Libertarianism destroys civil liberties

If our immigration policy had been less libertarian (i.e. not allowed Muslims into the country), our airline security procedures would likely be more libertarian.

I think it’s only fair to put more of the blame for the security procedures on liberalism – after all, it’s the liberals that demand that we treat everyone equally. Liberalism demands that a 90-year old nun be considered as likely a threat to blow up an airplane as a 25-year old Muslim immigrant from Saudi Arabia. But, it’s the libertarian immigration policy that’s to blame for the fact that we allow 25-year old Muslim immigrants from Saudi Arabia into the country.

Due – in part – to this immigration policy, the government now needs to touch your junk.


4 Responses to Libertarianism destroys civil liberties

  1. sconzey says:

    Disagree. Liberalism maybe fits that description, but few would argue Libertarianism is incompatible with private discrimination — Ron Paul has even come out and said he wouldn’t have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

    Discrimination by public bodies is an entirely different matter and one I imagine would divide Libertarians. Certainly with respect to airport screening, a Libertarian solution is to deregulate airport and airline screening, allowing them each to implement their own screening procedure, based on whatever criteria they chose. If something terrible happened and it was found it was due to lax security on the part of the airport/airline, they would be held responsible.

    You see my main problem with this issue of gropage/irradiation is that neither technique will actually stop terrorists. This whole war-of-escalation in security-vs-civil-liberties is not one we can win, because the terrorists get to see our security structure before they plan their attack. Maybe next time they won’t bother with the plane and attack the lines of folk waiting to be groped.

    For me this isn’t a Progressive vs. Reactionary issue; this is just a Good Policymaking vs. Bad Policymaking issue.

    • Foseti says:

      Ron Paul practices a different type of “libertarianism” than the mainstream, open-borders variety. You’ll tie yourself in knots if you think of them as the same.

      The “libertarian solution” that you outline to airline screening isn’t going to happen. This is the problem with libertarianism (of the mainstream variety). It may work in the vacuum of an “ideal libertarian society” but it doesn’t work in the real world. In the real world, libertarian ideas considered in isolation (e.g. Muslim immigration) create some terrible results.

      My point is that in the real world, libertarian policies are useless – they cannot tell us how to get from where we are to a more libertarian state.

      Finally, I’m not sure how you separate liberalism and bad policy-making. Aren’t they identical?

      • sconzey says:

        Well, I’d say liberalism is an ideology, bad policy-making is the outcome of applying the ideology to the problems of the world.

        However, the set of the results of the application of liberal ideas is a proper subset of all the bad policies. My point (poorly elucidated, I know) was that I didn’t think that this [grope/irradiate] should be a strong ideological issue for liberals.

        I can understand ethnic screening would be — but it’s not clear to me this is an either/or decision.

        It’s also not clear to me that Libertarianism is inherently open-borders. Whilst Libertarians generally oppose the government saying who may or may not enter the country, few would contest that a private property owner should be permitted to decide who is and isn’t allowed on their land.

        I concede that most Libertarians are open-borders advocates, but I don’t agree that this follows naturally from the ideology.

        Cool blog btw. 😛

  2. B Lode says:

    From the title, I thought you were going to say libertarianism destroys civil liberties by drawing votes and energy away from efforts to maintain tradition-based liberty in a failed attempt to build ideologically-based liberty. I.e., the Libertarians aren’t satisfied with old-fashioned liberty on the “small state, cops on a long leash” model, so they refine extremely abstract philosophies to back up their attempts to always shorten the leash.

    But the point you have made is good too.
    No reason for Muslims and non-Muslims to mix. None, ever. If you want help arguing this, mention Muslim violence against non-Muslims to a leftist. They will invariably make the case for separation by mention harm non-Muslims have done to Muslims. It’s like a seance for Malcolm X!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: