Globalization

Libertarian Globalism Versus Economic Nationalism

What Donald Trump and his posse of economic nationalists get wrong.

|

GlobalismAndrewVernonDreamstime
Andrew Vernon/Dreamstime

During a recent conversation with a long-time friend and founder of one of Washington, DC's leading free market think tanks, I mentioned in passing that as a libertarian I am a cosmopolitan globalist.

He had asked me what I thought of Donald Trump his administration and I told him that while I still had some hope he would roll back excessive federal regulation his anti-globalism was badly misguided and destructive.

My friend's response was vehement—not about Trump, but about the globalism. To be a globalist in his mind is the moral equivalent of a Marxist, countenancing elites conferring power on vast, unaccountable international bureaucracies, undercutting national sovereignty, and imposing uniform progressive policies to establish some sort of one-world government.

That is certainly not what I mean by globalism. To clear up this misunderstanding between two people working to expand the sphere of liberty, this is how I explain globalism.

Finding a coherent outline of Trumpian anti-globalism is diffcult, but Breitbart writer Virgil offers one description, "Trump's Nationalist Vision vs. the Gospel of Globalism." Virgil decries a "vision of a borderless world, with minimal restrictions on exports and imports. (And, of course, minimal restrictions on the transit, also, of people.)" The chief tenets of economic nationalism address concerns about the abridgement of sovereignty by "various murky transnational enterprises," the threat that immigrants pose to American jobs and culture, and the menace of international free trade.

Globalism, on the other hand implies globalization, or worldwide economic, financial, trade, and communications integration. Globalization opens local and national perspectives to an interconnected, interdependent world fueled by the free movement of capital, goods, labor, and services across national frontiers.

This outlook is quite congenial to proponents of individual liberty. "Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries," the Libertarian Party platform asserts. "Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

My friend is clearly worried about the dangers to liberty posed by "murky transnational enterprises." He has a point. I have in the past warned about "policy laundering," when activists (and their allied bureaucrats and politicians) use treaties or other international agreements to impose rules, regulations, taxes, and mandates without domestic political support. This rationale amounts to "The treaty (or agreement) made me do it."

It is well to remember, however, that treaties between nation-states frequently have coordinated policies that enhance liberty. Although Trump has decried various trade treaties like NAFTA, such agreements have boosted economic growth and made most Americans better off.

Years of research provides overwhelming evidence that globalization is good for you. Cancelling NAFTA would not create more jobs for Americans, it would decimate them. "These trade agreements have left us freer," says Dan Griswold, the co-director of Mercatus' Program on the American Economy and Globalization, "And I think libertarians should support that."

Increasing international trade promotes peace. Evidence has mounted proving the aphorism, "when goods don't cross borders, soldiers will," often misattributed to 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat, correct. The world has become less violent as capitalist peace has expanded. "When it's cheaper to buy things than to steal them, people don't steal them," explains Steven Pinker, author of The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, "Also, if other people are more valuable to you alive than dead, you're less likely to kill them."

Economic nationalists are nativists. So Trump and other self-described economic nationalists want to dramatically cut legal immigration and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Why? Because they claim immigrants disproportionately commit crimes and "steal jobs" from native-born Americans. Setting aside the libertarian principle that individuals have the right to go where they want unhindered by government, let's examine these assertions. It turns out that neither is right.

Numerous studies have found that crime rates for legal and undocumented immigrants are lower than native-borns. A 2016 report, The Integration of Immigrants into American Society, issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), finds "cities and neighborhoods with greater concentrations of immigrants have much lower rates of crime and violence than do comparable nonimmigrant neighborhoods." The NAS also noted that "second generations are generally acquiring English and losing their ancestors' language at roughly the same rates as their historical predecessors, with English monolingualism usually occurring within three generations."

What about jobs? Research finds that states and localities that are more welcoming to immigrants have higher wages and rates of economic growth. Another study found that an increase in employment in a U.S. state of 1 percent due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5 percent in that state. A Cato Institute analysis in 2014 found that the impact of immigrants on federal, state and local budgets is basically a wash.

Libertarians, of course, resist any attempts to establish one world government controlled by shadowy elites. On the other hand, proponents of individual liberty oppose economic nationalists' efforts to restrict the freedom of people to trade, move, work, and live where they choose.

The good news is that libertarian globalism is not only the right thing to do on principle; defending liberty also has the salutary effect of increasing wealth, enriching culture, and promoting peace.

NEXT: Republicans Get Behind Gun Control in Wake of Las Vegas Shooting

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I predict some fun comments on this one.

    1. These comments aren’t fun at all!

      1. His definition of fun is clearly different from your definition of fun. Like globalism.

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.startonlinejob.com

      2. Picky picky. Maybe “entertaining” is the better word. Definitely popcorn worthy.

  2. Such treaties increase liberty in some ways. But they also decrease liberty in many ways. The EU is nothing but a giant free trade and movement zone. And it has increased liberty in that regard. It has also become a tyrannical monster that has done untold damage to liberty through regulation. Is the EU a good trade for freedom? That is an interesting debate to have. But no matter where you fall on the issue, there is no denying that it is a mixed bag.

    1. I think the argument would be that turning a bunch of sovereign states with overreaching government into a big state with over-reaching government is not the globalism that Bailey is talking about. Both NAFTA and the WTO show ways that one can liberalize trade without creating a super-national government with regulatory power over everything in its member-states’ boundaries.

      1. The goal of the WTO is to create such an organization. Further, these organizations are like any other organization and always look to increase their power and expand their control into other areas. Once you reject the concept of national sovereignty and the duty of a government to protect its own citizens’ interests above all else, it becomes very difficult to stop them. The price of freedom becomes being kicked out of the international economic order. We can see that now. If a country decided that copyright protection, for example, should be limited to ten years or the life of the author, it would be branded an outlaw nation and likely kicked out of the WTO. The trend with all of these organizations is to include things like “poverty control” and gun control and adherence to the global warming cult as a cost of joining. And for small nations who do not have the economic power to say no thanks I dare you to stop trading with me, these rules become irresistable.

        1. You’re insane John. The WTO is not a super-national government with regulatory power over everything in it’s member states boundaries and it never will be. It exists for one reason only – to reduce trade barriers. It can pass rulings saying that states can’t do certain things, like subsidize certain industries, but it can’t mandate that they must do certain things. It has no military forces, and no enforcement mechanism other than allowing other states to retalizate with their own trade sanctions.

          To believe that the WTO is some sort of sinister organization destined to become a world government, is ludicrous to the point of insanity.

          1. I too trust bureaucracy. Especially those that are distant and not accountable to voters

          2. John is also the type idiot that believes the UN will seize all the guns in the USA.

            AGENDA 21! THEY IS COMING FOR OUR GUNS!

            5 Dumbest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories About the United Nations

            https://goo.gl/QeYuYa

            (That said – the UN is pretty useless)

            1. Historically, there were literally no libertarians who supported international organizations. Even CATO opposed the existence of the UN. Today, though, cosmotarians have embraced global big brother.

              1. In the modern connected world of commerce, the paleos are just a quaint relic. Just try to exist today without international financial transaction, trade, international legal, and dispute resolution/arbitration bodies.

          3. You are an idiot Hazel. The WTO is very much that. And it absolutely has expanded into areas beyond trade and would dearly love to make adhering to such things the price of admission into the international community. That is just how it is. That is not a conspiracy theory.

            I really no patience for you Hazel. You are frankly just not very bright and don’t’ know much about this topic. Why do I waste my time talking to people like you? You don’t want to learn. You don’t want to think. What is the point? Seriously, I will never understand people like you. What is the attraction of going through the world thoughtless, smug and ignorant?

            1. And it absolutely has expanded into areas beyond trade and would dearly love to make adhering to such things the price of admission into the international community.

              Cite please.

              You’re going to cite copyright law again aren’t you?

              Copyright law, therefore gun control. Or are you going to come out in favor of using the WTO to impose environmental regulations on China? Because it’s just so UNFAIR that American companies have to abide by US law and Chinese companies don’t, right? Those are the sorts of things that the anti-globalization people wanted and didn’t get.

          4. The WTO IS a supranational organization – and the ISDS and related mechanisms that it advocates within all ‘free trade agreement’ are explicitly intended by bypass/subvert any local regulation of pretty much everything.

            The WTO is NOT GATT. It IS a mechanism by which elites can transcend ‘national’ controls and institute their cronyism in a supranational organization that is controlled only by them and basically unaccountable to anyone but them.

            And the problem is that while Bailey can write Libertarians, of course, resist any attempts to establish one world government controlled by shadowy elites – the truth is that libertarians do nothing of the sort. They ignore pretty much everything and turn into useful idiots – as long as the phrases ‘free trade’ and ‘globalism’ are uttered.

      2. The WTO is a great model of internationalism. Also, the UN has done a swell job at maintaining peace

    2. But no matter where you fall on the issue, there is no denying that it is a mixed bag.

      Jefferson called it. Any government powerful enough to give you what you want is powerful enough to take it away or give you something you don’t want. Your freedom to move people and goods throughout the EU comes at the cost of the EU telling you you’re going to accept people and goods that you find morally reprehensible.

      The key that Bailey seems to be missing is the same one that typically gets lost in the usual tribalist, left-right framing. There is another ‘application of force’ or ‘passive/active’ axis that gets, comparatively, left out of any/all discussions. American manufacturing and goods were going to find their way into Mexico (and vice versa) without NAFTA. NAFTA just conceptually locks trade in to a given framework while the rest of the “social” and “cultural” framing can shift.

    3. The idea that NAFTA go without scrutiny every other presidency or be handled with kid gloves while the election rhetoric circles around $15/hr. wages, immigration reform, and free college tuition isn’t just unlibertarian, but stupid. Trade agreements should sunset just like any other law good or bad. I don’t care how many jobs NAFTA created. If it’s 10,000 pages and can’t be agreed upon by the member parties every 2-3 yrs. then it’s time to trash it. If the underlying trade structure beneath NAFTA is so terrible that N. America(ns) would plunge into chaos without NAFTA, then we put a 10,000 page unworkable band aid on a bullet wound.

    4. The regulation is distinct from the trade. A Europe without a free trade zone would still be a Europe with crazy amounts of regulation.

      But I get your point. We would really build a wall between Oregon and Washington to prevent regulation.

      1. Please build the wall before Saturday. I would like to keep WSU out of Autzen stadium.

    1. It’s not what they meant in Venezuela either.

  3. During a recent conversation with a long-time friend and founder of one of Washington, DC’s leading free market think tanks, I mentioned in passing that as a libertarian I am a cosmopolitan globalist.

    Cocktails with a Koch brother, eh Bailey?

    1. No. An agent of the Kochs- Crane.

  4. Where I really take issue with many free trade advocates is that they are not honest about the nature of this debate. There is nothing that says overall efficiency or wealth must be or even should be the primary goal of economic policy. There are other values. Things like stability, opportunity, societal mobility, and national security matter as well. Moreover, every economic policy is going to create winners and losers. Every economic policy is, therefore, in some sense the government choosing winners and losers.

    Free trade as it has been practiced in the last 60 years or so has done following; it has moved manufacturing overseas to countries where cheap labor offered a comparative advantage and rewarded consumers and made the economy more service sector based. The winners in that are consumers and those in the high paying service sectors. The losers in that have been those in manufacturing and those in the communities that were built around manufacturing. Was that a good thing? Maybe. But the answer to that question is not “of course it was a good thing” or worse, “this is how the God market intended it to be and therefore anyone harmed by these policies has no moral standing to object”. Whatever your answer to that question, the question remains one of brute political power between economic interests with neither having any sort of moral authority over the other.

