True Libertarians Support Free Trade

I get the impression that the extreme right in the Republican Party opposes immigration because they claim that "national sovereignty" is violated. The radical right, other than nuts who oppose abortion, usually associates itself with libertarians. For example, right-wingers like Ron Paul are also supported by libertarians.

Even Ron Paul himself, however, seems to have an isolationist streak, which I don't really understand.

Where the radical right trips all over itself, it seems to me, is on the issue of immigration.

Take the moronic ramblings of Pat Buchanan, for example, who says of the Bushies and other supporters of free trade:

See: http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070611_regime.htm

It makes no sense to be in support of traditional values of freedom, the way these right-wingers claim, and yet oppose the free and fair movement of labor.

There is a legitimate fear is that low-wage labor will be exploited, but radicals like Buchanan are more concerned about the middle class than those who are actually at greatest risk.

At least the Bushies are consistent with their support of free trade. People like Buchanan strike me as simply racists who don't like "furreigners" taking "Americans' jobs."

When it comes to immigration, it's Situation Normal All Fucked Up, where the righties are concerned.

Your post is all over the place and doesn't really make sense.

What does illegal immigration have to do with free-trade? Since when are libertarians "righties"? Since when is Pat Buchanan a libertarian?

True free trade means that both labor and capital are allowed to flow to places they are needed. Buchanan is a right-winger and, as I said, right-wingers usually support free trade -- but apparently not when it comes to immigration. This is where there is an internal contradiction in their ideology -- a contradiction which is real and which will bring them down.

[Edit:] For a view that considers Buchanan not only right-winger, but also libertarian, see:

See: http://www.libertyforum.org/showfla...ibertarian&Number=295485044&page=&view=&sb=&o=

"True right wingers" like Buchanan are typically protectionist in all matters. I think there are many partial protectionists, who favor trade in goods, services, capital, but not labor. They are indeed inconsistent. But Buchanan, though wrong, is at least philosophically coherent.

If neoliberals were consistent, it would. But they're not.

I'd say a social security net financed by taxes that can be abused might have something to do with that...

I don't see it as a contradiction that they don't want undocumented, illegal immigrants in the country. But I also don't consider right-wingers and Republicans to be libertarians. Libertarians are economically conservative and socially liberal.

Pat Buchanan is certainly not a libertarian, as he is socially conservative on a great number of issues.

Gul, Buchanan is a protectionist, all right. That's an excellent point.

I think that Buchanan is a great example of why the contradictions of the radical right are its demise. He's a clear example of the "America Firster" and "Know Nothing" faction of the right. A lot of what he says is consistent with libertarian emphases on "American tradition," except that libertarians base their ideas on the absolute primacy of freedom. For instance,

Much of what he says in the above could also be put in the mouth of a pure libertarian except as to the question of free trade.

When it comes to immigrants, his ideologies are hateful and antagonistic and they are aimed to divide Americans from each other based on race and social class. (He constantly claims that the middle class loses out because of immigration, laying the blame squarely on the influx of immigrants itself, when it's a fact that it's the power of concentrated capital that is at fault.)

We see a lot of that hatred in so-called "libertarians", as well, which is maybe why the radical right and libertarians are often so strongly associated.

My point is that nutjobs like Buchanan tell us something about the efforts of anti-immigrant forces in this country, and in conservative movements in other countries as well: Even when they are associated with libertarianism, considerations of "liberty" are often trumped by hate-filled sentiments against people who are different. When it comes to libertarianism, self-consistency on the issue of the immigration is nowhere to be seen.

Illegal immigration is more of a National Security issue, then a free trade one.

Indeed. They claim to support free trade, when they do, out of a belief that the free market always produces superior results, but when they don't support free trade the free market is bad and must be stopped. This is something I've never really understood, because the inconsistency is so glaring.

Of course what it really comes down to is that while free trade always produces more total wealth, there are always winners and losers. When conservative self-professed believers in free markets in trade perceive themselves to be among the losers, almost all set aside their professions of the virtues of a free market for vapid and unconvincing professions of patriotism as an excuse for not proclaiming either a blatant double standard or confronting the need for redistribution of wealth that free trade necessarily entails.

Nonsense, that mostly displays a complete ignorance of economics.

Pat Buchanan isn't a libertarian, but he is a nutjob.

What's Irelands emerging position on quotas and immigration again?

That's a much better and more succinct way of putting it than mine. Bravo.

Explain that, please.

Libertarians aren't "liberal" in the modern sense of the word. I don't know how you could claim that they are. They're not in favor of social assistance for the poor, for example. They share the same "let them eat cake" attitude of conservatives.

