- Wasting the Golden Hour in America’s Iraq Meltdown. James Clad has a longish piece in the National Interest.
- Randy Barnett on Slavery, Libertarians and the Civil War
- Russian cinema trends: Biopics of Soviet stars
- ‘Invisibility’ wetsuits for Australian surfers. The LA Times reports.
- Matt Steinglass on race and juries in the US (and Europe). An interesting piece from the Economist.
- Miami Herald op-ed on the state’s bungling of the Zimmerman case
Author: Brandon Christensen
Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism
This is starting to feel a lot like shooting fish in a barrel Dr Delacroix. Since we both know exactly how Leftists argue, I think it would be pertinent to over your rebuttals point-by-point.
I am glad we agree on the US intervention in Afghanistan based on the fact that the Taliban hosted and refused to deliver the terrorist Al Qaida.
And it would have been nice if we had focused our resources and our energy on staying there and hunting down al-Qaeda. There is also something amiss here: Osama bin Laden was shot dead in a shootout involving our special forces underneath the nose of Pakistan’s version of West Point. As we both know very well, the Taliban and Islamabad have never been on friendly terms, yet both sides gave refuge to bin Laden.
My suspicion is that both factions harbored bin Laden because of his immense wealth, not because of ideological solidarity. Also, I am not sure that the Taliban would have even been able to retrieve bin Laden if they wanted to. Rule by the Taliban was no doubt cruel, but for the most part they relied heavily on regional strongmen and political alliances to maintain control of the state.
With all this being said, I don’t think we ever declared war on Afghanistan. I may be wrong, but I think we focused our efforts on toppling the Taliban regime and hunting bin laden rather than fighting the Afghan state. This is actually a logical outcome, if you think about it, because al-Qaeda was not sponsored by Kabul, and it most certainly was not sponsored by the impoverished warlords of the Afghan regions, either. I’m willing to bet that the Taliban were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Remember, al-Qaeda, or whatever is left of it after President Obama gets finished with them, is not the same thing as the Taliban. I would even say, with some confidence, that the Taliban knew nothing of the attacks being planned against the United States.
Either way, both factions are finished, and it’s time to bring our troops home after a job well done (thanks to President Obama’s strategy).
The “some press reports” statement regarding the Taliban blinding of little girls with acid shows what might be deliberate ignorance. The assertion was made by several responsible neutral sources, including National Geographic, not exactly a hawkish extremist publication. I suspect the Libertarian pacifist stance cannot be maintained without a broad practice of tactical ignorance such as you just demonstrated: Iran’s nuclear weapons? No problem.
My point wasn’t to discredit the press reports, it was to suggest that going to war with a state because a regime sometimes sponsors the throwing of acid into little schoolgirls’ eyes is a little bit silly. And where did the statement on Iran’s nuclear weapons come from?
Pulling stuff out of thin air to legitimate a point that was used to purposefully misconstrue the argument of your opponent is something only Leftists do, usually. When are you going to come out of the closet, Dr Delacroix? We’re all dying to know!
Your disquisition on the French Revolution simply ignores my question: Is the American revolution any the less valid because ti was helped by the intervention of a foreign power, France? When you seem to relate the Terror to this intervention, you are going out on a very thin limb. There is a conventional belief that the French intervention hastened the revolution in France by aggravating the public debt.
Ah. Here I think there is a miscommunication between us. If a revolution happens, it is valid regardless of who is involved and who it affects. Pretending otherwise is a waste of time. I brought in the French angle because today the United States IS France playing the role of interventionist in the Middle East.
How is relating the social, political, and economic upheaval of the Terror – which was aggravated by French intervention in the Anglo-American war – going out on a very thin limb? I did not suggest that we are on a crash course for violent revolution. I only drew some (quite pertinent) parallels between the two situations: supporting revolutions that have nothing to do with national security has never bode well for the states that do the intervening.
If you negative feelings, your apprehensions about the Arab Spring were all well-founded (were) should we then, as a country, continue to favor tyranny in those countries as we did for thirty years?
Ah. I have never said that I do not support the revolutions going on in the Middle East. Ever. What I have done is raise a flag of caution in the face of bellicose calls for more bombing, more involvement, and more intrigue on the part of Washington in the revolutions going on in the Middle East. Given that we have been supporting brutal regimes in that part of the world for the last half century, I don’t think our involvement will be looked upon with graciousness by the peoples we are inevitably trying to help.
