Setting up the straw man

About a week after the Libertarian Party convention in Orlando rebuffed the candidacies of John McAfee and a few other freedom radicals over the Memorial Day weekend — instead deciding to try again with “moderate” former New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson and the even less libertarian gun-grabbing Republican Bill Weld of Massachusetts — party headquarters in Northern Virginia e-mailed me the following June 8 press release:

(Headline:) “Bernie Sanders supporters have a choice: Libertarian Johnson advocates civil liberties, peace, ending cronyism

“ALEXANDRIA — Bernie Sanders supporters who reject the offensive, dangerous rhetoric of Republican Donald Trump and the militarism and corporate ties of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, have another choice.

Gary Johnson headshot - 1-7-2016 for web & LP news CROPD 68x90 - 72dpi

“Two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is the Libertarian nominee for president, who, along with Trump and Clinton, is expected to be on the ballot this November in all 50 states.

“Johnson is a staunch advocate for marriage equality, and a passionate defender of hard-working immigrants, whom he notes commit fewer crimes per capita than do U.S. citizens. He calls Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric incendiary and racist, and describes his proposal to deport 11 million immigrates (sic?) as ‘just crazy.’

“Johnson opposes corporate bailouts, wants to end mass surveillance, and calls for downsizing U.S. military spending by 20 percent.

“And he’s a nice guy.

“Sincerity, honesty, and integrity mark his character and his career as a successful businessman and as a former Republican governor who was enormously popular, in his predominantly Democratic state. . . .

“As governor, Johnson was the highest-ranking U.S. official to call for legalizing marijuana. He unapologetically states that he has consumed marijuana himself, a substance he says is far safer than alcohol, with numerous medicinal benefits. . . .”

A purposeful misstatement

It went on for a bit, but you get the idea.

How weird. While it may be that “immigrants” commit fewer crimes per capita than “U.S. citizens” (though how would we know, since surely a fair number of U.S. citizens are immigrants, creating a category overlap?), I strongly doubt that U.S. citizens commit more crimes than illegal immigrants, who commit a whole series of new crimes every day they wake up here and don’t go home, continuing their ongoing frauds to obtain and use fake or improperly obtained drivers licenses, auto insurance, Social Security cards, employment, etc.

(Yes, I’m familiar with the saying that “There are so many laws today that a guy can’t wake up in the morning and drive to work without breaking a handful.” I don’t think that’s what they’re talking about. Though I suppose illegals don’t cheat much on their income taxes . . . given that they don’t file.)


Is Donald Trump “anti-immigrant” . . . or is he actually “anti-illegal-immigrant”? Does he really want to deport 11 million “immigrants,” meaning he’d expel a whole bunch of legal immigrants (foreign-born U.S. citizen along with legal residents with “green cards”) along with the illegals, not caring which kind got caught up in the net and loaded onto the freighters?

I don’t think so. I still have my substantial worries about Mr. Trump, who strikes me as a protectionist, a statist, not a terribly thoughtful statesman. But it sounds to me more like Gary Johnson and (here) The Libertarian Party have purposely embraced the same rhetorical trick the leftist “Aztlan activists” who want NO ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS have been using — purposely confusing “legal immigrants” with “illegals” (by lumping them all together in the sanitized category “immigrants”) while branding those who want the laws enforced — including Hispanic Americans who want the immigration laws enforced, to reduce illegal competition for jobs and wages, as did the late Cesar Chavez — “racists.”

This is obviously meant to imply they (we?) must hate Hispanics, because all “immigrants” are Hispanic.

Actually, I used to live in New England, back when there was some modest effort to enforce the immigration laws. From time to time INS would bust a workplace, often in New Britain or some such old factory town, rounding up a dozen illegals. I distinctly remember the two groups who turned up most frequently seemed to be Poles and Irish, followed by French Canadians, what have you. Does the fact I think these laws should be enforced mean I hate Micks and Polaks? That’s just silly.

I believe Ted Kennedy responded by getting busy and passing special-interest legislation to beef up the Irish immigration quotas, which made me aware there WERE different quotas for different nationalities, which never seemed right to me. So I’m hardly saying current laws couldn’t be improved. (Bring back the Bracero program for seasonal agricultural workers, for one thing. And why not base admission in part on a graded test of knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights — though it might prove embarrassing to see how much better a lot of would-be immigrants would score than the average graduate of today’s American government schools.)

I’ve written columns faulting our U.S. consular officials in India for turning away Indian chefs with legitimate work visas and jobs waiting for them here, said embassy officials arguing “You can’t prove you won’t overstay your visa.” Well, how can anyone prove a negative? Do those columns mean I’m some strange kind of racist who hates my friends of Mexican descent, but has some perverse and contradictory fondness for darker-skinned people from India? Couldn’t it just be that I want a level playing field for everyone, including those with no convenient land bridge?

Meantime, how does this purposeful “immigrant” double-talk reflect Gov. Johnson’s (or the LP’s) “sincerity, honesty, and integrity”?

Are there times to break the law, or not enforce the law? Sure. Those who want to engage in civil disobedience against the drug laws, the tax laws — whatever — in hopes of overloading the system and getting those laws changed, are demonstrating some courage. Though they should be aware of the current consequences. (Note it was precisely to defeat such a legitimate strategy that our current, corrupt, Police-State Supreme Court recently ruled they no longer have to give you a time-consuming jury trial if prosecutors promise to seek a sentence of no more than 364 days. Imagine how many “malum prohibitum” charges would otherwise have to be dismissed under “speedy trial” requirements, if everyone demanded a jury trial!)

Cops and judges and prosecutors and jurors who declare “I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, which grants the government no power to ban any drugs or any kind of firearms, so I’m no longer going to enforce those unconstitutional gun and drug laws” should also be cheered.

