Monthly Archives: July 2020

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy.

A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones.

Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided with property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights, including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's own good but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house without an invitation. Rights extend only so far.

Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scope. That would mean there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. Then the only legitimate government would be no government at all. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGrazia is the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University.

More:
Theres no right to infect - Sarasota Herald-Tribune

We have now reached peak Libertarianism, and this bizarre experiment that has been promoted by the billionaire class for over 40 years is literally killing us.

Back in the years before Reagan, a real estate lobbying group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) came up with the idea of creating a political party to justify deregulating the real estate and finance industries so they could make more money. The party would give them ideological and political cover, and they developed an elaborate theology around it.

It was called the Libertarian Party, and their principal argument was that if everybody acted separately and independently, in all cases with maximum selfishness, that that would benefit society. There would be no government needed beyond an army and a police force, and a court system to defend the rights of property owners.

In 1980, billionaire David Koch ran for vice president on the newly formed Libertarian Party ticket. His platform was to privatize the Post Office, shut down all public schools, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, end food stamps and all other forms of welfare, deregulate all corporate oversight, and sell off much of the federal governments land and other assets to billionaires and big corporations.

Since then, Libertarian billionaires and right-wing media have been working hard to get Americans to agree with Ronald Reagans statementfrom his first inaugural address that, [G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

And Trump is getting us there now.

Every federal agency of any consequence is now run by a lobbyist or former industry insider.

The Labor Department is trying to destroy organized labor; the Interior Department is selling off our public lands; the EPA is promoting deadly pesticides and allowing more and more pollution; the FCC is dancing to the tune of giant telecom companies; the Education Department is actively working to shut down and privatize our public school systems; the USDA is shutting down food inspections; the Defense Department is run by a former weapons lobbyist; even the IRS and Social Security agencies have been gutted, with tens of thousands of their employees offered early retirement or laid off so that very, very wealthy people are no longer being audited and the wait time for a Social Security disability claim is now over two years.

The guy Trump put in charge of the Post Office is actively destroying the Post Office, and the bonus for Trump might be that this will throwa huge monkey wrench in any effort to vote by mail in November.

Trump has removed the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, and fossil fuel lobbyists now control Americas response to global warming.

Our nations response to the coronavirus has been turned over to private testing and drug companies, and the Trump administration refuses to implement any official government policy, with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar saying that its all up to individual responsibility.

The result is more than 140,000 dead Americans and 3 million infected, with many fearing for their lives.

While the Libertarian ideas and policies promoted by that real estate lobbying group that invented the Libertarian Party have made CEOs and billionaire investors very, very rich, its killing the rest of us.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put America back together after the Republican Great Depression and built the largest and wealthiest middle class in the history of the world at the time.

Now, 40 years of libertarian Reaganomics have gutted the middle class, made a handful of oligarchs wealthier than anybody in the history of the world, and brought an entire generation of hustlers and grifters into public office via the GOP.

When America was still coasting on FDRs success in rebuilding our government and institutions, nobody took very seriously the crackpot efforts to tear it all down.

Now that theyve had 40 years to make their project work, were hitting peak Libertarianism and its tearing our country apart, pitting Americans against each other, and literally killing hundreds of people every day.

If America is to survive as a functioning democratic republic, we must repudiate the greed is good ideology of Libertarianism, get billionaires and their money out of politics, and rebuild our civil institutions.

That starts with waking Americans up to the incredible damage that 40 years of libertarian Reaganism has done to this country.

Pass it on.

Continue reading here:
The Disastrous Handling of the Pandemic is Libertarianism in Action, Will Americans Finally Say Good Riddance? - CounterPunch

Newsday is opening this story to all readers so Long Islanders have access to important information about the coronavirus outbreak. All readers can learn the latest news at newsday.com/LiveUpdates.Your subscription is important because it supports our work covering the coronavirus outbreak and other strong local journalism Newsday provides. You can find the latest news on the coronavirus outbreak at newsday.com/LiveUpdates.

"I don't need a mask!" declared the San Diego woman to a Starbucks barista. The woman apparently believed she had a right to enter mask-free, contrary to the coffee bar's policy. A surprising number of Americans treat expectations of mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic in a similar way as if these expectations were paternalistic, limiting people's liberty for their own good. They are dead wrong.

