-activists list to bcc
Thanks Starchild, this is the list I should have used-- I had forgotten
that it exists 
You're right, he calls himself a classical liberal, which as he
describes it is pretty close to Libertarian (and almost all if not all
of his guests are liberty-leaning). I believe he was previously on The
Young Turks, and a few other programs before he broke off to do his own
show. He put out this video a month ago which sums it up fairly nicely.
Yeah, I think Rubin gets this a bit wrong talking about the travel ban.
I do agree with a couple things though, that it's not really a muslim
ban, being as it doesn't affect some of the most muslim-populated
countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc). In fact, I'm not sure what it is
other than a foolish, totally unnecessary, political move. Either way,
perhaps this was not the best example to give, but I thought Glenn Beck
had some really interesting things to say in this one.
The argument for open borders is still one I haven't quite come to
understand fully. There are arguments on both sides that make a lot of
sense to me, but I'm not sure how to reconcile these. This section from
his most recent interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvkxuZXmR-o)
with Brian Caplan was interesting, where Caplan argues for open borders.
Many of the arguments seem to oversimplify the issues, though-- perhaps
scaling back the welfare state would lessen the perceived harm of open
borders. Anyway, I haven't formed a clear opinion on this yet-- would be
interesting to discuss more sometime (along with sanctuary cities!).
Thanks again for redirecting to the right list
Nick
Certainly not spam, Nick. But better suited to the discussion list (LPSF-
discuss@yahoogroups.com), which I've copied on this email so further
replies can be posted there.I wasn't familiar with Dave Rubin, so I appreciate the links. Does he
identify as libertarian? In the first link, talking with Glenn Beck,
he mentions having come from the left and identifies himself as a
classical liberal; he also says he's more for smaller government now,
but then conservatives also frequently *say* they're for smaller
government.He makes some valid points about Donald Trump's executive order on
immigration, but seems not to get the libertarian position on it,
dismissing freedom with the term "national suicide", as if we should
care about a national abstraction more than about individual liberty.Here are a couple pieces recently posted on IPR
(http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/03/tom-knapp-im-shopping-for-platform-shoes/#comment-1561619)
. I've boldfaced a few passages that seemed worth highlighting:
So a gaggle of right-wing racists and faux libertarians want to
build a wall on the border. They are going to “secure” the
borders. Nice.
So what does securing the borders mean? Well, one taste of it is
that the historic right of Americans to cross into Canada or Mexico
without a passport is gone. To travel you have to a government
document giving you permission to do so. You can see why I think the
“libertarians” who support this measure are not really libertarians
at all.
And they want to build a big wall on the Mexican border. Also nice.
Real nice. (You do know I’m being sarcastic.)
Since the United States was founded (and before) the borders with
Canada and Mexico were never “secure”. Never. So the communities
developed often without regard of that imaginary line in the dirt.
Now the authoritarians want “secure borders” and that means
problems. It doesn’t mean problems for would-be terrorists. After
all the 9/11 criminals didn’t cross the border illegally. They came
in with government permission. They had passports and the US
government said to them: “Welcome to America. Want some flying
lessons?”
No one came in through Canada or Mexico. They didn’t cross the
borders but flew in and handed over their permission slips to the
hall monitors at the airports. They were roaming around killing
people because they passed government security and had state
permission to be in the US. You would think the government would
look at how they approve would-be terrorists to enter the US.
Instead Americans are being forced to get passports to spend a few
hours shopping in Mexico.
But with hundreds of years of open borders the problems of imposing
a Berlin Wall of security around the country are immense and very
costly. Now think of this Border Wall for a second. The estimated
cost is $2.2 billion. Like most government boondoggles that is the
estimated cost. The real cost no doubt will be significantly higher.
*A 14-mile section of wall in the San Diego area has been in the
works since 1996. That project spent $39 million to date and the
government plans another $35 million for it. By my calculation that
is about $5,286,000 per mile. This is in an area much more easily
accessible than where the American “Berlin Wall” is being installed.
Even if this new wall costs the same as the one in San Diego the
final price will be closer to $4 billion. And the New York Times
says the cost could reach $49 billion. I suspect the feds will still
be building when I go to my grave and that ultimately it will be
scrapped unfinished. It will only stand as a monument to the
stupidity and waste of government and to the bigotry of the
xenophobic Right.*
*Now that cost is for the wall itself. What isn’t counted is that
the US government is going to purchase or confiscate by eminent
domain miles of privately owned land abutting the border. Again the
faux libertarians supporting the wall will tell you that they oppose
eminent domain. Yet only a total moron would have to say this wall
can be built without the use of eminent domain. No doubt some of
these “new” libertarians will find a way to justify eminent domain
the way they have justified their other non-libertarian policies.*
How will the wall and the confiscated land be paid for? Taxes, of
course. Yet* one conservative Republican is telling everyone he has
never voted for a tax increase. But he has voted to spend billions
of dollars walling in America. In fact he has made the border
hysteria a major focus of his campaign. He imposed billions of
dollars in costs on the American people and wants to pretend it was
done tax free.* Sure I believe that.
