we are born or to which we are taken during our formative years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf is something of a politcal-moral Utopian. I don't fit in his community. Now OL doesn't. I'll be reading at least two of his books this summer as I'm all about ideas and he's so thoroughly locked down with his ideas, obviously for long time now, I'm curious to find out more, especially if a community is his primary focus instead of individuals--human rights and rational self-interest. Wolf and I have always liked each other until now. I assume he doesn't like the idea of me fucking a man if not killing a man. Been there, done that. If I could do it again I'd at least avoid the killing. (Ironically, I've always been more comfortable around male heterosexuals. I don't like homosexual cliques and claques.) On the one hand I regret being so graphic, but on the other I needed to take the lid off the pot so everybody could see what's in it. Me too. I've spent my whole life looking into the pot--as long as I can remember me being a thinker--2 1/2 years old. I seldom saw things correctly, but I never stopped looking and trying to understand, not so much about things but people and how they relate to each other. That's why my math skills suck. That's why I'm not a scientist. I couldn't be a doctor either even though I was once the most highly trained combat medic in the world. I could do amputations in the field, internal medicine, emergency this and that, and theorectically after jumping out of an airplane with full combat gear. Doctors are not idea people. Theirs is a highly skilled trade.

--Brant

For all practical purpose humans -cannot- be separated from community. Biologically we are neonate. We are born literally half baked from the oven. Biologically we cannot sustain ourselves for approximately two years during which we learn a language (if we are normally endowed) and we are loaded with some kind of social "software". Atomic humans separated from nurturing adult simply do not exist. This is our biological nature at work. So much of our lives are guided and determined by how we interact with the community into which we are born or to which we are taken during our formative years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sure, but I'm talking about primary frame of reference for ideas, thinking, creation, freedom. With the community as the primary, say goodby to those and say hello to tribalism.

--Brant

[jts]

Bob Kolker wrote: "We are born literally half baked from the oven." 105

That is a misuse of the word 'literally'. Not expected from a guy who was born literal minded.

[Jonathan]

I think you are trapped in your basic cultural suppositions

Fair enough. I'll tootle off, then. Thanks.

You're going to "tootle off"? Heh. Well, um, okay then. You go, girl!

J

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob Kolker wrote: "We are born literally half baked from the oven." 105

That is a misuse of the word 'literally'. Not expected from a guy who was born literal minded.

We are born figuratively speaking, half baked from the oven.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Geez, the man is an imbecile.

Let's play logic.

Is your domicile/home/tract/etc. yours? Yes or no?

If it is yes then we have some significant honest discussions.

I just ran across a small piece of paper from my youth that purported to be a poem from a Carl Sandburg allegedly titled The People, Yes.

A search established that there was a book that had that quote in it.

I love the quote, make your own decision:

"Get off this estate."

"What for?"

"Because it's mine."

"Where did you get it?"

"From my father."

"Where did he get it?"

"From his father."

"And where did he get it?"

"He fought for it."

"/Well, I'll fight you for it."

It is apparently that simple.

A...

[Jules Troy]

Anarcho-capitalist...

Nuff said..

[Selene]

Anarcho-capitalist...

Nuff said..

Does a self sufficient community have the right to exist within your vision of a viable limited government?

[Jules Troy]

Of course! I am all for communities everywhere that are self sufficient. I am a firm believer in having laws that protect the individual from fraud, coersion, initiation of force and theft! Everything else should and could be privatized. ESPECIALLY roads, sewer, mail, hospitals and all infrastructure.

[Brant Gaede]

No! Not the sewers!

--Brant

we have to put the politicos somewhere!

[Jules Troy]

True, and they could pay for the privilege of living there!

[Selene]

This is why the "Libertarian Party" fails at so many levels and will continue to fail in today's political climate:

Libertarians say: Let the immigrant children in

In response to recent media reports about the increase in Latin American children seeking entry into the United States, Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark released this statement:

Should the U.S. government forbid foreign children from entering the United States? The Libertarian Party says no.

