<p>"Since they couldn't vote, they technically were not citizens, yes?</p>
<p>I'm only using your definitions "</p>
<p>Haha, don't get snarky with me galo - bad analogy.</p>
<p>galoisien, stop spouting off. Big words don't impress anyone. I haven't read this entire thread, but your assertions about libertarianism are completely false. Libertarianism is the principle that the government is in place to protect private property, nothing more. Your babbling about "morality" is completely off topic here as well, since morality has been interpreted in thousands of different ways and is basically meaningless when discussing an issue like this one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Haha, don't get snarky with me galo - bad analogy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They don't have voting rights. They thus cannot assert them. They must wait for others to give it to them.</p>
<p>Snarky? You've been using circular logic all along.</p>
<p>
[quote]
" You can't say, they don't have a claim to "rights to which they are not entitled" when I am contesting the very idea that they are not entitled to it, or that they are citizens (or residents, if you will) all but in name"</p>
<p>Sure I can:</p>
<p>"Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. It is justified with laws punishing behavior that breaks the Social Contract because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good evidence but wrongly applied to our current circumstances. </p>
<p>Firstly, you should note (a thing I have already mentioned) that you can talk about two different types of social contract discussions. There is firstly social contract as a political explanation for the original and development for any sort of government, including a totalitarian society (the Hobbesian contract); and the social contract that wishes to describe a just, moral and (can you imagine?) democratic society. (The Lockean-Rousseaunian contract).</p>
<p>It is possible to have a social contract (or a de jure social contract) that fails to accord members certain critical rights, one of the many resulting consequences being that there is (as Rousseau predicted) a steady transfer of true political power into an ever-smaller group of people (sound familiar in politics?). This results in an unjust and as well as an economically inefficient situation.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, you can also have a social contract whose principles are prescribed to achieve maximum utility (if not liberty) for all members. In order to have this contract, certain requirements, much like needs to fulfill several axiomatic statements to prove a vector space exists and therefore the principles used with it will be consistent (to use a linear algebra exam). In particular a key requirement as described by Rousseau and implied by Locke is the ability to freely enter and exit a social contract arrangement.</p>
<p>In the case of the immigrants concerned, they have been dutiful followers of the law, supported that society's interests and providing a net contribution to society. The only "law" they're breaking is restriction on migration, which is inherently an unjust condition within the social contract and therefore cannot be a law of a just social contract in the first place. (I can explain why in detail.) </p>
<p>A key distinction I've been pointing out here is the law as prescribed by the social contract (a just one), and a law prescribed by a bureaucrat appointed by the society who consented to the contract. The two are not equivalent (and Rousseau will argue, quite different). What is passed in Legislature is supposed to <em>reflect</em> the will of the social contract, not vice versa. In fact, Rousseau opposed anything other than direct democracy because there was often an increasing lag between the Sovereign Will and the bureaucrats chosen to "represent" it, often again resulting in higher and higher concentrations of real political power in the hands of a smaller and smaller group, all this on <em>top</em> of the fact that a social contract which restricts entry and exit is inherently unjust.</p>
<p>So thus in our case, our immigrants concerned <em>have</em> been following the rules of the just social contract they have entered into. They are members of that contract and have obeyed the order and laws of the just social contract which by Rousseaunian analysis excludes any so-called laws that restrict free entry/exit. Considering we are arguing for what is just and right...</p>
<p>Note the key principle:</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is justified with laws punishing behavior that breaks the Social Contract because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is the point of the laws enacted by just social contract, to promote mutual benefit and to punish actions that result in overall harm. These immigrants are acting within those same principles. </p>
<p>If I needn't need repeat myself for the thousandth time, according to right analysis of the just social contract (which I can elaborate upon), restrictions on entry and exit are by definition <em>not</em> laws of the just social contract and thus the social contract was never violated in that respect!</p>
<p>I haven't even brought up the libertarian framework for why, economically speaking, open immigration is just.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Big words don't impress anyone
[/quote]
</p>
<p><em>rolleyes</em> </p>
<p>Don't tell me that's as far as your rhetorical analysis got. These are common concepts within debate. WTH are talking about? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Libertarianism is the principle that the government is in place to protect private property, nothing more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, libertarianism is the ideology behind the principle that people should have the liberty to do anything so long as that action does not prevent others from having the same liberty. </p>
<p>This is the standard definition that may be checked anywhere. From this sole principle, many principles of spontaneous order follow. </p>
<p>Many libertarians even reject the role of the State -- hence anarcho-capitalism where private property may be protected by contractual society, rather by an authoritarian State. Closely linked thus is the rationale behind open immigration, because artificial control of immigration is seen as only as disruptive to the spontaneous order of an economy (e.g. interfering with the entry of firms and individuals, comparative advantage, the process of returning economic profit to normal profit, etc. among other basic concepts).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your babbling about "morality" is completely off topic here as well, since morality has been interpreted in thousands of different ways and is basically meaningless when discussing an issue like this one.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>It is standard in any debate about whether an action is just to assume some sort of framework for morality upon which one bases their arguments upon.</p>
<p>It is zoosermom and FLVADAD that chose to bring up the topic of moral obligations and moral rights to one's birth country, not me ... how else is one supposed to deal with the question, "what do their birth countries owe them?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, libertarianism is the principle that people should have the liberty to do anything so long as that action does not prevent others from having the same liberty.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is a tenet of libertarianism, to be sure. But, most libertarians certainly do not reject the idea of the state. Your definition of libertarianism is overdrawn and exaggerated - libertarianism in not minarchism or anarchism. It accepts a certain limited role for the government. No prominent thinker in history who could be correctly labeled libertarian has rejected the concept of the state. And, I don't see how you can speak of Locke and libertarianism in the same post - they have nothing in common, unless one distorts the Kantian ideal to ridiculous extremes. Kant, if I may remind you, advocated a "sovereign" to enforce his social contract. This is nowhere near libertarianism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is standard in any debate about whether an action is just to assume some sort of framework for morality upon which one bases their arguments upon.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't seem to figure out whether you're debating Kantian philosophy or politics here. Although on a theoretical level the two may seem to go hand in hand, on a practical level, they do not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
libertarianism i[s] not minarchism or anarchism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Libertarianism is a spectrum .... minarchism is towards the especially stateless end, and anarchism at the very extreme of statelessness. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No prominent thinker in history who could be correctly labeled libertarian has rejected the concept of the state.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Austrian School of Economics is not historically significant? I find appeal in their technique of "social calculus" (finding the overall effect by "integrating" the social contributions of each component over the interval of society's sum components, to use a mathematical analogy), and they apply it in the most consistent and rigourous way. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And, I don't see how you can speak of Locke and libertarianism in the same post
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because gee, libertarians draw upon a classical liberal heritage?</p>
<p>Indeed, I find myself both disagreeing with Rousseau and Locke on certain points (especially Rousseau's idea that civilisation "corrupts" man). However, their interpretations of contract theory remain especially pertinent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kant, if I may remind you, advocated a "sovereign" to enforce his social contract. This is nowhere near libertarianism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You have well reminded. :) Which is why I'm not using his ideas on economics, only his ideas about morality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Libertarianism is a spectrum .... minarchism is towards the especially stateless end, and anarchism at the very extreme of statelessness.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe so, but the accepted definition of libertarianism today simply involves a lessening of federal power, both economically and socially. It should also be noted that libertarianism in America is not perceived in exactly the same way that it is in the rest of the world. Libertarianism in America is more of a classically liberal interpretation of the Constitution.</p>
<p>The Vienna School never advocated the abolition of the state. By contrast, many in the Vienna school have called for government protection of private property. Although it is often cited by libertarians (of which I am one, by the way) and anarchists, it is really simply a juiced-up and better version of the Chicago School.</p>
<p>Anyway, the issue at hand is undocumented immigrants in colleges, not Kant or libertarian economics.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe so, but the accepted definition of libertarianism today simply involves a lessening of federal power, both economically and socially
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The popular approach to libertarianism ....</p>
<p>And indeed, even as a person who leans closer to the minarchist / anarchist school, I support a gradual progression/transition to a stateless society. Government is simply there to act as a temporary nanny while we wait for cultural institutions to mature the point where they can eventually take over the government's current roles. In that respect, my supported policy is weaning off society from government intervention ... previous policy has in the past stunted this process by creating an indefinite dependency on government processes, creating a "crutch" for society to rely on and decreasing the pressure on society to develop better-organised / better-informed consumers, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it is really simply a juiced-up and better version of the Chicago School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>:) </p>
