|
Steve Kubby, Please Read Before You Write While I am truly inspired by Steve Kubby for both his refusal to bow to the oppression of the state and his fight against cancer, I have to question just how well he did on the reading comprehension portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). In his February 1 article for WorldNetDaily, he attacks Root Striker Karen De Coster and WND columnist Ilana Mercer for their assertions to the contrary of Mr. Pat Buchanan. In a diatribe that makes one wonder if he read the articles carefully or if they were simply over his head, Mr. Kubby makes no sense, prattles on like a man who has suffered a head injury and basically does nothing to substantiate his argument or refute the thesis of either De Coster or Mercer. In his attempt at rebuttal Kubby writes, " Recently, I took exception to remarks by Pat Buchanan that libertarians were foolishly playing into the hands of statists by supporting open borders. Now, two Buchanan wannabes, Karen De Coster and Ilana Mercer, have their shorts in a wad over the threat of "hippie libertarians," who want to give away the keys to the country. Their shrill attack on "left-wing libertarians" is peppered with quaint old libertarian ideas and principles, but they conveniently ignore the key issues and avoid proposing any meaningful alternatives to the failed policies that now confront us in the real world." Reading this statement makes me wonder just how much time he spent analyzing the writings of these two proponents of liberty, if he spent any time at all. Both of these ladies reference the great Hans Hermann Hoppe and the vast amount of writing he has done on the subject of private property rights and their relation to immigration policy. They argued nothing other than the increase of private property, both in the amount of private ownership and the protection of the rights of landowners, is the best possible solution to the problem of immigration. While it is true, as Mr. Kubby states, that both De Coster and Mercer do invoke libertarian ideas and principles throughout their writings, it is a prevarication that they offer no "meaningful alternatives to the failed policies that now confront us in the real world." I cite a passage from the De Coster article where she writes: "Hoppe points out that, because property owners have a right to exclude, then under the scenario where all land is privately owned, as it should be, 'there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration.' Libertarianism proper, then, does not uphold some right to 'freedom of immigration,' but rather the right of the property owner to decide whom to invite and whom to exclude." This may not offer a solution to the immigration problem, but she is correct, in my opinion, in stating that under a system of private land ownership, the onus for the protection of the border would fall on the landowner. This, in turn, would result in the improved protection of the border. Just as I do not let just anyone walk through my back yard, presumably those who own the land on the border would not either. But Kubby really misses the mark when he agrees with a declaration of Mercer's: "Lastly, to the leftist-libertarian love-in at the borders, the Hoppean retort would be: 'It's about absolute private-property rights, stupid.' The border along Mexico is porous because so much of it is not privately owned. The less public property there is, and the greater the protection government affords property rights--the less invasion and coerced integration can be accomplished." However, he then states, "Their solution to our failed immigration policy is to hire more dumb government agents and more dumb federal agencies, so that some of the dumbest members of society end up with all the guns and authority over the rest of us." Huh? Protecting private property rights and armed patrol of the borders are not necessarily one in the same, and to assume so is both illogical and wrong. Steve, re-read the articles that Karen and Ilana have written, and feel free to email me the passages where you find the part where either of these two have called for MORE GOVERNMENT. This is the part where you show that you really did not read the articles carefully or you just did not manage to comprehend what the point of either of them were. What is equally sad about the fact that Steve Kubby fails to see the reasoning behind the articles of Karen De Coster and Ilana Mercer, is that the editor of WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah, who normally sets a high standard for the content on the website, dropped the ball in publishing this article by Kubby. First, he failed to see that the article did not present a cogent debate based upon the arguments proposed by the other two authors. It is additionally embarrassing that he published it in opposition to Mercer's weekly column for his own website. While intelligent debate is always welcome, the immature response to a position you may not agree with is not. What is comical is that for the most part, while all of the three writers agree on the fact that the state should not determine who should and should not cross the border, Steve, you are the one the one who fails to see that it is the other two who make the argument that individuals should determine who comes and goes, and not any other agency. February 4, 2002 Duke Heberlein is a market analyst in Southern California. |