”Well, people claim, if you have a welfare state, the masses of the world will flood into the USA just to collect the welfare state’s ‘free stuff.’ But why let them? Even under currently existing rules, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for nearly all welfare-state benefits. If a flood of immigrants will break the welfare-state bank, why not simply make immigrants ineligible? Case closed. In that case, the opponents of immigration claim that making the immigrants ineligible for welfare-state benefits won’t work because they will find a way to get the stuff in one way or another. But this objection is, in effect, a declaration that the state is incompetent — which is not exactly a news flash, to be sure. So the anti-immigrationists insist that instead the government must ‘close the borders.’ Notice, however, that in this case the anti-immigrationists, having just insisted that the government is too incompetent to exclude ineligible immigrants from welfare-state benefits, now presume that the government is so competent that it can keep undocumented immigrants out of the country.”
OK. So if the government is so incompetent that it can’t, just can’t, keep people out, why do anti-anti-immigrationists expend so much energy trying to stop the government keeping people out? Isn’t it because, all the “If you build a 50ft wall someone could build a 51ft ladder” waffle notwithstanding, they know very well that governments, when they put their mind to it, are anything but incompetent when it comes to keeping people out? Otherwise why make such a song and dance out of it?
So Jasay doesn’t repeat himself too often, but he chose to here:
During a rather long history of writing about politics and economics, I always tried to respect good manners and deny bad taste by avoiding the temptation of citing my own texts. I am now breaking this rule by citing something that I once wrote to explain the rule of liberal discipline in the respect of the home and the public places, the hospitals and schools and the entire public order behind the frontier.
“A very different stand can, however, be defended on no less pure liberal grounds. For it is quite consistent with the dictates of liberty and the concept of property they imply, that the country is not a no man’s land at all, but the extension of a home. Privacy and the right to exclude strangers from it is only a little less obviously an attribute of it than it is of one’s house. Its infrastructure, its amenities, its public order have been built up by generations of its inhabitants. These things have value that belongs to their builders and the builders’ heirs, and the latter are arguably at liberty to share or not to share them with immigrants who, in their countries of origin, do not have as good infrastructure, amenities and public order. Those who claim that in the name of liberty they must let any and all would-be immigrants take a share are, then, not liberals but socialists professing share-and-share alike egalitarianism on an international scale.”
National frontiers that provide us with privacy from others, except when we do not require it, are in fact also the frontiers of liberty.
See that? He doubles down: “National frontiers that provide us with privacy from others, except when we do not require it, are in fact also the frontiers of liberty”.
“Frontiers of liberty.”
The presumption of liberty is literal meaningless outside of a given society.
You are a faggot. You’ve spent eight hours a day for the last 15 years leaving autistic comments on libertarian sites no one reads. You’re not a “player”, you fucking wigger; and the only club you be up in is the book club, wanker.