<p>(I would say that technically, the Vienna School pertains more to a certain method of analysis than a particular ideological alignment, which is why you can get (relatively) opposing thinkers in the same school ... ) </p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyway, the issue at hand is undocumented immigrants in colleges, not Kant or libertarian economics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We're dealing with the impact of undocumented immigrants, cost/benefit analysis of their presence, an analysis of the rights they may have as contributing members of society, zoosermom's question of whether their birth countries <em>owe</em> them anything .... </p>
<p>How can Kantian morality and libertarian economics -- valuable tools of analysis -- be impertinent in this regard?</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can Kantian morality and libertarian economics -- valuable tools of analysis -- be impertinent in this regard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because Kantian morality is simply that - Kant's interpretation of morality. In the US, we already have a social contract - it's called the "Constitution." End of story. I have yet to understand how you relate libertarian economics to the issue of immigrants in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In that respect, my supported policy is weaning off society from government intervention ... previous policy has in the past stunted this process by creating an indefinite dependency on government processes, creating a "crutch" for society to rely on and decreasing the pressure on society to develop better-organised / better-informed consumers, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What, no more government-funded free medical care? Are you saying you would allow all of the low- or no-income ill and injured undocumented immigrants to die in the streets of America?</p>
<p>"Yes there are...and there are STILL 40% below the poverty "
And who ears the responsiility for fixing that? Not me. Where in the name of heaven do any of you see the Mexican government and its wealthy citizens as fitting in here?</p>
<p>"The popular approach to libertarianism ...."</p>
<p>Galosien is ale to repeat words that he found in his textbooks, but is completely unable to understand real world circumstances and applications. This whole thread is about his need for attention.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I needn't need repeat myself for the thousandth time...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is a reason for this. Your theories are interesting, but they have little hope for practical application. That is why people tend to ignore them.</p>
<p>Textbooks...?</p>
<p>Seeing I've come across this by LD debate and leisure-reading (besides, I don't think you can find a specific HS class on the social contract and libertarianism) at least don't say I'm just regurgitating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
responsiility
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you have a moral basis behind your argument of responsibility?</p>
<p>You keep on talking about responsibility but you don't even elaborate <em>why</em> they are responsible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A very powerful tool to analyse moral situations, at least to start with, whereas zoosermom has offered <em>no</em> moral basis behind why she's arguing the rich in those countries somehow has a moral responsibility to those individuals. </p>
<p>In a foresighted contract, indeed the rich should not be so blind to see that there is self-interest in boosting the poor. But they're blind nevertheless. So it falls to <em>our</em> moral decision to make the best of it. zoosermom says that we're providing a "safety valve," with some pretty weird concepts about "belonging" and duty that happens to be constrained within borders.</p>
<p>Duty does not stop at a border. Economic duty (for reasons that also include long-run self-interest) is inversely proportional to distance, because the most efficient thing is to administer your duties to the environment closest to you. It however does not mean discriminating between ultimate origin, only between the economic behaviour of each individual. </p>
<p>All this on top of the general libertarian stance that anything less than open immigration is not amenable, for both civil and economic reasons. The primary opposition to open immigration is xenophobia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds amazing to you, but note I said "wean off...."</p>
<p>Social structures and institutions are supposed to take the place of such healthcare.</p>
<p>Weaning off a baby doesn't mean letting it starve. It means steadily allowing the child to eat for himself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your theories are interesting, but they have little hope for practical application.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The reason why I argue for a gradual transition is precisely because of that -- it's not practical to ask for sudden big upheavals and so forth. However, it is a goal to work towards. This is important because we're currently going the wrong direction (expanding the scope of government).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Social structures and institutions are supposed to take the place of such healthcare.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How would this work? Can you point to a single country in this world where the "social structures and institutions" take the place of government-funded healthcare for the poor? In countries where there is no or insufficient government-funded healthcare, the poor do die in the streets.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Weaning off a baby doesn't mean letting it starve. It means steadily allowing the child to eat for himself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is your analogy for weaning the poor off of govt-funded healthcare? Do we steadily train each of them in medicine so that they can eventually treat themselves?</p>