Of course I support the revolutions going on in the Middle East, I just don’t support our government getting involved with them. When the dust clears, I think we should be the first state to stick out our hand and offer our friendship to the new governments. I think the people of the Middle East would be inclined to agree with me.
Zimmerman, Martin and Racism in America: Who’s Really Promoting Prejudice?
Campaigners chose to make Trayvon Martin the focus for a national discussion of race in America. But it was never going to lead to an enlightened and rational debate. In seeking to personalise the issue and create an emotional tie through Martin’s case, campaigners dodged the significant structural and institutional barriers that give rise to racial inequality. And by portraying racism as something that comes from deep within the hearts of white people (so deep that whites often don’t even realise they’re racist), today’s elitist ‘anti-racist’ outlook makes racial divisions appear hopelessly insurmountable.
This comes from Spiked, an online British publication (h/t Mark Brady). Read the whole thing.
I am a little disappointed in myself for not paying closer attention to this trial. Its importance for understanding American society has just become evident to me over the past few days. For what it’s worth, I think the US is still a deeply racist society. I think there are structural and institutional barriers in place today that prohibit most blacks from having the same support networks as other ethnic groups.
I think that the government is responsible for these structural and institutional imbalances, but also that black leaders are responsible for failing to consider (consider) anything other than statist solutions to the problems that afflict American society. I also think that religion is partly to blame. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams may go to church on Sundays, but you’d never know it based solely on their arguments.
I’ve got a post on peace coming up shortly. Hopefully it’ll be much clearer than this.
Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism
All reasonable except for what’s not covered in your program:
- When an existing state protects actively terrorists on its soil that it could stop and those terrorists kill Americans, are we supposed to say, “Win some, lose some?”
- Should the United States be returned to British rule because it gained its freedom through foreign intervention?
And I know you have already answered the question below; I just want confirmation, to make sure I don’t misunderstand you.
When someone is burning little girls’ faces with acid next door do you really believe it’s best to do nothing?
When Egypt and/or Libya turn out to do real well in two years, will you think of sending and “Ooops” message? I ask, because, as you well know, your fellow isolationists who are on the Left, never do.
Haha! You never cease to amaze me Dr Delacroix…
1. When an existing state protects actively terrorists on its soil that it could stop and those terrorists kill Americans, are we supposed to say, “Win some, lose some?”
No, if a state is sponsoring terrorism against the republic or against our allies then we should go to war with the sponsoring state. After the fall of communism state-sponsored terror essentially ceased, though, because despots like Ghaddafi realized that they couldn’t play the superpowers off on each other.
It is trickier when there are terrorist organizations that are not connected to states. Luckily we have all the resources needed to maintain a leaner, meaner military and clandestine force to combat such organizations. Additionally, removing our government-sponsored military from places where they are not welcome would also decrease the likelihood of being targeted by terrorist organizations.
Unfortunately, bringing our troops home and modernizing our military and clandestine apparatuses don’t seem to be high on Washington’s priority list.
2. Should the United States be returned to British rule because it gained its freedom through foreign intervention?
I think you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. We should not be focused on the two factions who fought what was essentially a civil war, but rather on the foreign influence that intervened in the war on behalf of one side. What happened to France politically, economically, and socially after the Anglo-American War?
I don’t think that our society is going to descend into something resembling the Terror anytime soon, but the political, economic, and social constraints placed on our society by Washington’s interventions – both foreign and domestic – are all very visible today.
When someone is burning little girls’ faces with acid next door do you really believe it’s best to do nothing?
This practice is horrible, and of course I condemn it. However, bombing, invading, and occupying a foreign state because of some news reports documenting the throwing of acid into little girls’ eyes is just a little bit ridiculous.
Do you think it would be fair to say that the Soviet Union would have been justified in bombing the United States from Cuba because of the Jim Crow laws? The logic in this last point suggests that they would have been.
We should publicly condemn this practice, and even publicly support (but not fund) rebellion in despotic states, but ultimately this despicable practice needs to be stopped by those whom it affects. The men in Afghanistan need to grow a pair.