    1. Overall efficiency is a side benefit of free markets. The real argument is that individuals have a moral right to trade with whoever they want, whether those people are located in the US or not. Any restriction on trade is by definition a restriction on the liberty of individuals.

      1. That is not an argument Hazel. That is an assertion. It is nice that you have that value, but so what? Other people disagree. I don’t really see why your values or assertion are necessarily any more compelling than anyone else’s values. I am sorry but “but it is a moral right, therefore you must do it” isn’t an argument. It is a tautology.

        1. If you don’t think that individuals have a right to trade with whoever they want, you’re not a libertarian. Why do you continue to comment here? You’re nothing but a right wing troll.

          1. Again, so what? You are not making any sort of case here Hazel. Why is that right so compelling other than because you like it? More importantly, why is any other position morally illegitimate?

            1. It’s amazing to me that I have to school you in basic lessons in libertarian philosophy, after all the time you have spent here.

              Self-ownership. The government doesn’t own the product of my labor, I do. I get to decide what to do with my money and the things I produce. Including giving those things to some other person in exchange for money and/or stuff. At no point in this situation does anyone else have any right to control who I may exchange with. And because no other person has that right, nether does any government.

              1. You do realize that the emphasis on free trade within libertarian thought and even classical liberal thought was a more recent development, right? I support free trade, but I fear that you don’t know what free trade is. Actually, I know you don’t

              2. Party A in the US should be free to sell to Party B in the Pacific Rim free of any tariff or quota while protecting IP and any dispute should be settled by a trade specialist committee.

                (The TPP in one sentence)

                1. So TPP was only two sentences long? Well that sounds great. Except, what you just said is not true even a little bit

              3. I am well aware of the philosophy you half-wit. I am merely pointing out to you that you cannot just assume everyone in the world agrees with you or can never have a valid point against you. It isn’t that simple or self-evident.

                1. Do you have an actual argument as to why the libertarian philosophical position is not that self-evident?

                  1. I have lots of actual arguments. The first is that it is not self-evident at all that everyone has a right to trade with whomever they want. Can Lockheed sell the design of the F35 to the Iranians? Take contract considerations out of it. Can the government make it illegal for Lockheed to sell such designs to hostile nations? That is a restriction on trade, isn’t it? What about the designs of nuclear weapons and the manufacturing techniques to produce them? If ISIS called up Lockheed, the contractor for Sandia labs and asked to purchase a bomb design and some Plutonium, can the government stop them? According to you, they can’t. Afterall, free trade is absolute isn’t it?

                    The right to trade isn’t absolute. There are all kinds of reasonable restrictions that can be placed on it. And once you admit that, then you are stuck debating the merits of each restriction and can no longer just appeal to your assertion.

                    1. It’s interesting how often an argument about freedom and liberty eventually devolves toward “well, what about nukes, huh?” See? Because nukes exist, we can restrict your right to keep and bear arms. Because nukes exist, we can restrict your right to trade. How about this? Since the mere existence of nukes is such a general threat to everyone’s existence, it gets an exception. I mean, if there existed a doomsday device that would instantly vaporize the planet, would that be justification for protectionist trade policy or for only restricting trade of the doomsday device?

                    2. The argument didn’t devolve into anything. If you want to claim something to be an absolute right, then you need to be prepared to defend it in all cases. The moment there is a case where it isn’t a right, then it isn’t absolute. Hazel makes it about nukes and every other extreme example by claiming that trade is an absolute right. it is clearly not. She just makes that claim to avoid having a debate on the merits, which she is too stupid and uninformed to have.

                      Ultimately, most libertarians don’t understand much about markets or economics and do a very poor job understanding much less defending their ideas. And Hazel is a perfect example of that.

                    3. I understand far more than you can possibly comprehend John.

                      Your objections are easily dismissed by the fact that Lockheed, for instance, is under contract with the US government – it didn’t privately develop the F-35. If it did, I would have no problem with them selling the design to the Iranians.

                      That contract was voluntarily entered by Lockheed.
                      Similarly, if I go work for someone and sign a non-disclosure agreement, I can’t share their information with others.

                      By contrast, I never signed an agreement with the US government that I can only sell my labor to other US citizens.

                    4. Yes, you think it is okay to sell nukes to ISIS because everyone has a right to do business. Thanks for admitting that you are a fanatical idiot. Not often do you get to so clearly win a debate on the internet. Thanks for playing.

              4. Hazel ‘The government doesn’t own the product of my labor’

                except for taxes.

          2. The cosmotarian love of managed trade is beyond bizarre. Most libertarians opposed NAFTA when it was first introduced.

            1. Got a cite for that? NAFTA was Reagan’s idea. He wanted a free trade zone covering all of North and South America.

              1. Citation? I don’t know. Do you not read? Rothbard was a vocal critic at the time.

            2. If these trade agreements were one page long and just said “you can sell your goods here and we can do the same there”, they would be a lot more attractive. They, however, are thousands of pages long and nothing but a laundry list of special favors and crony payoffs to favored industries. I am not really sure how you can call such monstrosities an increase in liberty.

              1. I must agree with John here. That was the main criticism of NAFTA. Managed trade is bereft with rent-seeking

              2. If these trade agreements were one page long and just said “you can sell your goods here and we can do the same there”,

                I know you’re too stupid to understand this but FTAs grow to that size because selling a car/computer has ramifications all across supply chains due to country of origin percentages. A BMW assembled in SC may have 70% of its components made elsewhere.

              3. This is exactly what left-wing anti-globalization activists were saying in 1999, at the Seattle WTO meeting.

                The only forms of crony capitalism involved are contained in what trade restrictions *remained in place*. NOT in the ones that were removed. For instance, trade restrictions on certain agricultural products like sugar, and ag subsidies and so forth were allowed. Those things benefitted US farmers at the expense of consumers and farmers in Mexico. Same with Canadian Lumber and steel, etc. Protectionist policies benefit narrow domestic interests at the expense of consumers and foreign producers.

                Now, to me as a libertarian, fewer trade restrictions are better than more trade resitrictions, and the argument that we can’t have any trade liberalization until there are absolutly zero trade restrictions is just as stupid as the argument that we can’t liberalize immigration laws until we completely dismantle the welfare state.

                1. Sometimes even the left has a point hazel. And life isn’t so simple as “any decrease in trade restrictions is good”. If decreasing trade restrictions in one area come at the cost of more government control and intervention into the economy in many other areas, it is not a good trade-off.

                  I am sorry but I view the economic policy as a coldly rational endeavor. You seem to view it as a religious endeavor where certain things are always good and any price to be paid for them is just a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. Sorry, but I think religious thought and political and economic policy make a bad mix.

                  1. Do you have any actual examples of how NAFTA or the TPP increased government control and/or intervention into the economy in many other areas?

                    1. One word hazel, copyright law. TPP basically made the US DOJ the criminal enforcer of international copyright. That is one example. Another is environmental law. This is one time I actually agreed with the environmentalists. TPP made all forms of environmental law into trade restrictions. It allowed corporations to challenge such laws on the basis of them being trade restrictions. That is bullshit. I disagree with the environmentalists about what environmental law should look like, but they are absolutely right that whatever it is, it shouldn’t be determined by trade negotiations or trade bodies.

                    2. I see, so we have to have steel tariffs, because copyright law.

                      All sorts of environmental law IS trade restrictions. The US labor movement really wanted to use NAFTA and the WTO to impose US environmental standards on Mexico and China. That was one of their central arguments in Seattle in 1999 and subsequent anti-globalization protests. That is *exactly* the argument my Marxist sister was making in 1999. But of course, US labor was *using* environmental regulation as an end-run to impose protectionist measures. The labor movement doesn’t give a shit about the environment – they want all those dirty polluting jobs to stay in the US. They just want to use it as an excuse to keep foreign products out of US markets.

                      And the funny thing is that is a perfect example of the kind of “loss of national sovereignty” you keep railing against – the idea that NAFTA or the WTO be used to impose environmental regulation on other countries. Well, they didn’t get it. But I guess that kind of loss of national sovereignty is totally fine by you as long as it’s imposed by the US on other countries and it benefits the AFL-CIO.

                2. Ok, fair enough. But, explain to me why managed trade should be accepted under incrementalism, but other efforts to actually shrink the state (which managed trade does not do), such as block granting Medicaid funds under Graham-Cassidy, for example, is not sufficient for incrementalism? It seems that people who argue incrementalism in terms of trade are quite hypocritical on what is an incremental gain

                  1. With regards to Graham-Cassidy, IMO the proper response for any sane individual is to oppose it, if only for the sake of punishing Republicans who lied so brazenly and for so long on wanting to repeal ObamaCare, and not let them off the hook for pretending that their watered-down tenth-measures constitutes some sort of fulfillment of their promises.

                  2. Libertarians aren’t against block granting medicaid, we’re against a fake repeal of the ACA. We’re holding the line in favor of real rollbacks of the core regulations. And once a bill gets passed there’s not going to be any impetus to do that. This is just Negotiation 101.

    2. Cheap labor overseas is one cause of outsourcing, but so are foolish American regulations and the artificially high cost of living in the USA brought about by those regulations. Home construction is difficult to outsource. What prevented a boom in home construction over the past 30 years that would employ the Americans not working in factories anymore?

      We can blame land use regulations designed to limit the population in suburban school districts, put trees over people in open spaces, and artificially raise the costs of housing by limiting supply. The average American can improve his local economy more by fighting land use regulations on the local level than by supporting tariffs.

      1. The regulations are a huge part of it. Of course one of the reasons why big business in many cases rolled over for these regulations or in some cases actively supported them was because they were planning to move overseas anyway and wanted an even bigger advantage over their competitors.

        1. And your remedy is taxes/tariffs.

          And you call others “socialists”?

          Your stupidity knows no limit.

          1. My remedy is to get rid of the regulations. My remedy might include tariffs, depending on the situation. Since I think about these issues rather than foam at the mouth and emote about them, I don’t have one magic remedy, because none exists.

    3. Manufacturing volume has tripled since 1990 while manufacturing employment has decreased by 40%. This would indicated that jobs haven’t gone overseas – they’ve been replaced by automation.

  5. What about jobs? Research finds that states and localities that are more welcoming to immigrants have higher wages and rates of economic growth.

    That is nice but perhaps the causality is the reverse from what you imply Ron. States that have higher wages and rates of economic growth attract more immigrants. That seems to be the more likely implication of that correlation than attracting immigrants somehow makes places that did not have higher wages and growth suddenly have them. It is been a long time since I took labor economics but I feel pretty confident that the textbook I used said that wages and growth drive the movement of labor not the other way around.

    1. Also, the higher wages in my extremely immigrant-friendly city are entirely eaten up by housing costs and then some. Thanks, immigrants.

      1. Damn immigrants imposing rent control and restrictive zoning

        1. I was being flippant. And agreeing that the cited stat doesn’t prove anything about cause or effect.

          1. I thought I was joining in being flippant?

            1. It’s flippancy all the way down.

        2. it’s not rent control and restrictive zoning, it’s supply/demand.

  6. Another study found that an increase in employment in a U.S. state of 1 percent due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5 percent in that state.