It would be unjust and inhumane for the U.S. government to prohibit these children from entering the United States.

A great irony is that U.S. government policies have caused the conditions that some of these Central American children are fleeing. The War on Drugs has created a huge black market in Latin America, causing increases in gang activity and violent crime. Some of the affected children naturally try to flee this violence. It is wrong to jeer at them, call them "illegals," and tell them to get out.

Many of these children are hoping to reach friends and relatives in the United States. A freer, simpler legal immigration process might result in a safer journey with more adult supervision along the way. In any case, Libertarians support maximizing freedom knowing that risks, including risks to children, are always involved. In some cases, children may be better off migrating, even without adult supervision, than staying trapped in dangerous environments — just ask the Jewish children who escaped from Hitler, or Tutsi children who escaped genocide in Rwanda.

Libertarians do not support forcing people to pay for other children's welfare, and there are obviously costs associated with helping children who arrive in the United States. However, there are many charitable organizations that have already mobilized to provide that help. A nation of 320 million people can provide sufficient charitable help to the number of children involved (around 50,000 over the last nine months). And if we'd just end the War on Drugs, the number of refugee children would be much lower.

Ultimately, the fact that many of these children are fleeing dangerous situations isn't the issue. Even if they were coming to the United States for fun, we should still allow them to enter. All foreigners should be allowed entry into the United States unless the government can produce positive evidence that they pose a threat to security, health, or property.

Our bad immigration laws affect a lot more people than just these children. Many foreigners want to come work in the United States, which benefits them as well as Americans. However, our government makes it impossible for almost all of them to work here legally.

The Libertarian Party believes that the U.S. government should not prohibit Americans from hiring foreign workers. There are about 60 million legal foreign entries into the United States each year (mostly tourists). Those foreigners should be free to work in the United States as well. There's no question of border security — it's just a question of the government's unjust and foolish protectionist labor laws.

(By comparison, there are only about 500,000 "illegal" entries into the United States each year. Most of those are foreigners who want to work in the United States, and who would be denied visas because of that intention.)

Some observers have noted that generous benefit and subsidy programs in the United States, including free education and health care, may be attracting lazy foreigners. The Libertarian Party supports the abolition of government benefits and subsidies, for both natives and foreigners. It's worth pointing out that foreigners use these programs at a lower rate than natives,

according to a recent report by the Cato Institute

.

It's a shame that many in the media are trying to make Americans feel fear and suspicion toward immigrants. It's particularly disgusting that protesters would yell at children to make their political point. Immigration is good for foreigners and good for Americans, and we need to change our laws to make immigration much easier.

Despite the known security, health issues and the debacle that is the Centralized State, their official position does not resonate at a very basic level with the prime voter in America.

A...

[Jules Troy]

I think you are trapped in your basic cultural suppositions

Fair enough. I'll tootle off, then. Thanks.

You're going to "tootle off"? Heh. Well, um, okay then. You go, girl!

J

[Jules Troy]

J I just about pissed myself laughing when you posted that about Pup!

[Neil Parille]

Here is Binswanger from the HBL "excerpt of the day:

We can end illegal immigration tomorrow: legalize it. Although I think there is a measure of racism and general xenophobia behind much anti-immigrant sentiment, I understand that the relationship between open borders and individual rights is not self-evident, and it's not easy to come to the radical conclusions that I have. So I don't believe the conservatives who are on the wrong side of this issue are necessarily badly motivated. The misconceptualizations-- "secure our borders" being the most prominent--make it easy to confuse exclusionism with patriotism.

But nevertheless all these conservative slogans are wildly wrong. "Secure our borders?" Against what? Against missiles from North Korea or Iran, yes. But against Mexicans wanting to mow our lawns and babysit our children? No. Immigrants are coming here for economic opportunity--i.e., to be productive. Sure, a few of them are coming for handouts, but that doesn't justify victimizing the others.
— Harry Binswanger

Again, no proof that immigrants share the values and motivations which Binswanger attributes to them.