If Egypt and Libya turn out to be fine and dandy in two years time, I will be ecstatic and relieved. And of course I will send you a letter of apology. I’m just hoping you’ll do the same if you’re wrong. However, based on your bleeding heart arguments for fighting other states because little girls sometimes have acid thrown in their eyes, I won’t hold my breath expecting one [Editor’s note: I have yet to receive a letter of apology, but technically Dr Delacroix has a few months left…].
Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism
Brandon: I share many of your suspicions and even your fears though not especially about Libya, I think it’s going to be OK. But supposing you turn out to be completely right elsewhere. What’s the implication for action? Leave butchers in peace? Hope their victims don’t succeed in overthrowing them? Forever?
No, I think that the people who live under dictatorships should overthrow their overlords, if they can. This doesn’t mean I support the U.S. government helping them out. Too many questions arise out of such policies. It’s easier to blame a foreign influence for troubles in our society than it is to blame ourselves.
My quick policy proposal for foreign relations:
- stop hurting people through economic sanctions. Those only hurt the people we are trying to help and help the people we are trying to hurt.
- stop supporting regimes for strategic purposes. Doing so often causes us to turn a blind eye towards the some of the worst aspects of these strategic partners.
- stop condemning states for doing things that we do ourselves. It’s hard to condemn the prison states of China and Cuba when we have the highest rate of incarceration in the Western world, for example.
I think Egypt and Libya are going to be just as bad as they have been, if not worse. Only Tunisia, which did not rely on foreign support AND recently elected Islamist parties to their new government, will come out of this for the better. I hope I’m wrong, of course, but libertarians rarely are!
The Islamist parties in Tunisia, by the way, don’t have the same “anti-imperialist” sentiments as the Islamists in Egypt and Libya do. I wonder why…
Libertarian Foreign Policy: A Dialogue on Imperialism
Ghaddafi is dead. Hooray.
Now on to the part where we actually have to think about the consequences of our actions. Why don’t we take a look at the region of the Middle East that has actually held elections without being occupied by a foreign power: the Palestinian territories.
Would you like to Google ‘Fatah’ and ‘Hamas’, or shall I?
It’s great that Ghaddafi is dead, and it would be nice if our actions in helping to bring him down were celebrated throughout the Muslim world. I won’t hold my breath though. After bombing the Serbians to help out Muslim Bosniaks the U.S. was thanked with a couple of airplanes being flown into our commercial buildings (it also refroze relations with Russia that still haven’t thawed).
The point I make here is not that all Muslims should be lumped together, but rather than our foreign policy establishment DOES lump all Muslims together. They never take into account all of the intricacies involving the political processes taking place in this part of the world. The effort in Serbia was a calculated response by the Clinton administration to win over the hearts and minds of the whole Muslim world, but what we got instead was soured relations with Russia and a nod of approval from the monarchies of the Gulf states, Turkey, and the autocratic regimes of Jordan and Egypt. One enemy (though certainly not the only one) of the Gulf state monarchies – al-Qaeda – had a different opinion on the matter.
Al-Qaeda looked the other way and saw military troops protecting the monarchies of the Gulf states.
Does anybody here seriously think that helping to dislodge a brutal dictator from power in the Muslim world is going to earn us the approval of the same Muslim world? In fact, what happens if – miraculously – a liberal, secular regime is voted into office in Libya? What do think will be the claims of the rival parties (especially the Islamist ones): that the elections were held fair and square, or that the new liberal regime is a mere puppet of the West?
Bottom line: unless there is a direct threat to the U.S. republic, we shouldn’t be playing that Old World game of Realpolitik. All that leads to is intrigue, speculation, and entangling alliances. Sure, some dictators have died because of our efforts. Then again, some have also benefited. Everybody is a hypocrite of course, but the more we can avoid being so, the better. The idea – nay wish! – that the newly liberated people of the Arab world will somehow elect secular, Western-friendly governments after 50 years of oppression by regimes that were perceived by the Muslim public to be secular and Western-friendly belongs to be filed under the category of ‘fantasy,’ not foreign policy.