Selective advertising

I note, however, that the press release above studiously avoids pointing out that the Libertarian Party platform calls for getting rid of all drug laws — not just the marijuana laws. And the LP’s candidate wants to decrease military expenditures by 20 percent? That’s his goal? So what would he settle for and call “good progress” — a 4 percent reduction? A reduction in the rate of growth to 4 percent? We’re not in any declared war, right? I also see no mention of even reducing taxes, let alone repealing any. Wouldn’t want to freak out any of those Sanders Socialists we now hope to welcome aboard, I suppose.

William Weld color headshot - web resolution

(As for the new LP ticket “wanting to end mass surveillance,” see VP nominee Bill Weld’s latest brainchild, a big “Muslim Snitch Line,” at .)

Should we repeal all the immigration laws — getting rid of passports, customs checks, the Coast Guard, issuing an open invitation for tens of millions of foreigners with no knowledge of or adherence to capitalism or our Constitution and Bill of Rights or even the English language to come here and stay indefinitely, camping out in the parks and on the sidewalks, creating widespread sanitation emergencies?

Hey, we can discuss it. The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate “naturalization,” while there were no immigration barriers in 1789. But anyone who seeks this should be honest enough to say so, and then explain how they’ll deal with the swamping — the rapid bankrupting — of our current, de facto “free” public schools & hospitals, etc.

Get rid of all those trappings of collectivism? OK. But tell it straight to the voters. And by the way, then explain how “democracy” would no longer work, since the new polyglot majority would promptly vote to seize and redistribute all our stuff — how we’d have to go back to allowing only land-owners and/or “net tax payers” to vote.

Give me a break. Instead, what we have here is a repeat of the same scam these characters pulled 30 years ago, during the Reagan administration, when they demanded and got an amnesty for illegals, promising in return they’d “secure the borders” so it could never happen again.

Fool me once . . .

They say they want “reform.” But “reforming” a law doesn’t retroactively rehabilitate a lawbreaker. What they want is another amnesty -– an endless chain of amnesties.

We only amnestied about 3 million illegals, then. Now we’ve got 11 or 13 million. If it’s “crazy” to enforce the law and expel them, it’s a “craziness” made necessary by the amnesty gang the last time around! And how much “crazier” will it be to try to enforce the law in another decade or two, when there will be 40 million, many living in all-Muslim towns and neighborhoods (as is now the case in France), with mosques that preach war against “The Great Satan,” including death to gays, Christians, women who decline to completely cover their heads and bodies . . . ?

The most important voters whose loyalty the LP should try to retain are long-term registered Libertarians who embrace all or nearly all of the radical but philosophically consistent platform — like me. To me, the purposeful mis-stating of Donald Trump’s position on enforcing the current immigration laws falls somewhere between sad and shocking. All this in hopes of winning the temporary, lukewarm support of a few “Sanders Democrats” who are going to run screaming for the hills when they find out the LP stands for eliminating the income tax and re-legalizing heroin, cocaine, and machine guns, anyway?

Or have all those platform planks been quietly deleted, while we weren’t looking?

27 Comments to “Setting up the straw man”

  1. Bob Ashman Says:

    Thank you for this. I was beginning to think that I was the only libertarian (small l) to notice that the party (Large-L) has nominated two milquetoast centrist Republicans as our 2016 response. How do the stated goals of the Johnson/Weld ticket compare with libertarian ideals? Not well.
    WTF? Is the Libertarian Party’s strategy simply to increase our vote share to 2%, and make it to all 50 state ballots again in 2020 – or is it to accurately convey ideas?

  2. R. Hartman Says:

    Political parties are not the vehicle to change the kleptocratic landscape. The LP is taken over by opportunists who go for electoral gain and political power, and it seems unavoidable with a membership based party. It’ s the reason why I abandoned the (still insignificant, and destined to stay that way) Dutch variety. Too many people just can’t be trusted, they want to rule when the occasion arises.

    Whomever talks the talk but fails to walk the walk just learned a trick but does not understand the philosophy. Things like claiming mosques and islamic invasion are OK as long it’s not funded by tax money shows a fundamental flaw in understanding liberty, non-agression and the things threatening it.

    If I ever vote again it will be in a referendum, not in elections for what in essence is the legitimation of a theater show performed to keep the sheeple in check, having them turn on each other instead of on the real evil, the puppeteers who pull their strings, while giving them the illusion that elections empower them to change anything.

  3. Vin Says:

    Thanks, Bob; thanks Rene (Mijnheer Hartman.) These days I try to limit my wading into the bogs of electoral politics, where someone will doubtless eventually shriek “Oh, so you want us to run on a platform of legalizing cocaine and machine guns? You don’t think our vote totals are bad enough, ALREADY?”

    Of course I understand the party staff here is attempting to copy the grown-ups, “triangulating” and thus appealing to potential new voter blocs. Of course they’re free to emphasize our long support for re-legalizing marijuana, if that issue starts to look like a “winner.”

    But both the above gentleman seem to “get it.” The only goal really worth our limited years and funds is to expose our neighbors and even our family members to a consistent, joyful philosophy that explains how individual freedom and free exchange can work better than an ever more intrusive and heavy-handed regulatory police state.

    Continue down a road of nominating or otherwise empowering “triangulators” willing to “temporarily” bury, discard or abandon 10 percent of our principles for each (chimerical) 5 percent gain at the polls (and call it “progress,” since that’s supposed to generate more funds and more media attention) and what kind of “change” will you have left when you reach your magical 51 percent?

    — Vin

  4. Bob G Says:

    “. . . it might prove embarrassing to see how much better a lot of would-be immigrants would score (on a graded test of knowledge of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) than the average graduate of today’s American government schools”

    Or the average Representative, Senator, or President sworn to observe, protect, and defend the same.

  5. Thomas Says:

    You can be libertarian or authoritarian, but it’s hard to be both.

    Every time you decide to be an immigration authoritarian, you’re deciding not to be a libertarian.

  6. Vin Says:

    Hi, Thomas — Good to hear from you. Even though I’m not sure you get to decide whether I’m a libertarian.

