Trump’s Plan to Fence Foreigners out – and Americans in

Harry Browne, former Libertarian Party nominee for president, once quipped, “A free and prosperous society has no fear of anyone entering it. But a welfare state is scared to death of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.”

This quote seems to ring especially true whenever politicians propose either immigration restrictions or economic protectionism. Their reasoning is straightforward. Those who fear the migration of the poor to their country are often concerned about the cost of welfare benefits available for disadvantaged individuals (despite evidence that immigrants are less likely to use such benefits).

Those who fear the fleeing of the rich do so out of concern that fewer tax dollars will be available to pay for extravagant government spending programs. Methods imposed by the state to dictate both inward and outward migration are often totalitarian in nature and stem from the fact that the society enacting those methods is already not a free one.

Perhaps no recent national candidate has exemplified this way of thinking more than presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Trump’s plan to impose heavy-handed immigration restrictions is well known. He plans on having a wall built that stretches the length of the US-Mexico border, which Mexico is allegedly going to pay for. He also very much wants to round up and deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Certainly part of this desire stems from the fact that Mexican immigrants are often poor and unskilled. Trump made this very clear in the speech he made while announcing his presidential run when he said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.”

Many people who agree with Trump are fearful that American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for immigrants from the lower economic class — those who are not “the best” (meaning, for Trump, the richest and most skilled).

But Trump’s desire to restrict migration doesn’t just apply to poor Latinos. It also applies to rich businesspeople and wealthy organizations in America that may choose to do business elsewhere. Trump railed against such emigration when the PGA’s World Golf Championships opted for Mexico City over a Trump-owned course in Florida, where it had been held since 2007.

The real estate mogul addressed this decision at a campaign rally in Sacramento by saying, “They moved the World Golf Championships from Miami to Mexico City. Can you believe it? But that’s OK. Folks, it’s all going to be settled. You vote for Donald Trump as president, if I become your president, this stuff is all going to stop.”

It’s not clear what measures Trump would use to prevent a private organization like the PGA from voluntarily moving one of its events out of the United States. But his desire to use the power of government to stop such action reflects his fondness for economic protectionism. He similarly assails private companies like Ford, Nabisco, and Pfizer for moving operations out of the country.

The same sentiment can be seen in Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer’s plan to levy taxes on wealthy individuals who renounce their US citizenship. The bill, nicknamed the “Ex-Patriot Act,” was motivated by Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renouncing his citizenship to avoid high US taxes. The legislation was clearly a last-ditch effort by the government to grab some portion of a rich person’s money before it lost the ability to do so.

However, it’s difficult to see how an action like this could be directed at a golfing association for holding an event in a different country. Perhaps only Trump knows the strong-arm tactics he will use to stop “this stuff” from happening.

It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has followed Trump’s campaign thus far that he would embrace the sort of authoritarianism espoused by both the left and the right. Vilifying poor foreigners and keeping them out of the country delights many on the nationalist right. Vilifying rich people and corporations and trapping them in the country embraces a philosophy championed by the nationalist left.

Considering that Trump has backed extraordinarily expensive proposals — such as a gigantic border wall, a police state to hunt down millions of immigrants, and some sort of government-run health care system — it isn’t hard to see why he would want to prevent both entrance for the poor and exit for the rich. If the country rejects these types of expensive and expansive policies, fear of immigration and emigration across our borders should largely dissipate. Harry Browne had it right: a truly free society has no need to fear free and voluntary movement.

Matthew Doarnberger

Matthew Doarnberger

Matt Doarnberger operates the website Libertarian Sports Fan. He is a graduate of Salisbury University and currently lives in Harrisburg, NC. Follow LSF on Facebook or Twitter at @LibertarianSF.

This article was originally published on Read the original article.


A Few Libertarian Music Videos You’re Sure to Enjoy

Ah yes, Ron Paul, always a good way to start off literally any list you could think of. In this music video, the creator makes an impassioned plea via creative vocal editing to end the war on drugs.


This next song, “Serfdom USA”, is perhaps particularly relevant this election cycle with Donald Trump.

In this piece, Remy tells it how it is – from the NSA’s perspective on wiretapping, that is.

“No Knock Raid,” by Lindy, is a powerful indictment of the War on Drugs, but not recommended for everyone, because…WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE–INCLUDES DEA SHOOTING OF MAN AND DOG. Republicans insist on waging a war on an inanimate object… and the inanimate object is winning.

And to round out this list, a couple pieces by one of my personal favorites, Jordan Page.

A Few Libertarian Music Videos You’re Sure to Enjoy

A Few Thoughts on the Republican Reaction to Donald Trump

You know, what I’ve found most amusing this election cycle is watching the degree to which the majority of Republicans despise Donald Trump. It seems their emotions run the spectrum from slight discomfort to vitriolic hatred; and they aren’t incorrect in this feeling. But what makes it so amusing is that, despite whatever the Republican Establishment might try to say to the contrary, Trump is the human incarnation, so to speak, not perhaps of the Republican Platform, but of the Republican Philosophy, if such a contradictory and absurd thing can said to be a philosophy at all. He’s tough on immigration, brazenly nationalistic, militaristic to the nth degree, speaks harshly, metaphorically shoots first and asks questions later, favors economic protectionism and Statism under a false banner of “capitalism”, all the while wielding State Power to achieve his ends; he’s “tough on abortion”, when he said he would punish women for seeking abortions. Even the Republicans decried this, and yet, that makes it all the more interesting, because Trump was not incorrect in the perception that punishing those who seek a service is the only way to theoretically abolish such a service (this is an economic fallacy, as can be seen in the drug war, but is still an opinion held in some regard by both sides of the aisle). It points to the radical inner contradiction of Republican philosophy. Their desire, namely, to not punish anybody, lest the government grow larger, yet at the same time to seek ends which can only be achieved via means they despise (rightly so; people should never be punished for seeking a service that doesn’t violate someone else’s Just Property Rights, from which all other rights derive). This is a fascinating state of affairs. Without ever realizing it, Republicans have been shown the truest, most unadulterated incarnation of the principles they espouse, and yet decry him. They’ve seen their own philosophy, and they call it hideous. It’s extremely amusing, made even more so by the fact that they don’t even fully realize that this is the situation before them. Donald Trump is, without a doubt, the Republican Agenda taken to it’s logical conclusion.

But sure. We Libertarians with our consistent system of thought, morality, epistemology, ethics, and politics are the crazy ones.

A Few Thoughts on the Republican Reaction to Donald Trump

Gawker’s Gay Fetish

Gawker is awful, and we all know that. But why is this the case? Why does every internet denizen get a slimy feeling in the pit of their stomach whenever they here the site name, “Gawker”?

Well, odds are the you heard something from someone who heard from someone else something awful that Gawker did, and it’s just sat in the back your mind ever since. But what exactly are the terrible things Gawker are known for?

Well today my dear readers and visitors, I’ll tell you.

Gawker Seems to Just Love Gay-Shaming and Outing People

Believe it or not (but you probably already do) Gawker seems to have, shall we say… a fetish for outing and shaming members of the LGBT community. Here are just a few examples:

Gawker Outs Condé Nast’s CFO

The following was reported by the Huffington Post on July 17, 2015:

“Gawker on Thursday evening helped a disgruntled sex worker extort the chief financial officer at Condé Nast and brother of former Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, jettisoning any semblance of journalistic integrity and likely ruining a man’s life in the process.

According to a story written by the site’s Jordan Sargent, the executive, who is married to a woman and has three children, allegedly arranged a night with a male escort on a recent trip to Chicago. When the escort found out who the CFO was, he asked for help with an ongoing housing dispute. The CFO allegedly got spooked and cancelled their meeting, though he paid in full nonetheless.

In retaliation, the escort went to Gawker, which published the story, despite knowing that doing so would play into the extortion attempt. The site also published screenshots of the pair’s alleged text message exchanges, including several photos.”

And to make a bad situation worse, Nick Denton, founder of Gawker, simply said it was “a situation he regrets” and pulled the article from his site.