The Ghaddafi regime undertook policies that were hostile to the West. His regime sponsored terrorism against innocent people in the West. I am glad he is dead. I am glad that his own people shot him in the streets. But I think one of the major complaints that Libyan elites had for his policies was not that he sponsored these acts, but rather that he sponsored them under the guise of anti-colonialism rather than for Islam.
A couple of thought exercises: what happens if the Libyan electorate chooses to entrust an Islamist political party hostile to the West with running the state? Does the United States accept the outcome, or do we take the same route we did when Hamas was elected in the Gaza Strip?
How would the U.S. be perceived by the Muslim world if our role there was limited to one of trading, and not one of policing?
Has anybody here thought about the possibility of a prolonged civil war in Libya due to regional rivalries that have been suppressed by a strong-arm dictatorship for the last 40 years? After all, the main reasons given for NATO’s operation in Libya was twofold: 1) to keep Libya from disintegrating into a civil war that would send thousands of refugees to Europe’s decadent shores and 2) to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.
Can we be confident that these goals have been accomplished, or are we merely stabbing at shadows in the dark in the name of democracy?
The Zimmerman Verdict, Racism and Trial by Jury
First of all, I have to admit up front that I had not been following the Zimmerman trial at all until the Not Guilty verdict flooded my Twitter feed and Facebook page. The case was just too common, too parochial and had attracted the type of Americans who normally don’t read the more cerebral musings found on this blog (if you get my drift).
I knew it was racially-charged, and that it was taking place in the South, but other than that I had really been in the dark about the relevant details. Nevertheless, you’re gonna get my two cents.
Here are the details that I have found relevant. Some of them may not, at first glance, seem relevant because they don’t even pertain to the Zimmerman-Martin case at all, but stay with me:
- George Zimmerman identifies as a Hispanic, not a white person, and is a registered, tried-and-true member of the Democratic Party. I bring this up first and foremost because race in this country has become an odd thing, to say the least. Perhaps it always has been. See Dr Delacroix’s ethnographic musings on race in America here for more on race in the US.
- In Jacksonville (also in Florida), a black woman was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a judge (not a jury) for firing warning shots at her estranged (and black) husband. It is unclear if the woman had a prior criminal record.* She was seeking a restraining order against the man and her defense team used the same “Stand Your Ground” laws used by Zimmerman’s team.** The trial was taking place at the same time as the Zimmerman one.
- In Miller Place, an affluent, predominantly white hamlet of Long Island in New York City, a black man was convicted by a jury of killing an unarmed white teenager who showed up at the black man’s house in the early hours of the morning and was threatening to assault the man’s son. The white teenager, now dead, had been friends with the black man’s teenage son.
All three of the verdicts were handed down over the weekend. I take away a couple of things about American society from these three cases. Firstly, the only white person involved in any of these cases directly was an unarmed teenager who got shot in the face. Secondly, America still has a long way to go before racism becomes more irrelevant than relevant. Jim Crow ended in the late 1960s, but its legacy of state-sponsored racism lives on in a number of ways that I don’t want to list here (feel free to do so in the ‘comments’ section).
Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, I think that, were the woman from Jacksonville to have received a trial by jury (and it is still unclear to me why she did not get this constitutional right), she would have been found Not Guilty. Given this speculation, and given the large amount of ignorance about each of these cases on my part, I still have to conclude that the juries made the right decision.
Tocqueville once wrote about the unique trial by jury system found in the United States and argued that it was the jury itself which guaranteed liberty and freedom in the United States. Were this unique system ever to be removed from the legal system, Tocqueville mused, it would signify the beginning of the end of the American experiment in self-government. The right to be judged by one’s peers, instead of by a member of the court, is a right too few Americans appreciate enough. The trial by jury is not perfect, not by a long shot, but it is also no accident that liberty, tranquility and prosperity reign prominently in the few societies where it has been implemented.
*[Update: the woman had no prior criminal record]
**[Update: the Zimmerman team did not use the “Stand Your Ground” law of Florida]
Around the Web
- The Origins of War in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I didn’t agree with everything in this very long piece, but it’s definitely worth your time.
- Confronting Anti-Black Racism in the Arab World. The logic behind this piece is atrocious, but at least the problem is beginning to be acknowledged.
- Science Debunks Date Rape Epidemic, Cites Binge Drinking Instead.
- Photos of Ramadan in 2013. From the Atlantic.
