Re: Good, Good, Good ... Good Vibrations
- View SourceRLCers,
Strictly speaking, RLC-Action is not intended for
the discussion of policy, except as it relates to political
activism. Immigration is certainly an issue that has a
broad base of sentiments, which the RLC doesn't
directly address. Although we favor "open borders" as
an objective, it's in the context of freedom to travel:
"Peaceful diplomatic relations, free trade and
open borders enhance the ability of citizens to travel,
engage in international commerce and support the
pursuit of liberty everywhere in the world."
> From: DGHarrison _DGHarrison@..._ (mailto:DGHarrison@...)Certainly, they have a right to travel to the borders
> The Minutemen do have an untarnished reputation ...
and to carry weapons. So far, that's the only *action*
they've taken. When one of them kills an intended
illegal immigrant, then we ought to question whether
a death sentence is the proper penalty for crossing
borders without government permission.
We have to judge their efforts based on their acts,
not their intentions or good will.
From: "Chuck Seberg" <pusherprop3@...>
> 1) Tancredo talks like he would like to ride this issueIn theory, the RLC could endorse him, but I doubt
> into the Whitehouse. Would the RLC endorse him?
that will happen. My biggest problem with Tancredo is
that he only has one issue, but no position on it. His
only objective is to enforce existing law, with no sense
of what might be wrong with the law, nor any proposal
for improving it.
From: John Pankratz <pankratz@...>
> The libertarian philosophy is of a single piece. YouI strongly disagree. Saying we can have liberty in one
> cannot implement part of it without implementing all
> of it. To do otherwise is to force instability ...
area without having it in all is ... to say the least .. self-
defeating. We can't have the right to bear arms until we
abolish drug laws and terrorists? Using some engineering
concept of "instability" or "undesirable changes" isn't any
kind of political principle. Liberty is, and ought to be, very
From: DGHarrison <DGHarrison@...>
> It is good to think in terms of liberty, but I think we reallyThere are no "utopian concepts" of liberty, since there
> must avoid utopian concepts of liberty ...
is no "perfect society" that liberty achieves. All it does is
attain freedom from the initiation of coercive acts, no
matter what the "good and wise" purpose might be.
I do agree that there are those who confuse freedom
with liberty. Absolute freedom is anarchic nonsense.
From: "blood_pasta" _blood_pasta@..._ (mailto:blood_pasta@...)
> ... why is it I have the right to live in other countriesBecause property rights are individual, not collective.
> without their permission, but not the right to pitch a
> tent in other peoples' backyards without permission?
We have public streets for a purpose: access to private
property. It's proper for government to secure that access,
for that purpose, by law. Immigrants who have nowhere
to go and no resources to rent or acquire property ought
to be precluded from abusing any public resources at the
expense of others. The same can be said for citizens:
they have no "right" to "free" services or support. So, I'd
welcome immigrant "sponsors", who voluntarily assume
the full burden of any immigrants they wish to support ...
and the expense of removing them to their native country
if and when they violate laws.
It seems to me that Bush's proposal moves in that
direction, which I tend to support.