Open borders?

I have a great deal of respect for Harry Binswanger, however I think his idea of open borders is wrong. Binswanger (who writes for Cap Mag which has a “required reading” of his article entitled Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration) argues for phasing in open (unlimited) immigration into the U.S. for any foreigner provided the person is neither a disease carrier, a criminal, or a would-be terrorist. Moreover, he is advocating not for automatic citizenship but only unlimited and unfettered immigration. Dr. Binswanger argues that his proposition is based upon the principle of individual rights, the same ones to which our founding fathers appealed in declaring independence from King George. Binswanger argues his case on two levels, first a moral case and then a practical case.

In my opinion a national policy of open immigration fails, not from a theoretical standpoint (his moral case is solid, in fact I could add to it) but rather from the standpoint of what America has evolved into since, at the very least, the New Deal and perhaps as far back as 1787. The fundamental error Dr. Binswanger makes is that he assumes the only substantial objection people can raise (which he easily dispenses with) is the moral-practicle dichotomy, that in fact there can exist a contradiction. But what he doesn’t do in his argument, is to fully examine the nature of the presumed contradiction he easily defeats. He clears up the idea that, “It is immoral but practical” is an untenable position (as are all contradictions). But the problem here is different, it is contextual between philosophical premises (irrational as some may be, yet held by many) so what you actually have is not a question of showing the error in presuming “it is immoral but practical.” Rather, how does one deal with the reality that open immigration is moral premised upon individual rights, but untenable in America as currently configured philosophically. Precisely because America has completely lost its fundamental, founding, philosophical base open immigration would not work in a practical way, notwithstanding its moral rightness. Therefore, there is no contradiction here. Reality is real and the reality of this country today is incompatible with the moral precepts of Dr. Binswanger (much to my chagrin) which are the fundamental rationale for open borders.

The essential problem which would render open immigration as Binswanger proposes problematic is the political structure and power wielded by what can only be described as the “neo fabians.” America today is being led by one of two philosophies, both preclude the idea of open immigration and both employ to one degree or another a fabianesque approach. The first is the philosophy of sacrifice promoted blatantly by our evangelical president (please note I have been using this tag long before Bill Sammon wrote his book) who represents a political party (the hard core of this group is roughly 30% of the voting population), the GOP, filled to the gills with evangelical mystics. Open immigration is not possible with this sort of altruistic mentality at the helm of this country, not to mention an all too-willing group of elected representatives (and judges) who essentially believe the same way. Just drive by any church and witness the number of “W” bumper stickers. Point being here is that we now have institutionalized altruism, which if applied to open immigration would be disasterous.

You cannot make the argument (well, you can try) that unfettered, open, immigration (ostensibly legal) into this country would work better than tightly controlled immigration as has been our historical national policy by using the notion that an unfettered inflow of self-sustaining immigrants would contribute more than they would take. This is essentially the same argument that says lowered tax rates are good because it increases revenue to the federal government. Why would you want to increase revenue to an entity which has proven itself inherently flawed in so many ways and by increasing funding to it you inevitably decrease your own liberty? Yet this is precisely the argument put forth by our evangelical president and his minions.. Unlimited immigration into the U.S. justified by the same principle is similarly a bad argument. Why would you want to allow an unlimited increase in the number of people from whom more taxation and more government would result?

To be equitable to Dr. Binswanger he maintains that open immigration as he perceives it does not mean automatic citizenship but, again, the reality of the predominant philosophy today in America would see these new contributors as either cash calves from whom they could loot, or misguided souls who need salvation, not self-sustaining men of the mind.. Just go in front of any government monopolized school board in this country and propose a local tax levy credit for attendance at a private or home school and you’ll understand this immediately (I have, by the way, done this).

The other dominant group in America today are the left leaning, socialist/interventionists. In America today I would argue that at least 45% of the population is composed, to one degree or another, of this ilk. Does anyone out there honestly think that with massive open immigration that this group would not immediately demand (and get) far more monopolization of education (if that could be imagined), far greater levels of government services being provided, fewer private property rights, more controls on almost all aspects of economics? It is almost axiomatic that open immigration would lead to far higher degrees of government intervention, our recent history has plainly showed this to be true here in America. And government interventionism means less liberty, and less freedom, for its own citizenry.

In summary, I am not opposed to open immigration. In fact, I think it is fully consistent with free-market capitalism and the morality which is implicit in laissez faire. Moreover, it is utterly consistent with the logical extensions of the founding philosophical vision of this country. But that is not the reality we are dealing with today. Today we clearly have a philosophical-political premise inconsistent with the founding vision, laissez faire, and open immigration. If Dr. Binswanger would have made a more comprehensive argument, first stating the need to return to the vision of our founders, their philosophic premises, and then illustrated the distinct benefits of such a return (such as open immigration) I would be far more in line with the proposition. Also, I see a problem inherent in our current U.S. Constitution and the political structure and classes it has spawned which has allowed the former confederation of semi-autonomous free states to become the altruistic interventionist federal leviathon of today. The reality is we are a long way from either, but in such an rational setting open immigration would not just be workable, but an obvious, rational, proposition. Open immigration simply cannot work in America today because the majority of the citizens are not operating under a fully rational, objective, philosophy.

guns, beer, pledge of allegiance, patriots… Heston and Rand.

There is nothing quite like a banquet room filled with gun toting, beer drinking, flag waving, Pledge of Allegiance stating patriots… So went the annual NRA Banquet I attended last night.

During the evening’s events, all were treated to an excellent video presentation by Charleton Heston (taped prior to his intellectual degradation due to Alzheimer’s). It was a moving and motivating 12-minute address regarding the meaning and importance of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While I will maintain that such Amendments, in fact the whole Bill of Rights, were unnecessary (we should have stopped at the Articles of Confederation) the fact remains that the Second is indeed a reality, as is the U.S. Constitution itself. An uncomfortable reality for some (anti-gunners), and clearly a rallying point for many others such as the rank and file of the NRA.

While I was listening to Mr. Heston so easily and, frankly, remarkably recite his conviction for the freedoms and liberty we ostensibly have as Americans and, in fact, human beings I was reminded of a passage from Ayn Rand. In the spirit, again, of celebrating fifty years of Atlas Shrugged, it is worth noting what she penned in a newsletter in December of 1971; a theme that rings true to the same spirit, and the same call to the defense of individual liberty and freedom that was the underlying theme of Mr. Heston last night:

Is there enough of the American sense of life left in people-under the constant pressure of the cultural-political efforts to obliterate it? It is impossible to tell. But those of us who hold it, must fight for it. We have no alternative: we cannot surrender this country to a zero-to men whose battle cry is mindlessness.

We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism. We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism. We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something-and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being.

These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual equivalent of America’s sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest intellectual battle. But isn’t that a magnificent goal to fight for?

Yes, yes it is! Thank you Ms Rand, and thank you Mr. Heston. Ideas have power, powerful ideas change minds, and minds can only change if they are free. Both of these individuals deeply believed in the concept of intellectual freedom and, as Rand has stated so brilliantly in The New Intellectual:

“Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”

My humble advice, discard your pretense to piety – grab your life by the horns and live it as fully and with as much gusto as you can possibly summon. Engage people, cause a stir, live the life you imagine – it is yours for the taking!

Social Treason

“We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans,” said Hillary Clinton recently in a speech at Broadlawns Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa. What is incredible about this statement is the degree to which many Americans agree, yet have no clue as to what it implies. One must ask who are the “we” she is speaking about. Secondly, “injustice?” Injustice to whom and premised upon what moral code does she presume to preach? Lastly, this “one in six” number should be investigated for accuracy and meaning.

Clearly, the “we” she refers to are all the redistributionist, socialist-minded, new Fabians to whom she was speaking. It certainly is not an appeal to hard working, health conscious, responsible and rational Americans who understand that they are not born as an indentured servant to the “greater good,” or some such self-sacrificial platitude. The fact is your health care is not, nor can it be, my financial obligation. As a moral precept, I do not owe you anything except what I owe to myself and to all other men – an obligation to act rationally.

Hillary Clinton, or anyone who argues that government has a role in “health care,” is operating from a moral premise which assumes self-sacrifice as a virtue. That all of us are, indeed, born as indentured servants to the greater good of society. Nothing could be further from the intentions and vision of the founding of America. The basic premise upon which this country was founded was not Christian alms for the poor, or a code of self-sacrifice. What the truly unique American idea was, was that the individual is not subordinated to the group, the state, or society. Yet, this is precisely what is implied by either state run or federally mandated health care.

This pernicious idea of self-sacrifice as a virtue has caused more damage to more people than any other single concept. Its evil lies in the fact that when need is the standard, every man is both a victim and a parasite. The state requires him to pay taxes and labor to satisfy the perceived needs of others, leaving himself and his own family in the disgraceful position of a parasitic animal who is required to let some of his needs be filled by others. Under such a code of morality, the first value one is forced to sacrifice is morality itself, and next is ones own self-esteem.

The justification of Mrs. Clinton’s implication of mass sacrifice is far more corrupt than the injustice it claims to rectify. Her logic presumes that since I am not paying for your health care, that this entails an injustice. That my life and my mind are not really my own, that you actually own a part of me. Ergo, you have an apriori claim on my productivity and therefore if I do not participate in paying for your health care this constitutes an “injustice.” Such convoluted logic is what got Mrs. Clinton into trouble with Hillary Care, Part I (circa 1993). There is no fundamental difference now, and conscious, rational, thinking Americans should reject both her and her socialized medical care.

Lastly, proponents of more government intervention into the health care marketplace argue that because there is some statistical number, in this case “one in six”, of Americans supposedly “shut out” of the health care system that more government is the solution. The facts of the matter are that this number is bogus on its face, moreover who is she to dictate to those who have voluntarily chosen to opt out and not participate that they now must. That you have those who say they cannot afford coverage, yet find a way to purchase a home, cars, snowmobiles, nights out, cigarettes, and on and on and on.

America has the wealthiest poor people on the planet who have more “things” than you can shake a stick at. The truly destitute in this country, who have fallen on hard times due to circumstances beyond their control, are rare. Yet, I would be forced to pay into a nationalized health care system under the premise that it is because there are some Americans who do not have health insurance (reason not a factor). Why then should I bother to buy my own? If the government is going to take care of me if I do not procure my own insurance, why should I continue to be moral (to produce and engage in trade) when my morality is being financially penalized? Good question, and Hillary has no answer because “power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind” and she has a for sale to highest bidder sign stamped on her forehead. What Hillary is actually saying is that it is social treason to not socialize health care in America.

Please, think about that.