- China needs a new ‘national story’ because playing the victim card gets old real fast. Especially in foreign affairs.
From the Comments: Non-Interventionism Versus Isolationism
Does isolationism really mean “peace at all costs” as the title implies? Even though isolationism was the term applied to the late Sen. Robert Taft, whose run for President in 1952 marked the end of the Old Right “isolationist” movement, the term is now so ambiguous and misleading as to be useless. Non-interventionism, as advocated by Ron Paul, is a much better term. It means strong defense and retaliation in response to genuine threats while staying out of disputes that pose no such direct threats. It also means free trade with all except those with whom we are at war.
The alternative is continued meddling all over the globe. Surely it’s clear to all by now where that path leads — making new enemies who further erode our security, bankruptcy, and a police state at home. And yes, incentives for Europeans and others to rely on Uncle Sam rather than standing up for themselves.
This comes from Dr Gibson (see his archives here) and is in response to this piece by Dr Delacroix. From July of 2012.
Would A Libertarian Military Be More Lethal?
This is the question that military attorney David French asks and answers over at National Review:
I’m noticing military libertarianism increasing, not decreasing, among the more politically aware and engaged officers and enlisted […]
Frustration with bureaucracy and deep skepticism of nation-building and foreign entanglements should not be confused with weakness or wishful thinking […] Military libertarians tend to know how savage our enemy is. Moreover, they have no hesitancy to use overwhelming force in defense of the nation. After all, national defense is a core function of government even in a more libertarian state. In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, thoughtful military libertarians tend to advocate something we haven’t really tried in our more than decade-long fight against Islamic jihad — the relatively brief application of truly overwhelming destructive force against identified enemies.
That’s why I wonder if a libertarian military might be more lethal, even on smaller budgets. A trimmed-down bureaucracy, an increased emphasis on the destructive rather than nation-building capabilities of the force under arms, and doctrines designed to inflict maximum (non-nuclear) destruction on enemy forces rather than transforming and democratizing communities — all of this could add up to a more lethal (yet smaller) military.
Indeed. What do you think? I know I’ve made this argument plenty of times before, and it has basically been the standard minarchist line on foreign policy since the Enlightenment, yet somehow this seems to be a new concept for not only libertarians but others as well?
I don’t get it. How have we not been able to communicate this idea more effectively over the years?
I understand that rent seeking plays an important role in our failure, as does the fact that our arguments must compete with demagogues, but I don’t fully see why the libertarian foreign policy argument isn’t more understandable.
One thing that French forgets to mention is that the threat of facing an American military that no longer cares about winning the hearts and minds of its enemies will also contribute to a decline in wars. The inability to connect this implication – that of a more peaceful world – with a leaner, meaner American military force also baffles me.
Here is the relevant reddit thread on the link in question.
Update: Over the next month or so, I’m going to disaggregate a dialogue about foreign policy that I had with Dr Delacroix in 2011. It is different from the earlier dialogue on foreign policy that we held.
Congratulations to Hank!
Hey readers,
I’m proud to announce that Hank’s recent work on some history of political thought earned the accolades of FEE, the US’s oldest libertarian-leaning think tank, by taking the runner’s up spot in an essay competition that they hold every month. From Karl Borden, a professor of finance at the University of Nebraska:
This month brought us a number of blogs worthy of consideration. Particularly of note and honorable mention were two runner-up entries: Henry Moore, commenting on Ross Emmett’s article “What’s Right About Malthus,” first infers two themes embedded in Emmett’s commentary: that great theorists “illuminate the path” and that “human institutions can mitigate human (nature).” Moore then extends Emmett’s observations concerning “what’s right” about Malthus to salvage portions of both Herbert Spencer’s and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s thinking. Moore’s blog effectively reminds us that just because they didn’t get it all right doesn’t mean they got it all wrong.
Indeed. Absolutely fantastic work Hank. For those keeping track, Notes On Liberty also won last month’s competition (making us two for two in the competition), so as an editor here I am especially proud of Hank’s work. I just hope he continues to stick around and write for us!
You can find the winning piece here. There was another runner up as well, and you can find that piece here. Be sure to check out Hank’s work at NOL here. He has his own blog, too.
