A Libertarian States His Case for Immigration:Not to say it is ALL libertarians case, by any means.

schenectady_libertySo I’m libertarian. That means I believe it is immoral to initiate violence against someone. Even if a bunch of people agree that they should. Even if that bunch of people become organized through a democratic process and call themselves government. Let’s call that the Non-Aggression Principle, or NAP.

Juan is in Mexico walking north. John is in the US and is looking south, anticipating Juan’s arrival. Juan is looking forward to getting to work on John’s chicken farm. John is looking forward to someone willing to work on the farm. Work on a chicken farm sucks, and profits aren’t so hot, so pay will be pretty low. Most of the kids in town like big diesel trucks that blow white smoke, and those things are hard to buy on chicken farm pay. Plus their parents make sure they have video games to play.

John and Juan worked out an agreement. They agreed on a wage and the conditions of employment. Both are satisfied with the arrangement. Juan looks forward to working at about 7 times the wages he an get in his village. John looks forward to making enough profit that he can build more coops in a few years. With money from that coop, John might be able to pay someone to run the whole deal so he can spend more time in Ormond Beach, Fl with his family. He won’t have to keep doing that second job in town that is wearing him out, either. With the higher salary, Juan looks forward to saving enough money that he can get his kids out of the village and closer to nicer schools. Who knows, maybe someday his son can do something like run a chicken farm for an American who wants to spend more time at the beach.

When government is used to stop this transaction, both Juan’s and John’s rights are violated. It is no different than if you were to point a gun at either one of them and threaten to shoot them if Juan didn’t head back south. Using a man with a badge to do the gun-pointing changes nothing. Neither does backing the act up with a law that says it’s okay. That’s because government only legitimately exist to protect rights, not to infringe on them. And it makes no difference whose government we are talking about or where it happens to be located. But it especially needs no special pleadings in the US, where our country is young enough to actually be founded on that principle. Go read the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence…I’ll still be here when you get back.

Welcome back! So, we should be able to agree on two things right now. First, that if you stop Juan from working for John you have used force to accomplish it. Second, our government protects rights, it doesn’t infringe on them. All we have to do now is agree that Juan and John have a right to enter into this contract. That part should be easy, since clearly neither one is violating anyone else’s rights with their arrangement. So they should be left alone. But it isn’t so easy to agree on that. Is it? Can we at least agree that using force to stop someone from exercising a right sucks?

Getting around to agreeing that keeping Juan and John from associating through a contract that both of them consented to honor will have to be for another post on another day. This post isn’t about convincing you I’m right. It’s about explaining my case for immigration. There are economic reasons as well. National security reasons. Other reasons you probably don’t agree with about immigration as I’ve laid it out. I just wanted you to know this guy’s (me, that is) reason: because it’s none of your business what other people do as long as it doesn’t violate your rights. And that is good enough for me.

Think about it, and let me know what you come up with, will you? I hammered it out pretty quickly so there bounds to be spelling, grammar and/or logical consistency errors. Let me know. Thanks for reading.



Trump Has a Phone and a Pen As Well: Executive orders are a double-edged sword

schenectady_libertyI’ll post a link to the particulars, but it appears that some of the particularly controversial parts of the Affordable Care Act were empowered by executive order instead of written directly into the law. Okay some of you knew that already. The more astute among you for sure. But regular people probably didn’t realize it and might not understand the implications, so here we are.

My guess is that it happened for things that wouldn’t pass congressional muster. Like I said, you can go get the particulars if you want to. Legislating by executive order is executive over-reach. It is one of the many ways we have seen the executive branch use power that is reserved to the other branches, the states or the people. This has been going on for decades. It appears that the president took advantage of this power and began the process of unraveling the ACA’s more controversial requirements.

Another problem with it is that it becomes harder for people to obey the law. As more laws becomes regulations, they becomes more open to interpretation. The State likes it that way though, so don’t expect to see less of it. Don’t get too excited when you see a new president use executive orders or regulation re-interpretation in a way that you agree with over the last guy. Each time it is used, it transfers power from all of us to the president. And it seems to be a one way transfer.

So here is a link to an article with specifics. If you don’t like the source, Google your own. Trump’s Executive Order On Obamacare Means Everything And Does Nothing The author of this article seems to believe that the Order “does nothing” and he is right in the context in which he says that: it doesn’t grant any power that the president doesn’t already have, but as I said: every time a power is executed by the president that should be a law passed by Congress, it solidifies that power in the executive. My opinion I guess, but the evidence seems pretty clear to me. You be the judge.

Thanks for reading. Share if you like.