    Did the party press release cite Trump correctly? Or did they purposely try to create the impression that he seeks to expel “immigrants” (including foreign-born U.S. citizens) when they know full well he’s calling for the deportation only of “illegals” — lawbreakers who have declined to follow the legally prescribed regimen to immigrate legally?

    Milo Yiannopoulos on what we can look forward to if we allow unlimited Muslim immigration:

    Be well, — Vin

  7. Thomas Says:


    According to the US Constitution, there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

    And according to anything resembling libertarian theory, there is no “we” that properly gets to “allow” or not “allow” people to move about other than on our own properties.

    It’s not rocket science. And yes, I do get to decide whether or not you’re a libertarian, just like you get to decide whether I’m one and we both get to decide whether other people are.

    My judgment is that you’re a libertarian except when you start looking for some kind of excuse that lets you magically be libertarian while simultaneously being authoritarian on that one thing. There isn’t any such excuse.

  8. Vin Says:

    Hi, Thomas — I’m happy to be differentiated from your approach and beliefs. If you conclude someone who’s argued forcefully for decades for the complete elimination of every gun law, every drug law, every compulsory tax, the complete shutdown of the coercion-based government schools . . . “isn’t a libertarian,” fine. I decline to seek your approval.

    As I wrote, above, “Issuing an open invitation for tens of millions of foreigners with no knowledge of or adherence to capitalism or our Constitution and Bill of Rights or even the English language to come here and stay indefinitely, camping out in the parks and on the sidewalks? . . . Hey, we can discuss it” — just be forthright with your listeners or readers about what this may be likely to mean, and look like, in the real world.

    How odd, though, to see you cite the U.S. Constitution, an (admittedly imperfect) document which creates an “authoritarian” government with an “authoritarian” executive who’s designated commander of an armed force required to provide a “common” defense and protect “us” (an “us” which you apparently don’t believe exists) from invasion.

    So the Britons had no right to gather together and take any common action to try and stop the Danes — and then the Normans — from “moving about” into their territories? The seceded Confederates had no right to try and prevent Grant and Sherman from “moving about” into their territory — except that each individual land owner was free to stand on his property line, alone, daring the cavalry, the artillery, the massed, blue-clad rifle companies of the damnable “collectivist” enemy to come any further? (Nor had they any right to shoot at them, apparently, so long as they stayed on the road.)

    The Germans and French and the Danes and the Dutch and the British today must admit every Muslim murderer, simply learn never to say anything that might offend their new “guests”? Stand over the bodies of Theo Van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn and all the women now being raped and all the gay people now being murdered in “cultural misunderstandings” and simply blubber more apologies? After all, “There is no ‘we’ that properly gets to ‘allow’ or not ‘allow’ people to move about other than on our own properties.”

    And there is no mechanism by which Americans are “allowed” to tell millions of Muslims who want to impose Sharia law that they’re not free to come here and try to impose their culture on us, by majority vote, one community at a time? “We” don’t even get to require that they swear any pro forma loyalty to our own laws and Constitution, setting those things ABOVE Sharia law — since there is no “we”?

    OK. Got it.

  9. Thomas Says:


    I have no idea why you think that I would want you to seek my approval, or why I would believe that you need my approval, or anything else of that nature.

    It’s just painful to watch you jump through hoops of fire to try and make an authoritarian position into a libertarian position, that’s all. You’re smarter than that and better than that. So I occasionally say something when I see you trying to put lipstick on the pig.

  10. Vin Says:

    Hi, Thomas — Please, spare yourself the “pain” . . . and me the condescension.

    There’s a reason those who chant that there should be “no borders” usually also favor “the abolition of private property.”

    Our presumption that we’ll be able to continue enjoying a “property right” in our house, our gun, our dog, and the food in our refrigerator is heavily dependent (whether we’ve considered it or not) on the presumption that a solid majority of our neighbors share tenets very close to ours on the sanctity of property rights — and will reflect those beliefs at the ballot box and in the jury box, as well as simply by refraining from breaking down our door, shouting some religious slogan, and murdering us for wearing a T-shirt which represents Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.

    Once we allow a new majority of folks who do NOT share that faith or belief in property rights (along with our other human and individual rights) to “move among us” without restriction, our property rights are on the respirator. Before long, this new majority of collectivists (or folks who want to impose Sharia Law, or both) will vote to seize our stuff and divvy it up “for the good of the oppressed underclass, and by our right as the original citizens of Aztlan” — and/or to require our women to don burkas, to impose the death penalty for homosexuality or dancing in scanty outfits or handing out Bibles, whatever. You’ll then stand against them, alone, since there is no “we”?

    This is not a far-fetched scenario. In many ways, America (I guess I’m not allowed to say “we”) has reached the tipping point. Most of our neighbors, “educated” in the government schools, already think it’s fine for the city or county to seize our house and “auction it off” if we haven’t paid “enough” property taxes to support the now-gargantuan government “schools” — which have in fact become full-time multiple social-service agencies. They think a steeply graduated income tax and massive levies and costly regulations on “greedy rich businessmen” who might otherwise create new jobs are “simple justice” — and that of course greedy ranchers and loggers and miners must be forced off the “public land” (which is most of the land, West of the Rockies) if that’s what’s necessary to protect some “threatened” weed or bug they’d never heard of till last week.

    Heck, go to the municipal pound and try to adopt a kitten or puppy. You’ll find the forms no longer identify you as the “owner.” You and the animal are now presumably equal “companions” — you’ll have to sign on the dotted line that the authorities can reclaim the critter at will, should they disapprove of your husbandry.

    Have the murders and rapes in Europe over “cultural misunderstandings” between Muslim immigrants (and even the CHILDREN of Muslim immigrants) and the natives escaped your attention? Did Fort Hood escape your attention? EgyptAir Flight 990? San Bernardino? The murder of 49 Americans in Orlando? You don’t sense that “assimilation” isn’t working quite the way it’s supposed to?

