The following (which I am cross posting from my blog, The Humble Libertarian) can really shock people into a better understanding of who we are and what we stand for as torchbearers of liberty.
I was responding to a libertarian when I wrote it who questioned my libertarian credentials because I believe that human fetuses are human beings that are entitled to human rights, but you can definitely use this when Rachel Maddow types try to discredit you as a rightwing partisan when you criticize Mr. Obama.
They might even really respect the consistency and novelty of your set of political beliefs, and be just intrigued enough to learn more about libertarian ideas. Here it is:
-------------
On an article here about abortion, and why it is certainly possible to be a libertarian and "pro life" if you think that a fetus is a human being (which happens to be the editorial position of The Humble Libertarian), a commentator recently wrote:
Your not a Libertarian if your proLife. Your just another conservative religious nut that doesn't like the current Republicans economic policies.
Here is my response (to which I have added relevant links):
Well let me ask you this- am I just another conservative religious nut because I want to end the wars in the Middle East and bring the troops home? Or because I want to significantly reduce the defense budget? Or because I want the government to stop funding faith-based initiatives? Or because I believe homosexuals are discriminated against by our state's unwarranted intervention into the marriage issue (and that this should end)? Or because I want to legalize the recreational use of drugs? Or because I want to legalize any and all sexual acts between consenting adults, including prostitution? Or because I detest the Patriot Act, torture, warrant-less wiretapping, indefinite detainment without charges, the Bush Administration, and Sarah Palin? Or because I want to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and liberalize our immigration and trade policies? Or because I do not believe in a long-term strategic military alliance with the nation state of Israel (and think that the theological basis some Christians have for such a policy is the very worst possible reason they could give for it)? Or that I sympathize with the plight of Arabs and Persians who have suffered because of our foreign policy of supporting and arming their dictators? Am I just another conservative religious nut because of all this? Please give me half a chance and listen to and try to understand what I have to say before pronouncing judgments about me. You may find we have more in common than you think.
It's awfully nice when you can fit people into a neat little box, but it just so happens that neither I, nor most libertarians fit very neatly into your typical conception of politics, certainly not into the left-right (false) dichotomy. We're not partisan, we're not unreasonable, we don't play red team/blue team, and we will not be pigeon-holed.
I had similar line of questioning back to my neo-conservative cousin. Except it was geared toward his thought process. It is actually quite funny when you are able to brain ninja people.
i had always thought that granting amnesty was not the solution but coming from you makes me want to do alot more research on the issue. thanks, in liberty.
Think of it this way: as classical liberals, we understand that a bureaucrat in Washington could not possibly have enough information to correctly regulate the price or quantity of a good or service. This applies to labor markets, and immigration is essentially a function thereof. There's no way Washington or the state of Arizona can know how much immigration we really need.
Only the free and voluntary interaction of people and enterprises in an unfettered market will result in the "right" amount of immigration to our country (that is to say- the amount which will result in maximum productivity and value for all parties involved). I actually believe however, that we are seeing more immigration than a free market would produce because of other policies that create market distortions.
So to completely leave the matter up to the marketplace, we need to grant amnesty, end quotas and limits on immigration, and end the nightmarish bureaucratic processes for getting into the country. But we also need to stop allowing non-citizens to take advantage of Federal and state entitlements (frankly we need to stop citizens from doing so too), and we need to stop fixing the price of labor so artificially high, which encourages businesses to hire market-priced labor on the black market (i.e. "illegal" immigrants who are willing to violate the government-enforced cartel on labor)- e.g. end minimum wage and legally-required employment benefits.
Why amnesty? Because it's a dumb law. Locking people up for no other reason than they don't want to be documented isn't very enlightened, moral, or nice. When the government wants to start documenting you and making you walk around with a National ID (which they'll do on the basis of controlling illegal immigration), how will you feel about it then? Anytime the government starts saying: "Papers please," it makes me nervous as a libertarian and a casual observer of history- particularly recent German history if you know what I mean. If we pass a bill in 2013 to repeal the individual healthcare mandate- you would support amnesty for people who didn't comply right? Because it was a stupid law, right? I think immigration is the same way.
As for non-economic effects of immigration, which people always love to bring up- so what? Okay, they're changing our culture and speaking a different language. No one is forcing you to speak any language that you don't want to speak or practice a culture you don't want to practice. If you are truly loathe to deal with people who speak broken English, then don't bother with them or patronize businesses that employ them. Just don't use the force of government to punish private businesses who disagree with your choice and want to make their own decision. And just what are Latin immigrants doing that is so horrible for our culture? Is it because most of them have a strong work ethic, solid family values, and deep respect for God and religion? What conservative wouldn't like to see more of such people in our country?
Finally, our public safety should always be a paramount concern. While we should not punish all immigrants (by restricting their access to our country) just because some commit crimes (after all, some American citizens commit crimes too), we should deport the ones that commit violent crimes- including DUIs. Instead, our politically-correct sycophancy often allows dangerous people to remain in our country and commit more violent crimes.
In the end, the free flow of people, goods, ideas, and capital across borders should be every libertarian's dream. It increases our productive possibilities and makes our nation strong. People come to America because America is great. The best, brightest, most productive people of other countries with less freedom than ours will not suffer their governments to punish them for their excellence, so they come here. Why wouldn't we want them here? Immigration is the sincerist form of flattery.
(Wow- what was supposed to be a quick comment turned into a short essay. I'm publishing this at The Humble Libertarian and on YAL as a blog post.)
"I was responding to a libertarian when I wrote it who questioned my libertarian credentials because I believe that human fetuses are human beings that are entitled to human rights..."
The label 'Libertarian' encompasses a great deal of variety, as does the label 'human being.' We should think twice before assuming that because something applies to one member of a group, it applies to all the members.
An attribute necessary for all members of a group is a criterion for inclusion. If all kinds of human beings necessarily have the same inalienable rights, then anything that does not have those inalienable rights is not a human being.
Something ironic here is that cultural conservatives usually agree with your position and line of reasoning even though it contradicts their other line of reasoning, religious tradition. In the Abrahamic tradition, fetuses were not originally given the same rights as post-womb humans. So, by human rights reasoning, fetuses in the Abrahamic tradition are not human beings.
Post new comment