June 2, 2011 A.D.
They are the opposite actions of consensual sex, killing, taxation, and immigration.
And I would like to use a recent article by Scott Lazarowitz at Lew Rockwell online to make that argument. Bazaarowitz thinks it is just fine and dandy to let the invaders invade. And he thinks to do otherwise (kick them out or have a legal system of entry) is socialist.
I'd like to make mince-meat of those ideas.
One of the biggest moral flaws in American Libertarian philosophy is the inability to make fine moral distinctions in a consistent manner. This is especially true with the subject of "illegal immigrants". That oxymoron is akin to calling rapists "illegal lovers". But Libertarians simply have drawn the wrong conclusions about the illegal aliens. And I will use three similar moral paradoxes to show how wrong Libertarians are about immigration and the barbarous invaders they would like us to embrace who come mostly from south of our border.
The first paradox is murder and killing. Murder is the taking of innocent life. It is premeditated. That means it is an intentional and unjust act to rob someone of their life. The other variety of this kind of action is killing. Killing is also the act of taking a life. It is the kind of thing that may happen if a man is defending his child from someone who is trying to murder the child. If in the process of defending the child the attacker is killed by the rescuer, no one in their right mind, not even the morally inept Libertarian, considers the killing of the attacker murder.
But both murder and killing which is not murder end with the loss of human life. And it is the reason or purpose behind their deaths that allows us to make a moral distinction between the two acts. Those reasons and purposes are essential to understanding the results.
The second paradox is rape and consensual sex. Rape involves forced sexual conduct against an individual. Consensual sex does not. Both acts involve sexual actions and use more or less the same sexual organs of the human body. One is a brutal attack and the other a loving and desirable activity between consenting adults. In the example of rape, only one person is expressing some level of sexual conduct using sexual organs. But the sexual nature of the attack is still present or else it would be "merely" assault. And we acknowledge the sexual nature of it by using the word rape.
The third paradox is theft and taxation. Theft is the taking of money or property that does not belong to you. This should stop the pro"immigrant" invasion Libertarians right in their tracks but it does not. Because surely American territory does not belong to the Mexican or Peruvian citizens. Or for that matter citizens from anywhere else in the world. And what land is not owned by the people themselves is held in common for them protected by the government. So I do not believe Libertarians who think otherwise are really Libertarians. Instead I believe they are Marxists posing as Libertarians. In other words they are criminally-minded people prone to advocating stealing and worse.
A government can steal and rob just as easily, if not better, than common thieves. Taxation for Social Security, for example is theft. And it is theft because the government has no legal authority to take money via taxation for that purpose according to the Constitution. Even if it did have that authority, I would still considered it morally repugnant. Let me state clearly that I am not for pulling the rug out from under the feet of older folks who paid into the S.S.system and made plans to collect it or are in need to getting back that money they paid out over many decades. I'm for abolishing the system but not all at once, nor unfairly. And vulnerable people ought to be protected from that.
On the other hand, taxation for that which the people have agreed to for the safety and security of their lives and property is not theft. This is especially important to women and children.
I get the impression that Libertarians may think the world should only belong to those who can protect themselves (and keep government out of it). But there happen to be tens of millions of people who are not big, nor strong, and if there wasn't some sort of power to protect them life would be exceedingly unjust. Thus, a stand-in for a strong man becomes requisite to protect the innocent. Thus this stand-in strong-man is a legitimate function of conglomerated power.
What would the Libertarians have orphans do, go to work a six and hire a body guard? I suppose so.
Thus if a stand-in strong-man can be a legitimate cause for the state (the conglomeration) for some, then it could be legitimate cause for all. Even an old, poor, and feeble Libertarian who lost all resources to protect himself might need that some day. Or his widowed wife. Defining this might be very tricky or difficult, especially if you are a Libertarian, but it can be done. Like many other things in life it is fraught with dangers. No news there.
If there is no government whatsoever then there is no civilization to speak of and human kind is reduced to tribes who continually prey on each other such that they are unable to advance to the point of the New York Philharmonic, discovering fractals, or inventing the computer. Life is spent hunting and being hunted by other humans and we are reduced to the cave man "life-style". This appears to be the goal of American Libertarians. What a bunch of chimpanzees. Oh wait. Chimps defend their own territory. I retract that and offer my apologies to chimps.
We know this tribalism happens when groups are too small to defend themselves long enough to establish fine art, advanced industry, technology, science, and music. These things and more Libertarians pretend to admire. And we also know from history that without some minimal form of government humans descend into a primitive state where advancement becomes next to impossible. Africa is a good example of this.
And if you do not know by now that there is something woefully wrong with the whole human race since the time we have been recording its history then you (Libertarians) are really too stupid to be giving out advice about how to conduct a civilization--especially one created by a barbarian invasion of persons who are not overly interested in intellectual pursuits. Even ones not interested in reading about economic theories or philosophies like libertarianism.
So the wisest course for intelligent humankind (I suppose that exempts American Libertarians) to take is for several tribes or so to agree to the most affectionate and useful conglomeration (government) they can create which will help protect them from the most odious tribes or groups of tribes who would harm them (like Libertarians and their not so bright barbarian friends with the high crime rate?).
I sense that our Founding generation hoped to have such created a good government. And I believe they did.Unfortunately our contemporary leaders are trying to destroy it. Especially the Democratic Party which openly wishes to subvert it through "fundamental" change.
What so, in my mind and I think the mind of all rational and moral people, I believe that Lazarowitz is actually suggesting is that we ought to enjoy it if a motor cycle gang burglarizing our home, laid claim to the property and possession while it forces us to pay the mortgage and keep the place up. They can eat out our existence, take liberties with the wife, attack the children, and steal their inheritance and political rights to self-determination. And why should we let them do all this? According to Lazarowitz we should let them do this because they are people too. Isn't that special? I'll bet you didn't realize they were people too you greedy dumb*ss racist pigs.