    The argument in favor of medical liberty and against the “War on Drugs,” has time on its side. It must prevail, eventually. Two million (and counting) in prison, yet drugs on the street are now both purer and cheaper? You cannot ban plants, or self-medication, without eventually making yourself a laughing stock.

    The argument in favor of the God-given right to self-defense and against “gun control” has time on its side. It will prevail, eventually. (In fact, the police and the BATF know they’ve lost. They now go after only the middle-class “easy targets.” When was the last time they moved in, in force, to try and disarm — say — all the street gangs in Los Angeles or Chicago?)

    The argument that the giant, coercion-based, government-run program of jobs for the incompetent known as the “public schools” must collapse of its own weight, as it costs more and more and delivers a less and less useful “education,” has time on its side. It will prevail, eventually. If such tyrannies aren’t overthrown by violence, they eventually collapse and fade away with a half-apologetic sigh, like the witch-burnings.

    Yet you would sneer at, ridicule, and abandon alliances with those who might help win THOSE battles, making your “hill to die for” the argument that there is no “we” that has any moral or Constitutional right or power to stop hordes of people who do not embrace our notions of freedom, capitalism, and property rights from “moving amongst us” in the millions and eventually in the tens of millions, pressuring our weak-kneed politicians till they’re granted these newcomers the franchise (which the U.S. Constitution DOES empower Congress to restrict), and setting up competing, parallel “cultures” that preach in their mainstream mosques rape or ritual execution for non-compliant women, and “compassionate murder” for gays and for politicians, cartoonists, and authors who show “disrespect for Allah”?

    THAT theory is doomed. Either Americans will rise up and renounce this fantastically dysfunctional PC claptrap, en masse, or they will suicidally embrace it, and be overrun and overcome, rendering America — once the world’s great hope for freedom — merely another vanished culture known only through the excavation of her stone monuments.

    If my refusal to embrace this culturally suicidal nonsense renders me so insufficiently “pure” that I’m no longer welcome among that minuscule coterie of “Libertarian theorists” who now offer the world as one of their two paragons and champions of liberty one Bill Weld of Massachusetts, I will stiffen my spine, and somehow survive the ignominy.

    Go sell it somewhere else.

    — V.S.

  11. Thomas Says:

    Well, I have to admit that once you get your teeth into a poison idea that contradicts everything else you claim to value, you hold on to that idea no matter what fact and reality say about how evil it is and no matter how embarrassingly irrational your arguments for it are.

    Enjoy it, I guess.

  12. Vin Says:

    Hello, again, Thomas — Has this merely become “Thomas has to get the last word”?

    How adult.

    Thank you for helping me and many others clarify our thoughts on this issue.

    Others will judge (and perhaps let us know) who has done his (doubtless flawed) best to consider and confront current, troubling reality, to offer fresh facts, examples, and logical argument here — and who has declined to answer a single question about where his “theories” would likely lead (ARE leading) in practice, instead merely rolling his eyes heavenward in a simulacrum of sorely tested patience, declaring “Since my wisdom and understanding are perfect, I need only dismiss those too foolish to accept correction from me as “authoritarian . . . painful . . . putting lipstick on a pig . . . poison ideas . . . contradicts everything . . . evil . . . . embarrassingly irrational.”

    Your standard-bearers and champions, Messrs. Johnson and Weld, have apparently decided to seek a new and more lucrative constituency among the “more-taxes-on-the-greedy-rich! More EPA enforcement! Ban the guns!” Sanders Democrats by abandoning (at best) the old LP battle cries and instead running on a platform of “passionately defending hard-working immigrants” (by which they mean people who daily commit fraud and other crimes, remaining and working here on forged or fraudulently acquired documents, living four to a flophouse bedroom to underbid legal residents to take jobs many Americans WOULD love to have — as demonstrated by the long lines of American job seekers on Monday mornings following the occasional packing-plant bust.)

    These “hard-working immigrants” send money home to siphon it away from our retail economy, sending it where it de facto props up corrupt, oppressive, anti-liberty regimes where they hail from — the opposite of Henry Ford’s old theory that if he paid his workers well, they themselves could and would buy Fords. These “hard-working immigrants” routinely and repeatedly violate laws that would get most of the rest of us evicted, busted, tried and jailed if WE tried to “undocument” ourselves.

    These “libertarians” then dismiss those who decline to join their call for a massive new amnesty (and free admission for millions of Muslims who are instructed in their mainstream mosques that the most “compassionate” way to deal with gays is to murder them — again, see .) These “libertarians” dismiss those who would rather see the laws enforced as “racists” and “just crazy.” And you have sidestepped every opportunity to differentiate yourself and your “libertarian theory” from them.

    I’ve voted Libertarian in every election for something like 30 years. Now, you and your new standard bearers are at pains to push me away, to push away many other long-time supporters and sympathizers who thought the party was about getting rid of taxes, getting rid of intrusive regulation, re-legalizing guns and drugs, separating school and state — who are increasingly puzzled about why these new “libertarians” instead seem to oppose a level legal playing field for all, and seem unconcerned about the growing death score of the Muslim murderers in our midst.

    OK. We’ll see how that works out for you.

    — V.S.

  13. Thomas Says:

    “Your standard-bearers and champions, Messrs. Johnson and Weld”

    Check your premises. I wouldn’t piss on either of those guys if they were on fire.

    As far as last wordism goes, feel free to have the last one yourself. My occasional attempts to talk any sense or principle into you on the immigration issue are just that: Occasional. I’m done for now. Maybe even forever. You’ll extract cranium from your rectum on the topic eventually, or you won’t.

  14. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Thomas, you’re a friend (at least, you have been) — I long ago ditched the libertarian label for anarchist (however unpopular that latter term may be with some critics, at least anarchists seem less hung up on party-style principle squabbles and seem clearer on the matter of individual conscience. I like that distinction.) Yes, Vin and I realize that (like us) you preferred Perry — or McAfee, or perhaps ANY of the other candidates to Johnson/Weld.

