Trump Lite

Candidate: "Here's what I'll say in my speech: I'll do my best to make it easier for you to start businesses and create jobs by lowering taxes, reducing regulations, abolishing licensing requirements, and repealing zoning laws."

Consultant: "That's over their head, sir."

Candidate: "Okay, how about: Illegal immigrants are stealing your jobs! Other countries have unfair trade!"

Consultant: "Much better. Always blame foreigners. But then condemn Trump for his racism."

Candidate: "But I feel dishonest and dirty. Like a demagogue."

Consultant: "Don't worry. Everyone in both parties has been repeating the same drivel for decades and always will. It's only racist if Trump says it. The majority of voters think Trump's rhetoric is impolite. They think, I'm not racist because I don't support Trump."

Candidate: "So anti-Trump voters won't confront their own xenophobia."

Consultant: "Exactly. They feel like well-intentioned moderates, but they want Trump Lite."

Candidate: "But it's morally wrong and stupid!"

Consultant: "Do you want to sound like a crazy libertarian, or do you want to win?

Candidate: "Ok. Whatever you say." 

My Latest at the Downsize DC Foundation: The REAL Immigration Problem

There isn't enough of it.

The Time I Committed Election Fraud

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. A true story, but I rigged it in favor of the candidate I opposed, and learned a lot about immigration and citizenship in the process.

Thinking Clearly About Immigration

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If you are an anarchist who is also a global utopian, and you put the principles of non-aggression and anti-statism over any geo-political-socio-economic consequences, I respect your position on immigration and won't attempt to refute it. But everyone else seems to pick and choose among moralistic, pragmatic, and nationalist arguments for or against immigration, and then will look down on people with a different grab-bag of biases, accusing them of bigoted or evil intentions.

Here is the reality. If you want borders surrounding your native land and its people, and you want a sovereign government presiding over everything within those borders, then you want government control over who and what comes across those borders. And the only rational criteria for letting people and goods into the country must be the best interest of the sovereign government.

The reason "the rest of us" aren't free

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: http://partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=3361

Excerpt:

I've seen it in Mexican restaurants in Chicago.

Boys and girls of preteen or early teen years taking orders and working the cash register in the evening.

I had no doubt they were the children of the owners. I don't know if there was an "offspring in a family-owned business exemption" to child labor laws. Even if there wasn't, no one seemed interested in cracking down on such places.

Maybe regulation enforcers just look the other way when it comes to family operations, and they should. But the double standard is maddening. The injustice is that the labor market has cut off other children who are willing to work. There should be freedom for immigrant family businesses, but why isn't there freedom for the rest of us?

"Ideal" Government

The limit to my libertarianism is based on the land/natural resource problem. If living space and resources on which to live are infinite, there is no justification for any sort of aggression, and everyone should be free to do as they please as long as they don't violate the equal rights of others to do the same. But when one takes from the earth, and thereby leaves others with less than they need, we have a problem. This person can impose payments, or other terms and conditions, on others that they must meet in order to get what they need. This is rent. The question is, when does land-taking for personal use violate the rights of others, and when does it not?

Death and taxes may be certain; death and rent are even more certain. Taxes are just a form of rent. All government revenue is ultimately derived from human labor creating value from the raw materials of the earth. The government can tax in a variety of ways: the market value of the land and natural resources used, the purchase price of finished goods, the income received from one's labor, or variations of all three. The just tax of a just government, however, would tax only the value of land/natural resources taken beyond what is necessary for personal use, and would distribute this wealth to others within the jurisdiction of that government.

But problems remain. What scale are we talking about; how big should the government's jurisdiction be? be? Should the "government" govern only unique geographic areas within a few square miles? Should there be a world government we should pay taxes to? Can multiple governments exist within the same geographical area?

And who is to determine the value of land? And how will people make payment?

If I could advance my ideals within our present framework (i.e., the existing states and the United States), my main libertarian concern would be to get people off government rolls. Tax rolls, business licensing rolls, social security number rolls, etc. Take a census to find out how many live in a residence, but don't take names. To the extent the government doesn't "know" you exist, i.e., doesn't have your identity on file, the freer you are.

