I was just wondering if anybody knew much about Ron Paul’s stance on immigration. I just saw a few videos about it on youtube and he doesn’t seem to have a very libertarian approach.
I also think people are hyping him up a bit too much. After all, if he does become president there not a whole lot he can do without congress’s approval. And from watching videos of his supporters on youtube and the comments being left under his videos, they seem to think of him as some sort of god who will fix everything. Alot of them seem to be dumbasses who are in love with him just like they were with Obama, without even understanding anything he says or the theory behind his policies. And most don’t even realise that even if he gets elected, things will be very bad for some time.
I support voluntary borders. All the evidence shows that racially diverse areas do the worst economically and immigrants love taking welfare (so more immigrants means more taxation.) I don’t fully agree w/ Dr. Paul on immigration but I do think libertarians should be more cautious about the right to travel.
Immigration was touched on here (be sure to check the links there).
As for the tired “a president can’t really do any thing so Ron Paul being elected wouldn’t really make much of a difference” refrain, see here (especially from paragraph 4 on down) and the thread discussion starting here. And for good measure, here.
Disagree. He is so rare as a politician who not only promotes liberty in the vast majority of circumstances, he walks the walk and has done so for decades. He is such a rarity as to make a diamond seem commonplace. Ron Paul is the last chance to reform the system from within. I don’t necessarily think that is the best approach, at least not long term, but I definitely see the hype.
Nonsense. He can shred the Federal Register, pardon non-violent criminals, veto bills and BRING THE TROOPS HOME. That’s just what he can do all by himself. His influence could also be crucial in other areas. Harry Browne wrote an article one time about his first day in office, were he to become president. You should hunt it down and check it out.
All the evidence shows that racially diverse areas do the worst economically and immigrants love taking welfare
That is so irrelevant to a voluntary society…
As to the OP: I think RP is for repealing birth citizenship according to the 14th and is not for amnesty. While it initially appears anti-voluntaryist, remember that whenever a new person is granted the privileges of a citizen, he is granted the privileges of other people’s money. Hence, adding more citizens to the pool could make things worse from a libertarian perspective.
The solution, of course, is to remove welfare and taxation and then open up immigration in accordance with property rights. Yet since that is so far off, we can at least begin by not loading the welfare finances more (though, now that I think about it, illegals would produce more than they’d consume…)
I also think people are hyping him up a bit too much.
Note that his campaign is not about him, but about the ideas he champions. Even if he signs zero bills as a president, he would bring enormous exposure to the liberty movement.
That’s the Hoppe position, but it is flawed. The solution is to remove welfare and taxation AND open up immigration. The sequence should not matter. Let’s not get into that game where we wait until such a day as some government edict is repealed before we consider repealing another one. On the day that medicine fully divests itself from socialism, then we can consider repealing seatbelt laws. On the day that US troops stop infuriating Arabs, then we can stop groping airline passengers.
I’m sorry, that’s not the proper libertarian position. If we had a chance to open the borders, somehow, we take it. We don’t pass because there is a welfare state. Indeed, we would probably find that the influx of immigrants would spur on reform of welfare, though regrettably probably not abolition.
Disagree. He is so rare as a politician who not only promotes liberty in the vast majority of circumstances, he walks the walk and has done so for decades. He is such a rarity as to make a diamond seem commonplace. Ron Paul is the last chance to reform the system from within. I don’t necessarily think that is the best approach, at least not long term, but I definitely see the hype.
I get what you’re saying, and although I do believe he will do his best to live up to his word, but I find it difficult to get over excited. I mean we have had this kind of hype before. I just think people should be a little more cautious in their support; they might be embarrassed in the future.
Nonsense. He can shred the Federal Register, pardon non-violent criminals, veto bills and BRING THE TROOPS HOME. That’s just what he can do all by himself. His influence could also be crucial in other areas. Harry Browne wrote an article one time about his first day in office, were he to become president. You should hunt it down and check it out.
I didn’t say he couldn’t do anything. Sure he can do some, but what about things like the budget - arguably the most important.
That’s what is exciting about Dr. Paul: you can trust him. I am not yet excited about his prospects, but I am excited about what he has introduced into the national debate. If he can win Iowa, I might start to get excited about his prospects.
some = a lot
As Rothbard said, the libertarian’s first goal must be to end government warfare. Dr. Paul can do that unilaterally, and would.
On the day that medicine fully divests itself from socialism, then we can consider repealing seatbelt laws. On the day that US troops stop infuriating Arabs, then we can stop groping airline passengers.
Different scenarios from the one I propose. Consider this other scenario:
Suppose that there are two groups in society: A and B. There is a law on the books that says government must on Mondays beat group A so that it can then do something good for B. On Tuesdays group B gets beaten. It continues alternating like this. For each new person added to either group, the government needs to beat up the other group a bit more.
The question is: should we add people to this system, knowing that they will 1) get some nice manna from heaven (good) and 2) necessarily cause other people to get beaten (bad) ?
My response is that we should never support an additional act of violence, even if it gets rid of some previous act of violence. Hence, I’d be against cutting $1 trillion in taxes if it means than 50 peaceful socialists must get their arms broken.
My scenario applies to the immigration debate and the same principles apply to both.
You said “not a whole lot”. I would consider giving millions of people back their freedom, severely limiting the growth of government, ending war and saving thousands of lives (not to mention preventing unknown future conflicts through a non-aggresive foreign policy), and having the Presidential Seal in front of him when he says the things he does (which not only means an automatic level of respect, but also automatic and constant attention)…quite a bit more than “not a whole lot”.
Note that his campaign is not about him, but about the ideas he champions. Even if he signs zero bills as a president, he would bring enormous exposure to the liberty movement.
This is the problem. From listening to some of his supporters, they have no understanding of the he champions and seem to think that he will magically be able to fix things, and that the economy will be cured overnight. People spouting out shit about how he is a good man because he has been married for so long and the amount of babies he delivered. Although some understand the ideas he champions, I fear most don’t.
Well, that’s a challenge we face. You are right: RP should make it clear that the president cannot “fix” the economy but let it fix itself. Just being in office doesn’t wish away the entitlement mentality of a multitude generations and the wealth differential caused by preferential treatment.
@Freedom Its not a crime to drop out of school or college. As for the other issues, a crime should be dealt with as such, but that does not give us the right to discriminate against people from a certain ethnicity. I also wonder how much of the crime and so on is due to stupid government laws. For example, people without an education will probably have a low wage and find it attractive to join a gang and start to deal drugs, which will get them involved in other criminal activity.
@Freedom Its not a crime to drop out of school or college. As for the other issues, a crime should be dealt with as such, but that does not give us the right to discriminate against people from a certain ethnicity. I also wonder how much of the crime and so on is due to stupid government laws. For example, people without an education will probably have a low wage and find it attractive to join a gang and start to deal drugs, which will get them involved in other criminal activity.
Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something.