Their thinking reflects what we might call "faux libertarianism," a deformation of the classic liberal theory known as libertarianism. Libertarianism is the political and moral philosophy according to which everyone has rights to life, liberty and property and various specific rights that flow from these fundamental ones. Libertarian rights are rights of noninterference, rather than entitlements to be provided with services. So your right to life is a right not to be killed and does not include a right to life-sustaining health care services. And your right to property is a right to acquire and retain property through your own lawful actions, not a right to be provided property.

Libertarianism lies at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism, which asserts positive rights to such basic needs as food, clothing, housing and health care. According to libertarianism, a fundamental right to liberty supports several more specific rights including freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of religious worship. Neither the state nor other individuals may violate these rights of competent adults for their own protection. To do so would be unjustifiably paternalistic, say libertarians, treating grown-ups as if they needed parenting.

Why do I claim that Americans who resist mask-wearing in public embrace faux libertarianism, a disfigured version of the classic liberty-loving philosophy? Because they miss the fact that a compelling justification for mask-wearing rules is not paternalistic at all not focused on the agent's but rather appeals to people's responsibilities regarding public health. This point is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Consider your right to freedom of movement. This right does not include a right to punch someone in the face, unless you both agree to a boxing match, and does not include a right to enter someone else's house, without an invitation. Rights extend only so far. They do not encompass prerogatives to harm others (without their consent) or violate their rights. Once we appreciate that rights have boundaries, rather than being limitless, we can see the relationship between liberty rights and public health.

Your rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, and so on do not encompass a prerogative to place others at undue risk; to endanger others in this way is to violate their rights, which you have no right to do. This idea justifies our sensible laws against drunk driving. So even a libertarian can, and should, applaud Starbucks and its barista for insisting on mask-wearing during the coronavirus pandemic. Whether or not the woman who said she didn't need a mask had a right to ignore her own health, she had no right to put other customers and Starbucks employees at risk either directly, by possibly spreading infection, or indirectly, by flouting a norm of mask-wearing that is reasonably related to public health and protecting other people from harm and rights violations.

The fallacy of faux libertarianism is thinking that liberty rights have unlimited scopes, that one's right to freedom of association, for example, means a right to get together with anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, even if doing so endangers others. If liberty rights had unlimited scopes, then there could be no legitimate laws or social norms since all laws and norms limit liberty in some way or another. That means that, if faux libertarianism were correct, then the only legitimate government would be no government at all, which is to say anarchy as opposed to civil society. And if no social norms were legitimate, then each of us would lack not only legal rights but also moral rights. In that case, we would have no right to liberty or anything else.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Unlike libertarianism, which is a coherent outlook, faux libertarianism refutes itself by destroying any intelligible basis for rights to life, liberty, and property. I am no fan of libertarianism, which I find problematic at various levels. But it is far more compelling than its incoherent impostor, faux libertarianism. Mask up, people, before you enter crowded, public spaces!

David DeGraziais the Elton Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University. This piece was written for The Baltimore Sun.

Visit link:
You don't have the right to put others at risk by not wearing a mask - Newsday

Amash isn't runningfor anything. After Rep. Justin Amash's brief foray into seeking the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination, many thought that Amasha Tea Party Republican turned Trump-era independent and, now, Congress' first and only Libertarian membermight try to hold his seat representing Michigan in the House of Representatives. That's not to be.

Following a Detroit News report Thursday night that Amash's congressional campaign was inactive, Amash tweeted:

I love representing our community in Congress. I always will. This is my choice, but I'm still going to miss it. Thank you for your trust.

Amash adviser Poppy Nelson had told The Detroit News earlier that Amash "hasn't been campaigning for any office and doesn't plan to seek the nomination for any office."

The paper notes that Amash's campaign "raised only $24,200 for the quarter ending June 30another indication he's not running for federal office. He previously raised over $1.1 million toward re-election."

Amash was first elected to Congress in 2010 and has served five terms.

Nicholas Sarwark, former chairman of the Libertarian National Committee, told The Detroit News that with Amash "as our first Libertarian congressmanI would like to keep that seat. But I understand if he thinks there's a better way for him to advance the Libertarian Party and improve the conditions of this countrythat he has to do what he thinks is right."

