Thursday, October 25, 2018

Some Really Dumb Questions By Tucker Carlson About the Migrant Caravan

In the below clip, Fox host Tucker Carlson asks some very dumb questions of  Florida-based  Spanish-language news anchor Jorge Ramos about the migrant caravan heading toward the US border.

Perhaps I can help Tucker understand.

First, he asks Ramos why the Mexican government is not inviting the migrants to stay in Mexico?

Well, that's an easy question. Maybe the Mexican government is as clueless about migrant labor as Tucker is. A cluelessness also displayed by top Trump advisor Steve Miller (For more on this see: The Problem With Steve Miller)

Tucker then asks why aren't rich Mexicans providing aid to the migrants?

Another easy question. While I have no objection to anyone providing aid to anyone on a private basis, there is no obligation to do so.  While I have no problem with migrants deciding to move to the U.S., I have no obligation to finance their travels and have no intention of doing so. And rich Mexicans have no obligation either,

Finally, Tucker asks Ramos how many migrants is Ramos going to put up at his house.

What total confusion by Tucker. The caravan has nothing to do with US citizens having to put up migrants. In fact, I object to U.S. government aid for these migrants. Once they arrive in the U.S. let them fend for themselves. If these migrants are able to walk over 1,000 miles to come to America, they sure as hell can find warm body jobs. Of course, Tucker probably doesn't understand this because, given his questions, he likely falls for the myth that there are only a fixed number of jobs in America.



  1. Well, most people cannot understand or articulate any difference between natural laws (which are mostly embedded in the positive laws... i.e. murder is a crime in both). I guess the assumption that practically all migrants are in this category is rather safe.

    Now, they are clearly stating their intention to break at least one law (positive law, that's it) and likely a lot more. Being a law-breaker strongly correlates with future law-breaking, and (because they have no clue and cannot articulate any difference between natural and positive law) it's very likely they have a higher propensity for breaking natural law as well. Basically, they are a future bunch of statutory criminals with elevated propensity for becoming actual criminals. (And note that most of them are young males).

    Another point is that overwhelming majority of Americans are against inviting these people in - for whatever reason (it does not really matter). While public property is not the same as shared private property, it's the closest approximation we have in practice. In other words, if our streets were privately owned by residents/shareholders the outcome of their voting their shares would be to exclude these migrants. In this case the outcome (excluding, forcefully if needed to prevent the trespass) is the same in both libertarian and the present statist society.

    Keeping them out may not be ideologically pure, but is a good idea nonetheless.

    1. @Vadim

      If we're going to go the collective guilt route, I would actually consider it a positive that these people aren't waiting around, like a bunch of sheep, for the state to give them permission to improve their lives. Maybe we'd benefit from having more such people living in this country.

    2. Not sure what you're smoking, but how industrious can a group of losers, with a few exceptions I'm sure, be, who hitchhike to the USA so they can have a secure future gratis state and federal governments? Still losers who just swapped geography and are insured a steady paycheck.

    3. Vadim, you've nicely articulated the "pre-crime" concept in the Tom Cruise movie, "Minority Report." How can you legitimately indict every one of these people in advance? Are you also able to identify in the citizen population those who will definitely violate natural law?

      Besides, there is nothing wrong with breaking a state-created "positive law" that is not also a violation of natural law. In fact, as libertarians, we ought to applaud those who disregard the state's nonsensical "positive laws." The route to liberty is through more people turning their back on, and ridiculing, the state.

    4. Re: Vadim Antonov,

      ── Being a law-breaker strongly correlates with future law-breaking ──

      Imagine the utter hell that this country would be if all that jaywalking from millions of pedestrians who jaywalk every day was a real indicator of their future criminal behavior. Imagine all the people who rip the tags off their pillows - the bloodbath!

      ── Another point is that overwhelming majority of Americans are against inviting these people in ──

      That's a lie. The polls don't show that, nor their buying choices. You're engaging in creative fiction.

    5. ── In other words, if our streets were privately owned by residents/shareholders the outcome of their voting their shares would be to exclude these migrants. ──

      Yes, but only those shareholders. What you're arguing for here is for a set of shareholders to retain the exclusive right to decide on the freedom of association of other shareholders who share nothing with the former except nationality, i.e. the Nativists vs. those who are not Nativists and who DO want to engage in trade with immigrants.

  2. So RW, what is so offensive about my comments? Jorge Ramos is a lying sack of crap anti-American POS who benefited from America, but cares more about Mexico. I hope this caravan gets strafed and sent back to Honduras.