There is little difference between the typical libertarian and "Green New Deal" Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Both are naive. Both are idealists.The Libertarian vision is a false one, one that flows from naive minds.
Libertarians and Borders
Once upon a time, when the USA was a Republic (1781 to 1933), US citizens, most of whom were Americans (i.e., sons of British ancestry born in the King's colonies on the eve of the War for Independence), lived mostly in freedom (the absence of law in the presence of law givers).They could do so only because first a country was formed among them with a set of rules. Among those rules were the rules that defined borders, which they defended and rules, which decided who from the outside world they would let live among them.
Libertarians in the main are naive idealists who believe, foolishly, because they have nice thoughts about how mankind should organize, that a sort of political singularity could or should happen whereby every country will become libertarian at the same time.
In such naive belief, they then claim that borders will become irrelevant, and people who are the most ambitious (but never the most duplicitous and wily) will rise to the top and by their own hands (and minds), deserve to own the best land, best houses, on earth while the less ambitious will be forced to migrate to lesser existences elsewhere.
In their view, though they are not smart enough to see it, libertarianism acts as sort of a giant re-sorting machine, letting the winners take the best all because libertarianism would re-write the rules of engagement.
Libertarians fail to see that is what war has done always. War has been the sorting machine whereby mankind has decided who gets what land and who lives among them. Afterward, defense in war is what lets those in alliance to each other keep what they have.
Property, of course, always only has ever meant the 'right of ownership' in jurisprudence and never the chattel owned. Yet, most libertarians do not know this.
Wars, of course, are fought for property, even ongoing factional civil wars in social democracies, like the current USA. In the USA, well-organized groups fight to secure additional property without earning it in the marketplace.
So with the libertarian, if he is aware of this, we can agree. All wars are wars for property, that is, the right of ownership, whether fought to the death or fought through politics and jurisprudence.
Libertarians, Immigration and No Citizenship
Where we can not agree is why create a rule system (libertarianism) that lets a whole bunch of invaders under the guise of competitors flood the USA. To the working-class and especially to those with normal range intellects (IQ 90 to 109), this makes life harder for them, unnecessarily so.
To libertarians, a taco is as good as a hamburger, Spanish is as good as English, Mohammadism, Hinduism, Judaism or other atheism is as good a Christian Jesusism, abortion is as good as life, prostitution is as good as marital fidelity.
Libertarians place no weight nor respect on citizenship. Thus, libertarians share the same cosmopolitan philosophy of one-government-over-the-world socialists who work diligently to flood the European Union countries with grubby welfare-seeking Mohammadan foreigners mostly from Africa.
In the naive idealism of libertarianism, they fail to follow their own creed. Libertarians offer no compensation to US citizens to lose citizenship.
When men organize and make standard weights and measures, men facilitate trade among themselves because they instill in themselves confidence that other men with whom they trade see things in the same way.
Citizenship is a kind of standardization. Men of various degrees of aptitude, whether of body or of mind, surrender parts of natural advantages to the government, which they create. Thus, citizenship is a standard that instills confidence in each of them. Citizenship represents a uniform pledge of allegiance to live among each other in a certain way.
But with libertarians, this social standard of jurisprudence becomes nullified.
But Foreigners Do Not Want Libertarianism
Libertarians are so naive that libertarians believe all people would want libertarian-style freedom if only it could be offered to them. Mestizos who cross the US-Mexico border illegally do not want that.
Most low-grade intellect people want socialism. They do not care if they have property in capital put to production in hopes of profit. They are not even smart enough to see their labor for what it is — the poor man's capital.
It is natural for any of mankind to want the most for the least effort. Thus, most are willing to trade away freedom as long as someone else pays medical bills for them, even if the medicine becomes inferior. They will trade away libertarian ideal freedom to get someone else to pay their rent even if their housing is inferior because of it.
Libertarianism and World History
Since the American War for Independence (1775 to 1781), many people have engaged in revolution and radical overthrow of their existing order.
Colonial Americans overthrew the British Parliament, in truth, under the guise of rejecting the British King George. They established a libertarian-like Republic and drew from the experience of 168 years of charters, compacts and constitutions that codified ever more restricted government. From the Anglo-Saxon ancestors, they pulled the concept of the representative moot. From their British cousins of the Puritan Revolution, they saw the goodness in key concepts like the English Bill of Rights.
Yet, what about the world since the American War for Independence? The French held a revolution a scant eight years after the Americans. Did they usher in a libertarian paradise? Non.
The French tried to institute a godless socialist Utopia. Within short order, a dictator, Napoleon, seized the reins of power.
And what about after the French? From the 1900s, many countries have come into being: communist Soviet Union, fascist Italy, fascist Nazi Germany, communist China, communist Korea, communist Cuba and many other communist countries in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. In that time, other dictators popped up like "Papa Doc" Duvalier (Haiti), Francisco Franco (Spain), Muamar el-Gadhafi (Libya), Saddam Hussein (Iraq).
Not one revolution since the American War for Independence set up a libertarian-like Republic. All have been centralizing dictatorships of one kind or another.
Look at Venezuela more recently. Why did not Venezuelans turn to libertarianism? Why do people push for socialism, communism and dictatorship rather than libertarianism?
The answer can be found in the foregoing and is inherent in the nature of mankind. As long as someone of low-grade intellect can improve himself with no effort on his part, he will make a Faustian bargain to do so, all too often unwittingly.
Naive, idealistic libertarians never will get their way as long as they side with those pushing open-borders globalism. For those pushing for globalism are pushing for positive rights social democracy. Positive rights is the antithesis of libertarianism.
Gab It
