Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence?

Immigration, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, Protectionism, Taxation
By / / 8 Comments / 5 minutes of reading
Share

“It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn.” ~ Albert Jay Nock

My recent post on the GM-loan-gate has, thus far, generated some interesting feedback and at least one or more epic discussions on various social networking sites.  Aside from enjoying my joke, several people commented on the paragraphs which highlighted several talking points which have troubled me over the last few years.  This one in particular, on immigration, seemed to generate the most feedback:

“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.”  (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952.  The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms.  Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway.  Here’s my question:  When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

It might be that since Arizona—and Arizona’s governor is currently in the news—that the issue is particularly hot, which therefore made the discussions far-ranging.  Immigration policy generally seems to be a hot-button.  Having written several pieces on immigration, I admit that the subject fascinates me, but something about these recent debates, particularly among libertarians, has intrigued me even more.

One is often tempted to attack the objections to open borders directly, as did I and a number of guests on a recent radio show.  And certainly many of these objections seem ripe for attacking.  By the way, are bumper stickers with “every Mexican who comes to the U.S. illegally is only 15 minutes from welfare” being passed out?  I would hate to miss out on my chances to get one.  Just as popular, but new to me is this one:  “In Los Angeles, 98% of convicted murderers are illegal aliens.”  Uh-oh!  Better raise the fence!  It strikes me that anyone who thinks welfare is an enticement for immigration must have never visited their local department of social services.  Take the worst parts of the DMV and add in ample portions of emasculation and denigration and you’re starting to get close, but it’s still worse than that, on good days.

It occurs to me—finally—that one needs to take a step back to even begin to understand this issue.  For example, of what value is a border?  Specifically, why does the United States have a border and why is it so necessary to maintain it?  Hopefully examining this more general issue will yield insight into the specific issue—and current political hot-button—illegal immigration of Mexicans.  Let us explore a couple of examples, one simple and one a little more complex.

…

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence?Read More »

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence? Read Post »

“The plan’s perfect… it will work this time”

Drug Policy, Immigration, Police Statism, Victimless Crimes, Vulgar Politics
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Back when Barack Hussein Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for telling the Armenians to get over it (genocide at the hands of the Turks), I cautioned that “The continuing collapse of Western Civilization is going to produce a multitude of similar ridiculousnesses, so be prepared.”

Well, today I watched one such unintentionally hilarious (and notably revolting) “ridiculousness”: a John McCain television ad encouraging completion of “the danged fence.” In case you haven’t seen it or you have but want another snicker at McCain’s expense, here it is:

I often wonder the process by which commercials and political ads with such phony, contrived premises are approved for release to media markets. Does anyone really take seriously an actor dressed in doctor’s garb explaining the health benefits of the drug he or she is touting? Is this ridiculous, pretend, scripted conversation between McCain and some (possibly authentic) jack-booted tax leech any different? I picture some advisor or media consultant pitching the idea to his team, and instead of being laughed out of the room, those around the table exclaim, “Oh yeah! That will work!” and the project leader green-lights it with a confident “Let’s make it happen!” Somehow the commercial makes its way past the politician’s consultants and advisors without being vetoed, and finds itself in front of a focus group which… responds favorably? Unbelievable. I find such ads insulting prima facie. The contrived nature of the commercial combined with the claim that “the plan’s perfect” and “it will work this time” comprise its “hilarious” aspect.

The revolting aspect, of course, is the call to militarize the border (with National Guard troops), add another 3000 Border Patrol Agents, and wall up the border. This “perfect plan” fits with what I warned about in this post, specifically:

If there is one thing every libertarian should know about government it’s that government cannot efficiently or effectively perform any “service” without resorting to totalitarian police-statism. When the government minimizes costs (don’t laugh), it performs at woefully substandard levels. Think of the levees around New Orleans which failed during Hurricane Katrina, for instance. For adequate quality of service, for instance the Hoover Dam or those stretches of elevated interstate cutting through the marshes and swamps of Louisiana (very fine work), the government has to overpay enormously. The systemic defects inherent in government bureaucracy cannot be overcome, as they are due (mostly) to the absence of a profit motive. The government simply cannot provide quality services at market prices; often, the government cannot provide quality service at any price. What the government can do, however, is provide brutality very cheaply, for a while.