    That seems to be an interesting study. Unfortunately, you have to join that organization to download it. Let’s assume that the study does, in fact, prove what it says. That is not necessarily evidence for the virtue of open borders. It is evidence that the current rate of immigration into this country is appropriate or at least not harmful. Just because this is true at the current rate and composition of immigration does not necessarily mean that it would be true for any rate of immigration. The US spends a lot of time and effort ensuring that it only lets people who have skills and the desire to work. All this study says is that it seems to be working. Moreover, it is a study of legal immigrants not illegal ones. So, I don’t think it counts as evidence that illegal immigration is a benefit to the country.

    1. Well put. Not a point often made in immigration debates, but a key one.

  7. Libertarians, of course, resist any attempts to establish one world government controlled by shadowy elites. On the other hand, proponents of individual liberty oppose economic nationalists’ efforts to restrict the freedom of people to trade, move, work, and live where they choose.

    That is good to know. What exactly does that mean, however? If the shadow government gives you free trade and movement at the cost of local sovereignty and restrictions on freedom imposed by transnational bureaucracy, will you oppose that Ron? If so, then why don’t you oppose the EU?

    1. What does “local sovereignty” mean?
      The right of local governments to impose restrictions on the liberty of individuals in the locality? How is this any different from the leftist argument that “liberty” means the right of 51% to tell the other 49% what to do?

      1. Local sovereignty means the rights of people to have a government of their choice. More importantly, at the 49% have a vote and a chance to persuade the other side. A top-down transnational tyranny offers no such opportunity. You apparently think such a system is great as long as it is giving you what you want. You might want to consider the implications of giving them the power to do that and the possibility that they will not always or even often give you what you want. When that tyranny that gave you your free trade and movement, takes away your right to free speech, and due process, and self-defense and there is nothing you can do about it because you gave them your sovereignty and right to self-government, that free trade and cross-border movement you love so well isn’t going to seem very attractive anymore.

        1. Yes, John, because you’re ok with free trade, you’re just super afraid that the WTO is going to impose gun control laws, right?
          What transnational tyranny are you talking about, and what *exactly* is the nature of their power to take away your free speech and due process rights?
          Are you talking about the UN and black helicopters again?

          1. Oh my God, you really have no idea how the EU works. Maybe you should understand what you are talking about before taking a position

          2. The WTO and the UN would love to impose gun control. And the end goal is making having such things a requirement for membership in the international economic community. This is less of a threat to the US because our economy is so big they couldn’t kick us out if they wanted to. It is still however an enormous threat because it creates a tremendous economic incentive to restrict our rights. The multinational corporations and the banks and the people who have real money in this economy really don’t like the US telling these organizations to go to hell. Life would be easier if we didn’t. So it inevitably becomes a driver behind the politics to restrict our freedom.

            And it is a dire threat to small nations that cannot afford or have the power to say no. Organizations like the World Bank and the WTO have long been the enemies of real freedom in the third world. Time and again the price of admission to the world economy and having any hope of economic development has been the adoption of freedom-restricting policies favored by such organizations.

            Yes, Hazel, I care about other freedoms besides free trade and getting my cheap shit from China and my slave labor from Central America. You seem to only care about those things.

            1. The WTO and the UN would love to impose gun control.

              Ok, black helicopters it is then.

              1. Are you not aware that the European Court imposes rules and overturns domestic laws on all EU members? I don’t believe that is a fantasy. I believe the EU actually exists

                1. There is no contradiction in supporting free trade in principle, but opposing the specific means by which Europe has decided to implement its version of free trade via the EU.

                  1. “There is no contradiction in supporting free trade in principle, but opposing the specific means by which Europe has decided to implement its version of free trade via the EU.”

                    sounds like every liberal advocating for trying communism again. This time it will be different.

                  2. “There is no contradiction in supporting free trade in principle, but opposing the specific means by which Europe has decided to implement its version of free trade via the EU.”

                    sounds like every liberal advocating for trying communism again. This time it will be different.

              2. The observation that foreign governments are hostile to gun rights, free speech rights, etc. is a legitimate one.

                The First and Second Amendments make America almost unique–even when compared to Canada, the UK, and Australia. That’s why the freedom to exercise gun rights is heavily restricted in those countries. That’s why those countries have hate speech laws. That’s why you need to prove both malice and damages in libel suits in America.

                The observation that international agreements with foreign powers shouldn’t be made if they sacrifice what makes us American is a legitimate one–and the First and Second Amendments are a huge part of what makes our government distinctively American.

                1. “The observation that international agreements with foreign powers shouldn’t be made if they sacrifice what makes us American is a legitimate one–and the First and Second Amendments are a huge part of what makes our government distinctively American.”

                  That is all well and good, but what does that have to do with international trade?

                  Is there some free trade proposal out there that would require America to repeal the Second Amendment in order to receive freer trading privileges with some country?

              3. That is not black helicopters. That is the truth. Look up the treaty on small arms control sometime. It is basically a backdoor to impose gun control.

                Hazel, I understand that you disagree. But, do you have to be so pig ignorant? You really don’t seem to know anything or do much of anything but emote a bunch of unsupported assertions. What annoys me most about you is that the assertions are not usually that objectionable. But you seem to have no idea how you arrived at them other than you really like them. There is something about people arriving at an answer without any thought or knowledge that just drives me up a wall. Worse still, you act smug about it. You seem to be proud of the fact that you haven’t put any thought or knowledge into your ideas. It’s like that makes them purer or something like you are saying you don’t need any facts or logic, you have principles!!

                1. “Look up the treaty on small arms control sometime. It is basically a backdoor to impose gun control.”

                  Let me guess, it’s a part of Agenda 21?

                  1. Jeff,

                    It is called the arms and trade treaty. The Senate thankfully refused to ratify it. If you want to have an intelligent discussion about the benefits and dangers of internationalism, I am happy to oblige. If you want to emote and avoid thinking about these issues, go elsewhere because I don’t have the patience for it. It is okay not to know much. It is not okay, to take pride in not knowing anything.

                    1. I am just having a snarky joke at your expense. For the most part, the people railing about UN-imposed gun control are UN black helicopter conspiracy nutjobs who get all their news from Infowars and Glenn Beck, and these same people also seem to have an obsession with Agenda 21.

                    2. What the hell does the treaty on small arms control have to do with the WTO?
                      It’s a separate treaty that the US has to sign and ratify. Nobody is trying to use the WTO as a backdoor to impose gun control.

  8. I like the use of ‘labels’ that are then used to define the argument in the most positive light possible.

    While borders exist and individual governments are run under vastly different economic models, rule of law, and personal liberty, the concept of eschewing any ‘nationalism’ is very na?ve. There is nothing wrong with a country that has a clearly superior economic/social model from promoting that model globally and standing firm for their ‘nationalistic’ fervor. Perhaps this is simply an anti-US nationalism article, but at least have the balls to say so and explain why. The US has many flaws, but complaining about economic nationalism assumes that there must be something better on the global stage. where? What is it? If another country is superior, would we not want them to be openly nationalistic and promote their model?
    We can argue endlessly about what model or system is better and point out the vast flaws in each country, but to dismiss ‘nationalism’ as inherently bad is childish.

    And the reverse for globalism as well. Claiming it is only ‘good’ is sad. There are many horrid aspects of globalism and how its been used as lever to reduce global liberty and freedom. Globalism is used a direct method of attack on some of the bastions of liberty in the world. Look no further than what globalism has done to European liberty and freedom.

    1. While borders exist and individual governments are run under vastly different economic models, rule of law, and personal liberty, the concept of eschewing any ‘nationalism’ is very na?ve.

      Why? Do you have to think a certain way just because other people do? Why should I favor the deeply flawed welfare/warfare state I live under just because other nation states are slightly worse?

      1. “Why? Do you have to think a certain way just because other people do? Why should I favor the deeply flawed welfare/warfare state I live under just because other nation states are slightly worse?”

        You are completely missing the point. The anti-nationalism sentiment is terribly flawed because it assumes nationalism is always a negative. On its face this is absurd. Should not the bastions of liberty around the global be ‘nationalistic’ about their positives and actively promote their ideals? Saying nationalism is bad and globalism good, implies that a nation can never be a net positive and globalism is the only route forward.
        There are plenty of issues with all nations. But looking at the total picture, some nations are vastly superior than others. Should we not want/expect a degree of nationalism from them? Beacons of light and all that.

        Globalism claims that all nationalistic behaviors are bad. Does anyone really believe that? Does anyone in the West really want to be under a non-national global system based on the input of the global community?

        1. “The anti-nationalism sentiment is terribly flawed because it assumes nationalism is always a negative.”

          Nationalism becomes a negative when domestic policy choices become entangled with patriotic fervor. I don’t believe America’s approach to certain problems is always the correct one, and I don’t appreciate the slurs of “traitor” or “anti-American” if I happen to disagree with a few of them. That’s the problem.

        2. If your nationalism is being used as an excuse to force your fellow citizens to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do then it’s a problem. Nobody gives a crap if you hang an American flag on your porch or sing the national anthem every morning. We care when you start passing laws that require me to do the same thing. Or laws that say I can’t trade with people who aren’t US citizens.

          1. Or laws that say you CAN’T do the same thing.

  9. To be a globalist in his mind is the moral equivalent of a Marxist…

    Globalism means global regulation heaped upon a nation’s native regulation.

    1. But not to Ron, who sees only the positives of globalism.
      Like socialists who see all the horrid outcomes of socialism and think “well they just didn’t do it right”, Globalists ignore all the areas where globalism has caused suffering and loss of liberty and think “well, that’s just because the nationalists screwed up our utopia”.

    2. FoE: That’s what the discussion is about.

      1. But I’m settling it for everyone. We can all now work from the same definition.

  10. It’s odd how New Jersey residents who would call someone a Nazi for wanting to enforce immigration laws passed their own laws to keep Jews out of their town.

    Fear of overpopulation makes anti-migration sentiments sound legitimate. When someone advocates for immigration, it’s a great time to bring up land use regulations. Just ask him, “Will you fight to legalize home construction here, or do you like immigrants to be homeless?”

    1. We call people a lot of things here in New Jersey. I called someone a chad yesterday ? I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean, perhaps he dangled annoyingly?

  11. To be a globalist in his mind is the moral equivalent of a Marxist,

    This is the type idiot that reads Breitbart.

  12. Shorter Bailey: “I Believe in Smaller Government, But Not Smaller Supranational Government”

  13. You’re for globalization, but against a one world government. Yeah, good luck with that.

    1. Ron seems to think that the principle of regulatory capture somehow only applies to national level governments and magically disappears at the transnational level. In the same way that people with their own agendas corrupt national governments, they will also corrupt transnational organizations and international agreements. It is just how human nature works. You are never going to have full “free trade” any more than you are going to have a real limited government.

    2. Apples and oranges. The globalization that the author is talking about is simply people within country X being free to trade with people within country Y. All governments need to do to allow this to happen is get out of the fucking way.

      How does government getting out of the way turn into a one world government?

      1. Governments’ primary and historic function is to promote and enforce the rule of law. ‘Global’ trade cannot function without a global rule of law and someone to enforce it. The alternative is war and/or vigilantism.

        It’s really na?ve to think a global utopia can exist within any foreseeable timeline considering the vast cultural differences around the globe. Even the US and Canadians, of very similar cultural history, have extensive national differences. Who mediates when a Canadian company gets screwed over by a US company?
        Right now its the individual governments, backed by the WTO (a global governing body).

        What replaces that arrangement? You expect some utopian ideal where no one ever behaves in bad faith?

        1. ‘Global’ trade cannot function without a global rule of law and someone to enforce it.

          Global trade exists and functions just fine without a global government.

          Who mediates when a Canadian company gets screwed over by a US company?

          Interesting question. I never thought about that. I was thinking more about individual trade. About me buying a widget from some guy in China for example. We don’t need no stinking global government for that.

          Yes government is needed to enforce contracts, protect property rights, and provide a non-violent means of resolving disputes. But I don’t see how global free trade requires a global government. Free trade is trade without restrictions. Restrictions put in place by governments.

          Just as silence is an absence of sound, dark is an absence of light, and justice is an absence of injustice, free trade is an absence of government interference.

        2. You expect some utopian ideal where no one ever behaves in bad faith?

          Nope. But markets take care of that. Bad actors get bad reputations and go out of business. Do some people get screwed in the process? Yep. But in my mind it’s better for free people to occasionally get screwed by bad actors than unfree people to be continually screwed by government.

        3. “Who mediates when a Canadian company gets screwed over by a US company?
          Right now its the individual governments, backed by the WTO (a global governing body).”

          I’m not an expert on Trumpalo Law, but from an international law perspective, this is not even close to being true. The dispute would follow basic jurisdiction and choice-of-law rules for transnational litigation, and any judgement would be enforced as set up by international treaty. The WTO dispute settlement system only comes into play when there’s a breach of a WTO agreement between two countries, not private parties within the countries. Expecting governments to mediate on behalf of companies every time there’s a dispute shouldn’t even pass the smell test.

        4. If you breach a contract with a Canadian company they can sue you in a US court. I had a dispute with a customer in Belgium (he didn’t pay) and we went after him in Belgium with a Belgian lawyer. The Belgian judge agreed with us, confiscated the customer’s next shipment, sold it and paid us off. Was remarkably fast. No WTO, no EU, no World Government. The point is that global trade goes on every minute of every day and works remarkably well (in most countries). In fact, it all works much better without government involvement. We don’t need no stinking government.

    3. Where is the inherent contradiction?

      Support for international trade does not necessarily entail support for UN black helicopters.

      1. Correct. Support for supranational entities entailed for providing courts to impose the rules of said trade agreements are the opposite of promoting individual liberty, though. Actual free trade does not need supranational organizations to impose trade deals. The EU is the best argument against managed trade that is being falsely described as ‘free trade’

    4. Bailey is using words like “globalization” in the context they were used in 1990. Back then, globalization meant the implosion of authoritarian communism and the expansion of capitalism and free trade.

      In that context, yes, I’m in favor of globalization if it means the end of authoritarian communism, but the word just doesn’t mean that to average people anymore.

      1. So what is “globalization” supposed to mean now? UN black helicopters enforcing a worldwide gun confiscation regime?

        1. Smearing your opponents doesn’t score you any points with anyone that matters.

          Globalization these days, to average people, largely means abdicating national sovereignty in favor of international agreements.

          International agreements on climate change are one example. Trade agreements are another. There are others. I think you already know this.

          1. Smearing your opponents doesn’t score you any points with anyone that matters.

            The libertarian “right” is becoming more about things like the enumerated power of congress to set the rules of naturalization vs. the libertarian “left” who want to erase the border. It’s unequivocal defenders of the First Amendment on the libertarian “right” vs. the libertarian “left”, who see gay rights as a legitimate consideration regardless of what the First Amendment says about religon.

            1. That isn’t a smear. It’s an argument and an accurate one at that.

              UN black helicopters confiscating guns isn’t what most people think about when they think about globalization. That’s a smear.

              1. “UN black helicopters confiscating guns isn’t what most people think about when they think about globalization. That’s a smear.”

                Uh-huh.

                You need to check out some of the fever swamp blogs out there.

                1. Oh, yeah, well obviously if the crackpots think something, then that speaks to everyone else who opposes or supports something.

                  Hey, all you anti-communists out there–do you still think fluoridation is a communist plot!!!

                  LOL

                  Actually, that’s a smear of anti-communism. Nobody here thinks fluoridation is a communist plot–even if we are wildly anti-communist and pro-capitalist.

          2. Ken, I don’t make any pretense of hiding my disdain towards the “anti-globalists” who seem to fall for every crackpot UN conspiracy theory put forth by Glenn Beck and Infowars. If that is not you – and FTR I never thought you were one of those kooky types – then good for you. But if you’re going to argue for anti-globalization without using Glenn Beck talking points, then IMO it has to be framed in stronger terms than just “OMG we’re giving up national sovereignty”. Because who says that the American way of doing things is the best way? Maybe in a particular case, an international framework on free trade that does require America to give up some of its sovereignty would better serve the cause of individual liberty than any of the alternatives. Because that’s what is really important here – not national sovereignty, but individual liberty. NAFTA and WTO are IMO examples of this. They restrain the US to a certain degree from imposing certain protectionist tariffs. They’ve taken away some of our sovereignty. But it’s resulted in freer trade. Which is better for individual liberty. They aren’t the sine qua non of free trade but they are better than the protectionism that we had in the past. So to argue against globalism because “we’d be giving up our sovereignty” is, personally, not a persuasive argument, because I don’t buy the argument that America exercising its sovereignty will always lead to greater liberty.

            1. I think we agree on all of that, but that isn’t what people are talking about these days.

              I remember when anti-globalization meant anti-capitalism. Anarchists would show up in Seattle and trash the place in their struggle against capitalism and globalization.

              Nowadays, the same bunch shows up to protest against pulling out of a climate change treaty.

              I support free markets, free trade, capitalism, and all that stuff–but that isn’t what average people think of when they hear globalization anymore.

              They think globalization is unrestricted immigration, climate change treaties, etc. It’s like the word “liberal”. That used to mean something about classical economics, rights, and the proper restrictions on government. It doesn’t mean that to average people anymore. To average people it’s synonymous with “progressive” or “left”.

              The word changed meanings over the course of the last couple of decades. We need to start using less confusing words. If “globalization” means opposite things to different people, then its a shitty word.

              1. ^ This. Opposing supranational states does not make one a rabid conspiratorial nationalist. It use to make one a libertarian. That was before cosmotarians bastardized everything

              2. I remember when anti-globalization meant anti-capitalism.

                What really happened, Ken, is that the Republicans nominated an anti-free-trade guy and then everyone’s tribal alleigances induced them to switch sides on the issue, and then rationalize the switch ex-post-facto.

                Everything you and John are saying is just post-fact rationalization for believing what you want to believe, which is that Trump is a good guy and he’s on your side.

                1. People’s ideas about what “globalization” and “left” and “right” mean have changed from being about capitalism and socialism to being about other issues–regardless of what Ken and John think about Donald Trump.

                  P.S. You know nothing about what I think of Donald Trump. You’re tilting against redneck windmills that only exist in your head.

                  1. Well, do enlighten me about your interesting criticisms of Donald Trump, because all I have seen from you for the last year or more is how Trumps a swell guy and we should all vote vote him, even over the candidate of the actual Libertarian party – who happens to be better than Trump on literally every single issue that libertarians care about.

                    Go ahead, I’m listening.

                    1. You’re remembering things that only happened in your head.

                      Not only did I not argue that Trump was a swell guy, I didn’t vote for him.

                      I did say that Hillary Clinton accepted money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, and I said many times that relative to Hillary Clinton, Trump was the superior choice from a libertarian perspective–especially on issues like the Second Amendment and repealing ObamaCare.

                      Having said that, just like having been a Trump fan wouldn’t change the fact that “left”, “right”, and “globalization” don’t mean what they used to mean, not being a Trump fan doesn’t change the fact that those word don’t mean the same thing to average people anymore either.

                      I repeat: People’s ideas about what “globalization” and “left” and “right” mean have changed from being about capitalism and socialism to being about other issues–regardless of what Ken and John think about Donald Trump. You, on the other hand, are presenting pronounced symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome, to the point that your memory of what people said–in addition to your understanding of what people are saying now–is severely impacted by your assumptions about whether or not those people support Donald Trump.

                      I assure you that is not reasonable. Seek help.

    5. Let people travel, live and work where they want.
      Let companies invest and sell where they want.
      Take down the barriers to the above, by bilateral or multilateral treaties if necessary.
      No world government required.

      1. Saying that people should support certain policies is fundamentally different from saying that multilateral treaties should inflict something on them that’s good for them against their will.

        Again, I maintain that inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on a population is like forcing them to fight a war against their will–which is why congress has the enumerated power to set the rules of naturalization just like they have the enumerated power to declare war.

        If you think that the proper role of democratic government should be subordinated to multilateral agreements, then don’t be surprised 1) if free people start to oppose your multilateral agreements for that reason alone and 2) if people accuse you of being an antidemocratic “globalist”.

  14. Another study found that an increase in employment in a U.S. state of 1 percent due to immigrants produced an increase in income per worker of 0.5 percent in that state.

    I’ve learned to be skeptical of claims that X number of immigrants leads to Y increase in growth or tax revenue. As we saw with the Cato study that tried to claim that the “Dreamers” were going to be a net economic benefit, the people conducting the study seem to pick a sub-group of immigrants and make unwarranted assumptions that the same is true for immigrants in general. In the case of the Cato study, they looked at H-1B visa immigrants who are generally better educated than the overall population and more likely to be employed in a higher paying field) and extrapolated that the same benefits would come from the “Dreamers” (who are less likely to be college educated, more likely to be high school dropouts than the overall population) because they were roughly in the same age group. It’s more complicated than “immigrants are always or generally good/bad.” The type that are being brought in (e.g. education and skill level, age, health, etc.) is as important, probably more so, than just the numbers.

    1. Yeah when people migrate en masse from cultures with higher crime rates, you aren’t going to convince me that easily that their culture and its crime doesn’t ride right along with them. The South Bronx has a huge percentage of immigrants, and is a war zone. In three generations, sure things change, but that’s like 75 years. We’ll be dead from the mega-earthquakes and typhoons by that point anyway. At best this might just be demonstrating the the current immigrant-vetting process manages to get decent results.

      1. The South Bronx hasn’t been a “war zone” in a couple decades. It’s gentrifying now, in fact. I’m skeptical of blanket arguments but if we’re sticking with NYC, it is in fact the natives that are causing most the most crime – and most of that is drug-gang related & subject to intense pressure to sweep any rational discussion of it under the rug. The MS-13 stuff is mostly happening outside the city.

        1. Yes all around. Quit exporting your immigrant gang crime to Long Island and upstate!!

          1. The MS-13 hysteria here on Long Island is BS too.

            1. Sure, but I like blaming the city for everything.

              1. That’s a pretty dependable policy.

          2. Quit being a more affordable place to live!

  15. Whenever you hear someone trying to justify an obnoxious policy based on economics, it’s a good idea just to walk away. Not everything that’s good for the economy is good for people. From an economic perspective, it makes sense to share a one room apartment with a dozen people. Strangely enough, I don’t know many people who are in a position to do anything else that are willing to put up with that arrangement. No matter how good for their wallet it may be.

    1. “From an economic perspective, it makes sense to share a one room apartment with a dozen people.”

      No it doesn’t, at least not necessarily. There is a real cost to having 11 roommates in a tiny apartment, and this cost can be described both qualitatively and quantitatively, i.e., lost productivity and a worse emotional state of mind. Economics is not just about money, you know.

      1. Economics is not just about money, you know.

        Exactly. Economics is about value, scarcity, and trade-offs. If you value privacy then sharing a one room apartment with a dozen people makes no economic sense. Because of the scarcity of private lodging, if that is what you want then you must make a trade-off to pay for it. Give up something else.

        But many people don’t understand that money, value, and wealth are not synonyms.

      2. Tell that to the economists. They’ve apparently gotten out of the business of explaining how we get the things we want, and into the business of telling us what we ought to want.

  16. It isn’t just words like “globalism” that have become convoluted. The words “left” and “right” no longer mean what they used to mean.

    Since the 19th century, “left” and “right” have mostly been about socialism on the left vs. capitalism on the right. That started changing with the fall of communism. “Left” and “right” have become more about issues like immigration, individual rights, and social justice. The issues are about things like the free movement of people inside the EU–and not just asylum seekers. It’s also about Poles, Romanians, and Bulgarians coming to the UK, etc.

    Even here at Reason, the line of demarcation has shifted. The libertarian “right” is becoming more about things like the enumerated power of congress to set the rules of naturalization vs. the libertarian “left” who want to erase the border. It’s unequivocal defenders of the First Amendment on the libertarian “right” vs. the libertarian “left”, who see gay rights as a legitimate consideration regardless of what the First Amendment says about religon.

    Ultimately, what we’re talking about when we’re talking about “left” and “right” anymore isn’t about our positions on the Pullman Strike of 1894, The New Deal, Goldwater changing the right’s stance on isolationism to fight communism internationally, expanding the socialist welfare state via the Great Society, Reagan cutting taxes, or NAFTA, GATT, and China’s MFN status.

    1. It’s unequivocal defenders of the First Amendment on the libertarian “right” vs. the libertarian “left”, who see gay rights as a legitimate consideration regardless of what the First Amendment says about religon.

      wut

      1. There are and were libertarians here who saw gay marriage in terms of its threat to the First Amendment. I thought John and RC Dean were flat out wrong about that, that there was no real threat to freedom of association or First Amendment religious rights by way of gay marriage, but I was wrong.

        The government forcing people to bake cakes for weddings that violate their religious convictions wasn’t only foreseeable. It was also foreseen.

        Watching the postal vote in Australia, where they have hate speech laws and no First Amendment religious protections per se, one of the main reasons people are opposing gay marriage is because they see it as a threat to free speech and religion. If a Baptist minister preaches against homosexuality from the pulpit, will the government come after him?

        I’d say it’s ironic if intolerance of hate speech makes people less likely to support equal rights for others, but “ironic” is supposed to imply that it’s unexpected. That people are more tolerant of things that don’t impact them in any meaningful way isn’t unexpected. If people supported gay rights in America because they assumed the First Amendment would protect free speech, religious rights, and that their association rights would be protected, well, that isn’t unexpected either.

        1. The government forcing people to bake cakes for weddings that violate their religious convictions wasn’t only foreseeable. It was also foreseen.

          This is such an inane argument. Gays becoming a protected class was inevitable regardless of whether or not they could marry.

          1. Wasn’t your question about gay marriage as a threat to First Amendment religious rights?

            1. Repeat after me: legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with whether or not you are allowed to discriminate against gay people. If a baker refused to bake a cake for a civil union or a gay pride party, the result would be the same.

              1. So you’re conceding that gay marriage had something to do with forcing individuals to cater to gay weddings regardless of their religious convictions?

                These photographers recently had a suit dismissed by a federal judge. They wanted to put up a statement on their website saying they didn’t want to photograph gay weddings.

                https://tinyurl.com/yam2rtto

                This case wasn’t even about their religious convictions but what they could write on their website.

                And you want to tell me that gay marriage didn’t have any impact on the First Amendment?

                Why are all these suits about marriage?

                I remember well the arguments for gay marriage–I made them myself! What do you care if gay people get married? It isn’t going to affect you in any way!!!

                Little did I realize that it would become a justification for the courts to trash the First Amendment–and that’s what they’ve done. The First Amendment is a huge part of what makes us a tolerant society–tolerate other people’s beliefs, what they say, publish, etc. I did not sign on to gay marriage to trash the fabric of our tolerant society.

                And I’m not about to pretend otherwise–certainly not just because I also don’t want the government to discriminate against gay people who want to get married.

          2. This is such an inane argument. Gays becoming a protected class was inevitable regardless of whether or not they could marry.

            No it wasn’t. More importantly, had gay marriage been done through civil unions or at least by legislation, it would not have made them a protected class. What made them a protected class was having the Supreme Court invent a right to gay marriage.

            And the court knew this. One of the reasons why the gay marriage decision is so rambling and illogical and Kennedy didn’t want to come out and say he was making gays a protected class but the logic of his decision necessitated it. Why do gays have a right to marry each other but polygamists don’t’? Because gays are a protected class.

            That wasn’t inevitable. Just because people like you won’t admit you wanted it and wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it, doesn’t mean it was inevitable.

      2. You do not have a meaningful freedom to exercise religion if the government uses due process to restrict your right to live by your conscience and practice your religion.

        In some ways, real freedom of religion died with the CRA. The CRA made it illegal to practice a religion that required the separation of the races. No one noticed this because virtually no one practiced such a religion. What is happening now with gay rights is the left is taking that precedent and using it to make it illegal to practice and live mainstream Christianity. Sure, you can still read and think what you want. But object to homosexuality at work or refuse to be a part of a gay wedding by not serving one by your business and you will be sued out of existence just like you would be if your religion mandated the separation of the races.

        Libertarians are not particularly disturbed by this because as a rule they like gays and don’t’ like religious people. The precedent, however, will be used again and again to slowly assert state control over what is and is not acceptable religious practice in this country. The only question is what is next after they are done making it illegal to publicly object to homosexuality.

        1. But object to homosexuality at work or refuse to be a part of a gay wedding by not serving one by your business and you will be sued out of existence just like you would be if your religion mandated the separation of the races.

          Gee, it’s almost as if the whole “protected class” thing already existed.

          Libertarians are not particularly disturbed by this because as a rule they like gays and don’t’ like religious people.

          Yeah, that’s definitely what’s going on here, Red Tony.

          1. Gee, it’s almost as if the whole “protected class” thing already existed.

            No shit. Which part of “religious freedom ended with the CRA” did you not understand?

            Yeah, that’s definitely what’s going on here, Red Tony.

            Yes, it is. And the fact that you resort to name calling shows how much of a nerve I hit. RC and I said this was going to happen. And no one on here would listen. And now that it has happened, you pretend like you were not warned or it wasn’t foreseeable. You were warned and you knew it was going to happen. You just don’t give a shit. Libertarians love gays. And they are going to side with gays in any dispute except maybe one with Muslims. If you don’t like that, too bad. You should have thought about that when you were happily supporting the Supreme Court creating rights out of thin air in the constitution to reward people you like and punish people you don’t.

            1. And the fact that you resort to name calling shows how much of a nerve I hit.

              This was certainly worthy of a polite response:

              Libertarians are not particularly disturbed by this because as a rule they like gays and don’t’ like religious people.

              1. It is true. Religious people are insulted on this board all of the time. Gays are never considered anything but noble. It is what it is. And certainly, Libertarians willfully overlooked the consequences of gay marriage. What other conclusions can be drawn from that other than they cared about gays more than they cared about religious freedom?

                Most people on this board can’t even understand that religious freedom is a protected right under the 1st Amendment. They consider the free exercise clause a redundancy to the free association clause. It is of course not a redundancy and religion really did get special protection, but that doesn’t stop Libertarians from pretending otherwise.

            2. I think that factually speaking the next battle in this particular war will be from Republicans aimed at Muslims, which will then to be used as the justifications the left needs to use those same statutes on Christians. It’s anti-religious from top to bottom from what I can tell.

              I’m absolutely for equal rights for gay citizens, but as far as I’m aware marriage only became a right because of the various benefits set up by social conservatives over the centuries to reinforce a traditional view of marriage.

              It seems to me that one side is always setting up the conditions for the other side to take advantage of in removing more of our liberty. I was never ‘for’ the way that gay marriage legalization took place. It should have been a deregulation instead of a carve out, the state has no business in marriage. Their reasoning fell flat when it’s blatantly clear that there are a lot more viewpoints out there on marriage than just gay marriage. Polygamy, child marriage, forced arranged marriages, the list really goes on and on.

              So why was this one narrow subset in particular the only ‘right’ carve out to make? Why is polygamy a bridge too far?

          2. So, because it was already going to happen we should just shut-up and not criticize it. That argument could work for shutting up about gun control or limiting free speech.

            What exactly would you say actually makes cosmotarians supporters of individual rights in any shape or form? Because, all I see is a bastardized movement of watered down progressives

            1. So, because it was already going to happen we should just shut-up and not criticize it.

              No, you should stop trying to tie it to something that’s not related. Gays didn’t become a protected class because they were allowed to marry.

              1. Of course not, expressing that they had a constitutional right to marry (a protection not granted to any other union) had nothing whatsoever to do with this at all. Ignorance is bliss.

                I’m old enough to remember when libertarian meant you wanted less government, rather than more government if it does ‘woke’ things.

  17. The “left” itself isn’t about socialism anymore so much as it’s about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the common good, and the right isn’t about pushing for capitalism anymore, so much as it’s about issues of national sovereignty and individual rights.

    In the US, since some of our constitutional amendments do an excellent job of approximating our natural rights, pushing for national sovereignty can come quite naturally. There are other libertarians on this site who will effectively argue against congress having the enumerated power to set the rules of naturalization. The same people will still insist, presumably, that wars are illegal unless congress exercises its enumerated power to declare them–but that’s only about wars they oppose. National sovereignty, taken as an issue by itself, is something they oppose.

    Point being, the lines are no longer drawn in people’s minds between capitalism and socialism, free trade and protectionism, etc. The left and right are both now about democratic socialism–in the U.S.and elsewhere. The new lines are now between globalists and national sovereignty, on the one hand, and between forced sacrifice and individual rights on the other.

  18. as a libertarian I am a cosmopolitan globalist.

    I guess a half-truth is somewhat better than a complete falsehood!

  19. I don’t care what you are actually arguing; that word means what I say it means, which means you support everything I say it means.

    But really, it’s hopeless. It’s all hopeless.

  20. This seems very pie in the sky. What really happens is more like Europe. Government continues to grow, and more power goes to the bureaucracy.

    This doesn’t even go into the problems when you have a welfare state, and free movement of people.

    1. “What really happens is more like Europe. Government continues to grow, and more power goes to the bureaucracy.”

      They know that. They just don’t care.

      1. /\ /\ /\ /\

      2. It isn’t just that they don’t care. That’s what they want.

        They’re elitists, and they don’t want silly little people making decisions that might derail their plans.

        Meanwhile, further to the point above I was making about how it just isn’t about socialism and capitalism anymore, look at the political parties on the right that have risen up in Europe.

        The National Front is a legitimate contender in France. Alternative for Germany won so many seats, they’ll have a key role in deciding the form of the next government.

        Neither of these parties are pro-capitalist–quite the opposite. It just isn’t about that anymore.

        1. You can’t tell portions of your population to go fuck themselves and that their interests have no legitimate say in government and expect things to turn out well. The problem with people like Bailey and Hazel Meade is not that they support free trade. It is that they turn it into a moral argument where anyone who objects to free trade isn’t just wrong but morally illegitimate.