Around the Web
- The Egyptian Coup and Political Islam: Daniel Larison takes neoconservative David Brooks to task for supporting the coup and explains why the coup will only empower Islamism. Highly recommended.
- In which countries is ‘crude libertarianism’ most and least true? Tyler Cowen dared to ask the question, but it is his ‘comments’ section (which I am extremely jealous of) that is truly worth reading through. Grab a cup of coffee.
- This is why I love Murray Rothbard.
- Lies, Slander and Corey Robin. Philosopher Kevin Vallier explains, in depth, the Leftist penchant for dishonesty. Imagine if an associate professor (a young professor without tenure) with a libertarian or a conservative bent wrote something about Rawls or Keynes that was as fact-free and fallacious as the piece Robin wrote about Hayek. Don’t condemn. Don’t get angry. Just imagine.
- I’ve been listening to a lot of Sonic Youth lately (you can Google ’em yourself!).
From the Comments: Open Borders, Immigration and the Sociology of Gradualism
Dr Delacroix takes issue with my woefully inadequate summary of his work on open borders in the Independent Review. He writes:
Small yet somewhat important correction: In our piece in the Independent Review, Nikiforov and I argue for somewhat more than a guest worker program and our reference is not a to a EU “guest worker program.” (I am not sure whether there is one.) Rather, we argue that little harm would be done and, as we see now, much harm avoided, by simply agreeing that citizens of Canada, the US and Mexico (especially Mexico) can freely move across the common borders of the three countries. including for the long term. What we have seen in the EU for now more than twenty years shows that there is no reason to attach this free movement principle to citizenship.
That you may work, open a business, pay taxes in Mexico does not logically imply that you may vote in Mexican elections. That you may not does not deprive you of any “rights.” As an immigrant into Mexico you knew what you were doing. You moved under your own power. It’s unlikely anyone even invited you. If you crashed the party, you have no moral right to complain that the food is not kosher (or hallal, you decide).
Several years later, I think that the only reason for this insistence on tying residence to citizenship is the Democratic Party’s totalitarian aspirations. Observing the drift in the Obama administration toward non-legality clarified the picture for me, personally. (I am not speaking for my co-author, here. He just spent three years in Russia; I will ask him.)
Historical precedents matter, and a preference for gradualism may make it desirable -in this country- to transition through a somewhat familiar “guest worker program” rather than directly decree open borders for the citizens of the three NAFTA countries.
I am for whatever works but we must keep concepts distinct from each other: A tomato is not really a fruit, not really.
PS I am glad Notes On Liberty publishes my essays (and even my stories) and that it links to my blog. When I grow up, I want a readership like Notes’ readership!
No Capitalism Means No Peace: Egypt Edition
I just briefly touched on this in an earlier post, but I thought I’d bring in another perspective to shore up my argument. Fraser Nelson, writing in the UK’s Telegraph, explains some of the important differences between freedom and democracy:
While the West was celebrating Egypt joining the comity of democratic nations, Egyptians themselves were sliding into an economic abyss, with terrifying shortages of fuel, food and security. Sectarian violence has been thrown into the mix, with persecution of the Coptic Christians followed by Sunni v Shia strife. The murder rate trebled. Things were falling apart, which is why the generals were welcomed back.
But the Arab Spring was a demand for freedom, not necessarily democracy – and the distinction between the two is crucial. Take, for example, the case of Mohammed Bouazizi, who started this chain of events by burning himself alive on a Tunisian street market two years ago. As his family attest, he had no interest in politics. The freedom he wanted was the right to buy and sell, and to build his business without having to pay bribes to the police or fear having his goods confiscated at random. If he was a martyr to anything, it was to capitalism […]
The narrative of a 1989-style revolution in hope of regime change seemed so compelling to foreigners that there was little appetite for further explanation. But […] this was a protest for the basic freedom to own and acquire ras el mel, or capital.
Read the rest. I think it is pertinent to note that liberalism (the institutional face of capitalism) was murdered by British imperialism in its infancy (“Egyptian freedom means no more British imperialism, therefore…”).
The people of the Middle East will not get out of the rut they are in until there is a revolution of ideas in their societies. The demand for liberal ideas is certainly there, but Western imperialism provides a convenient scapegoat for authoritarians in the region. Western imperialism is different from Russian, or Persian, or Turkish, imperialism because the Arab public holds the West to a higher standard than other states. It’s time we started doing the same: remove all troops and military equipment owned and operated by the United States from the region.