I’m sure this is a huge condolence to the CFO, his wife, and his three children.

Unsubstantiated Claims that Kevin Spacey is Gay

You know, I think I’ll just let the trash speak for itself on this one, as this article was still up as of November 21, 2015:

Gawker Garbage

Shepard Smith a Shepard No More, Thanks to Gawker

Another disgusting piece by Gawker claimed Fox News reporter Shepard Smith was gay. I won’t go into the details, as this is still unconfirmed (obviously) but I will say that there’s nothing quite as disheartening as to see a digital tabloid (which is what Gawker should be thought of, at most) attack on actual journalist.

Don’t misunderstand me: I have no problem with Shepard Smith and his personal sexual appetites, whatever they may be (I won’t speculate) but unfortunately, many Fox viewers are likely too, which no doubt Gawker is fully aware of.

This being said, it’s safe to say that the Gawker story should be given little credence, until it is either confirmed or denied by Smith.

Gawker Says F-ck it, Does Smear Campaign En Masse

Sometimes, instead of dedicating a single article to a single person, Gawker will publish articles like this one, entitled “10 People Who Need to Finally Come Out of the Closet”.

Frankly, this is just plain ridiculous, and everyone knows it. Let’s hope Gawker pulls a few more mass slanders like this, which will surely guarantee it a digital spot in the recycle bin of history.

Gawker’s Gay Fetish

Why Computer Technology is Undermining Government

Most people are familiar with dystopian futures like that of George Orwell’s 1984 in which technology place a key role in the oppression of the people at large. While it’s true that we seem to be headed down this road, it’s not inevitable, and ultimately technology is only a tool; whether it works for good or evil is up to us.

With the revelations from Edward Snowden about rampant domestic spying, here in the States and abroad, many people are worrying that technology is being used to chip away at our fundamental liberties and freedoms.

I’m not wearing an rose-colored glasses when it comes to government surveillance: the stated position above is certainly the case. Many people, however, seem to have forgotten or never learned in the first place that it doesn’t have to be this way. Technology can be both Tyrant and Liberator, if we just use counter-measures and tactics.

Even in China, there are many young people today who are using technology to fight back against the regime. They use peer-to-peer (P2P) networking to connect the uncensored internet, and to gain access to information forbidden in the country (like information pertaining to the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989). They copy to this information to local storage devices, like flash drives and discs, and are able to spread it to those with less technical ability.

This example shows that instead of liberty-minded people viewing technology as a potential danger, we should instead look at it as our greatest ally.

At the end of the day, technology, like a gun, is only a tool; and whether that tool assists in actions we consider “evil” is totally dependent on the mind of the man controlling the trigger.

Why Computer Technology is Undermining Government

Why Victimless Crimes Aren’t Crimes at All or a Country with Blackjack and Hookers

Modern America has made a tragic discovery: that when you combine the legal enforcement of the ethical code of Puritan Neo-Conservatives, with the wealth redistribution and self-protection of the economically-Statist Progressives, you don’t get a better country; instead what you get is a Nation that thinks Las Vegas is the pinnacle of freedom. Let me explain…

When people ask me what I envision as a perfect America, I tell them I imagine a society with the social standards and freedom of a frat house at the University of Nevada, combined with the economics of an American Industrial Revolution ramped up even further, as if on crack.

And understandably, many people walk away thinking I’m either immature and a degenerate, or a future Hitler; or, when they put little to no thought into what I’ve said, thinking I’ve lost my mind.

This is, perhaps in part, because America has completely forgotten what true freedom is. They’ve forgotten that no one was forced to come work in the factories, and did so because they offered better wages and living conditions than the rural areas people were emigrating from. Don’t misunderstand me: I have no misgivings about 1840’s America: it as a God awful time to be alive, but everyone seems to forget that this was true everywhere, around the world: it was just a plain shitty time to be alive, things were just slightly less shitty in the urban areas.

Let me first address the group that would walk away thinking me a drug-junkie sexual degenerate: the Neo-Conservative Republicans.