Libertarians say they value (almost above all) the concept of property. Yet there is no valuing property with invaders or burglars. Invading ones property (home, country) is theft and robbery. Invading your neighbors land is immoral except if you are a communist fink like Lazaroditz. The Libertarians should rename their new found quest for territorial theft "illegal ownership".
In summary.
Murder and killing end in death. One is evil, the other essential.
Rape and consensual sex involve sexual actions. One is evil, the other desired.
Theft and taxation is surrendering ones property. One is evil, the other essential.
Invasion and immigration is the entry of outsiders. One is burglary the other an invitation.
This is not rocket science, which wouldn't have developed if we left it up to the Libertarians, but the Libertarians are having a hard time figuring it out.
Libertarians just don't seem intellectually capable of understanding these moral distinctions. It is an obvious and curious moral failing. Well, at least it is obvious to me. And yet it is a major intellectual error which I am always surprised they make. And I don't believe the father of Libertarianism, Friedrich Hayek, would make it. Maybe Lazarowitz isn't a Libertarian, but Rockwell most certainly is and it seems very poor judgment for him to post Larzarowitz's nonsense on Lew Rockwell online.
Even Hayek recognized the value of custom and tradition, and felt that those who wished to eliminate them in wholesale fashion were not only unwise but dangerous. He also thought they were conceited. He said a person or group of people who held such grand schemes to force on others committed the error of THE fatal conceit. Hayek applied this idea to socialism. But any intentional large scale disruption of a whole civilization which destroys customs and traditions can result in the same cataclysmic turmoil.
These Libertarian supporters of the invading hordes pose the same threat as the socialists. That threat is the unknown consequences of major cultural upheavals forced on others. And yet the author of the Rockwell article actually thinks that it is lawful immigration that is akin to socialism. When in truth it is the invasion which Lazarowits wishes us to embrace that most resembles socialism and what it produces: unimaginable and devastating consequences.
It is very odd that Lazarowitz would consider an act as serious as reshaping an entire civilization by replacing a major portion of the citizenry with a different foreign culture and race to be any less an unpredictable upheaval than socialism. I think it is more than odd. It is stupid. And it shapes up to be another monumental fatal conceit.
Lazarowitz writes:
And that brings me to the American Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Each individual has an inalienable, inherent right of ownership of one’s own life, person, labor and justly-owned property, and pursuit of happiness, and the right to be free from the aggression against one’s life by others, including agents of the State...
...Here is where we lose the conservatives. The Declaration of Independence does not state that such rights apply to "only Americans."... Unfortunately, some people do not believe that non-"American citizens" possess such rights.
Ah. What a trickster this nincompoop Bazaarowitz is. And how convenient that this communist interloper writing at Lew Rockwell ignores the context of Mr. Jeffersons comments.Jefferson is careful to define the context of his statements. He writes:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The key term in that very long sentence is "one people". Check it out. It comes in as the 12th and 13th words of the sentence. "One people" clearly means a specific group of people as set apart from all others. By this Lazarowitz implies that Jefferson either doesn't believe other people really do have unalieanable rights to secure and Jefferson is really lying, and that Jefferson didn't believe there were outsiders among mankind from which any "one people" might separate themselves.
I suggest Lazarowitz is pretending that Jefferson did not distinguish between the in group (Jefferson's group) and the out group (the British). By Bazaarowitz's inept reasoning, we should believe that the British citizens including government officials (since they are people too) should have been let in to invade the new founded "separated" people in America and run things as they saw fit.
Totally BAZAARO!
Okay, that is twisted. But it isn't MY reasoning. It's Bazaarowits'.
Jefferson further writes:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Okay, another mouthful for those who went to public school. But let me point out a few things from that passage which make a nitwit out of Lazarowitz . Jefferson is saying that a government has the right (by the consent of the people) to define itself. Well, if that people are being invaded by outsiders where is the right to group self-determination by "one people" who have separated themselves from the others?
It is nowhere to be found.
In other words unless a people cannot be separated from others in order determine what form of association they shall have themselves, they will be stripped of a power to group self-determination. And who is Lazarowitz to say such a group of individuals should have no such power? And who the hell is Lazarowitz to claim they ought not to?
And believe you me, the invading hordes Lazarowitz wishes for us to embrace are not SO stupid as to deny themselves some sort of power to determine who and what America shall be. And if the imbecile Lazarowitz won't claim some sort of self-determination regarding this great land, the invading hordes will gladly step in and show him how to do it.
Lazarowitz wants Americans to abdicate their unalieanble right to national self-determination to a group of outsiders who have no hesitation to force their self-determination on the citizens.
Lazarowitz is morally depraved. He says it is evil for one people to determine for themselves who they shall be but OKAY for another people to tell the others to FORCE on those people who they must become.
It is twisted and if not intentionally diabolical, then it is demented.
It is perverted justice. And it is communistic because everything we have inherited and built up as a "one people" is to be handed over to those whose ancestors did not toil for them. This is exactly like working all your life to help your children and when you have achieved your financial goals and adequate property it is demanded of you to bequeath it all to strangers' children.
This is communism when done on as large a scale as the insidious Mr. Lazarowitz would have us accept.
If the criminally-minded Mr. Lazarowitz is so worried about the Mexicans, he can send them all his money. Better yet, he go live with the barbarous hordes and try to tell them THEY have no right to self-determination.
Lazarowitz has advocated communism while pretending to be offended by socialism. What a jerk.
http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz25.1.html
http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/become/male_patrol.php