More horrifying scenes out of Portland.Earlier this week, it was federal agents shooting impact munitions at protesters in Portland, Oregonhitting one man directly in the head, knocking him over and putting him in the hospital. At the time, Sen. Ron Wyden (DOre.) accused the feds of acting like an "occupying army." Now, unidentified federal agents wearing camouflage have been driving around Portland, snatching people off the streets, and taking them away in unmarked vehicles.

"Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14," Oregon Public Broadcasting reports.

Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they are being arrested, and driving off.

The tactic appears to be another escalation in federal force deployed on Portland city streets, as federal officials and President Donald Trump have said they plan to "quell" nightly protests outside the federal courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center that have lasted for more than six weeks.

Another good reason to wear a mask. A May 22 memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explores the agency's fears that widespread mask wearing will thwart federal facial recognition programs. The memo was "drafted by the DHS Intelligence Enterprise Counterterrorism Mission Center in conjunction with a variety of other agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement," and brought to the public's attention by The Intercept.

In its own words, the intelligence memo discusses "the potential impacts that widespread use of protective masks could have on security operations that incorporate face recognition systemssuch as video cameras, image processing hardware and software, and image recognition algorithms."

"Violent extremists and other criminals who have historically maintained an interest in avoiding face recognition" may "opportunistically seize upon public safety measures recommending the wearing of face masks to hinder the effectiveness of face recognition systems in public spaces by security partners," the feds fret, while noting that they have "no specific information" about this actually happening.

The Homeland Security memo also "cites as cause for concern tactics used in recent pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong," notes The Intercept.

D.C. efforts to decriminalize psilocybin draw interference. Yesterday members of Congresswhich still has veto power over local D.C. lawsdebated a proposal to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms in the District. "We certainlydon't want to be known as the drug capital of the world," said Rep. Andy Harris (RMd.), who had introduced an amendment to forbid D.C. from putting the issue up for a vote this fall.

"We all can agree that policies that increase the availability of psychedelic drugs in the nation's capitalthat's dangerous," Rep. Tom Graves (RGa.) said at the House Appropriations Committee hearing.

Not all of the committee agreed.

"If the district's residents want to make mushrooms a lower priority and focus limited law enforcement resources on other issues, that is their prerogative," said Rep. Mike Quigley (DIll.).

Harris ultimately withdrew his amendmentfor now. "This is a new issue to the committee," he said in a statement. "Between now and the meeting of the conference committee this fall, the issue of whether this will be on the ballot will be resolved. Fortunately, in that time, members will also have time to learn more about this complicated medical issue."

America is seeing a dramatic shift in party affiliation. Since the start of the year, "what had been a two-percentage-point Republican advantage in U.S. party identification and leaning has become an 11-point Democratic advantage, with more of that movement reflecting a loss in Republican identification and leaning (down eight points) than a gain in Democratic identification and leaning (up five points)," notes Gallup:

Currently, half of U.S. adults identify as Democrats (32%) or are independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (18%). Meanwhile, 39% identify as Republicans (26%) or are Republican leaners (13%).

These results are based on monthly averages of Gallup U.S. telephone surveys in 2020.

Another federal execution took place yesterday:

It's impossible to reform policing without taking on police unions.

Florida man does a few things right.

Originally posted here:
Justin Amash's Tenure as the Libertarian Party's First Member in Congress Will Be Shortlived - Reason

PDF Version.

A Review of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom by Ilya Somin (Cato Institute Book, Oxford University Press, 2020)

***

To hear President Trump tell it, open borders is a mantra of the radical Left. In his new book, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom, the always engaging and resourceful Ilya Somin, a professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, proudly claims the open borders ground from a different end of the political spectrum. Somin offers a compelling and ingenious justification for free global movement, from the standpoint not of politics, let alone the radical Left, but instead from a libertarian, small-government perspective.

Recent events have also made Somins book more timely than ever. Immigration took center stage, for example, in the Supreme Courts June 2020 decision invalidating the Trump administrations attempted rescission of President Obamas Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program (see my Lawfare analysis here). And immigration law could soon be heading for a new chapter. A potential change in control of the White House and the Senate in the wake of the November elections could jump-start legislative immigration reform to help the Dreamers currently benefiting from DACA protections, as well as the rest of the United Statess estimated 12 million undocumented noncitizens.

