Replies

I will address this at greater length. You write, "Some libertarians assert" which attempts to tarnish the whole with views of some who claim to speak for the whole.

A good discussion is The von Mises Instutute article "The Origin of Libertarianism". In this article they take credit and blame for resurecting the term "libertarian" to describe classic liberalism, the term "Liberal" having been stolen by and perverted by the left.

The article summarises the issue by concluding " libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence — legal or illegal — to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today."

Now as to your point "If an immigrant seeks to engage in peaceful, voluntary transactions that do not threaten the freedom or security of the native-born, the government should not interfere". Well let us examine this closely because I think the premise is unsustainable. In the first place, the author restricts the inquiry narrowly just to a presumed singular immigrant and inquires whether such acts by such and individual affects, narrowly, a native born's "freedom or security." Of course, one by one the impact of an individual illegal but otherwise law-abiding immigrant has little collective impact, though you might ask whether any singular individual native born citizens were adversely affect.

But the issue is really whether a mass influx of such immigrants negatively impacts the broader interests of the native born. And there the issue is actually inarguable, which is why the hew and cry especially over H1B visa abuse, which is a good place to examine the question.

You see individual rights in a society are much broader than just freedom [e.g. to protest Tommy Robinson outside the British embassy] or security [e.g. said immigrant did not invade my home at gunpoint or blow up a train].

In the first place a native born has a vested interest in the language and culture [and accompanying institutions] that he was born into, which are fundamental building blocks of a society. Of course the Marxists know this which is why they have sought so single-mindedly to undermine western culture attacking it by co-opting the words we use and undermining their meaning.

In the second place, rights include property rights and includes freedom to contract. Now, we protect some property rights at gunpoint. Included in property rights is intellectual property which includes professional education and licenses. Try practicing law without a license and the state will show up with guns drawn in the middle of the night, shoot your dog and haul you off to prison.

But how about other professions, the most obvious being software engineers and computer scientists, the targets of the H1B visa scam. There is a sort of social contract between citizens and the market. You get an education, you develop requisite professional skills and you can reap the benefits by competing in the market for remunerative employment. But that contract has been broken and no you can't compete because the market has been flooded by the dumping on the market of the products of heavily subsidized foreign education systems that don't come here with enormous debts.

Once you have severed the remuneration for a job from the consequent benefit to society [pay taxes, support your favorite local institutions, raise a family, etc.] from the fact of employment you have undermined the society the culture that provides freedom and security.

Libertarians have allowed themselves to be undone by the socialists and their running dog crony capitalists and globalists into confusing the freedom to trade (exchange) goods and services across boarders through a market with the right of one country to undermine the economic security of another country for long term global strategic purposes.

The problem that constitutional conservatives (classic liberals) have is the submission to glib labels as a way of arguing a point, and the left have become very good at hypercharging the meaning of the labels pinned on conservatives with their own connivance.

So arguing what "libertarianism" "is" is to fall into the trap of Clintonian dialectics.