<p>No, because that wouldn't fulfill comparative advantage. It would be allocatively inefficient. You know, economics 101.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How would this work? Can you point to a single country in this world where the "social structures and institutions" take the place of government-funded healthcare for the poor?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Remember, the principle of welfare is not so much as for humanitarian reasons, although that may be fine and good, but self-interest to those who provide it, because there is interest (positive externality) in elevating one's peers.</p>
<p>An important component of the learning economy is the entrepreneur, you know, because an economy doesn't have perfect information or the most well-developed techniques from the very beginning. Paper money (to facilitate the contractual distribution of value), banking (to better allocate capital) and insurance (to use collective resources to cover individual disasters that would have negative externalities) were all innovations that were originally unique to the economy that developed them. </p>
<p>For purposes of allocative efficiency, one model is to have debt-based healthcare rather than totally free healthcare -- but note I do not encouraging imposing such an oppressive debt at the beginning that the indebted struggle to flourish, for that would defeat the point of "improving the poor as an investment". Thus it is towards everyone's best interest to provide means through which the poor flourish enough economically to eventually recoup the expense to society. Future business models might include a mix of debt and systemic charity (since overall health generates positive externalities); when I talk of systemic charity, I mean the idea of "there is profit in charity," just as the paper industry in my state is so strapped for future engineers in their industry that they are willing to pay full-fare for those students in my state's main public university who are considering the paper industry (or its relatives) -- rather than any one firm. Do not limit your imagination to what I have suggested, and other institutions that arise out of self-interest [but not necessarily as a business] include consumer unions where consumers may choose to amplify their power [and therefore counter the effects of the market power of the larger providers of healthcare] by buying (and boycotting) collectively.</p>
<p>What's the limiting variable as to why these things haven't developed? Entrepreneurship, organisation and innovation ... not to mention the artificial controls the government imposes on the market that discourages libertarian solutions from forming. </p>
<p>The biggest most obvious step the government can take towards relieving the shortage of schools is to implement school voucher programmes on a wider and larger scale. That's not even anywhere close to a stateless solution [thus it is not entirely ideal], yet it would better harness market forces and spontaneous order. An equivalent solution for healthcare would be to have health vouchers.</p>
<p>There are many many cultural solutions ... the whole concept of unionisation (which many libertarians would support if not for the fact that they receive artificial government protections from dismissal and the like) is cultural; in my birth country when the government refused to upgrade the lifts of the opposition constituencies (a major issue because we all live in high-rise flats and outdated lifts making it especially hard on the elderly) because the government argued that it had its first duties to those who voted for it [some strange theory of obligation on par with zoosermom's], the cultural response was, "Fine! We'll pool our money and upgrade the lifts ourselves!" Now the only problem with this solution was those constituents were still paying taxes so it wasn't the best solution, but it was even suggested to withdraw paying taxes from the government. Already, cultural forces were shaping spontaneous economic processes among a population ....</p>
<p>Ultimately cultural forces (based on spontaneous order) are more powerful than the forces of the State. Cultural forces can enforce prohibitions; government forces struggle.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In countries where there is no or insufficient government-funded healthcare, the poor do die in the streets.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For such countries, the "mother" in question is absent while the child (the economy) is still an infant, so to speak. I don't see how this undermines my present argument. Nothing has developed to take its place.</p>
<p>Illegal immigrants should not be given ANYTHING that I, as a taxpaying citizen, am forced to pay for. Furthermore, there need to be stricter laws about hiring illegal immigrants with much worse penalties for employers.</p>
<p>I'll try to back this up with a libertarian argument(as I consider myself to be one). Libertarians believe that citizens(note the word 'citizens') should have the right to do virtually anything so long as they are not physically hurting someone, taking or damaging their property, or breaking a signed contract. These crimes should all be treated as heinous because they are few and far between compared to what we have now.</p>
<p>Back to the subject at hand: libertarians do not necessarily agree with an open-door immigration policy. The fundamental set of beliefs is that citizens are entitled to this god-given right to be free(with the aforementioned restrictions). And I think most libertarians should agree that simply entering this country does NOT constitute being a citizen. Now, aside from the welfare argument with public colleges/universities, I am paying for non-citizens to get an education.</p>
<p>Why does this anger me? Because these people broke the rules. I have all the respect for someone who gets in line like everyone else and tries to get a visa/citizenship, but I have no respect whatsoever for someone who knowingly flouts immigration laws. So, I'm paying for a criminal noncitizen to go to school. Furthermore, these people are hurting other people who got in line the right way(by applying for citizenship while residing in their own country). Why should I give anything to these criminals?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The biggest most obvious step the government can take towards relieving the shortage of schools is to implement school voucher programmes on a wider and larger scale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you talking about the U.S. government? There is no shortage of schools in the U.S. There are over 3,000 colleges in the U.S., and some of them beg for applicants and cannot fill their classrooms.</p>
<p>You have misquoted the reciprocal principle. It is "the right to do any action as long as that action does not infringe upon others' liberty to do that same action." This is a key deontological rule from which we can derive all the other mechanisms and processes of a libertarian society...</p>
<p>There are many cases where you don't physically hurt someone, damage their property or break a sign contract, but you have injured their liberties nonetheless. You know, externalities. Hence for example why it is just to boycott a polluting industry with the intention of driving that industry out of business....</p>
<p>
[quote]
with much worse penalties for employers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you call yourself a libertarian sir! I am only using market forces and comparative advantage if I should be so attracted to the labour of an undocumented immigrant! I am using the best of my economic liberties. According to your moral framework, tell me how I have infringed upon liberties.</p>
<p>Do you know nothing about the economics of economic profit and the entry/exit of firms (and by extension, individuals)? Restrictions on immigration stifle normal market flow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These crimes should all be treated as heinous because they are few and far between compared to what we have now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They are heinous because they are few.</p>
<p>WTH?</p>
<p>That's no basis for a moral argument... not that I disagree -- but you don't even proceed logically from one premise to the other.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Back to the subject at hand: libertarians do not necessarily agree with an open-door immigration policy. The fundamental set of beliefs is that citizens are entitled to this god-given right to be free(with the aforementioned restrictions). And I think most libertarians should agree that simply entering this country does NOT constitute being a citizen. Now, aside from the welfare argument with public colleges/universities, I am paying for non-citizens to get an education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There were three logical disjunctions in that argument. How the bloody hell did you proceed from your second premise to your third premise? Is there even a logical link?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I think most libertarians should agree that simply entering this country does NOT constitute being a citizen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A large amount of libertarians don't even think national borders will last forever, seeing the amount of globalisation that is also taking place. The best economic and cultural systems should eventually absorb the rest of the world; economic duty and libertarian economic relationships do not stop at political borders. For libertarians, to be a citizen is to be a productive member of society and a contributor towards that contract. The Statist definition of citizenship and the libertarian/anarchist(-capitalist) definition of citizenship are quite two different things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why does this anger me? Because these people broke the rules. I have all the respect for someone who gets in line like everyone else and tries to get a visa/citizenship, but I have no respect whatsoever for someone who knowingly flouts immigration laws. So, I'm paying for a criminal noncitizen to go to school. Furthermore, these people are hurting other people who got in line the right way(by applying for citizenship while residing in their own country). Why should I give anything to these criminals?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you even read post 274? I've addressed this argument over and over again.</p>
<p>Firstly, to your foremost concern:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Illegal immigrants should not be given ANYTHING that I, as a taxpaying citizen, am forced to pay for.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're overlooking simple solutions that allow such immigrants to pay their taxes. (you know, putting the owed taxes on their financial aid, since financial aid uses income anyway...) It's convenient to be blind, isn't it?</p>
<p>Furthermore, by the just social contract, such individuals are not criminals because they have behaved equitably (as it relates to the circumstances of their situation) in that social contract. If they infringe other laws of the social contract other than the artificial restriction on entry into that contract [which Rousseau has stated that such restrictions on entry and exit make for an unjust social contract], then punishment can be implemented where their rights may be justly taken away and so forth. But they have not! They have operated equitably within the contract SAVE that one sole rule on entry which by both libertarian and Lockean-Rousseaunian standards was unjust in the first place!</p>