I would

a) work toward going back to the federal government's original purpose: to represent the states as one voice on matters of interstate and international trade, immigration, and defense, stay out of religion, morals, and social policy, and remain neutral in foreign conflicts.
b) collect the revenue for the federal government's purposes through one low, uniform tariff on imported goods.
c) in the states, collect taxes only from owners of land and those with exclusive rights to natural resources, based on the value of their sites. Persons, as persons, wouldn't be taxed, only persons who are owners of land, based on the site value. It doesn't matter who the owner - whether an individual or a foreign-owned conglomerate, is. Local governments already determine site value when they assess property taxes; I'm just suggesting they tax the property improvements (construction, etc.) less and the site value more.
d) If you want to receive benefits as a citizen, to vote, to receive dividends from tax revenue, receive social welfare services, public education, etc., then, and only then, do you register for them - and registration makes you subject to jury duty, service in the militia, and other obligations. And stricter standards for citizenship could be enforced for foreign-born residents: proof of residency for a certain number of years, fluency in English, etc. Those who chose not to have these benefits and obligations of citizenship don't have to have them, whether native- or foreign-born, but all who expect benefits must prove citizenship, and all owners of land, regardless of citizenship, must pay site-value taxes or risk losing their land.
e) The federal government would try to prevent importations of dangerous goods and prevent migration/invasion from threatening countries, but would almost always leave residents within its borders alone.
f) The state governments would let people do what they please provided they didn't harm anyone else without their informed consent, and only those who owned land would pay taxes. The only people who would be registered with the State are those who want to participate in the political process and receive benefits from the State.

In other words, I would do my best to direct the State to be something that exists only through voluntary participation. The fewer the number of people who want to participate in the State, the lower the taxes land-owners will have to pay. The more unjust and/or unbeneficial the land-owning and rent-paying situation is, the higher the taxes on landowners and more political the government, whereas the more just and/or more beneficial the private land-owning arrangements are, the quicker the State will die. And that would be the greatest benefit for all.

Islam & Immigration

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Brief excerpt:

An English-speaking, highly-skilled immigrant with a clear criminal record may want to become a permanent resident of the United States. Just the same, if his beliefs are hostile to our social systems and our laws – if he would overturn them if he could - it makes little sense to admit him, or others with the same beliefs.

In flux about the in flux

This Sheldon Richman column from some months ago states the open-borders case as well as I've seen. William Norman Grigg's position is "in flux." So is mine.

As a matter of political theory, I understand immigration controls. The borders are not "imaginary." Your life and private property are protected by your country's government; some other country may have different laws and may not protect them in the same way. Moreover, the roads on which immigrants traverse were paid for by the natives, not the immigrants. The theoretical justifications for immigration controls would be economic, political, and national security.

1. Economic: Sometimes, the wave of immigrants arrives before there are enough jobs and residences for them, and this increases the rents and depresses the wages of the native population.

2. Political: If immigrants are quickly granted citizenship and the right to vote, there could be adverse consequences for the native population - particularly, for instance, if the immigrants tend to be collectivist and the natives individualist.

3. National Security: It is reasonable to prevent potential enemies from coming over. All the proof we need that the "War on Terror" is a complete fraud is that the Bush Administration refuses to do much, if anything, to protect our borders, coasts, and ports from the supposed swarms of Islamo-fascists who want to do us harm.

That said, Richman and Grigg may be right. The main burden immigration imposes is on the things government runs, funds, or heavily regulates, like schools and hospitals. As Richman writes, "When was the last time Kroger, Wal-Mart, or Blockbuster Video appealed to government to halt the tide of immigrants because it couldn't keep pace with the increased business?"

And it may well be true that the country is large enough to absorb the influx of immigrants. Whatever we do, we must not curb the civil liberties of Americans in order to fight immigration. And the cost of enforcement must not be greater than the alleged costs immigration brings.

Trade, Immigration, Freedom

The New American has its first Freedom Index for the 100th Congress. (It used to be called the Conservative Index but that was abandoned because of the confused meaning of "conservative" these days.)

Not all of these issues are specifically about "freedom." The index is based on ten votes in the House and ten in the Senate. One vote in the House had to do with trade/immigration, and two in the Senate. (A third vote in the Senate did have to do with immigration, but also involved Constitutional rights.)

Aside from those, however, the questions really had to do with the Constitution. If a bill is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what its other merits happen to be. A "correct" vote on an unconstitutional bill in this index is a nay. The reasoning goes, if Congress strays from the Constitution, Congress will begin violating our Constitutional rights and freedoms. I certainly agree.

Because Congress has Constitutional jurisdiction over trade and immigration, there aren't necessarily Constitutional reasons to support or oppose particular proposals. In these cases, the New American seems to favor populism over freedom, because it seems to me that lifting a restriction is pro-freedom, and keeping or adding restrictions is anti-freedom. So perhaps "Freedom" Index isn't accurate.

I am more of a pragmatist when it comes to trade and immigration. To say we should let anything and everyone into the country is just another way of saying we shouldn't have a government or country at all. I agree with that in a utopian sense, but do not see how that is practically achieved. If we are to have restrictions, I believe they should be premised on protecting the public. But all too often they just serve to punish the consumer.

On trade, I could see trade restrictions designed to protect the safety, health, and environment. In addition, as a matter of fairness to domestic producers, I could see requiring imports to conform to the same regulatory standards required of domestic products. But that, to me, is an argument for eliminating the regulations, not for restricting trade.

