Conservatarianism.
Scott Lemieux finds Glenn Reynolds up to his old tricks -- opining on how unseemly it is for illegal immigrants to march in LA, "making demands on the polity".
What I find remarkable about this is that, just a few days ago, Insta declared the Kansas legislature's decision to override Governor Sebelius' veto to allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons a "civil rights victory".
Whatever you think of the ultimate merits of allowing people to carry concealed weapons, their doing so has got to represent a "demand on the polity" -- your specific right to carry a gun overriding my generic right not to have to worry that the twitchy guy next to me on the bus is packing.
Really, this is the very essence of conservatarianism: freedom for wealthy white guys who can afford private security systems (and the $150 processing fee for a concealed gun permit) to do whatever the hell they want. And yes, that includes the God-given right to buy the sort of cheap vegetables that are only feasible when the pickers are paid third-world wages and have no worker protection or ability to organize politically at all. And to buy those vegetables without then having to endure pictures of uppity peasant revolts, or more bad news from Iraq, every time you open the goddamn newspaper. Is it really so much to ask? And don't give Glenn that bleeding-heart liberal nonsense either: didn't he tell us he once voted for Gary Hart?
p.s. Instapajamaline weekly bonus: Roger L Simon accusing a fellow human being of "pomposity" right before declaring that "the war against Islamofascism is not about George Bush, despite what some liberals might think."
What I find remarkable about this is that, just a few days ago, Insta declared the Kansas legislature's decision to override Governor Sebelius' veto to allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons a "civil rights victory".
Whatever you think of the ultimate merits of allowing people to carry concealed weapons, their doing so has got to represent a "demand on the polity" -- your specific right to carry a gun overriding my generic right not to have to worry that the twitchy guy next to me on the bus is packing.
Really, this is the very essence of conservatarianism: freedom for wealthy white guys who can afford private security systems (and the $150 processing fee for a concealed gun permit) to do whatever the hell they want. And yes, that includes the God-given right to buy the sort of cheap vegetables that are only feasible when the pickers are paid third-world wages and have no worker protection or ability to organize politically at all. And to buy those vegetables without then having to endure pictures of uppity peasant revolts, or more bad news from Iraq, every time you open the goddamn newspaper. Is it really so much to ask? And don't give Glenn that bleeding-heart liberal nonsense either: didn't he tell us he once voted for Gary Hart?
p.s. Instapajamaline weekly bonus: Roger L Simon accusing a fellow human being of "pomposity" right before declaring that "the war against Islamofascism is not about George Bush, despite what some liberals might think."
10 Comments:
Although it hurts my Move-On supporting soul to admit it, on this issue the conservative's argument seems stronger. You seem to be arguing that non-citizens, here illegally, have a right to protest the laws that they are breaking, and that we should give the objections of these non-citizens equal weight to the objections of citizens of our country.
I just can't see that. If we admit your point, where does it end? How do you propose that we decide just who has a right to determine the laws under which we live?
anonymous: your point is well taken, but as a basic freedom of speech issue, yes, I think anybody should be able to protest peacefully against laws that hurt them, anywhere, regardless of citizenship. The fact is, illegals are a major constituency in the US. Much agribusiness depends on them and their low wage work -- if US politicians and businesses really wanted them out, they'd do a better job of keeping them out, including cracking down on their employers. Glenn isn't even suggesting that's what he actually wants; essentially, he wants illegals to stay and keep picking his vegetables, but to do it quietly, subject to whatever arbitary, draconian and/or pro-business laws politicians decide to throw at them.
The protesters are, I think, unlikely to influence policy without votes or the ability to make political contributions -- the conservatives who think they'll produce a backlash are probably right. But the sniffiness of supposed pro-free speech libertarians at witnessing them try and make their voices heard is pretty ironic.
I have to agree with anonymous concerning the illegals' protests. All people have certain human rights regardless of their citizenship (and oh Lord, how I wish my gov't would respect those rights in Gitmo and elsewhere). Those rights include not being tortured, murdered, robbed, and in general treated with more respect than a household pet gets in this country. But Laura, you advocate that they have political rights, including speech and the right to assembly. I do not agree that people who are willfully violating our laws by being here should have the political rights of a citizen.
As for the gun carrying thing, you do understand that all laws punish behavior after the fact, yes? No law in a nominally free society can prevent a violation; it just establishes the punishment for those who are caught violating it. So, even in Canada, you do not know whether or not the 'twitchy' guy on the bus has a gun, or a pipe bomb, or cyanide gas. You know only that those things are illegal and he isn't supposed to have them.
I have to ask...
Were those 500,000 estimated people illegals? Did anybody check for citizenship or green cards?
If they were, that was certainly an opportunity missed for the border patrol... wasn't it.
Sorry, but Reynolds, for all his "I voted for Gary Hart" still thinks that slavery is pretty good for him.
Sorry, I'm just not sympathetic to someone here illegally attempting to bring pressure on my government to change our laws to their benefit. I do not see that they have any standing in this matter, and frankly resent the idea that someone who is not a citizen would have the presumption to tell me and the other citizens of this nation how we should manage our affairs.
