Common Cause

I will tell you, those who agree with me on the immigration issue in the Democratic Party are trying as hard as they can to turn me against immigration.  This same thing happened in the Iraq war.  I was against the war, as I thought it a poor use of resources (there are just too many bad governments in the world to take them all down that way).  But when my fellow anti-war travelers agreed with me for stupid reasons (we must defer to Europe, Sadam is not a bad guy, etc.) it almost made me change my mind.  If the people who agree with me are idiots, is that a bad sign?

TJIC has similar thoughts here, and I watched in amazement as the Mexican President yesterday criticized US immigration policy for being to harsh, despite the fact it is far more open than Mexico's own immigration policy.


  1. astonerii:

    You are just simply blind to the damage your ideas would and do create on the issue.

  2. Stan:

    I figured you would be used to it seeing how libertarians tend to agree with liberals and conservatives roughly half the time.

  3. Rick C:

    "I was against the [Iraq] war, as I thought it a poor use of resources (there are just too many bad governments in the world to take them all down that way)."

    Of course, nobody was ever talking about taking down all the bad governments in the world, so...nice strawman, I guess.

  4. ADiff:

    Mr. Meyer's ideas on immigration are perfectly sound and highly feasible, but only provided we have a libertarian government, i.e. one that does not intervene in the market (beyond prevention of use of force or fraud) nor provide welfare of any kind for individuals. In such a free market environment immigration, however massive it might be, could only be a benefit and its levels would be entirely dictated by its economic benefits.

    We do not, however, live in such a society. The welfare advantages to illegal immigrants are such that their economic market productivity is not the only determinate of immigration levels. These are vastly inflated by government intervention on behalf of unproductive (indeed, even to actually destructive) individuals. It is this distortion of the 'market' for residency that's the problem with Mr. Meyer's ideal, not the immigration in itself.

    If the government did not provide significant subsidies to families without incomes, subsidize transportation and housing, provide a 'free' education regardless ability to pay for it, and give 'free' 'emergency' health care to anyone needing (or simply requesting) it in spite of their inability (or unwillingness) to pay for it, then I fail to see how unlimited immigration would be a problem at all (unless, of course, one's willing to reveal purely racial or ethnic criteria in one's judgment).

    Mr. Meyer strikes me merely as an idealist who's being consistent with his principles. And who can fault him for refusal to compromise those ideals simply for the approval of strangers? Not I. Now were he in a position to actually be making such policies, I think we'd all find him somewhat more, shall we say...pragmatic. But from a distance I have a hard time faulting him for sticking to his principles even in the face of real-world circumstances inimical to implementation of mere 'parts' of his whole ideal. In a larger sense I find it illustrative of a problem with ideology sui generis: in pursuit of consistency with one's ideology one is often forced to either compromise or fly in the face of reality.

  5. David:

    I have the same thing happen every now and then - if I look around and find that the other people who are holding my position are nutty, perhaps it's time to reconsider the issue from a fresh perspective.

  6. Roark:

    "...If the people who agree with me are idiots, is that a bad sign?..."
    Short answer: Yes

    'Sex & Drugs & Open Borders Libertarians' give liberty a bad name, and repel people with common sense.

  7. Sam L.:

    Our local rag's editor is a touchstone. What I'm for, he's against. Every now and then, we agree. I don't know what he does, but I examine my reasoning.

    Some, though, will reject agreement if the agreeer agrees due to reasoning that the first person rejects.

    El Rushbo accepts agreement, even for reasoning he disagrees with. That works for me.