          The people who lost their jobs because of international trade have a legitimate complaint. That doesn’t mean we should necessarily do what they want. It does mean that we should at the very least recognize the legitimacy of it and at least entertain the possibility of accommodating it. It may be that we do need to protect a few industries and keep some manufacturing in the country in the name of societal peace and stability. It also may be true that we have to restrict immigration to a level that minimizes the cost and disruptions associated with it. That doesn’t mean we go to fortress America. That just means we compromise and do something besides tell anyone who objects to fuck off.

        2. If we don’t do that and reasonable voices are not heard, then they will be replaced by unreasonable ones. If Capitalism comes to mean endless instability, structural unemployment and complete transformation of the national culture into an alien one, then people will turn to movements that reject that and capitalism along with it and we will have a no kidding European style right in this country. People like Bailey are too smug and lack the imagination necessary to see that.

          1. I maintain that the government inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on its people is like the government inflicting an unpopular war on an unwilling populace. That is why the framers, in their wisdom, gave congress the enumerated power to set the rules for naturalization in the same place as the power to declare war.

            No doubt, democracy doesn’t belong in every decision. Our First and Second Amendment rights shouldn’t depend on the outcome of a popularity contest, and the rules of naturalization that congress sets must comply with the First and Fourteenth amendments. That being said, democracy does have its place–and setting immigration policy is one of them.

            I opposed the Iraq War, but that doesn’t mean I must argue that congress shouldn’t have the power to declare war. I think our legal immigration policy should be much more open than it is–but that doesn’t mean I think congress shouldn’t have the power to set the rules for immigration.

    2. If you had a truly libertarian government, immigration would solve itself. Other than keeping out criminals, there would be no need to control borders. Without public services and welfare, only immigrants who had the ability to pay their own way would ever come. Anyone else would have no reason to come short of the desire to live on the streets. Sadly, we don’t have that. And welfare and public schools and all of the other public services that are available in this country to anyone without paying for it means immigration doesn’t solve itself and is not always a good thing.

      1. Re: John,

        Without public services and welfare, only immigrants who had the ability to pay their own way would ever come. […] other public services that are available in this country to anyone without paying for it […]

        One can use the same “That’s Why We Can’t Have Nice Things” argument to propose mass sterilization. People should only have children they can afford, but since “there are public services and welfare” then only certain parents should be allowed to reproduce.

        Immigrants don’t come to the US for the freebies. That’s a lie. It’s actually a very dumb lie. Immigrants come to the US to work. They already bring two good arms and some skills, unlike newborn children. If you were GENUINELY concerned about free-loaders, then you WOULD advocate for mass sterilization since children are much more costly per year of life until they’re of working age than an immigrant. Of course this isn’t about logic or economics but about politics, as it is always easier to lay blame and cast aspersions on foreigners than on babies. That’s all. Nothing more intellectually sophisticated than that. Aristotle you ain’t.

        1. You can tell that this is true by the fact that most of immigration law is aimed at keeping immigrants from having jobs. You don’t have ICE raids at the welfare office – you have ICE raids on places of employment.

      2. No one is immigrating here for the welfare. (The schools, maybe.) They come to work, for better opportunities.

        1. Why are illegal immigrants especially resistant to taking free money?

          1. Re: BYODB,

            Why are illegal immigrants especially resistant to taking free money?

            They’re generally suspicious of it, unlike white- and black-American welfarites.

            Immigrants heed the warning (or realization) from Admiral Ackbar – “It’s a Trap!”

            1. Huh, so it’s because Latinos are especially moral and upright compared to the other races.

              That is more or less exactly the type of response I would expect from you.

              1. Re: BYODB,

                Huh, so it’s because Latinos are especially moral[….]

                Latinos? Are you serious? Are we talking about IMMIGRANTS or are we talking about people who speak a Latin-derived language or about people with brown skin? Please, DEFINITIONS. We can’t have a serious conversation without them.

                Or what exactly are you talking about, BYODB?

                1. I asked about illegal immigrants, not immigrants in general, so I assumed you were referring to Latinos since they make up virtually the entire group of people considered to be here illegally.

                  It’s really not my fault that you constantly lump both legal and illegal immigrants into the same basket. It’s not me doing that.

                  1. Re: BYODB,

                    I asked about illegal immigrants, not immigrants in general,

                    Oh, don’t tell me – illegal immigrants are invariably from Latin America. Am I right?

                    It’s really not my fault that you constantly lump both legal and illegal immigrants into the same basket.

                    I don’t merely lump them together, I deny there’s a fundamental difference between them, only that one group doesn’t have the transit papers that the State issues. That’s all. It’s like saying that unlicensed hair-braiders are fundamentally different than licensed ones, when they’re NOT.

                    1. Illegal immigrants are, in fact, almost entirely from South America. That is an undeniable fact.

                      And you do, in fact, lump them together all the time. Illegal immigrants are generally less educated with fewer job skills, while legal immigrants are generally more educated with more job skills. You like to pretend otherwise, but our immigration system is set up to get those end results on purpose.

                      So, I’m still waiting on a lucid argument on why illegal immigrants are more resistant to taking free money. Your claim is based upon studies that lump them together.

                      We have already established that legal immigrants are a separate metric, right? So you’ll use metrics that separate out the categories, instead of the one’s that lump them into the same basket like you always do?

                    2. “Illegal immigrants are, in fact, almost entirely from South America. That is an undeniable fact.”
                      Um, no.

                      Current estimates put illegal immigrants in America at about 11 million folks. Mexico’s? share is about 6 million, the rest of Central America? throws in another 1.7 million, giving a combined share of about 68% of illegal immigrants in America are from North America (not counting Canada).

                      South America doesn’t break one million, sitting around 650 thousand (about 6%), which is pretty comparable to the 600 thousand that come from Canada and Europe (5.5%).

                      And that’s before we even look at how the trend is changing. Illegal immigrant populations from Mexico and South America are currently shrinking, while Central America is starting to grow with Asia being the biggest growth industry for illegal immigration.

                      Now, if what you actually meant wasn’t “South America”, but “from south of the US/Mexico border”, and we combine Mexico, Central America and South America, you get a combined total of 8.2 million, or about 75% of current illegal immigrants. While that is a solid super majority, that still gives you one in four illegal immigrants not being from south of the US/Mexico border at all, so I’m not sure you meet the common standard of “almost entirely”.
                      ________
                      ?For reference, Mexico is part of North America
                      ?Also in North America.

        2. Re: CE,

          And schools become a factor only when immigrants have children. However, by that time, immigrants are already paying the taxes that such systems require to be sustainable.

          The important thing to remember is that most immigrants would prefer to be able to do seasonal work and return home, to their families, their culture and their food. Unfortunately, the Byzantine immigration laws makes that an exercise in futility which only serves to encourage immigrants to bring their own families and homestead. The only culprit of this is government, which has been subservient to special interest groups such as Unions and the Buggy Whip industries which are, invariably, hostile towards markets and competition.

          1. Yeah. It’s kind of weird in retrospect, if entirely understandable, but stricter enforcement of immigration laws actually increased the number of long-term illegal immigrants from Mexico rather then reducing it.

            See, with lax enforcement, you had a lot of Mexican men coming over for jobs, then going back home. Once you get stricter enforcement, they can’t easily go back and forth. So since they can’t reliably go home and come back, they just bring the family over with them.

    3. Or, we could argue in favor of internationalism, but not stifling bureaucracy.

      Quelle horreur!

  21. This is a who and whom problem, not an economic one, so much.

    The basic premise of globalism is to maximize profits by selling goods and services to the widest available audience at the lowest cost, damn the torpedoes. Governments piggy back on that. The WHO is the government and big business. The WHOM is the working class – the plumber, electrician, etc. Mark Zuckerberg is an open borders fanatic and to prove the point he has Mexican laborers building a wall around his compound in Palo Alto while opposing a wall at US southern border.

    No one is supposed to notice this.

    1. Re: widget,

      The WHOM is the working class – the plumber, electrician, etc.

      It’s so touching you care about the plumbers and electricians. Almost made me cry.

      I don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone else. Everyone has problems. But I do care about the authoritarianism coming from busybody assholes who believe they possess extraordinary or God-like knowledge on what is best for everybody else above what individual minds know and care about. Since I don’t believe you nor your buddies know what’s best for ME or for these plumbers or electricians, then I can perfectly tell you to fuck off and let me trade with whoever strikes my fancy, or hire as many Mexicans I care to hire. You’re not the world’s mommy.

      1. Penn Gillette (a brighter man than most who skulk thru the hallowed halls of government) put it succinctly and best: “I don’t know enough to tell other people what to do”. The genuine modesty of a truly educated man. Our state and national politicians can’t even come close to following that basic principle

      2. OM.

        I already call you out as a Mexican supremacist a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for the validation.

        widget

  22. Libertarians, of course, resist any attempts to establish one world government controlled by shadowy elites.

    Do they? I know a few libertarian-leaning republicans who do (or mostly, sorta… as best they can).

    The loser of a candidate that the Libertarian Party picked to lead them was willing to cede an 100-person gun control panel to his center-leftist VP and the rest of the tent seems filled with people who prioritize the right to military service for trannies well above domestic spying, dronessassination, and war powers.


  23. To be a globalist in his mind is the moral equivalent of a Marxist, countenancing elites conferring power on vast, unaccountable international bureaucracies, undercutting national sovereignty, and imposing uniform progressive policies to establish some sort of one-world government.

    That’s probably because Globalism has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with empowering unaccountable organizations to oversee everything, outside of governments or the people those governments ostensibly represent. We have already seen this with the U.N. and the E.U. so to pretend otherwise is to be a liar.

    If you want to redefine what Globalism means, might I humbly suggest using a different word since this particular -ism is already taken by those who believe in one world government at any cost.

    1. Re: BYODB,

      That’s probably because Globalism has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with empowering unaccountable organizations to oversee everything

      Indeed. None of that, though, has anything to do with international free trade and open borders – open to trade, to the free flow of goods, services, capital and, yes, labor. Nothing.

      1. I already know that the people who believe in wide open borders must by definition believe in one world government, so this is hardly surprising. Is it ironic that people who believe that they’re arguing in favor of more freedom are arguing in favor of a strong world-wide centralized government? Maybe, but I tend to think it’s just because those people are stupid and haven’t thought it through.

        1. Re: BYODB,

          I already know that the people who believe in wide open borders must by definition believe in one world government

          What are you talking about? How could it be “by definition”? Borders exist because governments mange them. Borders are lines on a map placed there by conquerors, so no borders would mean no government, not “one government”.

          1. *facepalm*

            Because a border has two sides, and notably we don’t control more than one side of it. Unsurprisingly, as a simple example that even your flaccid mind could understand, is that Mexico doesn’t allow unrestricted immigration. So, even if we did allow unrestricted immigration into the United States there would not, in fact, be ‘totally open borders’.

            So, to have absolutely free borders you must control both sides of said border. I.E. everything must be contained within the international state as a necessarily precondition for your preferred end result.

            Hence, open borders people are deluded and irrational and believe in things that are distinctly anti-libertarian in support of ostensibly libertarian goals. Or, in layman’s terms, retards.

            1. Re: BYODB,

              Because a border has two sides

              Non Sequitur.

              we don’t control more than one side of it.

              “We” don’t do shit. Governments pretend the territory inside this imaginary border belongs to it. That’s the difference. There’s no “we”. I don’t care what others do and I don’t have to care. You’re too preoccupied by that. Perhaps there lies the origin of your preference for authoritarianism.

              So, to have absolutely free borders you must control both sides of said border.

