Mainstream libertarians (or orange line libertarians if you prefer) have been second to none in their enthusiasm for the President’s decision to officially endorse the bureaucracy’s long-standing policy of openly not enforcing US immigration laws.
I can’t seem to get past the absurdity of this situation. It’s ridiculous for someone like Yglesias to demand more immigration while constantly complaining about inequality. However, despite the fact that Yglesias’ positions are contradictory, it’s clear that it makes for him to hold both positions. His goal is to enact more progressive policies. Inequality justifies policy action and immigration creates inequality, therefore more immigration leads to more progressive policies and he wins.
It doesn’t make sense for libertarians to favor more immigration by any similar logic. Diverse societies are not societies with less government. Let’s try to follow orange line libertarian logic.
The mainstream libertarian plan to make the US more libertarian would seem to consist of the following steps:
1. Begin with the current US
2. Import lots of poor and uneducated Mexicans
4. End with a much more libertarian US.
It would seem to me that step 2 would reduce the overall level of libertarianism in the US. Has any nominally Democratic country got more libertarian as it got more diverse and unequal?
Perhaps it’s just my cynical nature coming out, but I’m almost tempted to conclude that mainstream libertarians have no desire to actually get to step 4. Maybe the list should just end at step 2. From where I’m sitting, it seems that elite status whoring is much more important to them than increasing libertarianism.
Your humble blogger is a recovering libertarian. Part of the reason I’m no longer libertarian is that it’s a hopelessly ineffective movement. Even conservatives don’t celebrate this much when they lose (and that’s saying something).