    And I’ll plead guilty to sending Vin the Milo link above. Please, do us the courtesy of listening to Milo (see Vin’s response as of 3:41 pm) if you haven’t. Start at 12 minutes in, till he begins the Q & A around 28 minutes. A powerful and eye-opening talk. 16 minutes.

    In my personal experience, the old adage that “good fences make good neighbors” is true. It was a big selling point for me that our current property came fully fenced — it’s a line we can defend, ‘no trespassing’ signs optional. Even if it’s only an acre, it’s our border. Vin’s better prepared to defend it, in practical terms, and I’d rather not have to shoot anyone to defend our property rights. When “Go away, leave us alone” isn’t good enough? “No trespassing” signs ignored? That’s where Milo gave me the most to think about . . .

    I’ve long been inclined to argue for open borders too, but living here in the American west has been educational. In Las Vegas, our suburban neighbors would hire Mexican landscaping crews to trim their tree branches. Some of those guys thought NOTHING of hopping over the 6′ cinder block wall into our yard, to retrieve sawed off branches. It’s a quandary — are you going to threaten them and demand they get off the property? Shoot? Or just keep a watchful eye on them to make sure they clear out ASAP? (They did, BTW.) This was in a decent neighborhood of mainly middle class Americans — white, black, perhaps some Hispanics too.

    Months later Vin and I AGAIN found a crew of Mexican guys — legal or not, who knows — drilling out the lock on the front door of our old house, and the back yard crawling with them (they’d climbed the gate.) Vin sent them packing — we were in the process of moving out, at the time, and had lots of stuff that was valuable to us still in the house. It was fortunate for us that we happened to catch them in the act. They had an empty trailer ready to haul away our stuff! 🙁

    A neighbor later said they’d been there the day before, pretending to be a yard crew, scoping the place out. They claimed the bank sent them, despite the fact a legal (and eventually successful) short-sale was underway, following the elimination of Vin’s 20-year newspaper job — complete with prominent yard signs displaying phone numbers for the realtor AND the lawyer. We don’t know if “The bank sent us” was true or not, but it’s possible, the way mortgage servicers like Seterus have behaved toward underwater homeowners. (There’s a reason why Vin’s old Seterus column constantly lurks in the blog’s top ten, which gets a bit tiresome. You can read some of the horror stories there. )

    As far as Libertarian correctness goes, if Vin’s guilty of anything it’s thinking for himself and coming to his own conclusions . . . which may differ from yours, and apparently do. Due to our above experiences, perhaps you can understand why I now see things his way — much more so than I once would have.

    When you’re surrounded by neighbors who have zero respect for property rights, that’s bad enough . . . but when they also have little regard for human life, women’s rights, religious liberty, perhaps you too will then see the border issue differently. I’m NOT saying government is the answer . . . but it’s a disturbing question: How to address the problem of hostile immigrants that refuse to assimilate into their new communities, but intend instead to TAKE THEM OVER?

    Welcoming ‘with open arms’ people who want to kill Americans, (particularly LGBT folks as in Orlando), and/or force their “religious values” and legal and political system on you, rape your wives and daughters and subject them to brutal patriarchal domination . . . what kind of sense can that make?

    Can we at least agree to disagree on the issue? As friends and compatriots do?

  15. Thomas Says:

    Hey, Brunette,

    Good to hear from you. I didn’t think there was ever any question that we agree to disagree. And that we will continue to disagree until you decide to stop being wrong 😉

  16. Vince Says:

    Thanks for this article Vin.

    We can either tighten our borders now while it is at least do-able or wait until the only solution is the one embraced by Charles Martel (and centuries later by the Duke of Marlboro and Prince Eugen of Savoy).

  17. R. Hartman Says:

    Vin, Brunette,

    To me the whole ‘open borders discussion’ is irrelevant, and all who demand closed borders only build their own prison. Here’s how that works:

    In Europe we have ‘Schengen’, meaning free movement of people and goods throughout Europe (but not really, I can’t buy health insurance outside NL, as it’s a ‘privatized’ system fully controlled by the state). The European outer borders are supposed to be closed. Because of ‘immigrants’ (actually imported colonists) people now want the inner borders closed. But where’s the logic in that?

    In a statist environment, the state is supposed to guard the borders. However if they ‘close’ the border, who is going to have issues crossing them? Those immigrants? Will the state actually enforce ‘closed borders’ for the very people it is willfully importing? Of course not. How come these people get to cross Europe’s outer borders? The coast ‘guard’, pretending to protect the border, is entering perilously unstable boats full of ‘fugitives’, ‘rescues’the people on board and delivers them to the Italian coast, rather than to their point of embarkment.

    So calling for closed borders in a statist environment is bordering to insanity or, at least, not understanding the nature of government. That this is not only true for Europe is demonstrated by the fact that de Feds have told Texas it cannot refuse ‘refugees’ as ‘immigration’ is a federal matter. Governments around the Western world are serving UN’s Agenda21, which calls for the replacement of the (relatively) civilized native peoples of Europe and America by tribal islamic barbarians. Precursor is demographic decline’, but that’s of course ridiculous.

    Wolfgang Schäuble (google that name) has stated that “Germany needs to import muslims to stop the inbreeding of native Germans”. People and power are a very nasty combination.

    In a libertarian setting, a call for ‘closed borders’ is meaningless, as all property is private and it is up to the property owner whether he wants to fence his land. And yes, I agree that good fences make good neighbors, just as an armed society is a polite society. Problem is, at least here, if you kick an intruder off your fence you get to pay him damages… That state, again.

    But in a statist setting, calling for closed borders is akin to calling for gun bans: the people you want to restrict end up being the only people free to do as they like. Supported by the state, as they drive its agenda.