I favor changes stemming from a moderate reformist perspective that relies principally on the political branches, checked by judicial review where appropriate. Somins bracing prescription, by contrast, is ultimately unduly strong medicine.

However, Somin makes a powerful argument for a broader right to free movement less dependent on the vicissitudes of politicsan argument with moral, political, economic and legal facets.

In keeping with Somins consistent approach to libertarian ideas, Free to Move champions international migration and critiques the economic, law enforcement and sovereignty rationales for immigration restrictions. Somin argues that people should be free to move across borders if they choose. Moreover, they should be free to do so for a range of reasons, including economic self-interest and the search for more responsive governance. According to Somin, free movement will enhance economic, social and political well-being. While most defenses of immigration restrictions cite economic and law enforcement concerns with open borders, Somin pushes back on these justifications for limits on immigration.

Somin also counters the sovereignty-based case for immigration curbs. The sovereignty position, as refined by the political philosopher Michael Walzer in his classic study, Spheres of Justice, holds that political and social entities must have the power to regulate the entry of free riders who would consume resources without contributing labor in return. Moreover, participants in self-government have the right to control the character of the entity that they govern. Walzers character does not necessarily mean a narrow focus on culture, and the theorist acknowledges that a state has a duty to admit refugees at risk of harm elsewhere.

Character in Walzers sense may extend to population density; residents may believe that a more dispersed population is more conducive to habits of leisure or a more relaxed pace of life. They may choose lower levels of immigration to preserve this attribute. Of course, there are responses to each of these character-based arguments. But Walzer would argue that a sovereign state must have the power to choose its own character after deliberating about its options.

Although Somins probing of all three rationales is salutary, he is ultimately more successful, as Ill explain, on the economy and law enforcement fronts than on the more basic question of sovereigntys role in immigration restrictions.

Somins titleFree to Movecaptures his theme: the virtues of people voting with their feet for a better life and better institutions. The phrase voting with your feet entails expressing a preference for particular goods, services or approaches by choosing to buy or otherwise support them instead of their rivals. People can also vote with their feet for particular political or economic systems. In Somins book, voting with your feet describes the choice of immigrants to leave one country for a better life in another. For example, as Somin recounts, he and the rest of his Jewish family suffered from anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union. After suffering for too long under the U.S.S.R.'s oppressive regime, Somin and his family managed to vote with their feet for greater liberty in the United States. Somin explains that Soviet officials feared that large-scale foot voting would highlight the profound flaws in the Soviet system. That is one reason they limited would-be foot voters exit from Russia.

For Somin, foot voting often bests its more familiar counterpart, ballot box voting. Ballot box voters are subject to manipulationboth foreign and domestic. Moreover, each has only a small voice in selecting political representatives and the policies those representatives enact. In contrast, foot voters can often make a decisive and immediate change for the better. They can do this by leaving countries dominated by despotic and corrupt regimes and relocating to countries with more responsive institutions. Somin suggests that foot voting can act as a positive force in destination countries, bringing new experiences and initiative. In addition, foot voting can be a force for positive change in immigrants countries of origin.

Somin is most compelling in deflating the economic rationales for immigration restrictions. As Somin notes, immigrants generally spur employment and increase economic activity. Free movement across borders would allow people to select a spot to call home that would maximize their productivity. Unfortunately, many countries all over the world suffer from oppressive governments and pervasive corruption. These ills act as a tax on individual effort and creativity, stifling economic development and human flourishing. Able to set up shop in a country with better institutions, an immigrant can leverage her skills, acquire new skills and capabilities more readily, and boost the economic vitality of her destination country. Relying on other advocates for free movement across borders, Somin refers to the value added to individuals efforts when they relocate to countries with better governance as the place premium. Somin argues persuasively that this place premium, replayed in the lives of multiple eager newcomers to the United States, will exponentially increase both national and global wealth.

