What Should Be vs. What Is

The other day I was listening to a Stefan Molyneux podcast in which he was debating Adam Kokesh. The conversation largely centered on accusations that Molyneux was a "trader" to Libertarians because of his beliefs in border control and limited immigration. It really wasn't until listening to this, that I had a voice to explicate my internal struggles with some very basic Libertarian ideals. I will lay them out in the order that makes most sense in my head right now, but my grievances ultimately lie in the philosophical conflict of what is vs. what should be, as I strongly recognize the Libertarian party as a system of beliefs based on what the nation should be, rather than what it currently is. It is therefore difficult for me to fall in line definitively with the party based on these notions. Let me explain further categorically.

(image source: YouTube)

Immigration

Libertarians typically support free immigration, which is the theory that people should be free to move where they like, and that the efforts of the government to curtail immigration and somehow protect the nation's interests are futile. This isn't such a terrible viewpoint, and I would typically support individualism, or rather, the sovereign right for someone to choose where they live without facing scrutiny or even impossibility, but this gets into the meat and taters of my point above. Part of this viewpoint takes into account reality, which is that the government has had an exceedingly difficult time curtailing immigration, and therefore to continue to try to do so would be to continue to fail to do so. This I don't agree with, but not because I think our government is entirely incompetent, but because we are going about immigration reform the wrong way. Though ultimately that's another point for another day. The other chunk of the argument that Libertarians appear to be ignoring is the reality that as of right now, we are a welfare nation-state. We give billions of dollars to not just our own citizens, but those living here illegally, and to brand new immigrants that have yet to invest even a dime into our economy. We can't possibly become a free immigration nation-state until we curtail our status as a welfare-state, and it is something that Adam Kokesh tried to wriggle out of. (He more or less made the point that because he doesn't pay taxes anymore, it doesn't really matter to him if that's what tax dollars go toward. Wow. Just...wow.) Perhaps Stefan Molyneux could have worded it differently so as to not place all of the blame on the illegal immigrants themselves, but Kokesh's response that we should only blame the government for misallocation of tax dollars to government welfare programs is also misguided. Half of the country votes Democrat, and if they do, they represent a near-majority that also supports these welfare programs. So half of the country, plus those running these government programs, plus the immigrants coming here knowing what they can get from said programs are all more or less responsible for the inability for us to actually practice free immigration. It is cart before horse. It is imagining a country that doesn't run on a welfare state, and saying "this is the way things should be, therefore here is the answer to this should be situation." The problem is, what's the answer then for the is situation. Can you truly support free immigration while half of the country, and those in power, still seek to remain as a welfare state? Libertarians must know that these ideals are incompatible. So, living in the moment, in our immediate future, in reality, there are really only two sides to pick.

One, is to support "free immigration", even while we are still handing out welfare like candy. If we continue our fiat currency, why not? We can continue to put this debt burden on the backs of our great-grandchildren, instead of just our grandchildren. Let anyone come in who wants to, and they will be fed, medicated, housed and taken care of with an endless supply of printed money. That doesn't sound very Libertarian, but it is the only reality right now if you apply free immigration to our nation's current policies.

(image source - quickmeme)

Two, is to support shutting down borders for right now, until we can get a handle on our welfare-state mess. Continuing to let people in (un-visa'd) in the meantime, only means more chaos and more money down the drain. If Libertarians could abandon the free immigration policy for even a few years, it is something that the US could revisit down the road, when we have either cut down on welfare programs, or figured out how to navigate them better by only allowing access to them through real citizenship and contribution to said programs. Becoming isolationists is the only real way to solve our problems. That and, no longer offering the allure of free welfare. Trump doesn't need to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, he merely needs to cut down or make impossible to obtain, the welfare programs that are driving people here. If we could eventually establish that, free immigration could potentially be possible, though there's no telling how many people would even want to be here if the reward system we have in place disappeared.