    I watched Milo, and (for us) he says nothing new. What he (being from Europe) fails to state is that the whole of Europe is (in Judge Napolitano’s words) a ‘killing zone’, aka a self defense-free zone, as the gun grabbers made each and every law-abiding citizen sitting ducks. Even now, most people would not want the natural right to self defense (and the accompanying freedom to own any type of gun they’d like) as they don’t even understand the difference between aggression and self defense.

    “People would end up slaughtering each other in perpetual self defense”, I was told. The simple notion that if the aggressor steps up his violence when meeting resistance does not make that aggressor a defender, and that defense stops when the aggression stops, is something which is hard to explain to them.

    As someone said: “Common sense is not a blessing, but a curse, as you end up having to deal with all those without it’.

    In closing: a nestor of individual liberty here in NL has passed away last week, age 88: Hub Jongen, you may know the name. He was a personal friend and has been active for liberty here and around the world the most part of his life, and I feel it as a true loss to our cause.

  18. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Vince, thanks for speaking up!

    René, you make many excellent points, and thoughtfully. Truth to tell, I was hoping you might weigh in again, as one with a clearer view from “across the pond.” As you’ll see below, I find your “imported colonists” reference extremely relevant. 😉

    If there’s really any fundamental disagreement here (aside from semantics) I don’t see it. Vin’s pretty worn out on this thread, it’s been a tiring week for us in general . . . sorry for the delayed response, I’ve been pondering this and jotting down notes for a few days now.

    I went on to listen to some more of Milo’s talks, and it didn’t sit right with me he’s obviously stumping for Trump. Milo is a compelling speaker, though, and if he has nothing new to say to you, he’s certainly got a vitally important message for young Americans. For that, and the fact that he gets them to listen, I applaud him.

    An analogy that comes to mind for me, re: borders, is they are to a country, state, or town, rather like skin is to a human body — even if they’re easily penetrated, a healthy organism (or society) will do its best to reject harmful invaders and heal. U.S. society, at this point, seems weakened, stressed out, traumatized and vulnerable. Painfully divided and exploited by subtle influences that perhaps one person in a thousand can diagnose. There are healthy/natural ways to enter, and invasive/harmful ways. Giving me an apple is one thing . . . stabbing me with a knife is entirely different.

    Suppose I wanted to visit you in NL (or Japan, or Russia) . . . I’d need a passport, probably various immunizations, perhaps some sort of visa or permit. Certainly, I’d have to pay my way: Airfare, hotel rooms, restaurants, etc. — it would also behoove me to learn a bit about customs in your country, and the legal system, in order to avoid unnecessary trouble; learn a few Dutch phrases, or carry a Dutch-to-English dictionary. Your borders are presumably open enough for me to enter legally, after jumping through the requisite hoops. (I’m not saying all those hoops are great, but that’s a digression from the point here.) In that respect, open borders are wonderful. But — as I think Vin tried to point out, and you will understand — immigration of that sort is not the problem.

    It’s the “imported colonists” who are shipped, bused, flown in . . . here I think we get into the Agenda 21/2030 stuff . . . who don’t take those customary steps to assure their presence will be welcome, but who get some kind of free magic carpet ride into our countries and cities. That sort of “immigration” IS a problem, and potentially an extremely serious one.

    It’s somewhat reminiscent of when the American Indians were (reportedly) given smallpox infested blankets and soon succumbed to the disease. Calling THAT early attempt at biological warfare “charity” seems roughly akin to calling the “imported colonists” “immigrants.” Can they be both “imports” AND “immigrants”? Trump’s wall will indeed do more harm than good, if the border guards and their bosses are the problem. It will keep the sheep penned in, and make sure the wolves who bribe well — or serve the PTB’s purposes — have easy access. You’re absolutely spot on.

    Rather than a case of clearly defined (open/closed) borders, it’s a question of why is access so difficult for some (all those aforementioned hoops for legitimate travelers) and so diabolically easy for others.

    My suspicion is, warfare has evolved beyond any recognizable older models and moved into technological and social engineering territory. That blessings/curses thing again. Even as it occurs in plain sight, we don’t see it. It may be obvious enough in hindsight, years or decades from now.

    The vital issue as I see it isn’t whether borders are open or closed. It’s the manner of penetration, and whether immigration (or “imported colonists”) is/are healthy for a society (being comprised of individuals) or not. Whether it’s benign and peaceful, or not. An aggressive invasion, however politically correct or Orwellian the verbiage around it, does not bode well for anyone who cares for their fellow man. That to me is putting lipstick on a pig. 🙁

    Lastly, condolences on the loss of your friend. Marc Allan Feldman has apparently also passed away just recently. I never met him, but he struck me as a great and very funny guy, and another loss to the cause of liberty.

  19. Vin Says:

    Can we really justify looking away and pretending current problems and threats don’t exist, simply by asserting (in the American case) that the Constitutional authorization for the central government to regulate “naturalization” doesn’t authorize anyone to stop millions of foreigners from coming here without so much as a cursory health inspection and an inquiry as to whether they intend to embrace traditional American political, social, and economic ideals and norms, or whether they instead intend to replace our current form of government with Sharia law, Communism, whatever?

    (Or, failing THAT, can we at least delegate experienced parties to seek to learn whether these new arrivals hate us and espouse or directly intend blowing things up and murdering people? No? “Not allowed”?)

    One part of the Libertarian answer is to withdraw our armed forces and to stop meddling in the affairs of so many foreign countries, “removing the cause.” We should do that. (Though I note that after 50 years, “removing the root cause” of urban crime by simply lavishing on the poor ever more tax-funded handouts which tend to perversely reinforce their original dysfunctional behaviors doesn’t seem to have worked, yet.)

    Another part of the Libertarian answer is to get rid of tax-funded schools, medical care, etc., so that the arrival of needy newcomers won’t burden those of us already here with increased “costs of collectivism.” I favor that re-privatization, too.

    But if the minority involved in this discussion can’t impose those changes tomorrow or even next year by waving a magic wand, does that make it safe, reasonable, and responsible to stick our heads in the sand and ignore what our military calls an “asymmetric war” against us?

