Addressing Christian libertarians (and perhaps Christian anarchists), ndsnow lays out a few simple principles about immigration policy in general and about drug/prohibition policy, specifically @ Juris Naturalist. As for the latter, suffice it to say that s/he and I are in agreement. My stance on drug prohibition (any prohibition, actually) is that it is objectively counterproductive, and it should be eliminated since it necessarily begets crime, corruption, and destroys liberty. I belive that immigration laws are akin to chattel slavery, the basest form of economic rent-seeking and political privilege, in other words: pure evil.
On the topic of Immigration, ndsnow says:
Christians should advocate open borders. Any other position advocates protection of privilege for those who already hold US citizenship. All privilege is evil.
Good so far; I’ve got zero issue with eradicating the if-you’re-not-already-an-american-then-you’re-a-cancer-or-an-enemy mentality. IMO, any law that brands men as criminals merely for being born somewhere else is an affront to human rights. Just don’t expect the Hoppeians to go along with you on this one.
Christians should put the government out of the welfare business by doing a better job of it on their own.
This sounds good, but the fact of the matter is that government finances its operations through taxes. Oh, and they also get to print money out of thin air. It’s tough to compete with an agency that plays by an entirely different set of rules. Furthermore, because of the nature of taxes (especially income taxes), government essentially grants itself ius prima nocta with regards to our income. Other taxes, too, generally take precedent over any other forms of consumption which we would prefer to do, voluntarily.
This puts voluntary aid at a distinct disadvantage, since each dollar remaining after the taxman has taken his cut, must necessarily be spent towards the satisfaction of a more urgent or immediate need; which is to say that in order to help others, you must first help yourself, and if you’re barely able to do that because the Government is taking 50% or more of your income, there’s not much left for charity and voluntary giving.
Making immigration free puts all the bad guys out of business. End of problem.
Well, d’uh. But the bad guys are in business. And they make the rules. This is not likely to change, nor are the bad guys likely to cede any of their power voluntarily, any time soon.
Face the music: you’re not going to pass a referendum that allows 10 million Mexicans to spill over the Rio tomorrow. Or next year. Probably never. Only by working to remove oneself from the system, only by working outside of the established framework whenever possible, is revolution possible. It’s a John Galt revolution: withdraw your productivity from the slave economy, and put it to use for yourself, and your friends and family. The counter-economy needs to be built essentially within (or in the shadows of) the status quo.
The more you can do this, the better. But any small amount of freedom you create is a step in the right direction, and more freedom than existed yesterday.
In any event, most arguments you’ll ever encounter in favor of immigration laws are utterly without merit. Allowing immigration will lead to prosperity, this is as true now as it was 100 or 200 years ago, when people were even stupider and less technologically advanced than we are, today.