These economic gains are realized not only by destination countries but also by sending countries. Immigrants send back remittances that lift the economies of their countries of origin. Moreover, communication by immigrants with friends, relatives, and entities in sending countries exposes countries to new political and economic ideas. That exposure can impel political, social and economic change in immigrants countries of origin. In this way, freer immigration can also ultimately reduce the push factors of ineffective governance and static economies that drive immigration in the first place.

Foot voting also serves the ends of justice. Without foot voting, persons at risk of persecution will have far more limited remedies. Although the United States is part of international refugee agreements that provide asylum for persons with a well-founded fear of persecution, U.S. refugee protections have marked gaps. U.S. asylum officers are in the main dedicated and capable, but judicial review of asylum decisions at the U.S. border is exceedingly limitedlimits that the Supreme Court upheld on June 25 in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020) (see Aditi Shahs analysis here). Modifying these curbs, as Somin would advocate, would ease obstacles for persons at risk. Moreover, Somin makes an intriguing case for including economic refugees under asylum protections, arguing that economic want is often a symptom of oppressive and corrupt institutions.

Somin also argues that two concerns frequently raised by immigration opponentscrime and terrorismare not convincing reasons for immigration restrictions. As Somin notes, immigrants are generally more law-abiding than U.S. citizens. In addition, since Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist acts by domestic sources, including white supremacist groups, have far exceeded terrorism on U.S. territory by noncitizens. President Trumps favorite targetsso-called sanctuary citiesare actually safer than their counterparts with more restrictive policies. In outlining this information, Somin provides a valuable antidote to slogans that seek to polarize the debate and demonize immigrants.

Somins well-aimed arguments would make a difference on pressing immigration issues. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his opinion for the Supreme Court in the DACA case, immigrants are productive and are already part of usinterwoven in positive ways with U.S. families, workplaces, educational institutions and other stakeholders. Forcibly removing people with such strong U.S. ties diminishes the rest of us and disrupts our way of life. It is self-defeating in the clearest sense of the term. For similar reasons, Somins argument supports comprehensive immigration reform that would allow the other 11 million people here without a lawful status to stay in the United States.

The justice reasons Somin outlines also support admitting far more refugeesat least 100,000 annually per his recommendationcompared with the paltry 18,000 that President Trump and his restrictionist immigration adviser, Stephen Miller, have grudgingly permitted. Admitting refugees saves lives and promotes freedom. It also sends a strong signal that the rest of the world should do the same. In contrast, the Trump administration has modeled fear, insecurity and intolerance, setting a sorry global example. (Similar damage stemmed from recently announced curbs on international students keeping their student visas while taking online courses during the coronavirus pandemic; thankfully, on July 14 the Trump administration rescinded those limits.)

If the Supreme Court had adopted Somins argument that the U.S. Constitutions bar on intentional discrimination should also apply to immigration, Trump v. Hawaii (2018) would have ended with a different result. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld President Trumps travel ban directed primarily at majority-Muslim countries. Somin singles out the travel ban for special disdain, pillorying the scant justifications the administration offered and the Supreme Court accepted.

Despite Somins intrepid invitation, substantially increased immigration might cause problems. To his credit, Somin doesnt blink at these risks. Instead, he suggests fixes that he calls keyhole solutions. For example, suppose a society was concerned that substantially greater immigration would be a drain on public benefits programs. Somin asserts that the government would have the right to limit immigrants access to such programs, at least temporarily. Indeed, this is largely what the United States currently does. A country worried about electoral volatility caused by a significant infusion of immigrants could limit the franchise to citizens. Of course, this is also U.S. policy.

More controversially, Somin suggests that such worries could justify an extreme keyhole solution: keeping immigrants as perpetual guests by barring any pathway to citizenship. Here, Somin arguably makes a concession that is inconsistent, if not incompatible, with U.S. values and recent history. Since 1952, all U.S. lawful permanent residents have been eligible for naturalization. Until then, Japanese immigrants to the United States could not become U.S. citizens. A return to those shameful days of permanent tiered participation in the American polity would be calamitous, not just for immigrants, but for the United Statess self-conception and its standing in the world. Even an exponential rise in foot voting would not justify such ignominious exclusions. A sovereign state should have the right to restrict immigration to some degreetheres a middle ground between draconian curbs that Somin rightly opposes and Somins prescription, which entails accepting both unrestricted immigration and a limited range of fixes that violates basic values.