This isn’t to say that the United States doesn’t have an immigration problem. It does; or rather, it has a problem which the mass-invasion of the Mexican lower class exacerbates, namely the massive welfare state. “Fighting immigration” is simply another misguided, alleged “solution” to yet another unintended consequence of government interventionism. It’s stunning that Americans haven’t learned how dangerous it is to empower the government to “make them safer”, given the War on Drugs, which has left the Bill of Rights decimated, led to the incarceration of more citizens than any other country (both nominally and per capita), and taken the lives of many innocent people and their pets:

It’s certainly delusional to believe that militarizing the border won’t lead to similar atrocities — violations of person and property — and for what? All this so that the insidious welfare state doesn’t have to be dismantled? How sad.

“The plan’s perfect… it will work this time” Read Post »

F***ing with the wrong Mexicans

Fiction Reviews (Movies), Immigration, Pop Culture, Vulgar Politics
By / / 1 Comment / 3 minutes of reading
Share

The fury over Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law continues at a brisk boil, and it couldn’t come at a better time for filmmaker Robert Rodriguez.  The 41-year-old Texan, himself of Mexican descent, is known for his gritty and graphically violent movies set in Mexico and featuring protagonists who seek bloody vengeance against those who have wronged them.  Like his friend and collaborator Quentin Tarantino, Rodriguez is a fan of the pulpy, culturally exploitive action films of the 1970s; part of the fun of Grindhouse, the double-feature he and Tarantino directed, were the over-the-top trailers for films which didn’t exist…until now, at least.

MacheteRodriguez has now expanded one of the trailers, for a film called Machete, into a full-length feature starring Danny Trejo, a fixture in many Rodriguez movies, including the family-friendly Spy Kids series in which Trejo also played a character named Machete.  I hope parents don’t confuse that Machete with this one, however, as the new “illegal” trailer makes clear (warning: NSFW language and violence).  In the new film, Machete is a former Federale and migrant laborer who drifts around Texas looking for work.  He is hired by a businessman (played by Jeff Fahey) to kill a corrupt senator who’s trying to kick all of the illegal immigrants out of the state.  But it’s all a setup; Machete is the patsy for a deeper conspiracy to whip up anti-immigration hysteria so that tough new laws can be passed without much protest.  Machete then goes on the signature Rodriguez rampage of killing bad guys and scoring with hot women.  As the voiceover in the trailer says, “They just f***ed with the wrong Mexican.”

The real fun may be in seeing this movie played out against an all-too-real backdrop of anti-illegal immigrant hysteria.  The senator in Machete, played by Robert DeNiro, uses rhetoric not much different from that heard by officials such as Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, who warned of an epidemic of cop shootings by illegals after one of his deputies was wounded by suspected drug smugglers near the border.  No evidence of such an epidemic exists — only one cop in Arizona has been killed by an illegal immigrant since 2008 — but the amplification effect of non-stop media coverage lends credibility to Babeu’s histrionics.

Los SunsThen there’s the condemnation of forcibly removing illegals from the country, and the rallying of immigrants by Machete’s compadres to fight back, echoing the political and cultural backlash against Arizona’s new legislation.  Even professional sports have gotten in on the act; the Phoenix Suns wore “Los Suns” jerseys on Wednesday to celebrate Cinco de Mayo and take a swipe at the immigration bill.

Whether Machete is just a Mexploitation flick using illegal immigration as a pretext for a gory revenge fantasy, or represents a deeper political statement by Rodriguez, won’t be known until the film is released in September.  Of course it can be both; politics and pop culture often make strange, not to mention lucrative, bedfellows.  Such is the wonder of American enterprise!

F***ing with the wrong Mexicans Read Post »

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads?

Business, Democracy, Humor, Immigration, Nanny Statism
By / / 7 minutes of reading
Share

“Whatever the State saith is a lie; whatever it hath is a theft.”
~ Nietzsche

There is no shortage of reporting about GM CEO Ed Whitacre’s recent series of TV ads touting GM’s ostensible early repayment of federal loan money.  Fox News, or as I like to refer to it, Faux News, is all over it.  A website known as Video Café – Crooks and Liars has posted a very good review of the coverage, along with a YouTube video of the actual ad, for those who have not seen it.

Here’s what shocks me about the ad:  Nothing.

It strikes me as pretty obvious that GM had to expect that someone would find out about their using loan money to repay loan money at some point.  Did Whiteacre, clearly a man with intelligence, credentials, and connections, think nobody would put 2-and-2 together?  Of course not.  He didn’t care.  He knows it doesn’t matter.

Indulge me as I recount one of my favorite jokes to begin illustrating why.

A burned-out executive moves to the hills to escape the rat race.  He moves into an old cabin in what he believes to be sparsely-populated woods and starts his new life.  He hopes to decompress and recharge and maybe re-connect with the fast-paced life he once knew at some later point.