Socially liberal, as in let people do whatever they want, as long as we don't have to pay for it.

As in, let gays sodomize each other. Let people own guns. Let women get abortions.

Also, Classical Liberalism very much like Libertarianism.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

I agree, but let's keep in mind that aside from moralistic buffoons in the conservative movement, modern conservatives have also tended to let people do what they want, too. Even abortion wasn't a huge conservative issue before religionists took over the movement.

I think we should keep in mind that the laissez-faire attitude of modern conservatives closely overlaps the "let them eat cake" approach that I've already mentioned. In fact, aside from moralistic hot-button issues such as God, gays and abortion, conservatives are quite similar to libertarians: "Let them do what they want, as long as we don't have to pay for it."

Economically, the situations are the same: Free trade lets goods (people) move (immigrate) to where they're most valued (to where employers are willing to pay the most for their services).

As for national security: saying that our policy on illegal immigration is a national security matter would be like saying that subsidizing American steel producers is a national security matter, except it's even sillier than that. A reasonable person could believe that it's best to subsidize American producers of steel so that we'd be self-sufficient if a crisis hit--that person would be wrong, but not completely out of his mind. Our current immigration policies, on the other hand, are so completely unrelated to national security that it's simply insane to say it's a matter of security to keep (or kick) people who currently are or would be illegals out. As a matter of national security we'd want to encourage people coming into this country for economic reasons to come openly and present paperwork by allowing them to enter legally; that would only make it easier to do background checks and determine that people who try to enter illegally really aren't coming just to make a better life. As a trade related national security matter, securing our ports, which we've done an amazingly half assed job of, comes in at so much higher a potential priority than keeping out Mexicans that the failure to do the former indicates that our policy makers most emphatically do not view the latter as a security matter. Our immigration policy is based on protectionism and xenophobia, pure and simple; calling it a matter of national security is just what protectionists and bigots who wish to soothe their consciences tell themselves.

What difference does that make? Do I have to agree with my government?

An excellent reply, HenryHill. Never let the bombastic reply, "Is this what your government thinks?" deter you from speaking the truth on the grounds that it impliedly invalidates your position. Your government's position is clearly not necessarily your own, any more than it would be for anyone. It is all the more fallacious to use such a reply in that it would never be accepted by libertarians themselves, of all people, if directed against them.

Are you talking about legal immigration or illegal immigration?

There are people like me who don't want any immigration, but the recent action in the Senate has mainly been concerned with addressing the problem of illegal immigration.

Failing to control the nation's borders and looking the other way while millions of foreigners come here illegally (or worse, failing to find them and deport them) does, indeed, compromise sovereignty.

We now have large numbers of Mexicans living in LA and San Diego who are more loyal to La Raza and Mexico than they are to the U.S.

Wrong. The radical right is socially conservative. Libertarians are not socially conservative. They are in favor of legalized drugs, prostitution, etc.

Not to the extent that Paul is socially conservative.

Traditional values of freedom presuppose 1) a sovereign, independent nation that determines its own future instead of having that future determined for it by foreigners, 2) laws that are enforced, not ignored when special interests and the politicians they have bought off find it convenient to ignore them; 3) recognition of the freedom and rights of individuals in relation to the state or society, not the freedom and rights of select favored groups in relation to the state or society.

Given 1) that our national sovereignty is compromised when millions of foreigners sneak into the country and fail to assimilate, instead maintaining their first loyalty to the country they came from and the "race" they identify themselves with; 2) that we legally admit far more immigrants than any other country in the world; 3) that our government is deliberately refusing to enforce our laws against illegal immigration; and 4) that liberals and democrats have substituted supposed group rights and freedoms for the rights and freedoms of individuals (favoring alleged victim classes like women, the disabled, minorities, immigrants, the poor, etc.), it is a perversion of the very concept of freedom (and the individual responsibility and social order that are its prerequisites) to hold that an open-borders policy or refusal to enforce immigration laws is consistent with traditional ideals of liberty and justice.

If employers need more labor than they can find after all able-bodied persons are kicked off of welfare (something that has yet to happen), they can lobby legislators to increase national immigration quotas.

Instead, they choose to hire illegal aliens. Hmm, I wonder why.

Oh, so they can get cheap labor and push down wages for legal American citizen workers.

I think it's hilarious that the liberals and leftists who would normally be fighting for the well-being of American workers are happy to see them exploited, along with the illegal aliens.

They are so filled with hatred of whitey, so filled with hatred of America and Western Civilization, that they just don't care about the fate of ordinary American workers.

Their racism -- which they deny, instead claiming that critics of our nation's refusal to find and deport illegal aliens are racist -- is so extreme that it trumps every other consideration.

Of course, when I say "their" racism, I should note that the people who hate whitey are mostly young white males who hate their fathers and any kind of authority they associate with their fathers -- America, white people in general, Western Civilization in general.

Oh, but no one could POSSIBLY doubt that YOU are very concerned about the exploitation of low-wage labor.

Buchanan happens to think that America should control its borders (like other countries do), should have its future determined by its own legal citizens, and should uphold the rights of those citizens -- not the putative rights of foreigners who sneak into this country.

How racist of him.

Oh, right.

We admit over a million legal immigrants every year -- far more than any other country -- with the great majority of those immigrants from the Third World, the great majority of them poor and uneducated...

Oh, how viciously xenophobic and protectionist of us!

Let's try to soothe our consciences, fellow bigots! I know, it's hard. But we must try...

This is sheer nonsense. Show me the proof that they "fail to assimilate" or "maintain their first loyalty to their first country." And don't rely on anecdotal evidence -- tell me that the present generation of immigrants are statistically any less loyal than previous generations.

Did you even know that, in the past, immigrants from places like Italy -- white European countries -- often went back to the old country when things didn't work out? So are Italian-Americans any less loyal than bluebloods whose daddies and mommies came over on the Mayflower?

How absurd.

Free movement of labor is a key component of free trade. Why does NAFTA not allow for it?

I do not support free movement of labor, because frankly that completely destroys the whole point of borders.

I don't really support NAFTA or other free-trade agreements either, though.

It seems like it's only logical to document those people coming into the country. I have absolutely no problem letting hispanics come here and do dirty work. What I dislike is the ease that many on the left have with turning these hispanics into a veritable new slave population, with no real rights. Which is essentially what the "free movement of labor" amounts to.

If I decide that illegal Salvadoran tending the plants out there doesn't need a lunch break, who's he gonna go to? OSHA? Please. I know from experience that most illegal immigrants refuse to take up legal options with unfair employment practices because they're fearful of deportation, which is a tool unscrupulous employers use against them.

What you appear to endorse, Xerafin, is the continued abuse of these people. I'm willing to allow that maybe you didnt intend for that, BUT it's the reality nevertheless. As a result, it's an act of mercy to only allow documented, legal workers in, because they won't be taken advantage of in illegal manners.

It is much harder to exploit them if they are documented, and therefore subject to the same regulations that cover all workers. As for borders, I think they become less relevant with free trade, but are not rendered meaningless. Country A still has jurisdiction over what happens within its borders, even if there is no barrier to commerce crossing the border it shares with Country B.

I have no problem with a free exchange of workers. I think it can benefit both Mexico's and the USA's economy. But every single worker coming through should be checked, and documented, and given a limited visa to stay on.

I don't think it should be made easier to be a CITIZEN here, but I do think it should be made easier to WORK here LEGALLY.

The bottom line is that free and fair trade does help the economy -- and all social classes within it -- as long as government regulates employers sufficiently so that labor is not exploited.

It's true that, under the current system, immigrants are leading something of a slave-class existence. Their employers are given every incentive to pay them as little as possible, since the alternative is for the immigrant to go back home. Undocumented Americans rarely want to risk calling their exploiters out on these issues because of the risk of deportation -- particularly in the current climate of paranoid xenophobia.

I have never seen more viciousness against minorities than I see today on television. When normally rational people like Dobbs, who I used to like because he supported the space program, froth and lather at the mouth and outdo the likes of Hannity and that idiotic Beck, I can only grieve for the audience they mislead and the immigrants they harm. CNN in particular should be ashamed that its standards and practices have sunk so low as to allow Dobbs hour after hour of airtime with which to divide Americans from each other. Calling Dobbs' putrid show "opinion" doesn't mitigate the harm caused. And yet CNN is only one of the many corporate forces gleefully exploiting divisions between us, all while profiteers reap their ill-gotten gains from impoverished immigrants and other lower-income Americans alike.

If so-called conservative evangelicals had any heart at all, they would follow the lead of the Catholic Church and reach out to the dispossessed of the world in our midst. Superstitious as that organization is, at least it recognizes the fundamental obligations of humanity and decency when the need to fulfill them is staring us all in the face.

A free movement of labor would require documentation, work VISAS, etc, etc. It would also eliminate most of the appeal of illegal immigration and all the slave-labor problems that our current immigration policies favor. But it would require an overhaul of our immigration and trade policies to bring in this key component of free trade.