Lines of Blood By Roderick on June 20, 2008 4 For any libertarians who still think which side one takes on the immigration issue is a minor, optional matter – two posts on how border laws kill: here and here. No Borders
That Amy Goodman is insufferable. She never mentions Israel, her own homeland, except to discuss its treatment of Palestinians, yet whenever she does stories that reflect negatively on Palestinians (e.g. her RFK story) she scrupulously avoids any mention of Palestinians! And of course while she interviews Dennis Kucinich plenty of times she’s barely mentioned Ron Paul’s name twice in the last year. They should change the name of the show to “Hypocrisy Now!”.
The libertarian view on this seems so obvious to me, restricting migration is tyrannical. I am sure that what drives some anti-immigration sentiment is racism, but as far as anti-immigration libertarians go I will assume their opposition is based on the idea that increased immigration will have the effect of “justifying” further state intrusion into society. I understand this argument but don’t find it particularly convincing; the libertarian should be less concerned with whether a given action might make the state stronger, he should primarily concern himself with the particulars of the individual case. Should a person be prevented from movement based on some line on a map? No. Whatever obstacles open borders might present to the withering of the state, they certainly present opportunities as well, and more importantly, they are libertarian by principle.
Paint me naive. I was actually partial to the Blockian perspective in this debate. This is changing my mind quickly.
As I sit in my relatively comfortable bay area apartment complaining about the heat today, I can only imagine what these poor souls went through due to border tyranny.
Actually, Block is an open borders type. The debate I was referring to was his idea about the necessary prioritizing of war over immigration, if I recall correctly.
Sorry if I left the wrong impression.