    The Brunette’s reference to a new model of warfare resonates with me.

    The two strongest pragmatic arguments against government enforcement of existing immigration laws (you’ll pardon my speaking for “the other side,” since we haven’t really been OFFERED much, here, in the way of arguments, facts, examples or analysis) are that 1) bureaucrats seeking out illegals might intrude on the peace and privacy of citizens and legal residents, demanding that we “show our papers” and so forth; and that 2) time will eliminate our misplaced concerns, anyway, just as the grandchildren of the Italian, Polish, Jewish, Irish, etc. immigrants of a century ago have now become thoroughly assimilated Americans, Britons, whatever.

    Yes, intrusive bureaucracies bother me. I want to be free of having to “show my travel papers.” But by allowing 11 or 13 million illegals to enter – after they promised in 1986 “Give us one amnesty and then we’ll seal the borders,” isn’t it the “open borders” gang that CREATED this excuse for checkpoints and the like?

    Meantime, excepting the odd case of McKinley assassin Leon Czolgosz, I don’t remember many accounts of the Italian, Polish, Jewish, Irish, or whatever immigrants of a century ago shouting religious slogans as they knifed political leaders (here or in the Netherlands) or blew up or shot dead dozens of unarmed Americans (or Brits, or French, or Spaniards) who had done them no individual harm.

    Common sense tells us a neighborhood of 150 people may safely “assimilate” eight or 10 new residents, providing they’re willing to ask “How do things work around here?” After all, they’ll have to learn our ways and our language, just to survive.

    If one or two bad apples are included, and peaceful expressions of disapproval don’t work – if even the other members of their own newly arrived minority can’t convince them to change their ways –that’s why we have police. (Are we required to pretend the police don’t exist, because they’re insufficiently libertarian?)

    But 30 new residents? Fifty? I may not know the precise number or ratio, but common sense tells us at that some point, “assimilation” will break down and fail.

    The question may be whether immigrants come as individuals, with the goal of assimilating so their children BECOME American (or Dutch, or French, or British), intent on learning & embracing the freedom- and prosperity-generating culture and political system already in place in their new home . . . or whether they come as colonists, intent on extending the caliphate into ever-larger islands in the new country, which they hope to place under Sharia Law by force of numbers and loudness of shouting, bringing their foreign and repressive (and dysfunctional — there’s a reason their homelands have been impoverished and strife-torn for 400 years) Muslim culture with them.

    Or (in the case of Mexicans illegally entering the U.S.A. — note I have no problem with LEGAL immigrants) whether there’s an ignorance of or intent to defy all the political and economic traditions (and laws) of Anglo-Saxon America — the very engines that created the prosperity they seek to share.

    There’s also the question of why SOME cheap labor is given a “free pass,” while well-educated, multi-lingual immigrants who could “add economic value” from OTHER countries (further away, Iacking a handy land bridge) are held at bay, some essentially forever.

    Particularly in the case of Islam, some feel-good, Kumbaya rhetoric about all the flower children holding hands and sharing the buckwheat groats isn’t going to paper over the fact that Islam is a COMPETING expansionist, proselytizing culture and ideology which started attempting to conquer & colonize Europe and the Western World 12 centuries ago, and which to this day doesn’t really embrace these trendy, feel-good notions of “pluralism” and “multiculturalism” — at all.

  20. Thomas Says:

    Dear God, Vin. If you want to be an authoritarian, be an authoritarian. You don’t have to be so goddamn verbose in making bad excuses for it.

  21. R. Hartman Says:

    Brunette, Vin,

    Thoughtful responses. Not sure if I read Vin’s section on ‘showing my papers’ correctly, as my point is that with the current state of affairs, a call for closed borders will end up in you having t show your papers while the colonists will keep being imported, their entry not affected by those ‘closed borders’ at all.

    Proof? will tell you (through google translate) how the Dutch Navy does not protect the outer borders of Europe but actually conducts a ferry-service. A Frontex surveilance plane will spot boats with migrants at sea and the border ‘guards’ will pick ‘m up and ferry them ashore, in Europe, not at their embarkment point outside the border. For this frigate alone it’s the third such action in 10 days, willfully importing 578 colonists in total.

    For those who still are of the opinion that these people are fugitives in pursuit of their happiness and a better life, read this:
    In Calais, 7.000 violent migrants are trying to get to the UK while shouting slogans showing they hate and despise that country, showing they want to conquer, not to assimilate. Now the UK has voted to exit the EU, and control its own borders again, France has already threatened to allow those colonists to cross the Channel by way of punishment, implicitly giving the very clear message these colonists are indeed a plague, not the ‘enrichment’ they’ve claimed them to be over the past few months, despite multiple rapes, robberies and violemt acts of vandalism.

    As far as the ‘new model of warfare’ goes: it’s not so new, IMHO, but a thinly disguised variety of the old one. Now the war is through politics, ‘laws’ and regulations, instead of a massive attack with guns and tanks/planes which receives a massive response. But the guns still come out as soon as anyone refuses to obey those new ‘laws’ and regulations. BIG difference is that this disobedience will not be massive, and can thus easily be contained, while painting the individual defying the state in the media as a ‘loner’, a ‘disturbed character’ or even a (dangerous) ‘criminal’, and emphasize how lucky we are to have a state to ‘protect’ us…

    Much more effective that way.


    All libertarians are authoritarians; they are the master of their own castle. They just don’t pretend to have any saying about other people’s property, including their minds, bodies and lives. But if those other people pretend exactly that, they will need to be dealt with. If you think you can live peacefully among people with the explicit outspoken intent to kill you, you must be a liberal. And as Vin says: should we pretend there is no state, no islam, no liberals and ignore all the attacks they perform on liberty just because they do not fit the philosophy of individual freedom? When you live in a collectivist world, as alas we do, we cannot avoid all collectivist responses, no matter how we’d love to.

