Theme: Sovereignty

RISING ANTI-CAPLANISM – THE MOVEMENT AGAINST OPEN BORDERS

I go back and forth on Brian Caplan. I agree on almost everything is but his stand on immigration and his argument against calculation getting blown out of proportion by giving higher priority to incentives. That’s silly. They’re two sides of the same coin, and neither has meaning without the other. He had an opportunity to clarify an issue and just clouded it. And that’s been a problem for me and the movement.

There is a bit of an anti-Caplan movement building in the conservative intellectual community. Which, I think is only driven by his immigration stance.

I can’t expect him to think differently. Any more than I can be expected to disavow my ancestors.

But it’s a preference, not a truth.

Open immigration is incompatible with the preservation of individual, several, private property rights.

Period. We didn’t know that. Now we do.

Conservatives didn’t know that homosexuality was genetic and in-utero, not a choice. But they stick to their position out of religious conviction, even when they know the rational reasoning.

Libertarians stick to the fantasy that property was a moral preference, rather than a reflection of a reproductive strategy, that is in opposition to the desires of the majority of people on the planet.

It’s illogical to hold to a position when the evidence is contrary to your beliefs.

Open borders must require symmetrical respect for property rights. And open borders and democracy are a direct opposition to property rights.

LIBERTY IS LIKE SEX. IT’S ALWAYS GOOD. SOME SEX IS BETTER THAN OTHER SEX, BUT IF ITS SEX IT’S GOOD. SAME GOES FOR LIBERTY.

(cross posted)

Hoppe’s argument is only accessible to X% of people. And that X% is very small. Molyneux’s argument is accessible to far more. Rand’s even more because its in novel form. Not everyone can climb all the way to ratio-scientific argument. And not everyone needs to. I’d argue that Molyneux tried and can’t. his book is … well, terrible. I can also argue as others have that there are plenty of holes in Hoppe’s criticism of others, if not holes in the brilliant solution he gave us. So anyone who advances liberty is good enough for me. If someone wants to argue that some statement is true or false then that’s a question for us to answer. And I’ll take all comers. And I’m pretty sure that there aren’t’ any I can’t defeat. But that’s different from saying that any argument in favor of liberty that also advances liberty (it isn’t so flawed that it produces negative results) is ‘good’.

There are arguments against liberty. Arguments for liberty that cause people to reject liberty. Arguments for liberty that are weak or flawed that cause people to desire liberty. Arguments that are strong that cause people to desire liberty.

And the natural differences in our intelligence and means of understanding require a diversity of arguments in favor of libertarianism, whether they are sentimental, analogical, moral, historical, empirical, and ratio-scientific. WIth the first item in that list requiring nothing but passion, and the last requiring mastery of multiple domains.

Liberty is like sex. It’s always good. Some sex is better than other sex. But if its sex it’s good. Same goes for liberty.

Voluntary exchange applying to sex as well. 🙂

REGARDING US STRATEGIC POLICY TOWARD CHINA

“Japan has to cast off its cross of shame over having been defeated in the 1940’s and renew its national spirit.” – Eric Margolis

(Well, that’s what I want Germany to do too. And thats why I want the USA out of Europe – to ensure that they do so.)

“At stake is whether US will try to police a “Pax Americana” – a recipe for disaster – or partner with other nations” – Gorbachev

(We will lose any war if we try to MAINTAIN the Pax Americana. And the resulting blood bath and power vacuum is terrifying. America must be able to project power long distances by non-naval means. our navy is a set of nice fat, slow moving ducks. American power in the world was obtained by inheriting the British Empire’s naval bases. American power is NAVAL, because we are far away from everything else. It is not possible use nuclear weapons. And if anyone does it’s both genocide and suicide. So the only thing the USA has going for it is Air Power and allies. And a Pax Americana does not give you allies when it’s under threat.)