*The Tohono O’odham Indians are not happy with that border wall. And
they are supposed to be somewhat sovereign on their own land. But
they say the wall will prevent them from crossing onto their land in
Mexico and prevent wildlife from crossing. But this tribe may have
it easy compared to other Americans.*
University of Texas vice president Antonio Zavaleta says the border
fence is going to cause a problem for students. “Part of our
university would be on the Mexican side of the fence.” He wants to
know if students are going to need a passport to travel between
classrooms. The New York Times reports:
In Brownsville, Dr. Zavaleta said, that path would cut off not only
the International Technology, Education and Commerce campus of the
University of Texas and Texas Southmost College, which is in a
former shopping center about a mile from the main campus, but also
its golf course and a national historic site, Fort Brown, where an
upright cannon marks an opening skirmish of the Mexican War.
According to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram “officials with the
Department of Homeland Security mentioned its condemnation authority
‘within the first 15 words’ spoken to landowners” in the Rio Grande
Valley where this Orwellian agency is “eyeing numerous private
tracts for the wall.” Rep. Henry Cuellar says the landowners were
told: “Keep in mind we can take away your property through eminent
domain.”
Of course the border nazis insist they want to work with the
landowners and that the landowners are “partners” with them. (Sort
of the way a woman is a partner to a rapist.) *Border Patrol
spokesman Xavier Rios says: “The amount of property that would be
used for this is only the property that has been identified as
essential for completion of the project.” Now doesn’t that clear it
up? In other words they will only take as much land as they think
they need. Doesn’t everyone feel better now?*
The Star-Telegram reports that in Rio Grande Valley section a 90
mile long wall is planned “most of it on private land and that the
landowners “have expressed fears that a wall will disrupt cattle and
ranching operations, block access to the Rio Grande and — unless
they agree to the government’s financial terms — spur nasty court
battles over the condemnation of private property.”
*Noel Benavides, had a border patrol official show up at his ranch
and show him a map indicating the wall would come right through his
property. But Benavides was told he couldn’t have a copy of it. *
Benavides says: “What really got me upset was the individual
mentioned eminent domain. We can’t stop Homeland Security. It is the
law right now that we have to have a fence in this area. But to come
in and say we will take it anyway we can, we can exercise eminent
domain, that really got me upset and it still does.”
*The land was in Benavides’ wife’s family since 1763 and includes
large sections of untouched wilderness. And the Rio Grande was a
river his family as uniting two countries, not dividing them. As a
boy he swam in the river. Now he wonders if he will even be able to
use the water rights he has to the river. “How are we going to be
able to pump water if a fence separates us from the river? What is
going to happen to all those animals that drink water from the
river?” *Benavides wonders which Mexican president is going to say:
“Mr. President, tear down this wall… like Reagan said.”
Hey boys and girls! Aren’t you glad that those private property
loving, small government conservatives (Ron Paul included) pushed
through this idea?
It also appears that entire sections of Laredo, Texas are built up
right to the border with Neuvo Laredo in Mexico. That would means
wide sections of private property, people’s homes and businesses,
will have to be confiscated to build the wall. We now have
conservatives, who whined about the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on
eminent domain, proposing a wall that is only going to be built
through the confiscation of thousands and thousands of pieces of
private property. But don’t expect them to mention that.
*So far there are no plans to wall in the Canadian border. But
Americans are going to need passports to cross into Canada shortly.
But how, for instance, will that work in the town of Derby Line,
Vermont? Derby Line and Stanstead, Canada share common streets.*
*Over a century ago the Haskell Library was built there. As
Associated Press reported:*
*Step through the front door of the Haskell Library and you’re in
the United States. Walk across the carpeted floor to the circulation
desk and you’re in Canada. But if you sit down on the couch, you’re
back in the U.S.*
*The two towns, in different countries, share a common water system,
sewer system and emergency crews in both towns help one another.
Will people need passports to go to the local library?*
*The residents of Canusa Avenue in Beebe Plain, Vermont have a
bigger problem. This new found desire to “secure the borders” is one
that troubles them. The street is named as it is as because it
combines Canada and the USA (CanUSA). The residents on the south
side of the street live in the US while those on north side live in
Canada. Under the new Bush rules residents will need a passport to
cross the street.* As one lifelong resident of the street put it,
referring to the new regulations: “This is quite a rats’ nest, if
you think about.”
Ah, but in DC they never think about it and the Decider has decided
and logic and reason never plays a role in his decisions. And what
would Republicans campaign on if they didn’t have “illegals” around
to scare their voters. They’ve already pretty much played their
hatred of gays to death. It’s really time to move to on to another
group of people to attack and why not the Mexicans?Why restrict immigration at all? The Constitution and the laws of
economics compel us to welcome all immigrantsChristian Science Monitor
June 7, 2007
Donald Boudreaux
Just in time for summer, the Senate is heating things up with
immigration reform. The bill it’s debating aims to shore up border
security and start some 12 million illegal aliens on the path to
citizenship. Despite passionate disagreement, voices across the
political spectrum concur on two points: They insist the federal
government should do something about immigration, and they’re sure
immigrants threaten American jobs.
People assert these claims as though they’re self-evident. But they
aren’t, as even a basic understanding of the US Constitution and the
principles of economics shows. And that means most of the premises
about immigration are confused.
Real reform must build on the secure foundation of constitutional and
economic truth – not on political talking points.
The US government has been tinkering with immigration law for decades
now. Surveying the wreckage – heartbroken families, an underclass of
exploited workers, and ruined lives – makes it clear why the Founding
Fathers refused to trust the national government with power over
immigrants.
That’s right: The Constitution does not authorize the federal
government to control immigration. Nor does it say anything about
illegal aliens. We looked for a clause with directions for ranking
immigrants on a points system – another feature of the Senate’s
reform bill – but we couldn’t find one.
Sadly, lawmakers have repeatedly interpreted this silence as license
for ill-conceived legislation. *Congress began barring entry to the
nation in 1875 with prostitutes and convicts. Soon, all sorts of
people fell short of congressional glory: ex-convicts in 1882, along
with Chinese citizens, lunatics, and idiots. Paupers, polygamists,
and people suffering from infectious diseases or insanity made the
list in 1891, while the illiterate were banned in 1917.*
The biggest spur to antiforeigner fervor is always the same: natives
fear that newcomers will swipe their jobs. Take, for example, the
1889 Supreme Court case challenging the Chinese Exclusion Act. The
Court upheld the exclusion because the Chinese had competed “with our
artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field….
[Californians wanted] prompt action … to restrict their immigration.”
Why immigrants increase wages
It seems neither Californians nor the Court understood a fundamental
principle of economics: the division of labor. Too bad they hadn’t
read Adam Smith’s “Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth
of Nations.” Published in 1776, it explains how prosperity results
from more workers and better specialization.
Suppose that 10 workers produce 20 chairs per week with each worker
building a complete chair. Those same workers can produce many more
chairs every week if they specialize.
When one worker saws the wood, another carves it into shape, and a
third fastens the pieces, the total output rises dramatically.
Greater specialization leads to greater production and greater
prosperity. Adding another five workers to the original 10 multiplies
the benefits.
It’s true that immigrants can temporarily reduce wages for Americans
whose skills closely match theirs. But falling wages raise profits.
And higher profits are the soil from which better wages grow.
Seeking those superior returns, investors bring more capital – more
machines, expertise, stores, and new firms – while entrepreneurs
learn to enhance employee output.
Specialization deepens. Workers’ productivity soars, forcing
employers to compete for their time by offering higher pay.
Immigrants actually increase wages in the long run.
For proof, look around. The US work-force has more than doubled since
World War II, yet workers’ real total compensation (wages plus
benefits) is higher now than ever. Notice that Manhattan’s employees
make more money than Mississippi’s. If hordes of workers depressed
wages, New York City’s crowds would earn far less than Mississippi’s
few. But paychecks in Manhattan – even for unskilled workers – trump
those of workers in sparsely populated Mississippi.
Given the talk about point systems, guest-worker programs, and fenced
borders, you’d think immigration endangers America’s cultural and
economic wealth. But just as the unhampered flow of goods and
services – free trade – blesses participants, the easy flow of
workers – free labor markets – also brings unprecedented prosperity.
By contrast, schemes to control immigrants hurt everyone, native or
newcomer, and not just economically. *Customs agents often abuse
immigrants at the borders, but they also interrogate, search, and
fine returning Americans.*
*Immigrants must produce the proper papers for bureaucrats’
inspection, but so do their American employers and landlords. And
let’s not even think about the scary implications of the draconian
Real ID Act.*
*As technology and globalization continue shrinking the world, people
and ideas move more quickly and freely. Political borders become
increasingly irrelevant. But that’s fine because the qualities that
define Americans don’t depend on geography. Rather, it’s their
history of liberty, pluck, ingenuity, optimism, and the pursuit of
happiness. Culture is a matter of mind and spirit. Why entrust it to
politicians, border guards, and green cards?*
The ideal immigration policy for this smaller world would harmonize
with both the Constitution and common decency. It wouldn’t deny
anyone the inalienable right to come and go.
This *freedom perishes under current immigration edicts – and so do
people. The US Border Patrol estimates that almost 2,000 would-be
Americans died along the US-Mexican border from 1998 to 2004, whether
from drowning, exposure, car accidents, or violence.*
And who can forget Elian Gonzalez, the tragic Cuban refugee? This
little boy watched his mother and 10 other adults in their battered
boat die at sea, largely because both US and Cuban laws forbid Cubans
to immigrate here. We expect such tyranny from Fidel Castro – but
from America’s supposedly free government?
*If Congress seriously wants reform, it might begin by returning
decisions on immigration to the individuals involved, in obedience to
the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th Amendments.*
But Congress will need to go further. Requiring taxpayers to
subsidize immigrants’ healthcare, education, food, shelter, or
anything else breeds resentment.
*Plenty of private charities will extend a hand to newcomers, not to
mention friends and families eager to help their countrymen adjust to
American life.*
*In fact, so eager are these folks that only severe penalties
discourage them: Maybe that’s why the House of Representatives in
2005 passed a bill threatening to imprison for up to five years
anyone who “assists, encourages, directs, or induces [an alien] to
reside in or remain in the United States.”*
What do we do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already here?
Apologizing for their poor welcome is a start. Then we can hire them,
patronize their businesses, become friends. So long as we don’t
control them, and they don’t expect our taxes to support them,
goodwill should prevail on both sides.
Illegal immigration: a false concept
Laws labeling some people legal and others illegal aren’t just
divisive, they’re unconstitutional.
Defending America’s integrity doesn’t mean more rules and stronger
walls; it means seeing foreigners as free agents with all the dignity
and autonomy we demand for ourselves.
These people often overcome unspeakable hardship to immigrate; why
add to their sorrows by making it difficult for them to become
Americans? Or by forcing them to buy their citizenship? Surely, the
federal coffers are bloated enough that the government need not prey
on the poor and vulnerable.
Remember, too, that these folks aren’t terrorists; they’re here to
work. And many experts argue that the safest antiterror policy is to
focus scarce resources on genuine threats rather than to try to
screen potential terrorists at the borders.
*The federal government has controlled immigration for more than a
century now. During those years, it has violated the Constitution to
oppress immigrants. It has ignored economic reality by implying that
immigrants depress wages and steal jobs. Both tactics pit us against
each other while boosting the government’s power.*
*Quota-wielding bureaucrats should not define the country’s
demographic destiny. *It’s time to let the free choices of millions
of individuals determine America’s complexion.Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Hi everyone,
I hope this isn't perceived as spam, but I've mentioned this to
several
people and have been meaning to share with you all.
This guy Dave Rubin has a show, The Rubin Report
(https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport), which he produces
independently on YouTube since June of last year. His show is a long
interview format, usually 1 or 2 hours with a guest, focusing on
topics
like free speech and small government. The guests he has on are
from all
across the political spectrum, which gives a great range of
viewpoints.His show is entirely independent now and is crowd-funded on
Patreon. In
fact, he is the 8th highest earner on Patreon (according to
this site:
Patreon Top 1000: Rank + Sort + Filter), raking in over $27k per
month! In donations! And his YouTube channel recently hit 400k
subscribers, so it's a pretty large channel.]
I highly recommend this show. It has been a great source of
knowledge
and has helped shape my political views over the past year.
A few of his videos that I really like (there are lots):
Glenn Beck - Trump and the "Muslim Ban"
Jordan Peterson - Gender Pronouns and the Free Speech War
Dan Carlin - Political Martians and Hardcore History
Hope you find this interesting!
Nick
Links:
1. Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
2. mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blpsf-
activists%5D%20Personal%20recommendation%3A%20The%20Rubin%20Repor-
t%2C%20a%20liberty-minded%20interview%20show
3. mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Blpsf-
activists%5D%20Personal%20recommendation%3A%20The%20Rubin%20Repor-
t%2C%20a%20liberty-minded%20interview%20show
4. Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
5. Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
6. Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
7. Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
8. Yahoo Terms International | Yahoo
9. mailto:lpsf-activists-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
10. Yahoo Terms International | Yahoo