    Please bear in mind that it was an American muslim who said, some years ago: “If you want to be safe from islam, you will have to deport ALL muslims, including myself, as you’ll never know whom you can trust. As I love the country. I’d hate that to happen, but if you want to be safe, you’ll need to do it”. So how’s that for a collectivist statement? Collectivists only understand (and love) collectivism, while anarchists (the property rights respecting kind) love their freedom and peaceful coexistence.

  22. R. Hartman Says:


    “Rather than a case of clearly defined (open/closed) borders, it’s a question of why is access so difficult for some (all those aforementioned hoops for legitimate travelers) and so diabolically easy for others.”

    I guess my ‘rant’ above addresses just that: those in power pursuing their personal preferences in line with their more globalist agenda, enforcing ‘the law’ selectively. As Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged: there is no power to be had in ruling peaceful, civil people. You need criminals to clamp down on and assert your power. She wrote the way to do that was creating so many rules it would be impossible for anyone to obey them, and that’s what’s being done. But it’s a lot easier to just import those criminals, from a wholly incompatible culture at that, and to divide an conquer by letting those run rampant while clamping down on the non-aggressives.

    It all stems from the teachings of the Frankfort School, Cutural Marxism, which is the origin of Political Correctness. A big (and essential) part of it is ‘Critical Theory’.

  23. Thomas Says:

    R. Hartman,

    I’ve lived among Muslims. Since I’m neither insane nor retarded, I’ve noticed that there are thousands of sects of Islam and that of the 1.x billion Muslims, perhaps 100,000 of them have an “explicit outspoken intent to kill” me, or likely any intent to kill me at all.

    Pasting a bunch of phobic collectivist horseshit into an authoritarian screed does not make it libertarian. The only reason I take this issue on with Vin is that I love him dearly and hope to shake him into consciousness on this subject so he’ll stop making himself look like an evil moron in public.

  24. R. Hartman Says:

    So that’s why islam is involved in every single conflict in the world; they’re inherently peaceful.

    I’ve worked with one muslim, and even while he insisting on ritual washings completely soaking the floor of the men’s room) and going to the mosque during work hours, I never thought much of it; he was a good colleague, eager to perform and cooperate on the work floor.

    And then Madrid happened. Out of the blue, he openly rejoiced, and said to me, softly: “Great. It may take a while, but we’ll re-conquer Spain”. That was the only reference he ever made to his true beliefs, and afterward he behaved as before, but it changed my view on him forever and, as his response is consistent with that of the muslim world (have you ever seen a muslim condemning muslim terrorism? Muslims in Brussels rejoiced over the attacks on Zaventem) it has since changed my view on muslims in general. Yes, very collectivist, I admit it. But it’s not phobic, it’s based on observation and analysis.

    The day you find you were mistaken you will find it was an expensive mistake. Not that you’d need to worry about it, as you’ll no longer be among the living. So I’d rather err on the side of caution.

    NB: For someone claiming to love Vin I find your approach rather contradicting. I won’t even treat someone I despise like that on a public blog.

  25. Vin Says:

    Thomas: Thank you for you spending your valuable time to take so very many opportunities to offer us your brief denunciations.

    Comments have always been welcome here, and of course it’s not expected or required that all commenters agree with my positions. I am fallible and imperfect.

    We do, however, expect a modicum of courtesy and good will, and that anyone offering a contrary position here will make some modest effort to explain and defend that position with at least a modest ration of facts, evidence, real-world examples, citations, and logical argument.

    For whatever reason, over a period of days, you have shown yourself either unable or unwilling to do that. Instead, as I have devoted hour after hour not only trying to explain MY position, but actually going to the extent of attempting to play devil’s advocate and offer some good-faith rationale that might support YOUR position (since you decline to do so), you have refused to go beyond posting epigrams of a few dozen words, assuming the attitude of a self-appointed bishop or Pope of the Church Libertarium, sole possessor of the right to grant or withhold your Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

    You have sometimes responded literally in seconds, obviously feeling no need to read, analyze, or contemplate any of the legitimate, real-world concerns of those worried about a slow-motion invasion and takeover of our nation (as well as of Western Europe) by lawbreakers and murderers, except to contend that, on some theoretical plane, illegal aliens “don’t exist.”

    The extent of your “argument” has been to declare my (always imperfect, I’m sure) thoughts and writings, and those of our other (earnest, so far as I can tell) commenters to be “poison” . . . “evil” . . . “irrational” . . . “phobic collectivist horseshit” . . . “authoritarian screeds” cobbled together by . . .”evil morons,” etc.

    I believe you’ve even accused me of writing at too great length in my own blog, where other readers regularly urge me to write more, and more often.

    I’m trying to remain moderate in my language, here — more moderate than I have sometimes felt — both because we had considered you a friend and ally, and in case it should turn out your aggressively offensive behavior here is occasioned by an actual illness of the brain, or something of the sort.

    I hope you, as I hope everyone who cares about freedom, will find some route to peace and contentment in a very imperfect world.

    At least you have won distinction of a kind. After all these years, you are the first person I have ever asked to stop commenting on a given topic in this forum.

    We grasp that you disagree with our concerns. But your array of increasingly hostile denunciations are no longer welcome here, because your comments are useless, making no attempt to educate, inform, or convince, designed only to dismiss, belittle and ridicule, to evoke unnecessary anger and hostility.

    Please go, therefore, and lurk under someone else’s bridge.

  26. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger Says:

    I realize this person is no longer persona grata, but if there are others who want some more data on this subject:

    “According to the US Constitution, there’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant.”

    It turns out that there certainly is.

    It would not be difficult for an honorable man to come to the conclusion that those powers of Defence, Naturalization, and repelling Invasions could easily provide a Constitutional basis for preventing uncontrolled immigration in violation of the law. But honorable man might also disagree, holding that it isn’t explicit enough a power.

    But I didn’t address that “Law of Nations” above. Now I will

  27. R. Hartman Says:

    And again, ferried to Lampedusa, instead of returning them to Lybia: