Author Archives: Mark Friedman

I have written two previous posts on libertarianism and immigration, here and here, and devoted a section in Chapter 10 of my Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World to this subject. So, naturally, I was intrigued when Christopher Freiman and Javier Hidalgo offered a five-part blog series on this question at the Bleeding Heart Libertarians site. The first four parts argued that a commitment to open borders is an integral part of classical liberalism; the final post purported to answer objections to this view. For convenience, I reproduce it below. Continue Reading »

As outlined in the first part of this essay, the political institutions established by our constitution were the natural consequence of the framers’ classical liberalism. For them, the purpose of government was essentially, in Nozick’s words, “protecting all its citizens against violence, theft, fraud and the enforcement of contracts.” (ASU, 26). Sadly, as our society has become ever more aware of the dignity and equality of all human beings, we less and less respect the autonomy that gives rise to our special moral status.   Continue Reading »

I am among the millions of Americans disgusted by the current state of our politics and the candidates now on offer by the two major parties. Their duplicity, grotesque character flaws, and destructive policy proposals are taken here as a given. What is less appreciated, I believe, is that their rise is symptomatic of a much deeper and more serious problem; that it, the death of classical liberalism in our polity. This two-part post will constitute a brief autopsy. Continue Reading »

The most intense battle currently being fought in our ongoing culture war is the use of public rest rooms by transgender individuals. Various states have recently enacted or are considering laws requiring people to use only bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex. I argue here that there are striking parallels with our ill-advised anti-smoking laws, as in both instances there are large groups asserting incompatible, rights-based claims. And, in both matters the state has imposed its judgment rather than leave it to the marketplace to sort out. Continue Reading »

In the aftermath of the recent Belgium terrorist attack, which followed upon even more horrific Islamist violence in Paris, there have come the inevitable media finger-pointing, second-guessing, and obligatory warnings against blaming innocent Muslims. Also heard is self-congratulatory chatter about how America’s Muslim immigrants are much better integrated into our society than their European counterparts. Few have had anything perceptive to say regarding why our “home grown” terrorism is far more muted than Belgium’s or France’s. Continue Reading »

U.S. economic and military assistance to foreign countries (“foreign aid”) is generally unpopular with the electorate, but particularly distasteful to libertarians, as it is seen to violate non-interventionism. Thus, the 2012 Libertarian Party Platform states:

Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid (my emphasis).

While the logic of this stance is superficially compelling, I do not believe it can justify a categorical ban on foreign aid. Continue Reading »

One of the common arguments heard in libertarian circles in favor of open borders is that it is impossible to distinguish, in any morally relevant way, between internal migration and the regulation of movement across international boundaries. To illustrate, assume that residents of Maryland, upon moving to Virginia, commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than the natives. We should, according to this reasoning, nevertheless condemn Virginia if it reacted by closing its borders. Thus, it is asserted that even if migrants were much more likely to commit serious crimes here than natives, this would still not justify immigration restrictions. Continue Reading »

As used by libertarians and other critics of US foreign policy, “blowback” is the bad stuff that happens when we stray from a foreign policy of non-interventionism, the essence of which is that we defend our homeland, and observe a benign neutrality elsewhere. Blowback is frequently invoked as an explanation for the rise of ISIS and for recent terrorist acts committed here and in France.[1] Ron Paul, the former congressman and presidential candidate is certainly one of the most influential spokesman for this position. Accordingly, it may be an opportune time to examine the case he makes for it in his best-selling book, The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), Chapter 2.   Continue Reading »

Israel is not the cause of Palestinian suffering. Rather, it is the direct result of the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to conclude a just peace with Israel, despite the golden opportunities presented in 2000 and 2008. However, even if you disagree, no rational person could think that Israel’s sins are remotely like the egregious human rights abuses committed by such nations as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on. Nevertheless, Israel is singled out for censure by many on the left here: academic associations in various disciplines refuse to engage with Israeli scholars, the BDS movement thrives on college campuses, and Israel is disproportionately the focus of criticism in the mass media.

Certain western critics of Israel have forthrightly acknowledged this double standard, but have attempted to justify it on the basis that it is some form of honor that Israel should appreciate For example, Jesper Vahr, Denmark’s Ambassador to Israel, recently stated that, “Israel should insist that we discriminate, that we apply double standards, this is because you are one of us…you have the right to insist that we…put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context.”[1]  Continue Reading »

My Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World (see right sidebar) critiques our liberal democracy from the perspective of Nozick’s rights-based libertarianism. Chapter 5 (the regulatory state) includes an in-depth analysis of the statutory regime governing public and private sector unions, and Chapter 8 (public education) describes how the collective bargaining authorized by these laws enable the teachers unions to unjustly promote their interests at the expense of dissenting teachers (forced to pay union dues), taxpayers, and students. Given the ever-increasing evidence of serious, pervasive rights violations by local law-enforcement, I wish I had devoted a section to this specific problem. Continue Reading »