This will lead to the rapid disappearance of the Islamist monarchies our government protects, and will open up the region to important dialogue. As long as the US military remains in the region, though, the Middle East will not taste freedom. Imperialism is antithetical to freedom, as both the society funding imperial projects and the society being forced to receive imperial projects are coerced in the name of central planning.
See also “Moral Markets and Immoral ‘Capitalism’” and “The Hidden Vice of Capitalism” for more in-depth arguments about the term “capitalism” and what it actually means.
The Immigration “Reform” Bill: RINOs, Labor Unions and a Libertarian Alternative
Nobody is happy with the current immigration reform package being shoved through Congress at the moment. I don’t know too much about the specifics of the bill, or even about immigration itself (except that immigrants make good drinking buddies), so I’ll just outsource some ideas and arguments I’ve read elsewhere. First up is our very own Jacques Delacroix, an immigrant from France, who writes:
The main objective of the bill is to install in this country an unbeatable Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. The intent is to turn this polity into a one-party system. Everyone assumes, of course, that the electoral benefits of the bill will redound to the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe it, conduct a simple mental experiment: Tell yourself under what circumstances the implementation of the present bill, or of one similar to it, would cause a net increase in the number of Republican voters?
At best, at the very best, the admission of ten million formerly illegal immigrants and of their dependents would have no effect on American electoral politics. There is no scenario whereas it would help the conservative cause.
New immigrants vote Democrat. Immigrants from societies with authoritarian traditions vote Left unless their societies have gone through violent purging convulsions such as happened in “communist” Eastern Europe in the nineties. The idea that the government should leave people alone is a sophisticated one. It does not grow naturally out of the experience of oppression.
Indeed. Is this analysis wrong? If so, feel free to elaborate why you think so in the ‘comments’ section. I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Angelo Codevilla, an immigrant from Italy (and one of Dr Delacroix’s fellow academics), also elaborates on the bill:
Beginning in the 1960s, increasingly dandified native youths shunned agricultural and service jobs. So did the new legal immigrants. This made room for a growing number of laborers from Mexico who came and went freely and seasonally across a basically un-patrolled 2000 mile border. These were not “immigrants,” but rather mostly young men who yearned to get back to their families. They did not come to stay, much less take part in American politics. America came to rely on them to the point that, were a magic wand to eliminate them, whole industries would stop, including California agriculture.
US labor unions however, supported by the Democratic Party, pressed the US government to restrict this illegal flow. While until the 1980s, the US-Mexican border was patrolled by fewer than 1000 agents – nearly all at a handful of crossing points – that number has grown to some 25,000 in our time. As the border began to tighten, making it impossible for the Mexicans to come and go, many brought their families and stayed put in the US between work seasons […]
The controversy over illegal immigration did not touch the core of the immigration problem, namely the Immigration Act of 1965 and our burgeoning welfare system. Nor did it deal with the fact that the illegal flow of Mexicans was really about labor, not immigration, because most Mexican “illegals” had not come with the intention of staying. A well-crafted guest-worker program would give most of them what they want most [emphasis mine – bc].
Hence the “illegal immigration problem” is an artifact of the US political system: The Democratic Party wants the Mexicans as voters, the labor unions want the Mexicans as members rather than as competitors, and the Chamber of Commerce wants them for as low a wage as it can enforce.
Codevilla has much, much more here. Codevilla attributes the US immigration system to the corporate state, but I am unsure if Dr Delacroix feels the same way.
Delacroix’s piece, like Codevilla’s, also brings attention to an alternative guest worker program. Delacroix, in an article for the Independent Review, points out that the guest worker program has worked extremely well in the pre-central bank European Union (I am unsure if this is still the case).
A guest worker program would eliminate the political implications associated with “illegal immigration reform” and, as a result, enhance the economic benefits of seasonal labor flows coming from Mexico. The Cato Institute has recently come out with a policy report detailing how a guest worker program might be implemented. As I’ve stated before, the Cato Institute is one of three think tanks I actually trust (the other two being Brookings and Hoover).
Notes On Liberty 