The Back Story 003 has Morgan answering the following questions: Is closing the border like locking your front door? Do you have a right to restrict another hard working person’s rights? Why? If you have a problem with immigrants coming in and getting on welfare, then your problem is with socialism, not immigration.
Tag: borders
Excusing Aggression Does Not a Libertarian Make
“Well mostly I want people to be free, and mostly I want government leaving people alone, but in this case, for the good of society, I think it’s necessary for government aggression to be widely used, because the alternative is too scary!”
The Infinite Regress of the Victim Mentality
Now aside from the fact that nobody living today has gone through the injustices of their ancestors, nor has anybody alive today perpetrated those injustices on any living or deceased person today, and therefore, they do not owe any so called “victim” anything, there is another problem with this line of victim based ideology. Namely, there is always another victim further back, to which a claim can be made for “justice.”
It’s Either Bullies or Balance Sheets
A wise man once told me that in this life, you can obey balance sheets or bullies. In the end, those are the only two paths. He was drawing attention to an unavoidable reality in a world of scarcity. All scarce things must be allocated among competing ends. This can be done top-down by people in control, or it can be accomplished bottom-up with the signaling system that emerges from voluntary exchange. The two approaches don’t mix well.
Borders != Doors
Having locks on some doors does not mean that every door, every road, every shopping mall, every border should be locked and should require ID checks. I say this in response to BCFs (Border Control Freaks) who constantly draw a false analogy between sealed borders and a locked door.
What Are the World’s Three Biggest Problems?
Are you a serious thinker? Then self-consciously change the subject to the Big Picture.What can be done to mitigate the media’s policy misdirection? I suggest we start the New Year with what I call the Priority Resolution. Are you a serious thinker? Then step back from the media cycle and name the world’s Three Biggest Problems. Instead of trying to score points over the latest exciting story with colorful characters, let us self-consciously change the subject to the Big Picture.
Civic Religion Impedes Clear Thinking
Even I sometimes forget how thoroughly the religious belief in political “authority” mangles people’s ability to think. For example, a certain statist just expressed genuine confusion and bafflement when trying to comprehend this: Sometimes I don’t want “A” to happen, and yet I don’t feel justified in using force (on my own or via “government”) to prevent “A” from happening.
Tariffs, Pickpockets, and the Nationalist Snake in the Moral Grass
Protectionism, as it is misleadingly known, has always been an insider’s game, a political gambit aimed at enriching those to whom the government is especially beholden or seeks to seduce at the expense of other people. Incumbent producers who produce products on which tariffs are imposed succeed in repelling competition by force of the government’s customs officers, which is to say that they succeed in increasing their profits by force, not by offering consumers a better deal.
What’s So Bad about Globalism?
So nationalists love to rant and rave about the dangers of “globalism,” which seems odd to me for a couple of reasons. First of all, the meaning of “globalism” seems pretty unclear, considering how different people define it. If it is used to mean global “government,” then I oppose it – not because it’s global, but because it’s authoritarian. But some people use the term to just mean thinking that we should kind of care about everyone on the planet, without regard to politician-created lines and borders. If that’s the definition, then I – and all voluntaryists – would be “globalists.”
The Profound Value of Market Values
Even though economists, like others, don’t know the objective value of anything, they do know that as long as people voluntarily enter market arrangements, all parties to each transaction expect that the subjective value they will receive as benefits will exceed the subjective value they bear as costs. Greater subjective values for all is the result. And any coercive intrusion that forcibly moves the quantity exchanged away from what individuals would voluntarily choose destroys joint gains to participants, making the “solutions” offered by economists’ Wilde-eyed critics worse than the supposed problems used to justify them.