              Stop equivocating. “Absolutely” free borders is an oxymoron. You said NO borders equals ONE government. Now you’re bringing up “absolutely” free borders, a meaningless term.

              Borders don’t actually exist. They’re lines on a map, placed there by conquerors. Normal people go over such lines with a laugh in their face because they know they’re meaningless.

              1. I’m guessing you don’t actually know what a non-sequitur is, since my argument directly addresses the point that a border must allow free immigration from both sides to be considered totally open. Correct? Would you agree with that statement?

                Since you’re unable to understand simple concepts, I would say look at State borders. They are open, yes? Why are they open? Because the United States Federal Government says they are. What the open borders crowd want is an analogous entity beyond the reach of the United States Federal Government making us open those borders, as if our entire nation was a State.

                That is the only way such a goal could ever be plausibly reached internationally across all nations.


              2. Borders don’t actually exist. They’re lines on a map, placed there by conquerors. Normal people go over such lines with a laugh in their face because they know they’re meaningless.

                Even if I conceded that this was true, and I do not concede that point, it should be obvious that they are lines drawn on a map between two different nations so it should be obvious at face value two nations would need to agree for a border to be one of those perfectly open borders idiots like you seem to think exist.

                So, what happens if Mexico is disinclined to open the border? Should we nuke them out of existence and annex them? Then, that border would in fact ‘disappear’ because they would be inside the United States and thus would have the same ‘borders’ that our current States enjoy.

                God, people like you are so nutty it’s a wonder you’re able to log into the internet to post your idiocy. This is such a monumental misunderstanding of international relations that it’s laughable.

                1. God, people like you are so nutty it’s a wonder you’re able to log into the internet to post your idiocy. This is such a monumental misunderstanding of international relations that it’s laughable.

                  The part that gets me is that there are parts of The Constitution, liberalism, taxation, etc. that, while they can be applied retroactively and more globally, clearly post date land/property ownership, geometry, ethnic/tribalism/nationalism that we still don’t have mastered or definitively sorted out domestically.

                  We’re still working on the whole 2+2 thing but if you give us a chance, we’re pretty sure this one weird trick will bring about world peace or, at the very least, libertopia.

                  I mean the ME has been a hellhole for anywhere between a century and a millennia, Pyongyang is pretty persistently threatening to Nuke the US, Russia (and everybody else) is meddling in elections, and actively eroding borders would pretty actively destroy Israel but, you know, break a few eggs, put it all in a pot together, it’ll turn out like the mixed racial, pan ethnic paradise that is… the US? the UK? Myanmar? Germany? Korea? India? China?

                  1. The point I usually bring up is that if we were serious about open borders all over the planet, the United States should immediately declare war on the entire planet since no country believes in open borders. We must impose that belief on them.

                    Obviously, open borders just for us aren’t open borders, so really their only remaining option is either World War 3 or reliance on the U.N. to bring about one world government who will then force non-compliant nations to have open borders.

                    It would appear that, at least for some libertarians, option 2 has been chosen.

            2. I’ve located the source of your misconception, so you’re in luck. I can address your central error here.

              …so no borders would mean no government, not “one government”.

              This is where you’re wrong. That is not what no borders means in any way, shape, or form. No borders does not mean no governments on a planetary scale, it means one government on a planetary scale. You know how I know this? Because the only open borders you can find on the face of the Earth are the borders within a single nation state.

    2. If you want to redefine what Globalism means, might I humbly suggest using a different word since this particular -ism is already taken by those who believe in one world government at any cost.

      The problem is any other ‘global’ ‘ism’ is a, or the same, non-sequitur as you’re effectively still implying control (from without or within) or activity. Otherwise, you’re talking about passively observing relatively non-moral things or trends like tourism, travel, or migration.

      Saying ‘people moved from here to there’ isn’t policy, it’s just observation. Once you start saying ‘they should’ve moved or been allowed to move from here to there’ it’s policy and you’re compelling people to make or accept choices they might not like. Moreover, “Me today, you tomorrow.” means that the other team gets to tell those people to go back to where they came from in 4 yrs.

      Personally, I blame those uppity white nationalists from the late 18th Century for not having the foresight to develop a global strategy to liberate the rest of the world.

  24. It is well to remember, however, that treaties between nation-states frequently have coordinated policies that enhance liberty. Although Trump has decried various trade treaties like NAFTA, such agreements have boosted economic growth and made most Americans better off.

    I would argue that the credit should be placed entirely on Market forces and not the treaty itself. Market forces have the ability to adapt to new circumstances and, while NAFTA and other such treaties impose regulations and other impediments, they did open the door, unwittingly, for Market forces to put their foot in and let the winds of freedom flow by. This is what Trumpistas and other American-style Juche-lovers do not understand: that Markets and the hundreds of millions of free individuals whose actions build the networks on which commerce and trade rely are much more robust and resilient than what they think. Their attraction towards authoritarian rule (under the guise of protecting Americans from ruthless competitors and brown-skinned immigrants) is merely a sorry spectacle, a toothless one. They’re pathetic as they’re impotent.

    1. This is what Trumpistas and other American-style Juche-lovers do not understand:

      Oh, I think they understand it only too well, which is why they hate it. They want to control what other people do. They want to force other US citizens to “buy American” – for their own benefit, of course. Trump inherited the remnants of the labor movement. His voters are people like former UAW members who lost their jobs because of competition from Japanese cars. They don’t give a crap if the economy as a whole benefits – they are just interested in getting their cut.

      1. You need to look into getting some meds hazel or at least mix in a decaf. You really are a lunatic. A no shit lunatic.

        1. Or just a job. I can’t imagine her husband would be too happy about her ignoring the kids all day to spam screechy globalist posts all day.

          1. The sad fact is that I believe in free trade and immigration. It is just that she and Mexican are such idiots and such fanatics that anyone who even thinks about the issue or in anyway strays from the party line is an “alt right” Nazi. Those two ruin every trade or immigration thread. They make the same sorry, dishonest points over and over again. Neither one of them know anything or do anything but make anyone who reads their posts dumber for having done so. I wish they would post on drug war threads or something.

            1. I wish you would stop trolling Reason and go post somewhere where your nativist bullshit is welcome.

              1. How does it feel to want Hazel? I have on weakness, the desire to torture stupid people like you. Everyone has a vice and that is mine.

          2. I have a very good job. My husband stays home and takes care of the kids.

        2. You’re the one who thinks the WTO is a sinister organization that wants to use free trade as a back door to impose gun control laws.

          1. And there’s the strawman.

  25. Oh man, you just triggered all the fauxtarians! Next time have a warning!

  26. There isn’t much point in being “for” or “against” globalization. It is a fact and an irreversible condition, and will only expand despite those of us who find much to be alarmed about In its operation.

    Better I think to focus on how to address and minimize the fallout, most likely at the local level since the national politicians have bought into it lock, stock and barrel than to moan about globalization.

    1. True. The idea that we’re going to go back to ethnically homogenous nation-states with regulated trade is a total fantasy. Whether you like it or not, in the future, it’s just going to get easier to move around and exchange goods, and attempts to block this are going to result in black markets. (Which is essentially what illegal immigration is – a black market in labor).

      1. You are a delusional idiot. There is nothing to say that future will be more free. In fact, there are a lot of things that indicate it will be less free. The international order that reigned during the cold war is dead. China and Russia will not accept it. We are going back to a world of great powers and spheres of influence. And that is in no way conducive to much less a guarantee of freer markets or more open borders.

        At some point, doesn’t it get old not knowing anything? Don’t you get curious at least?


        1. The idea that we’re going to go back to ethnically homogenous nation-states with regulated trade is a total fantasy.

          No, Hazel is right but not in the way they think. The fact of the matter is we never actually left that status in the first place, so the idea that we’re going back to it is false. You can’t go back to something you’ve never abandoned in the first place.

          1. That is a good point. Remember, Hazel is dumb as a post. So she actually thinks the US was ever ethnically homogenous.

            1. Where did I say that the US was ethnically homogenous?
              1/3 of the population of the US was black slaves at the time of the civil war.

              1. You said we were not going back to being that way, which necessarily implies that we at some point were. In fairness, you were just talking out of your ass and had no idea what you were saying or the necessary logical implications of it.

              2. If you think a third of the population of the United States were slaves at the time of the civil war, I triple dog dare you to figure out how they’re such a small population figure now. What, did we kick them all out of the country after the Civil War? Or do African Americans breed that much slower?

          2. So you think the US is still an ethnically homogenous nation-state?

            1. Compared to what? European nations, Latin America, or any of the other major ethnically homogenous nations you would care to compare us to?

              Was my post bait? Probably. But it’s illustrative that we’re an exception rather than a rule. Additionally, if you bother to look it up, the ‘melting pot’ theory of American integration has been largely discredited for several decades.

              I do note, however, that you believe that ethnicity is somehow synonymous with regulated trade for some reason which is a connection that makes no sense whatsoever.

        2. You are a delusional idiot.

          The problem is that the usual libertarian humility (inconsistently applied as it is) is that it doesn’t stop statists and politicians from trying to import/export/enforce any basic principle they so choose wherever they choose to do so.

          It’s pretty straightforward to see that a flat out open borders policy has world peace as a prerequisite. Otherwise, you’re going to have to force or otherwise compel Israel to let anyone and everyone in, force N. Korea to allow Americans to allegedly tear down propaganda posters. Force N. Sudan and S. Sudan to… Catalonia and Spain… Basques and Spain… Kurds and Iraq… Ukraines and Russians… Yemeni and Saudis… Meccans and Non-Muslims… and any organization or policy that can wish all that mess into the cornfield is going to be readily co-opted for some hard-core global oppression.

          Once you see this, you begin to realize that open borders globalism/globalization in the ‘No World Order’ sense, as an active policy, has got the cart before the giraffe. That nationalism and tribalism don’t beget borders any more than borders beget nationalism and tribalism.

          1. Just for the record, when I advocate “open borders”, I’m not talking about opening them to everybody without any consideration for who’s coming across our borders.

            I’m talking about a treaty with Mexico, for instance, in which their citizens are permitted to come across the border by simply showing an ID, much like the way Americans are able to cross the border into Mexico.

            That ID would let us screen out known felons, cartel members, etc., would guaranteed that the person showing the ID has been immunized against certain communicable diseases, etc.

            One of the advantages of such a system, in addition to allowing the free flow of labor across our borders, would be that it would clear the desert of people simply looking for work. Why sneak through miles of desert in the middle of night, be victimized by smugglers, etc. when you can simply walk across the border at a checkpoint for free. This would mean that the only people sneaking through the desert at night were the bad guys–making our border with Mexico much more secure.

            1. That ID would let us screen out known felons, cartel members, etc., would guaranteed that the person showing the ID has been immunized against certain communicable diseases, etc.

              I’m curious as to who will be issuing the government issued IDs to cartel members in Mexico? Will each cartel member get a different-colored backdrop in their photo so that border agents know?

              I don’t mean to wholly burst your bubble but demonstrate that Mexico and the US are relatively ideologically aligned and there are still considerable kinks to work out and ‘one weird tricks’ to be fooled by. And that this doesn’t even address Visas issued to Indians and (South/Central) Asians or Middle Eastern refugees, etc.

              1. I’m not going to be able to address every nuance, but it would need to be a database that the Mexican government creates, that we can check independently, and that we feel safe about.

                One of the problems we run into now is that we can’t even keep illegal immigrants who were convicted felons–in America–and deported out of the country. They just sneak back across.