I've never bought the "we need the illegals" argument, anyway. Let's pretend all illegals were deported, and a system was set up that kept them all from returning. What would happen? Some marginal farms would close, others would change to crops requiring less labor, and all would start paying enough to attract the labor they need. We would probably import more produce from other countries, mostly poorer ones, and pay a little more for some food products. More Americans would have jobs. Sooner or later, a new equilibrium would be found.
I don't think legalizing them is a solution, either. We've tried it once before, and according to studies I dimly recall reading the then legal immigrants simply began (illegally) bringing in more members of their extended families.
anonymous, I don't buy the "we (or America) need illegals" argument either. I'm not making it. The argument I'm making is that there is a demand for illegals. Deportation and strict enforcement has proved to be politically, and possibly also technically, impossible.
Treating illegals as nonentities means shifting all the blame for their "illegal" behaviour to them, contrary to the evidence that their employers also hire them illegally and the government lets it happen. Do unto others and all that. On top of that, the people demonstrating were some of the most fundamentally powerless people in the US.
In an ideal world, I'd want what you want: marginal farms that can't pay first-world wages close down, or cross the border under NAFTA and save the workers the long, hard trip every summer. Patrols that work. Strict fining of the businesses in question. The imperfectness of the system hurts everyone, including the illegals themselves. You can argue they don't and can't have a voice as non-citizens. But I don't think it's fair to say they shouldn't try to, when they're the most affected by what's going to happen.
nightshift: think about anti-smoking laws. In Canada, almost everywhere, it's illegal to smoke in public. That's a violation of civil rights in defence of the public interest: it precludes a choice to protect those who are affected by others' (not their own) choices. That's the same thing going on with concealed weapons law, which large numbers (a plurality in Kansas I thought) oppose. It's perfectly fair to say free choice overwhelms the publics' right to not worry about people carrying guns, but that's the dispute in question. "Libertarians" who think free choice for gun lovers is the big civil rights challenge of our time but are grossed out by the "demands on the polity" of people protesting against having to cross the desert to do dangerous work and basically live in the shadows of a country that's deeply ambivolent about them... sorry, I've got no sympathy.
Laura,
I concur with most of your proposals regarding the aliens; hammering the businesses who hire them with heavy fines would help, as would making it easier for them to come here legally. Since you are studying economics, I'm sure you are more versed than I am about the rise of black markets. The hiring of illegals is one such market. One of the few things governments can do to combat black markets is to make the punishment after getting caught costly enough to deter some of the behavior and raise the price of said behavior. That said, I still disagree with bestowing certain political rights on illegal aliens.
I'm not sure I understand your argument about CCW permits. A smoking ban is much easier to police than either whether a person is illegal or whether a person is carrying a weapon. You can SEE people smoking, after all. You cannot see citizenship or concealed items (unless you are willing to live with police search for any reason and ID papers).
My point was simply that passing a law doesn't end a behavior. There'd be no murder or theft if that were the case. So, you have only a false sense of security about the 'twitchy' person next to you. I'm not at all 'grossed out' by the protesters. I'm arguing that citizenship of a country confers both rights and responsibilities that are in addition to rights we have as human beings.
nightshift, again you make good points. Two things to conclude:
1) The smoking ban comparison is to give the example of the externalities that our "civil liberties" create. Politics in a post-ideological country like the US and Canada is largely (not entirely) about best balancing the needs of the "greater good" with the rights of individuals. e.g. security vs. liberty. In that regard, the smoking ban and a concealed weapons ban are similar policies. In enforcement, you're right, they're not similar. But the fact that concealed gun bans are impossible to enforce or give non-gun owners a false sense of security is a good argument to make against them. It doesn't change the basic nature of the what's in dispute.
2) I do think of the right to a assemble as universal, mainly because without the ability to mobilize and assemble, what you define as basic "human rights" are for more likely to be trampled. Like Tbogg has pointed out, illegals, instead of demonstrating, could threaten a strike. Citizens or not, it would be a real threat because US businesses depend on their labour. Acknowledging the realities of immigration to me means acknowledging the realities of the interdependency -- not assuming, as a lot of rightwingers impliticity do, that the US is doing illegals' some sort of favour, flat-out indulging them, by having them here. There is a lot business pressure to keep them in the country. It's not a good thing imo, and I'd welcome a politics that stood up to the demands of slave-labour business, but it's reality. The reality the illegal immigrants, as well as we, deal with.
Finally, I'm sure you realize that I wasn't accusing you or anonymous of being "grossed out" by the demonstrations. I was refering back to my original shot at Instapundit, whose libertarian bonadides slip oh-so-easily into colonialism.
I think you and I are going to have to disagree on this one. I just don’t think successfully avoiding the Border Patrol gives a non-citizen any more rights than those held by a non-citizen who follows our laws. While I understand your sympathy with the difficult situations many illegals are in, I do not think that aspect of the question is more important than the need we have as a nation to base our policy first and foremost on what is in the best long-term interests of the citizens of the nation as a whole.
Post a Comment
<< Home