Likewise, on immigration I could see restrictions designed to protect the safety, health, and environment of the nation - that is, keep out known criminals and carriers of infectious diseases. I could also see restrictions to prevent overcrowding, which could be bad for the environment. Moreover, if foreign governments are facilitating immigration to our land, encouraging it, or intentionally creating economic refugees that swamp our borders, I could see calling for restrictions, as the surplus population drives down wages not due to free movement of labor, but because of deliberate government policy of another country. Lastly, I could see immigration restrictions if immigrants overwhelm government services and brings on bankruptcy - but I see that more as an argument to get rid of the government services.

In any case, restrictions designed to protect American jobs or American wages are really restrictions that raise prices and punish American consumers. If one foreign-made good is produced more cheaply and can sell more cheaply than the American version, there shouldn't be a law against buying the foreign good. Likewise, if an immigrant is willing to work for less than the American, the employer should be free to hire him. Most of the problems concerning trade and immigration are really structural problems with America's tax and regulatory regimes. In a free market, there would be no question that immigrants make the country wealthier; now there is doubt about that considering welfare, public schools, road congestion, etc. And in a free market, free trade would create jobs, not destroy them.

Government is inherently inefficient and most of what it tries to do may be better left undone or left to the private sector. However, just as we understand why we have a military, I understand why we protect our borders from goods and individuals we consider dangerous. When such restrictions venture into economic planning or helping certain segments of the population, they become unjust.

It Was Just Too Big

My latest Downsizer-Disptach is posted. Excerpt:

[M[any of the bill's critics really didn't know everything that's in it. That's because the bill was an incredible 762 pages even before the Senate considered amendments. The bill's sheer length was reason enough to oppose it. No matter one's views on any particular immigration-related issue - border patrol, guest workers, amnesty, etc. - it made far more sense for Congress to consider them separately. Combining these issues into a "comprehensive" bill made it too large for Congress to read and understand fully.

An Inconsistent Libertarian

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

I would rather the State "wither away," perhaps through peaceful secession, then collapse under its own weight. But this means working within the context of countries with borders. I hope that the State will eventually dissolve in a happy utopia, but I do not wish it to break apart from bankruptcy and civil strife.

You Get What You Vote For

There are two domestic issues on which one always knew where George W. Bush stood, since before 9-11, since before the election of 2000. One is his advocacy of the federal takeover of education and charitable programs. The other is his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants.

To "conservative" supporters of President Bush who have finally abandoned him on the immigration issue, I must ask, where've you been? Bush was a lousy President and will continue to be a lousy President, regardless of his position on immigration. Yes, this is a terrible immigration bill, but it is a bill one should have expected Bush to support - regardless of his competence or positions in other areas.

Bush is no worse a President in 2007 than he was in 2004, and conservatives should have run someone against Bush in the Republican primaries then. Anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 deserves this immigration bill. You get what you vote for. Stop whining.

Punishing Employers?

The two strongest arguments for stronger immigration enforcement have been
a) the depression of wages that increases in the labor force brings (particularly in an already over-taxed, over-regulated economy);
b) the drain on government education and social welfare.

It could be argued, then, that the main problem with immigration is the socialist apparatus we already have, and dismantling socialism in America would make immigration less of a problem. I fully agree. But I'm skeptical of claims that foreign individuals have a natural right to travel across our borders unrestricted; American territory is essentially the property of Americans, and Americans should have the final say of who's in and who's out. Moreover, in the process of repealing laws and increasing liberty, the order in which liberalization takes place is important. It is more urgent to dismantle the Welfare State first before repealing all immigration laws and opening the border. Otherwise, we risk greater impoverishment and bankruptcy.

So it seems to me that best approaches to controlling illegal immigration would be to guard the borders and track immigrant visas more effectively, and cut off access to public education and social services to illegal immigrants. Proving one's citizenship or legal status to receive government benefits is a far cry from what was proposed in the recent and fortunately-abandoned immigration bill, would have forced all Americans to prove their legal status just to earn a living.

Proof of citizenship should not be required to find or keep a job. A relationship in which one person pays another for work completed is a classic case of a victimless crime. Employers seeking to earn a living shouldn't be forced into the role of government enforcement agents or be compelled to rat out a suspected illegal immigrant. It was the government's job to stop the illegal immigrant from coming in at the border. Sure, the government can still try to catch and deport the person if it so choses, but why should his employer be penalized? What did he do?

If businesses are exploiting workers in violation of labor laws, I could understand prosecuting them for violating those laws (leaving aside the wisdom of such laws). But we must understand the nature of the "crime" of illegal immigration. It amounts to trespassing, and an employer has the right to assume that it's the government's responsibility to catch the trespassers and to presume that prospective employees are here legally. Hiring someone to work is a victimless activity, and hence shouldn't be a crime.

