There are close to 7 billion people on our planet. I’d like to know how the libertarians answer this question: Does each individual on the planet have a natural or God-given right to live in the U.S.? … I believe most people, even my open-borders libertarian friends, would not say that everyone on the planet had a right to live in the U.S.Left-libertarian Roderick Long answers simply
yes, of course each individual on the planet has the right to live anywhere she chooses, so long as she violates no one’s rights.Foseti responds incredulously,
I don’t know what Long thinks happens when you become a US Citizens, but in reality, you do get a lot of other "rights" that you didn’t have when you were a citizen of, for example, Zimbabwe.Foseti is wrong.
Reactionary-types who believe in the power of the state should give up on "rights" discussions. Given the Moldbugian sovereignty bit, rights are a contradiction. Either the state has sovereignty or not.
Rights are a topic from ethics, specifically political ethics and apply only in the case that the individual is properly due something from other individuals, whether or not they are giving it.
Trying to mix ethical rights-theory with neo-realist power-politics makes for much incoherence.
There are a bunch of privileges that the US Government calls "rights" that are granted to you once you become a US Citizen...this much is true...
But the entire history of rights-theory and the foundational documents of the US of A don't see it the way Foseti talks about it at all. Rather, rights theory, and American government are founded on the notion that rights inhere in individuals, and indicate what should not be done to them by any other human or group of humans. The rights exist because they are human beings, not based on where they were born...and not based on whether their government is run by rights-violating Dictators or Kleptocrats.
Indeed...the strongest (not saying much) libertarian argument for the Iraq war was that Saddam was violating the rights of the Iraqi people, and it was appropriate to defend them against his rights-violations. If you'll note, this justification only makes sense if the rights belong to the individuals, and have NOTHING to do with what the government is actually doing.
Of course, Professor Rod Long knows all of rights-theory history since the Icelandic sagas, and so he wouldn't be surprised by my explanation, but Foseti might be.
His simplest response is to give up the notion of rights as nonsensical...which in a neo-realist world it is.
Posts
4 comments:
You're playing semantics.
If a non-US Citizen gets sick, my money is not taken to provide his healthcare. If a US Citizen gets sick, my money is taken to provide his healthcare.
Long wants to pretend that this is not the case. Unfortunately, for him, it is.
You can call this distinction a "right" or a "privilege" or whatever. Regardless, it exists.
Open borders are defensible if you assume that the open society is fully libertarian (in such a case I would be the first to support open immigration). Long argues for open borders with this implicit assumption of libertarianism. Alas, in reality, this assumption is flagrantly untrue.
Semantics are important when the whole discussion is around the word, "Rights"
Your position is true for government-granted privileges. Long's position is about an entirely different topic: "Human Rights", as understood by everyone else in the Western world.
You're free to deny the existence of rights...but that's where your position goes: People do not have rights. It's a fine position, but not mine, nor Dr. Long's.
Ok, assume that I'm willing to grant your concept of rights. (for argument's sake)
Long says that people have the right to live anywhere as long as they don't violate anyone elses rights.
If someone moves to the US, the government confiscates my wealth to provide services to this new citizen.
By your logic, isn't that a violation of my rights and therefore, by Long's logic, shouldn't their immigration be prohibited?
That's equivalent to saying that if Ivan attends an anti-communist poetry-reading in Joe Stalin's USSR, and then Ivan's brother Petr suddenly has his fingernails removed, that Ivan has violated Petr's rights.
The proper understanding is:
The state is a murderous bunch of thugs, who do all sorts of stuff, usually painfully, to its citizens. Ivan might ought avoid poetry-readings in the USSR, because the state is an evil rights-violating monster and it's dangerous to Petr....but the violation of rights is all Joe, none Ivan.
Ditto the immigrant.
However, I don't think that's your question. I really don't think rights have anything to do with your approach...which is orthogonal to the rights question, and basically reasonable.
As I've said before, "Open borders under current conditions cause harm to the lifestyles of those who live near the open borders, because of the reality of other hideous policies we have."
Doesn't make me less open-borders, but does make me more opposed to the other evil laws we have. Reasonable people may disagree.
Overall, I was just sticking up for Roderick Long, who was arguing a really boring rhetorical point inside libertarianism:
Stop talking "rights" when talking about immigration-restriction. Talk instead about necessary evils.
Post a Comment