Although Somin critiques the position that the power to restrict immigration is a necessary element of state sovereignty, the intrusive keyhole measures that Somin views as permissible undercut his discounting of sovereign interests. Only very potent sovereign interests would justify permanent tiered participation and denial of the franchise.

Somins critique of sovereignty argues against the restrictionist views of Trump and Miller but does not rebut the case for measured immigration limits.

Somin and nonlibertarian champions of open borders such as the political philosopher Joseph Carens are correct that immigration status is an accident of birth. Carens elaborates on liberal philosopher John Rawlss concept of the veil of ignorance. Under this view, the criteria for allocating goods are just if all people would freely choose to be governed by those criteria in a case where they did not already know what goods the criteria would grant to them. This original position of ignorance would guarantee fair chances to all.

Building on this foundation, Caren points out that no one earns being born in the United States, the United Kingdom, or Germany, as opposed to a country with a more corrupt and despotic regime. At the same time, this arbitrary aspect of immigration mirrors the allocation of other goods such as parental wealth, connections and expertise. A child does not choose her parents, but we do not require the state to separate families to winnow out the advantages that a child accrues from her parents status and achievements. In addition, a child does not earn the wealth she may eventually inherit from her parents. Progressive social theory supports inheritance taxes, at least for the super rich. But libertarians like Somin oppose confiscatory inheritance taxes, thus allowing that particular accident of birth to perpetuate inequality. Somin and other libertarian immigration theorists pick and choose which accidents are worth correcting for. This inconsistent treatment of accidents of birth undermines Somins critique of immigration restrictions.

Ultimately, Somins accident-of-birth critique does not undercut the sovereignty-based case for the power to restrict immigration. Somins critique may well inform efforts to temper restrictions through measures such as DACA and comprehensive immigration reform. However, Somins argument leaves substantial uncertainty about the future effects of uncontrolled immigration. A sovereign state could reasonably wish to hedge against that uncertainty.

Uncertainty about the effects of uncontrolled immigration is pervasive because no significant state currently allows free movement across its borders. As a result, available data is quite limited on the effects of an open-borders policy. In this sense, the economic and other benefits Somin cites from relatively controlled immigration do not constitute solid evidence that like benefits would flow from unbounded movement.

Truly uncontrolled immigration could cause substantial disruptions, at least in the short run. For example, even if immigration to the U.S. increases by a relatively small fraction of the hundreds of millions of people who wish to enter prosperous democracies such as the United States, that increase would roil the budgets of gateway areas, such as New York, Florida, Texas, and California. In the short run, these gateway areas would have to foot the bill for the education of immigrant children and other public services, without sufficient aid from the federal government. In fact, that is already the case, albeit to a smaller degree. The strain on the budgets of gateway areas would require wrenching budgetary choices. A sovereign state should have the power to limit the frequency of such dilemmas. Perhaps some states would choose to gamble that the favorable economic results that Somin cites from todays controlled immigration would yield equally favorable outcomes for uncontrolled immigration. However, neither law nor ethics should require states to make that gamble.

Political theorist Sarah Song, elaborating on Michael Walzers theory of sovereignty, views control over immigration as central to democratic self-determination. For Song, people of a state practicing self-government can choose to be risk averse and impose moderate limits on immigration. They can decide to steer clear of both open borders and draconian immigration curbsagain, as with Walzer, subject to the duty to admit refugees. Song views the power to make that choice as a necessary incident of self-government.

While Somin critiques Songs view, that critique is the least convincing portion of Free to Move. At bottom, Somin tries to pile ever more weight onto the already burdened accident-of-birth position. But that hoary argument cannot bear the load. Somin fails to acknowledge that his more extreme keyhole solutions, including precluding a path to citizenship, would install a two-tier model of political participation antithetical to current U.S. values. In viewing tiered participation as a small price to pay for foot voting, Somin underestimates tiered participations costs for a democratic politys underlying values. Those costs thus make the case for an alternative to Sominsa moderate regime that combines measured restrictions with ample refugee protections, judicial review, and the availability of comprehensive immigration reform to legalize the undocumented population.

This objection is, however, a minor point when weighed against Somins sophisticated and spirited alternative to a restrictionist system urged by Trump, Miller and other champions of reduced immigration. Somins arguments for foot voting skewer the economics and law enforcement tropes that make restrictionism rhetorically attractive to many in America today. The books combination of rigorous thought and engaging argument makes Free to Move a must-read for those interested in the future of immigration law and policy.

Here is the original post:
The Libertarian Case for Immigration (and Against Trump) - Lawfare

We have now reached peak Libertarianism, and this bizarre experiment that has been promoted by the billionaire class for over 40 years is literally killing us.

Back in the years before Reagan, areal estate lobbying groupcalled the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) came up with the idea of creating a political party to justify deregulating the real estate and finance industries so they could make more money. The party would give them ideological and political cover, and they developed an elaborate theology around it.

It was called the Libertarian Party, and their principal argument was that if everybody acted separately and independently, in all cases with maximum selfishness, that that would benefit society. There would be no government needed beyond an army and a police force, and a court system to defend the rights of property owners.

In 1980, billionaire David Koch ran for vice president on the newly formed Libertarian Party ticket. His platform was to privatize the Post Office, shut down all public schools, privatize Medicare and Medicaid, end food stamps and all other forms of welfare, deregulate all corporate oversight, and sell off much of the federal governments land and other assets to billionaires and big corporations.

Since then, Libertarian billionaires and right-wing media have been working hard to get Americans to agree with Ronald Reagansstatementfrom his first inaugural address that, [G]overnment is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

And Trump is getting us there now.

Every federal agency of any consequence is now run by a lobbyist or former industry insider.

The Labor Department is trying todestroy organized labor; the Interior Department is selling off our public lands; the EPA is promoting deadly pesticides and allowing more and more pollution; the FCC is dancing to the tune of giant telecom companies; theEducation Departmentis actively working to shut down and privatize our public school systems; the USDA is shutting down food inspections; the Defense Department is run by aformer weapons lobbyist; even theIRSandSocial Securityagencies have been gutted, withtens of thousands of their employeesoffered early retirement or laid off so that very, very wealthy people are no longer being audited and the wait time for a Social Security disability claim is now overtwo years.

The guy Trump put in charge of the Post Office is activelydestroyingthe Post Office, and the bonus for Trump might be that this willthrowa huge monkey wrench in any effort to vote by mail in November.

Trump hasremovedthe United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, and fossil fuel lobbyists nowcontrolAmericas response to global warming.

Our nations response to the coronavirus has been turned over toprivate testinganddrug companies, and the Trump administration refuses to implement any official government policy, with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar saying that its all up toindividual responsibility.

The result is more than 140,000 dead Americans and 3 million infected, with many fearing for their lives.

While the Libertarian ideas and policies promoted by that real estate lobbying group that invented the Libertarian Party have made CEOs and billionaire investors very, very rich, its killing the rest of us.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put America back together after the Republican Great Depression and built the largest and wealthiestmiddle classin the history of the world at the time.

Now, 40 years of libertarian Reaganomics have gutted the middle class, made ahandful of oligarchswealthier than anybody in the history of the world, and brought an entire generation of hustlers and grifters into public office via the GOP.

When America was still coasting on FDRs success in rebuilding our government and institutions, nobody took very seriously the crackpot efforts to tear it all down.

Now that theyve had 40 years to make their project work, were hitting peak Libertarianism and its tearing our country apart, pitting Americans against each other, and literallykillinghundreds of people every day.

If America is to survive as a functioning democratic republic, we must repudiate the greed is good ideology of Libertarianism, get billionaires and their money out of politics, and rebuild our civil institutions.

That starts with waking Americans up to the incredible damage that 40 years of libertarian Reaganism has done to this country.

Pass it on.

Thom Hartmann is atalk-show hostand the author ofThe Hidden History of American Oligarchyand more than30 other books in print. His most recent project is a science podcast calledThe Science Revolution. He is a writing fellow at theIndependent Media Institute.

This article was produced byEconomy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

then let us make a small request. AlterNets journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. Were here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And were proud to say that weve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 yearslonger than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

Its through the generosity of our supporters that were able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone cant pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Go here to read the rest:
We have now reached peak Libertarianism and it is literally killing us - AlterNet