_ap_ufes{"success":true,"siteUrl":"freetheanimal.com","urls":{"Home":"http://freetheanimal.com","Category":"http://freetheanimal.com/blog-admin","Archive":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07","Post":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/nobody-is-safe.html","Page":"http://freetheanimal.com/advertising-product-service","Nav_menu_item":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/subscribe.html","Content_ad_widget":"http://freetheanimal.com/?content_ad_widget=widget-2-5x118"}}_ap_ufee

Well, That Didn’t Take Long

It was predictable. I was not the only one to point it out. There were others, too. I even wrote a whole summary of the thing. See, it's simply a giant contradiction in terms to talk of upholding principles in the immediate breath prior to talking about negotiating compromises of those principles in the political arena. It's just that simple.

So, I posted this, yesterday. There are additional comments at that Q&O entry, if you care to go read them. But really, here's the one that I think is most relevant to the issue at hand (edited a bit here for better clarity):

Bruce, let me get to the crux of why this whole posturing on "illegal"
immigration has bothered me since your first entry on it.

Today, I was reading your pub and came across this, on pg. 2:

We
believe that when given a set of policy choices, the choice that
maximizes personal liberty, offers the least amount of necessary
government intervention or regulation, and provides rational,


market-based incentives is the best choice.

Note that your creed seeks not only to limit and reduce unnecessary government intervention, but necessary intervention as well (presumably in lieu of market solutions).

So,
here we’re presented with a scenario, "illegal" immigration, where the

practical reality is that much enforcement of the law is being
overlooked. In other words, we already have a situation where a great
deal of "personal liberty maximization" is going on -- for workers,
employers, and the consumers who benefit from the arrangement.

To
use an analogy, it’s as if, suddenly, they quit enforcing drug laws, or
any number of other laws that have no victims associated with them.

So,
I just wonder, such being the case, if you Neo-"Libertarians" would
suddenly recognize what a great political issue non-enforcement of
"illegal" drugs was going to be. And, of course, all the same bogus
arguments concerning "safety" and "security" are just as well in place for
you there, too.

What you Neo-Libertarians ought to be doing is
recognizing that a state of liberty maximization is already well
underway. You should applaud it, and you should support policies that reduce the welfare state, so as to reduce the incentives for
people to come here other than to work creating values for themselves


and others.

Instead, you guys are advocating for enforcement of
laws that would limit the practical freedoms that millions of honest,
hard-working people are already enjoying. Shame, shame, shame on you.