One day, he hears a knock on his door.  In walks a man wearing nothing but a pair of tattered overalls, some old work boots, and a broad smile.  “Hey there, neighbor!” exclaims the man.  “My name is Enoch and I’m your neighbor!”

Initially taken aback, the executive-turned-hillbilly gathers himself and extends his hand.  “Pleased to meet you, Enoch.  My name is, Bill Exeter.  I just moved here from the Big City.”  Bill figures it is about time he got more acquainted with his new environment anyway.

Enoch begins, “Well, Bill, I just wanted to invite you to a little gathering at my house on Friday.”  What great timing!  Bill can relax a little and meet some of his neighbors too.  Sensing Bill might be a little uneasy about coming to a strange neighbor’s house, Enoch begins to pitch the party.

“Listen Bill, I need to warn you.  My parties tend to get a little wild.”  Bill smiles, feeling better about his new neighborhood.  Enoch continues, “I can almost guarantee that there will be massive consumption of homebrew alcohol.”

Bill thinks, “Sounds good!” and responds, “Enoch, I can hold my liquor!”

Enoch continues, “Well then, I should probably also mention that this consumption of alcohol tends to make my guests a little bawdy.  As a matter of fact, things got bad enough last time that there was wild sex during the party!  I expect this one to be more of the same.”

Bill has been away from the rat race for long enough that the possibility of sex sounds good.  “Well, Enoch, I’m no virgin, if I must say so myself.”

Enoch continues, “OK.  I should also probably mention that fights tend to break out in the aftermath of many of my gatherings, especially after the sex.”

Bill, still happily pondering the possibility of sex, confidently says, “Hey Enoch, I can handle myself.”

Enoch ends with, “Excellent!  I’ll look for you around 8:00 this Friday then.”  Enoch turns to leave the house.

Just before Enoch closes the door behind himself, Bill yells, “Hey Enoch!  What should I wear?”

Enoch shrugs his shoulders and says, “It don’t much matter.  It’s just going to be the two of us.”

<Rim Shot>

The key point—the understanding that is manifested over and over in U.S. politics—is contained in that punch line:  It doesn’t much matter anyway.  GM received the TARP money, even though it is not a financial firm.  One might argue that since GM used to own GMAC—its erstwhile lending mechanism—it qualifies as a financial firm.  That strikes me as a stretch, but that does appear to be the partial mechanism GM used to get the cash.  Certainly, the TARP money was specifically for financial firms.  According to Wiki:

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

GM mismanaged and underperformed its way into a deep financial hole.  It didn’t much matter.  The responsibility for GM’s problems rested with GM.  It didn’t much matter.  In the aftermath of all that underperforming, GM had the gall to ask the government for some cash, a huge wad of cash, and acquired that money for both GM and GMAC.

The overwhelming majority of Americans did not think any firm should be bailed out.  It didn’t much matter.  Congress gave money ostensibly aimed at saving the financial sector from the subprime mortgage crisis to a troubled automobile manufacturer with a management and sales crisis.

The American taxpayer was under no obligation to GM, its shareholders, or its employees. It didn’t much matter.  GM got the cash.  They have now paid back some of the early money with some of the later money, and have gone on TV to brag about it, despite the fact that such an obvious ruse should be found out.  It didn’t much matter.

While some of this behavior initially upset me, looking back on it—particularly in context with the normal behavior of the State—I see that my anger was misplaced.  The State generally and its agents in particular spew forth all manner of unmitigated, easily-identifiable equine feces on a routine basis.  Think not?   Here’s a recent sampling of talking points that have, inexplicably yet inexorably, fallen from the mouths of our leaders:

“They hate us for our freedoms.”  (This phrase is generally uttered in regard to Islamic terrorists wanting to attack the U.S.  Somehow the fact that other equally-free countries are not being similarly attacked gets obscured.  Some have argued, persuasively, that such a designation as “free” for the U.S. is a little dicey anyway.)

“… too big to fail.”  (What does this even mean?  Can a firm be too small to fail as well?  Can a firm be too big to succeed?  Can a firm be too small to succeed?  What does size have to do with the economic realities of losing money at business?)

“You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”  (That a reasonably-intelligent representative of the species Homo sapiens could say something this insipid and not be placed in a padded room—wearing a straitjacket and a mouth guard—speaks to the awesome power of patriotism, and stupidity, but maybe not in that order.)

“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.”  (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952.  The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms.  Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway.  Here’s my question:  When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

“We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”  (C’mon.  Does anyone think the U.S. was in danger of being invaded by terrorists?  Really?  The truth of the matter is this:  The U.S. military murders innocents abroad.  Call me touchy, but that might upset me too.)

