Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Good, Good, Good ... Good Vibrations

Expand Messages
  • westmiller@aol.com
    RLCers, Strictly speaking, RLC-Action is not intended for the discussion of policy, except as it relates to political activism. Immigration is certainly an
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 13, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...)
      > The Minutemen do have an untarnished reputation ...

      Certainly, they have a right to travel to the borders
      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 issue
      > into the Whitehouse. Would the RLC endorse him?

      In theory, the RLC could endorse him, but I doubt
      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. You
      > cannot implement part of it without implementing all
      > of it. To do otherwise is to force instability ...

      I strongly disagree. Saying we can have liberty in one
      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 really
      > must avoid utopian concepts of liberty ...

      There are no "utopian concepts" of liberty, since there
      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 countries
      > without their permission, but not the right to pitch a
      > tent in other peoples' backyards without permission?

      Because property rights are individual, not collective.
      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.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.