Forcing employers to comply with yet more laws, and forcing ordinary Americans to get the "correct" documents just to earn money to eat, violates our basic rights and harms the economy. Ordinary citizens shouldn't be made criminals to cover up the incompetence of their government.

Neocons v. Populists

The Republican rank-and-file are not giving to the Republican National Committee like they used to. What's different? Bush isn't any more incompetent in 2007 than he was in 2006 or 2005. The War in Iraq hasn't gotten so much worse. The difference is that immigration has become the central issue in American politics.

George Bush and the neoconservative philosophy as espoused in places like the Wall Street Journal editorial page are ideologues, and a border-free America is one of their principles. But the Republican grassroots is more populist, and more inclined to believe that securing the borders, enforcing immigration laws, and denying amnesty to illegal immigrants is in the best interest of the American people and for the United States as a country.

The neocons could get the the populist grassroots to support the war in Iraq by framing it as a front in the War on Terror, and by creating the perception that there is a civilizational struggle between Judeo-Christianity and Islam. That (plus a few social-moral issues necons couldn't care less about) kept enough people in the Republican camp for Bush to get elected in 2004.

But the neocons have trouble fusioning their vision with populist interests on the issue of immigration. First, if Bush is so great at "protecting America," why doesn't he secure the border? Can't terrorists just walk right through? Second, populists aren't concerned about "the market," and growing the economy by a couple of decimal points. To neoconservatives, the United States is a "propositional nation," a body of "ideas" that involve allegiance to corporate capitalism, globalization, and perpetual overseas military interventions. To populists, however, the United States is a real place, i.e., their home. They believe unchecked illegal immigration is going to transform their country and their own communities for the worse, and in many places they are convinced this is happening already.

But as the Democratic Party's leadership also promotes the open-borders agenda (and globalization, and overseas interventions), there aren't many places for populists to go.

Makes one wonder whether a Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan-type will enter the Presidential race.

Absorbing Immigrants

I posted the following the comments section of this post by Logan Ferree at Freedom Democrats:

Freedom of movement does not extend to trespassing on private property. But if we rely on the State to protect our own property boundary lines from trespassers, we'd have to acknowledge its right to proclaim and enforce its own boundaries as well. I don't see a philosophical problem with tighter controls of the borders. Forcing Americans to report their neighbors, customers, and workers to the authorities, however, is reprehensible. Like revoking habeas corpus in the name of fighting terrorism, the solution is worse than the problem.

Even in a purely free market mass immigration will cause short-term harm to the native population, because there will be less available residential space and fewer available jobs. In a free market, people would adjust quickly because the demand for increased housing construction, and the presence of more consumers, will mean more jobs. In a heavily-taxed, heavily-regulated economy, however, it is harder to adjust because the costs of starting or expanding businesses, and property taxes on increased residential construction, inhibit job growth. In addition, a welfare state can not sustain open borders indefinitely.

As it stands today, to be for open borders is to increase the cost of government. Pro-immigration libertarians have to be more pro-active in addressing these concerns. To absorb immigrant populations and benefit from their contributions while minimizing immigration-related problems, I suggest:

1. Slashing taxes and simplifying the tax code to unleash capital into production, creating more jobs.
2. Repealing regulations and licensing laws that make it difficult for workers to find work and employers to hire. If you're out of work, you could put a sign on your car and start your own taxi service, or you could cut hair out of your own home. Such opportunities for legal self-employment will force employers to raise wage rates. Also, law-abiding Americans will be free to work at jobs at wages and conditions now available only under the table to illegal immigrants.
3. States should shift away from income and property taxes to land-value taxes. This will shift more of the tax burden to those, such as landlords, who profit the most from immigration. It will also spur (untaxed) construction of residential space, leading to lower rents. While suggesting a tax sounds anti-liberty, the land value tax is actually a check on the tyranny of "private" (though State-protected) monopoly control over land.
4. If a land value tax is not an option, states should consider consumption taxes and user fees instead of income taxes, so that illegal immigrants, who buy stuff but don't file income taxes, will pay some of the cost of increased government services their presence brings. I understand this is one reason Texas absorbs illegal immigrants better than California.
5. Finally, the fewer services and welfare program the government provides, the fewer opportunities for immigrants to use them for free.

Can Anything Be Done?

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

The problems concerning immigration come down to this: a) in theory, government should control for immigration, if for no other reason than to prevent the economic disruptions of overcrowding, but b) government doesn't work, and any additional power we give it will only be abused.

In the absence of any good solution to the problems of border security, immigration, and particularly illegal immigration, the best recourse is to find a way to mitigate the negative effects of immigration.