Comments on: Libertarian? hmmmm….

By: jonathan

jonathan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:38:08 +0000

I have to agree with much of the criticism of the LPUK in the article. I do support most LPUK policies but agree that the immigration policy is at odds with Libertarian principals.
It is up to those who join the LPUK to change this. Of course many in the LPUK are Tories in disguise but some are from the Libertarian Left – not to be confused with the Libertarian Socialists. I am one such and just like members of all political parties I don’t agree with eveything in the LPUK manifesto, hopefully change can come about from within through debate.
A couple of useful sites that more explain the Libertarian Left position on immigration:

http://radgeek.com/gt/2007/11/12/sin_fronteras/

http://all-left.net/

By: Gary Hall

Gary Hall — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:09:34 +0000

I would argue that it is your definition of libertarian that is muddled. Libertarian thought holds limited, axiomatic, and negative rights. Namely, non aggression – against persons and, in free-market libertarianism, against private property.

Asserting that “freedom of movement is a basic right” is asserting a positive right, which is not libertarian. Should there be an opportunity for home-steading unowned land, or peaceful and consensual trade in exchange for land, this should hold no matter whether migrant or indigenous.

LPUK and Solidarity Federation are, therefore, both erroneous in their respective positions on immigration. The former, as you point out, is authoritarian and counter-libertarian. In the latter’s case, the end is correct in some situations, but also built on erroneous means. The SF would have to ‘give’ land to immigrants in order to support their positive human right for freedom of movement. Generally, this ‘giving’ of land will involve ‘taking’ of already used land. Being that SF is socialistic, this theft would be necessarily justified as no-one would own the land or have any right to it. It doesn’t surprise me that they would support such a position as their stance on private ownership is inherently flawed and leads to fallacies such as this.

Furthermore, the fact that there would be no state education system in a truly libertarian society, it follows that there could be no automatic access to education. To believe that there should would be to assert a positive ‘right to education’, which is similarly fallacious.

By: Another US Libertarian

Another US Libertarian — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:36:17 +0000

Hey there, excellent post. Here’s another blog article people may find useful when dispatching so-called ‘libertarian’ arguments for greater government control : http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/12/30/dismantling-a-libertarian-argument-for-restricting-immigration/

By: Richard Rodriguez

Richard Rodriguez — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:09:16 +0000

Yes, I’m with you people. I am an US citizen, but my fiance is from Colombia and we are having many problems with lawers, government, etc…