Growing up, I was raised a Republican Christian; and while today I’m still a Christian, I despise the Republican Party with every fiber of my being. I realized that the so-called “War on Drugs” was doing as much as good as the Democrats’ “War on Poverty” (more on that in a minute) and was, in reality, a “War on Immorality”. For the first time in life I saw the flaw in my own philosophy and that of the Party: an inability to distinguish your personal and political beliefs. This is why I could never understand when classmates said things like “I don’t do crack myself, and I don’t think people should do crack, but I also think people should be allowed to smoke it if they want”. I would always think “then why don’t you support the drug war”? The answer was simple: they were Democrats, and Democrats support ownership of one’s own body.

Don’t misconstrue what I say here either, I despise the Democratic Party just as thoroughly as the Republicans, albeit for a different reason: the Democratic Party is the other side of the coin, the Yin to Republicans Yang. Republicans support Freedom of Economy but not Freedom of Self (e.g. “You do whatever you want with you money, as long as it’s not to buy condoms for sex before marriage, buy the services of a prostitute, buy marijuana… and let’s keep the government out of people’s lives.”). Democrats, on the other hand, support Freedom of Self but not Freedom of Economy (e.g. “You can get gay married, but we’re going to tax 40% of you combined income, you can smoke pot, but we’re going to levy a 15% tax on the grower, a tax on the transport, on the gasoline for the transport, for the rent on the dispensaries property, and they need to have a license” and on and on it goes.)

This is why I’m an Anarchist Christian registered with the Libertarian Party. My philosophy on politics is simple: “You can do whatever you want as long as you don’t physically harm people, and I can do the same.” My philosophy is one where I never have to follow the phrase “I believe in freedom” with the word “but”.

So this leads many people to a fundamental question: if the Republican and Democratic parties are so bad, why are so many people Republicans and Democrats?

While this subject deserves an article unto itself, since it’s a very complex subject that ultimately varies from person to person, I’ll give you the short answer I’ve discovered over my nearly decade-long intensive study of politics and philosophy: a massive, society-wide case of doublethink.

Many of you may recognize the phrase from George Orwell’s book “1984”, in which people convince themselves to hold contradictory beliefs “for the greater good”. My grandfather called it “choosing the lesser of two evils”. So what’s the problem? Ultimately, it’s an ethical one: the fact that one evil is less so than another, doesn’t change the fact that you’re still choosing the side of evil.

Thus, I decided not to choose evil. Republicans say they’ll shrink government while using its monopoly on force to enforce their personal morality on society; the Democrats say you can do anything you want, unless that “thing” is work, in which case they’re “entitled” to a chunk of the dough.

I say: to Hell with the both of you, I’ll live my life by my own decisions.

Why Victimless Crimes Aren’t Crimes at All or a Country with Blackjack and Hookers

Rape Culture: Collapse of Western Judiciary

“Rape culture” as feminists call it, is taking Western Culture and our ideas of what it means to have a “fair trial” down a very, very dangerous path, as of late.

In short, the New Zealand Labor Party put forth  very dangerous proposition for consideration a number of months ago: the idea that in the case of rape accusations, the courts in that country ought to presume guilt, with the burden of innocence being on the accused; this is a radical shift from the traditional idea of law in nations that dare call themselves free, where the burden of proof is on the accusers, to prove guilt.

Even in The Code of Hammurabi, the oldest known written set of laws, dating to a little less than 4,000 years ago, being considered innocent until proven guilty was an important concept; so important that it’s the first thing dealt with in The Code.

Another critical reason that the current system should not be changed is that it is impossible to prove a negative: I cannot prove that I didn’t do something. It is possible, however, to prove someone else did take a certain action (when this is actually the case).

Luckily, this time the proposition was defeated, but don’t expect to see this idea go away anytime soon: the coming decades will pose a monumental threat to classical democracy and freedom via the Feminist movement and a lack of understanding by most Westerners of the principles on which our respective Nations were built.

I think every man ought to read the Magna Carta, as it holds such valuable insights to the traditions of Western Freedom, and it is the document off which most modern democracies base their concepts of Freedom, Individual Rights, and Rule of Law.

Rape Culture: Collapse of Western Judiciary