                There was a guy arrested in Portland, recently, for sexually assaulting a 65 year old woman–he’d been convicted of a felony previously and had been deported 20 times.

                http://tinyurl.com/y9w9f98d

                We have no way to keep such people out of the country because of the cloud of innocent people looking for work he can hide among when he sneaks back into the country across the desert. Yeah, Mexico’s database would need to be created in a way that we trusted, but right now, we can’t even use our own databases.

                1. Ok, two things that bother me here.


                  We have no way to keep such people out of the country because of the cloud of innocent people looking for work he can hide among when he sneaks back into the country across the desert.

                  One of the problems we run into now is that we can’t even keep illegal immigrants who were convicted felons–in America–and deported out of the country. They just sneak back across.

                  Deportation is literally the worst way of attempting to handle that. Sending them back to Mexico doesn’t mean they end up in a Mexican jail, it means they’re just tossed back across the border to immediately walk back. Deportation is not a punishment for a crime, it is a reward.

                  And, I absolutely acknowledge that there is no way of keeping them from crossing. The only solution is to keep them here in America, in jail, for the sentence they earned here. Mexico has zero interest in working with us on any portion of immigration, at this point remuneration of wealth from illegal immigrants in the U.S. is a huge boon to their economy. (Ok, huge might be the wrong word but it is not insignificant.)

                  1. And, when I say it’s a benefit, imagine that if your only punishment for committing a crime (even a violent crime!) was to be kicked across the border into your home country where your whole family lives.

                    That isn’t a punishment, it’s an incentive to keep crossing the border and continue committing crimes. Now, if Mexico locked up people that we deported back to their home countries it might be a different story but Mexico ain’t interested in that.

                    Is that fair to taxpayers? Well, no, but is it more or less fair than essentially zero punishment to certain offenders based on their ethnicity? And, sure, I suspect that there are a lot of Mexican nationals in our prisons. I honestly don’t know what the criteria is there between being deported and being put in jail.

                    1. You seem to think that convicted felons are sent to Mexico instead of prison.

                      That isn’t so.

                      The question is what to do with convicted felons after they’ve served their sentence in American prisons, and the answer is that they’re deported.

                      The reason we can’t keep them out is because it’s easy to sneak back into the country under the cover of thousands of other illegal immigrants–who only represent a threat to people’s overgrown bushes and lawns.

                  2. “And, I absolutely acknowledge that there is no way of keeping them from crossing. The only solution is to keep them here in America, in jail, for the sentence they earned here. “

                    Two problems with that.

                    1) The guy served his sentence and was released. You’re going to imprison them past their sentence? That’s not a solution.

                    2) The fact that we are currently not keeping them from crossing back is not evidence that we can’t do anything to keep them from crossing back.

                    For instance, we could eliminate that swarm of people sneaking through the desert by letting them cross legally. Then the only people sneaking through the desert at night would people who have no business doing so–and they’d be easy to catch.

                    If you can’t find a needle in a haystack, why not get rid of the haystack? It’s a haystack of our own making, and we can get rid of it if we want.

          2. An important prerequisite for this open borders policy isn’t world peace, but we would need to get such a treaty through the Senate. We’re not going to get that kind of public support for an open borders treaty with Mexico until we can assure enough average American voters that we’re able to keep out those who are rejected at the border for being convicted felons, etc. And we’re never going to get that kind of public support by approaching an open borders treaty like Obama did the Paris Climate Accord–by agreeing to it without submitting it to the Senate for approval. Do an end around the American people on something like that, and people will oppose it for that reason alone–perhaps rightly so.

            Libertarianism isn’t about seizing the reigns of power and forcing libertarian policies on everybody–democracy be damned. Libertarianism is about persuading our fellow Americans to embrace libertarian polices of their own free will.

            1. Libertarianism isn’t about seizing the reigns of power and forcing libertarian policies on everybody–democracy be damned. Libertarianism is about persuading our fellow Americans to embrace libertarian polices of their own free will.

              Dude, we can’t even get libertarians to agree that trannies should/shouldn’t be allowed into, or have their elective surgeries covered as part of their, military service. I’m not going to act like the thin blue/green line of ICE/BPS is all that keeps the cartels ‘in Mexico’ but let’s not act like opening our borders will make their entry into this country harder.

              I like our border policy, it’s actually pretty comparably open. Certainly not ‘most open’ and could be better but hardly brutal oppression. I’m telling you, as a libertarian, much of the backlash against existing immigration policy is because ends around the American people have been done. Repeatedly.

              1. That isn’t an open borders policy.

                That’s an abdication of responsibility.

                Boeing just bought a pilotless sky taxi service . . .

                http://tinyurl.com/y7ao5ow9

                . . . but securing the border is unpossible?

                At some point, that argument loses credibility.

  27. I’ll stick with Economic Nationalism until the playing fields are level.

  28. The simplest way of putting this is that Bailey is delusional in the same way “true believers” in communism are delusional.

    I agree with most of the general ideas he’s talking about, but what he sees in his head and what reality is are sooooooooo divergent it’s not even funny. The only kind of globalism happening nowadays, or in the foreseeable future, is of the massive evil bureaucratic kind in the mold of the EU. Thinking anything other than that is what’s going on is pure delusion.

    Free trade? I am adult enough to realize that though there may be a moral high ground there (right for people to trade is good), there are likely pros and cons even with REAL free trade in the real world. But we don’t even have that now. Foreign countries practice protectionism, while we don’t, and many of our industries have collapsed when they wouldn’t have with real free trade. I’d say that makes us suckers as much as anything else, we should have at least forced open foreign markets to give them access to ours. But that would have actually made sense, hence it was off the table.

    With income disparities between us and other poor countries, we may well simply be frozen out of many industries, potentially to our detriment (or not, it depends!), even with real free trade. Arguing that it HAS to be a net positive on ALL sides in ALL situations is simply not realistic.

    1. Other countries with different values are playing politics with economics while we’re pretending it’s all just simple dollars and cents. It is, and it isn’t. Money is money, but money is also power. China targeting specific industries to bankrupt in foreign nations like the US/Japan/Europe is MORE than just business. Many of these are for strategic reasons. Caring about such things is “below us” in free(er) market countries… But I think it is naive to pretend there aren’t consequences of letting entire industries be destroying in the nations that created them, and then concentrated solely in the hands of admitted geopolitical rivals.

      I’m not saying I have any solutions here (other than maybe building up India as our main borderline slave labor partner, since they’re actually friendly instead!), but pretending it’s all good for us or all fun and games is just naive IMO.

      A crack user may believe he is getting the better end of the deal buying his rock from his dealer, but I think everybody knows it’s really the dealer who is winning there. I think that’s a reasonable approximation of our trade with some countries in the world today. We’re loving our crack, but whether or not it is really for the best in the long haul is not 100% certain from a practical standpoint, even if one argues it is morally worth it.

    2. As far as all the rest of the stuff, I don’t have any ill will towards any foreigners, and wish them the best of luck in doing their thing… But absolute open borders between countries actually working well is another delusional idea. It just doesn’t work in the real world the way globalists think it does. It’s not kumbaya… It’s riots. And protests. And people being assaulted because of their ethnicity (usually more the host counties population than the foreigners nowadays). It’s native born people being outvoted in their own native homelands by people who don’t share their values or traditions.

      People around the world simply have too many different ideas of what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior, what the government can or cannot do, and on and on. As fucked up as we are, America is basically still the best decent sized country on earth. Free speech, gun rights, due process… Nobody else has those to the degree we do.

      If foreigners could VOTE here, full on open borders will do nothing but destroy our culture and our country. To pre-empt charges of racism (even though I’m part Mexican) it’s not even just “brown people” that are a problem, even Europeans don’t get it. Hell, half of Americans don’t get it anymore because they don’t know their own history or importance of our traditional national ideals. As long as we are a democratic republic we will 100% become less free if we have massive immigration rates.

    3. So if you want a third world socialist hell hole we can definitely turn America into that with open borders… If you want anything resembling a well to do country with a large middle class, freedom of speech, gun rights, freedom of religion and so on then we can’t have total open borders. Not without restrictions on voting rights at least. We could do something like Rome did where people could live in the US, but not have full citizenship. Or we could have hardcore ideological purity tests before allowing people to move here. But both of those have serious issues. If foreigners can vote when they land here though, you can kiss freedom goodbye if we allowed large scale immigration.

      I think we can take in plenty of intelligent/educated immigrants in the 21st century, which won’t tank our standard of living as throngs of low skilled ones probably would in sufficient numbers. However, depending on the numbers, if they can vote it may well still destroy our system of government as we now know it.

      Again it comes down to pretending that absolute freedom can’t possibly have any down sides. This is what Bailey seems to believe… But he’s smoking crack.

      We’re on the edge of even holding things together with our native born population, and we’re the most conservative/libertarian leaning culture on planet earth! Anyone who thinks letting in millions of people from countries with socialized medicine is going to make us LESS LIKELY to get socialized medicine here is a moron! THINK.

    4. People can believe in the absolute right to unrestricted migration, that’s a moral decision. But to believe that that can happen without pros and cons is being mentally defective. Between absolute freedom of movement, and having at least a chance of keeping this country reasonably free, I’m going to go with the latter.

      If you want to see an example of what Europe and America could look like today, look no further than Japan. No refugees, hardly any immigration… And guess what? Their country devotes exactly ZERO time or energy to worrying about race relations. Or infighting between ethnic groups. Or pandering to minorities because they don’t want to appear offensive. None. They have their problems to be sure, but they don’t have that entire section of bullshit that Europe and America and spending half their time fighting about nowadays. That’s a big fat win for Japan IMO.

      Europe and America (we had blacks, but dealing with one group is a lot easier than dealing with a dozen identity groups) could basically be there if this massive utopian idea wasn’t put into practice by moron politicians ignoring THE ENTIRETY OF HUMAN HISTORY which showed it’s usually a horrible idea to cram people with completely different religions and cultures into close proximity.

      I used to believe multiculturalism could work, I’ve come around to the realization that it’s just a warm and fuzzy, but completely impracticeable idea.

    5. Oh, and globalism is the exact opposite of what we really need. We need more decentralized power. In the USA, the only way any libertarian (or conservative for that matter) ideals are EVER going to come about is by secession. Giving the leftists California and maybe Oregon/Washington is the best peaceful way for everybody to get what they want. They can have Commiefornia, and the rest of the country can have fights between trad cons and libertarians… Which is where the real political center ought to be!

      People need to accept that others may not always share their opinions, and personally I think allowing new nation states to form on the basis of shared beliefs is the best way to make everybody happy. Cali will turn in Venezuela before long, but it’ll be their problem to deal with.

  29. I am all for actual free trade but not fucking NAFTA, sorry “Reason” but NAFTA is not “free trade” its government managed, crony capitalist trade, there is thousands of pages added on top of the regulations we have now in NAFTA how a supposed libertarian web site can support that sham is beyond me.

  30. Libertarian Globalism Versus Economic Nationalism – Hit & Run : Reason.comis the best post by imo for pc Please visit imo app imo app snaptube for pc snaptube app

  31. Wow, this article is blow my mind! Thank you for writing it!

    sbobet online

  32. Online Safes Hotel WELKO Hotel Safe

    Commitment to genuine and new products 100%

    ? Commitment only gives customers the best products.

    ? Working from 7am to 10pm on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays

    ? Warranty statement, manual, home warranty for free.

    ? Payment on receipt and carefully checked (can transfer)

    ? Any questions about the product or need advice on fire safety.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.