A common retort that libertarians, even minarchists, hear when criticizing ‘their’ government is “If you don’t like it, then just leave.”1 Indeed, residency is perceived to be one piece of evidence (among others, like voting, paying taxes, etc.) for one’s implicit consent to the state and its rules. Just leave. As if there are better alternatives. Or, as if ‘their’ country being the least bad option somehow justifies its government. Just leave. They make it sound so simple, don’t they? If only it were. Unfortunately, states are not so keen on letting their slaves get away so easily, free and clear.
Thanks to Stephan Kinsella for reminding me of the especially vulgar “AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!” He tells me he typically responds with “No, if you don’t like it that I get to stay here and bitch about it, then you leave.” This works in the United States, but not in every country. ↩
“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:
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 severalpieces 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.
With the news breaking today that “Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option,” many of my fellow libertarians are going to pat themselves on the back while (cynically) claiming that the President has broken yet another campaign promise and is, therefore, a liar. They’re wrong, of course. Politicians don’t lie. They speak precisely. Libertarians need to pay closer attention to what politicians actually say instead of misinterpreting what was said. Remember too that all language is metaphorical and definitions can vary for any word. Here’s master-linguist William Jefferson Clinton explaining it much more concisely than I:
Eat your heart out, Derrida.
Libertarians will tell you that Obama made a firm pledge not to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 per year. This is false. Here is the actual video:
He chose his words precisely.
Transcription: “And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Let’s take a look at the language there: “He can make a pledge” that no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” Note that he didn’t make a pledge; rather, he said he can make a pledge. Simple statement of fact. I believe him. It’s not difficult to make a pledge. All he has to do is say, “I pledge…” followed by the pledge. He didn’t say that. If that’s not enough to settle the issue for you, he said “no family”. Well, what’s a family? Don’t even try to define family. I could present you with 40 different definitions for family off the top of my head. It’s impossible, therefore, precisely to know whom he was referring to in this non-pledge. Not convinced yet? Well, he said “making less than $250,000 a year.” But, see, my father (a brilliant economist) taught me when I was a child that it’s imprecise to talk about “making money”. You know who makes money? The Treasury Department’s Bureau of Engraving and Printing and other counterfeiters. What productive people do is “earn money”. Understand the difference? Finally, the non-defined families which counterfeit “less than $250,000 a year” that he’s describing in his non-pledge won’t “see” any form of tax increase. They might “experience” it. They’ll certainly pay it. They just won’t “see” it.
The President and his wife made about $5.5 million and paid $1.8 million in federal taxes in 2009. This does not include an estimated $59,639,899 in benefits that he receives annually for being president. Being the generous couple that they are, they gave $329,100 to 40 charities. That’s an average of $8,227.50 per charity. Moreover, $329,100 is also about 6% of their total income for 2009. He did donate the $1.4 million he won for the Nobel Peace prize, although it’s debatable whether he really earned that reward. Nevertheless, Obama had no problem pledging $100 million of taxpayer money to help Haiti. He also pledged $475 million of taxpayer money to rescue the Great Lakes; $3.5 billion of taxpayer money to help Africa; $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to help underwater homeowners and the unemployed; $900 million for schools; $8 billion of taxpayer money on high speed rail; and as much as 3% of GDP, which is about $415 billion of taxpayer money, on scientific research. Perhaps this is why he only donates 6% of his own income. Why be generous with your own money when you can be magnanimous with other people’s money?
Remember when President Obama told Joe the Plumber: ”I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”? The President was not talking about his wealth.
First things first: Happy Tax Day to all my friends still living in the United States! And for those of you upset or angry about paying “your fair share” (which, incidentally, is only 43% of you), I’d like to remind you that thousands of Wall Street bankers, UAW “workers”, mortgage defaulters, and other welfare recipients are relying on you to pay their way. If that’s not enough to put a smile on your face, remember that you’re also financing the American Empire’s military adventures in the Middle East which make you safer and could not possible result in blowback (according to Sean Hannity and Rudy Giuliani). So, there’s that.
Speaking of taxes, here’s a left-wing career tax leech (public “school” teacher) demonstrating how tolerant liberals are of varying view points:
[Jason] Levin, the media teacher at Conestoga Middle School in Beaverton, is the leader of a group that says it wants to infiltrate and bring down the loosely organized anti-big-government Tea Party movement.
He has said he would seek to embarrass Tea Partiers by attending their rallies dressed as Adolf Hitler, carrying signs bearing racist, sexist and anti-gay epithets, and acting as offensively as possible — anything short of throwing punches.
In a now deleted post on his “Crash the Tea Party” Web site, Levin called on his supporters to collect the Social Security numbers — among other personal identifying information — about as many Tea Party supporters as possible at the numerous rallies scheduled to take place on Thursday – Tax Day.
“Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks (name address, DOB, Social Security #). The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!” he wrote.
If you want smaller government and lower taxes, you are this avowed statist’s archnemesis — he really hates you. Shouldn’t liberals oppose the Empire’s wars in the Middle East, the bailouts and wealth transfers to Wall Street, the domestic spying programs, and the world’s largest prison system (population measured either way: in total and per capita), all of which are funded by taxes (either current or “borrowed” against future generations)? Sure, it’s possible this guy just lacks discernment, but that doesn’t justify his slimy scheme.