(image source - Alma Mia)

The incessant belief however, that these two ideals are compatible is insane. You can't have free immigration to a nation that is still practicing welfare. Even with fiat currency, The US would go broke. It just isn't financially possible. The welfare state is our current reality. Now, ideally, we would end welfare, find everyone work, and get the insurance mess sorted. (I love you Stefan, but you are TONE DEAF to the realities of the costs of healthcare for most individuals in the US) But since I don't see that happening anytime in the near future, realistically option number 2 would be my choice. This is where the philosophical conflict arises in me. I identify as Libertarian, but I can't be as idealistic as most are. I only like to deal in the what is, so it is impossibly hard for me to imagine the what could be. I also think only imagining the could be is irresponsible at best, and why so many in the main parties feel that Libertarians are so far detached from reality. Dreams are great, expectations and hope are even better, but the Libertarian party has to get better at coping with real life, while also planning for a better future, or no one will ever take us seriously.

Anarchy

I feel like judged if I proclaim to be a Libertarian without also identifying as an anarchist. Again, this touches on the should be v. what is. I personally don't think anarchy is possible to implement at this point in time or in the near future, at all. People are too programmed a certain way to trust authority and doubt the rebellion. Anarchists are painted as "crazy teens" that still live in their mom's basement. Of course this couldn't be further from the truth, but it hasn't stopped the picture from being completed in the mind's of those who vote, and who would have to be onboard totally for a system that required their 100% participation. There are a few more reasons why I don't think anarchy is possible.

People don't vote because they are psychologically scarred.
I will stop you before you even respond here. I get it. The idea is that people don't vote because they feel unheard, or they feel like their voice doesn't matter, or they don't get off work, and think voting should be a national holiday. Do you know what most people would do though, if voting day was a holiday? If you answered, vote, shame on you. Americans are apathetic. They have been programmed that way. Don't question authority, be good, stay in line, nothing matters, you're a tiny person, etc. I believe these to be the underlying reasons why people don't vote, and why then people would also never consider a form of (anti) government in which they would have to reasonably reject everything they know to be true.

I do have power? I do have a real voice? Im not small? Always question authority? Rubbish. Pish -Posh. Garbage.

This is psychological damage to the max, that I don't think even the youngest generation can easily overcome, much less those affected for longer periods of time. (I can't even begin to imagine explaining the theory of anarchy to my parents and getting them on board, and they are very involved in politics. My mom does feel like she has a voice, but she is also completely mentally managed by authority. She will never abandon it, even if she kept an open mind about it.)

I admit that even I have difficulty imagining a world where there is no real authority and an abundance of self management. It is thrilling to imagine, but again, there is a hard separation in my brain between what I imagine could be vs what will be or what is. (Also, people, in general, are narcissistic assholes. As it stands right now, I believe it to be a bit naive to think that people as a whole could run communities themselves. A mental revolution would have to happen.)

I was going to touch on a lot of different complex issues today, but only really had the time to cover these two, and not necessarily in-depth as much as I'd hoped. I find I am butting heads with fellow Libertarians as often or more than my far-left Democrat husband. (And boy do we butt heads...often! It's a trip man.) I feel like more than any other political party, Libertarians are coming from such different viewpoints, that it is often difficult to meet in the middle. But it's also extremely necessary. I think Libertarians need to be more focused on the here and now, and exactly what we can start doing as a society to work toward these different abstract ideals. They aren't just going to appear overnight. I would love to hear more strategizing about how to accomplish these things. I think @zoidsoft has a lot of fantastic insight into this, and an actual developable plan, which I don't hear coming from really any other voices on the topic. I do think crypto has been the entry point, but now the focus needs to be how to get others on board, and to take small steps, rather then the often acclaimed giant leaps that Libertarian candidates tend to peddle. Libertarians are never going to get elected this way, and we can't make any difference if we are never put into power. Become the system to destroy the system. It's the only way.