So Ed Whiteacre went on television, in an ad ironically entitled “Trust” and bragged about GM “putting people back to work” and how GM had “repaid their loan in full, 5 years ahead of schedule.”  Don’t hate the playa!  He was only doing what politicians do to the American public on a regular schedule:  lie for specific gains, to an audience who wants to hear the lies, while knowing that even if the lie is found out, it won’t matter that much anyway.  Consider:  Since anyone who was seriously considering buying a GM car probably didn’t care about the bailout, what’s the downside of trying to rope in a few other suckers via bogus advertising?  Moral hazard epitomized.

Is GM going to stop getting government bail-out money?  Nope.  Will any subsequent event preclude the next chronically mismanaged firm from getting a boatload of statist cash?  Not likely. Will the skilled propagandists who do their best to lead rank-and-file Americans around by the nose change their tactics?  Absolutely not.

It doesn’t much matter.  It’s just them and our money—taken at gunpoint—anyway.

(Cross-posted at LRC.)

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads? Read Post »

Security, Identification, and the State

Immigration, Libertarian Theory, Police Statism, Private Crime, Private Security & Law, Technology, Victimless Crimes
By / / 4 minutes of reading
Share

The fact that the state is deeply imbedded in the production of security and identification makes clear thinking on these matters difficult.

Some people think that since the use of identification cards is ubiquitous in transactions of almost every stripe (rent a car, borrow a book, borrow money or get a credit card, sign a contract, drive a car, rent videos, etc.) that libertarians are just bonkers to insist that people have a right to withhold tendering ID to a police officer. So, let us draw distinctions that matter.

When you provide ID to a private party, you have a choice NOT to provide ID. Since those parties are subject to competition, they only require ID as a condition of doing business if it’s necessary. That’s why you have to provide ID to get credit, to rent something (unless you provide a deposit of money), or when paying by check; but, you don’t have to give ID when buying groceries, eating out at a restaurant, or going to the movies.

The state proclaims ownership over roads, and sets all policies on those roads. For this reason, it was the state that came to be the issuer of drivers’ licenses, which claim to serve as proof that the driver is competent to drive and that the driver has corrected or uncorrected vision of a certain standard. Since almost every adult in the US has a driver’s license, they have also come to be used by many private companies as definitive proof of identification, and are also used by police for the same purpose.

Technological advances in computing and printing have made counterfeiting of IDs less costly and more successful, especially in the last decade. It is well known that just about any 19 year-old college student can get a fake ID to drink.

When the state requires the presentation of identifying documents (or more broadly, an inquiry into the identification of someone), some purposes are legitimate, but most are illegitimate. This is because some of what the state does is legitimate, but most of what it does is illegitimate.

On the legitimate side of the register, it deploys police to patrol to prevent crime, respond to crimes, and nab the bad guys. In the course of nabbing a bad guy, they “book” him, which is a procedure of identification (taking fingerprints and pictures, finding out where he lives by asking for a driver’s license, etc.). Of course, private security can and does nab bad guys, too. They don’t typically do the “booking” of a bad guy because they are required by law to turn him over to the state.

On the illegitimate side of the register, the state enforces a number of malum prohibitum offenses. Among these are the supposed crime of living and/or working in a country without the state’s permission and possessing contraband. Both of these supposed crimes are difficult to enforce, since they are victimless crimes. Because of this, states have evolved low standards of detention and search of people, including the requirement to show ID to officers.

Nowhere is this farce more ludicrous than in the crackdown on security at airports since the September 11, 2001 attacks. IDs are now checked 2, 3, or 4 times in the course of checking in, entering a screening area, passing through a metal detector, and boarding a plane, all with a government-issued ID — either a driver’s license or a passport. Even people as young as me, now 39, can remember a time (before the TWA flight 800 disaster) when showing ID at an airport was not even done once. This hyper-scrutiny of ID documents assumes that the IDs shown are not fakes, which is not at all a credible assumption.

Likewise, with the recent passage of the unjust law Arizona SB 1070, I expect that the industry of producing fake IDs will boom. Who will benefit? Well, some good guys will benefit, being able to evade the state’s crackdown on the non-crime of illegal immigration. But the burgeoning industry will probably cause the cost of fake IDs to fall, giving lots of bad guys these benefits as well.

So, SB1070 will probably cause an increase in “identity theft” and other acts of fraud.

Security, Identification, and the State Read Post »

Scroll to Top