An ok answer to a really good question
Very thoughtful post, my good doctor. Let me throw a wrench through the eye of that needle ;-) If someone ever gives us the chance to reinvent immigration, I'd put a 5-yr pause on it, including college. Simultaneously, I'd like to end foreign ownership by corporations in other countries, states or counties (or by university regents in towns) and let every place be made, by its own inhabitants, into a place we'd want to go rather than leave. Those already there can develop the policies, including ownership, that work for them. THEN the question of immigration is just a matter of travel and adventure, not escaping oppression.
Open-door immigration means that whatever population that can flood into a region with better resources/ more opportunities and create a local majority will be able to rewrite the identity of that locality at will. It means basically saying there's no such thing as distinct, sustainable cultures, just a rotating cast of invasions that native populations are morally obliged to suck up but hey, look at all these restaurants, we're so cosmopolitan now.
I'm a libertarian and, iirc, I didn't agree with OWS because the pitchforks were directed at the private individuals who were beneficiary of the bailouts, plus everybody else in proximity; rather than at the government who provided the bailouts. Think of it thusly - when you find you have had some of your money stolen and then charitably given to someone else, you don't necessarily go after the recipients, and if you do, you do so after you have gone after the people who did the stealing.
I'm going to chime in on the immigration piece too. I'm one myself and can speak a little.
We bring fresh perspective and a thirst of life, ability to look forward and hustle, that locals have lost (as per some of Chris Arnade's writings). We bring a balance to the culture, economic vitality....
One: the large social welfare state isn't going anywhere. Given its size, infinite immigrants coming to take advantage of it are not sustainable.
Two: the citizens of a country do have an entitlement, I believe, over the rest of the world, to the attention of its government. Even if it's arbitrary, even if it was unfair when it happened. Even if it's an accident of who was born when and where and with what skills . Even if Soviet Jews suffered less than Congolese civil war refugees who have fewer economic skills than Chinese grad students, who are less loyal than Eastern Europeans buying into the Western Story.....etc. who deserves it, by merit or suffering or loyalty?
The government, when legitimate (and maybe you're an ancap, in which case replace "govt" with "voluntary regional mutual defense association") owes a duty to its current members. If your government is putting the needs of immigrants above your local population and giving them priority to certain limited resources, that breeds resentment (a pragmatic consideration) and feels extremely unfair, and it isn't. You don't have to choke off immigration but, as a previous commenter said, what there is now is unsustainable as it is it needs to be stopped, reassessed and fixed.
I fail to understand this obsession with immigration as if it is always, everywhere, and in any form a public good.
'In an apocryphal story, Milton Friedman debates a Swedish economist. The Swede says “In Scandinavia, we have no poverty”. Without skipping a beat, Friedman replies, “That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either.” '
Read the rest, many stats:
Dude, so good! (So far-- I'm only 1/3 of the way through) More later. Happy Thanksgiving!
A libertarian society will always work better if there is more cultural homogeneity and greater equality. If I am similar to my neighbours in many ways, and trust them highly, I am less in need of lots of law and order, government agencies, and big redistributive schemes. But libertarians won't have the sort of government that can protect that equilibrium, so even if you set it up initially, it won't last.
I think you are absolutely correct in the main point that there is no contradiction in the arguments, both are an argument for less government power. To play devil's advocate for the 'globalists' they would argue there are some big problems that require international cooperation to deal with, so we need things like the UN, WHO, WTO etc. I don't think they are wrong, but how to maintain any oversight and what degree of power any of these should have are issues, and because you can't have good oversight many people are suspicious of any power you give to them.
I think there are only two probable ways out of this massive bureaucracy mess we call our government.
One is a mass layoff of federal employees who don't really do much anyway. Kind of like Musk is doing at Twitter. That would require an executive with big enough balls to take on the beureucracy and be able to weather the legal and media shit storm that would be thrown at them. It would also require an effective communicator to show the public how their lives are improving while all those poor laid off government do nothing's are showcased on every TV news show not on OAN. I'm not sure who else is out there besides Trump that can or will do anything close to that and even then it's a long shot. Is he a strict free market capitalist who doesn't write mean Tweets and always acts "Presidential"? No. He is an orange bomb that at best will blow up inside the system and possibly create a path to right the ship. I want to light that fuse even if all I get out of it is another helping of leftist meltdowns like I saw in 2016.
The second possibility is the government collapses under its own weight. Hopefully that would happen before they disarm the populace and enact totalitarian controls but I'm guessing this nation will go full CCP style communism before that. In this scenario some of us may be fortunate enough to still be alive to have our grandchildren ask us how it all came to be. We can proudly state that we stuck to our free market principles and voted libertarian, a Romney/Kasich ticket, or didn't participate at all while the other side successfully elected socialist leaders who didn't have any principles at all.
The other side is too stupid to even be aware that they should be holding their noses while they mail in a vote for Biden and Fedderman. Hold your nose, vote for the lesser of two evils, get off your ass and get involved in local politics. Also, buy plenty of ammo for all those firearms you tragically lost on that fishing trip.
As a British beneficiary of the 'post-war socialist settlement' (biggest government ever) now living in France (massive government) and an occasional visitor to the US (bigger government than half the people would like) I always enjoy this type of article and the comments therein. They represent thoughts from an alien world to me. The state even mandates when I clean my chimney here haha!
And yet, landing this summer in LAX and my friend in Lake Forest having to drive all the way there and back to pick me up because there is no public transport, reminded me how glad I am to live where government is big - even though we obviously pay a lot for it. The quality of life en general here is now so much better than in Britain, since that fateful Thatcher/Reagan time caused the latter became so much more like the US.
It's not that I think you're wrong (or right). It's that philosophically there's such a chasm between our ideas of what government is even for.
Also, the French would be rioting daily if our roads were as terrible as yours. That most basic infrastructure being in such poor shape is almost funny, as a visitor.
I recognise that none of this adds to the debate. It's just interesting to register how strange your preoccupation with government seems to many of us over here.