-Neil Parille

[Selene]

"Secure our borders?" Against what? Against missiles from North Korea or Iran, yes. But against Mexicans wanting to mow our lawns and babysit our children? No. Immigrants are coming here for economic opportunity--i.e., to be productive. Sure, a few of them are coming for handouts, but that doesn't justify victimizing the others.

Really. This is why Objectivism, Libertarianism and Anarchism will not succeed politically.

Mr. B. is completely wrong about this issue at this time.

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

Again, no proof that immigrants share the values and motivations which Binswanger attributes to them.

-Neil Parille

In a laissez-faire society exactly what filters do you envision the government applying to the flow of immigrants?

Vaccinations, right? Certain education level or marketable job skills, right?

Beyond the need to discourage additional welfare recipients, is it appropriate for the government to administer a cultural or social values test on the applicant?

If so, then what principle stops the government from imposing such tests on those already here?

[Jules Troy]

Well completely removing the "social security net" would be a step in the right direction. If people are forced to actually sink or swim by their own productive efforts they would be able to live that American dream or leave. Win/win.

[Brant Gaede]

Again, no proof that immigrants share the values and motivations which Binswanger attributes to them.

-Neil Parille

In a laissez-faire society exactly what filters do you envision the government applying to the flow of immigrants?

Vaccinations, right? Certain education level or marketable job skills, right?

Beyond the need to discourage additional welfare recipients, is it appropriate for the government to administer a cultural or social values test on the applicant?

If so, then what principle stops the government from imposing such tests on those already here?

If you start with the premise or rationale that no one comes in without the permission of the federal government--which is the legality anyway--then you can work on the premise of stripping away the restrictions one by one considering the entire socio-economic and geo-political context over time. There are a billion more Chinese in China than the entire population of the United States. If these were the only two countries on earth do we suddenly say let all who want go where they want and ten years later there are a billion Chinese in China and the US population has exploded to 7 to 800 million? You have to be practical about these things, for that would be as indigestible as Thanksgiving diner three times a day every day and you gotta eat everything.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Again, no proof that immigrants share the values and motivations which Binswanger attributes to them.

-Neil Parille

In a laissez-faire society exactly what filters do you envision the government applying to the flow of immigrants?

Vaccinations, right? Certain education level or marketable job skills, right?

Beyond the need to discourage additional welfare recipients, is it appropriate for the government to administer a cultural or social values test on the applicant?

If so, then what principle stops the government from imposing such tests on those already here?

If you start with the premise or rationale that no one comes in without the permission of the federal government--which is the legality anyway--then you can work on the premise of stripping away the restrictions one by one considering the entire socio-economic and geo-political context over time. There are a billion more Chinese in China than the entire population of the United States. If these were the only two countries on earth do we suddenly say let all who want go where they want and ten years later there are a billion Chinese in China and the US population has exploded to 7 to 800 million? You have to be practical about these things, for that would be as indigestible as Thanksgiving diner three times a day every day and you gotta eat everything.

--Brant

Okay, let's be practical. Suppose, by some hypothetically rational method, that the good folks we've granted the power to rule over us decide that there may be one million legal immigrants to the U.S. each year.

Now, the question is, what are the criteria for selecting that million lucky foreigners? Should we have a lottery like Powerball and let a ping pong ball blower or computer pick some bunch at random? Or do we have a competition, where the applicants take a test and write an essay, as if they're trying to get into Yale?

Mr. Parille expressed some doubt about whether current immigrants share our "values and motivations." Now if those highly qualified men and women in Washington can decide what values new arrivals to these shores must have, on the same principle why couldn't they dictate what values should be taught to newborns (uterine immigrants) as they mature?

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, the statists have their statist logic. You weed-whack the other things too, one by considered one from your own logic of freedom plus being rational about it all. The rulers'll get the idea, soon enough, about what's what--that is, they'll be more moral by being whores for freedom than whores of statism while keeping a lot of their perks--for a little while longer.

--Brant

about those Chinese, again: can you put up a few?