After receiving an invitation to visit a
new website called The Future of Freedom Foundation at http://www.fff.org
I thought that it sounded like a new and inviting patriotic site, so I went
for a visit. One of the first things I do when I go to a new site is
look at their 'Mission Statement' to find out what they are trying to do.
This is what it said: The mission of The Future of Freedom
Foundation is to advance freedom by providing an uncompromising moral and
economic case for individual liberty, free markets, private property, and
limited government.
It sounded like my idea of an important
mission that seemed to match my concept of America. Well I
thought . . . that sounds like a Constitutionalist, which is a
good thing in my book. So, I searched further into the site and
discovered on the 'Freedom Daily' page that this was a Libertarian group.
I thought . . . gee maybe I'm a Libertarian.
However, as I read through more of the
website I found several statements that I wasn't comfortable with, so I
decided to write to the website. In particular I was concerned about a
statement that promoted 'open immigration.' Now that could be taken
many ways, but I was concerned that it meant 'open borders.'
Ergo, I sent the following
email:
Could you please define or
explain what you mean by 'open immigration.'
Thank you.
They sent me this response:
Dear
Daneen,
"Open
Immigration" means that governments should not be able to
arbitrarily prevent people from travelling where they wish.
Best,
Bart
Frazier
Program
DirectorThe Future of Freedom Foundation
My rely:
To: The Future of
Freedom Foundation
Subject: A Rejoinder
Bart . . . Thank you for your response.
Because of your organizations beliefs I would
never become a Libertarian because I believe in national sovereignty and
the laws that govern immigration even though they are currently unenforced.
There are several BILLION people in the world that would like to come and
live in America which means your stated position is an anathema to me
and my progeny as well as a nation killer.
There are currently 30 million illegal aliens
here in our country who will, along with American citizens, will add 100
million people to the population in the next 20 years. Do you
honestly believe that is a good thing?
I noticed that you used the euphemism of
'traveling' where they wish, instead of living, working, availing
themselves of our welfare systems, schools, hospitals, jails and bringing
third world diseases and culture to our unified nation of English speakers
who now cater to a second language that will corrupt our unity and
sovereignty.
It is my sincere hope that Libertarians
would wake up and realize that such a position is completely insane and
should be discarded as a stated purpose and goal for your organization
since most of the rest of what you believe is in agreement with our founding
fathers.
FYI . . . Social Security is an entitlement
and NOT stealing from those who are younger to enrich me since I
contributed to it for 50 years AND as an employer I ALSO matched and added
to that contribution. If you were to say that you could only collect
what you put in, plus the investment gains and/or interest for same, you
would have me in your corner. Otherwise I reject your desire to
eliminate it.
I also object to your use of the term Freedom
Foundation because does NOT reflect my concept of the meaning
inherent in the word 'freedom' here in America should you continue to
espouse open borders in violation of our laws that have been in place for
some 230 years indicating they too reflect the will of our
forefathers.
Daneen
That rejoinder apparently annoyed the founder
and president of fff.org so he sent the following email which is in its
original untouched form:
Dear
Dr. Peterson,
My
associate Bart Frazier has shared your correspondence with me. As founder
and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, I hope you don't mind my
responding to the points you have raised.
Unfortunately,
you have some serious misconceptions and misunderstandings about the
libertarian philosophy.
Unlike
conservatives and liberals, libertarians believe in moral principles and the
principles of individual liberty, free markets, and a constitutionally
limited government. Thus, libertarians oppose all laws that violate those
principles.
For
example, you raise the issue of Social Security, one of the premier
socialist programs in the world. I'm not sure to whom you were referring in
your reference to your "forefathers" but perhaps you meant Otto
von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor of Germany, who got the idea of Social
Security from the German socialists before he implimented it in Germany. In
fact, you might be pleased to know that Bismarck's bust is on the website of
the U.S. Social Security Administration.
Like
other conservatives and liberals, you are living the life of the lie by your
rationalization that you have "contributed" money to a Social
Security fund and therefore that you have a "right" to collect
back what you have "contributed." The fact is that you have
contributed nothing. The IRS has taxed you and you have paid your taxes.
There never was a fund and there still isn't a fund. Your money has been
spent. Social Security is a straight welfare-transfer system in which old
people use the force of government to plunder and loot the young people of
this country, many of whom are struggling to start families.
Moreover,
you can spare me any talk of how good and compassionate you are because of
Social Security. Libertarians don't buy any of that immoral rationalism and
justifcation for any socialist program. Your beloved socialism is based on
the immoral principle of using Caesar---the organized means of coercion and
compulsion--to take money from those to whom it belongs in order to give it
to those to whom it does not belong. It's called stealing, and it's one of
the principal things that distinguish libertarians from statists.
As
I say, libertarians believe in morality and liberty and limited government,
which is why we favor the repeal, not the reform, of Social Security and all
other socialist programs you people have imported to our land. We believe
that one of the fundamental rights of man is to accumulate wealth in the
marketplace and decide for himself what to do with it. And guess what: our
forefathers--Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and the like--believed
the same way, which is precisely why our American ancestors rejected
socialism for more than the first 100 years of our country's history.
The
principles of liberty and morality apply equally as well to the concept of
immigration. Look at what you people have done to Cuban refugees--attacking
them on the high seas, kidnapping them, and forcibly repatriating them into
Cuban communist tyranny in cooperation with Cuban communist officials. How
much more immoral can you get than that? Well, except perhaps for the use of
immigration controls to deny admission to German Jews who were trying to
escape Hitler's Germany.
Or
we could talk about all the deaths in the Arizona desert as a result of the
Berlin Wall you people constructed in California or the deaths of people in
the backs of railroad cars or tractor trailers. Yes, I know the standard
refrain: "I'm not morally responsible for my actions becuase I have
good intentions." Well, guess how the road to hell is paved. The fact
is that you people are morally responsible for the natural and proximate
results of your actions.
Not
enforced? Maybe you can explain to all those dead people or repatriated
people that immigration laws are not enforced. Or maybe you can go down to
the border and see the long lines of cars at the bridges or the immigration
stations north of the border (yes 30 miles north of the border) or the
passport checks on highways that parallel the border or the masses of border
patrol agents stopping cars along the border or trespassing on ranches and
farms or the U.S. employers getting indicted and sent to jail for committing
the heinous crime of hiring someone who works hard.
What
you fail to recognize is that people will always circumvent cruel and brutal
laws that purport to regulate peaceful behavior. Look at the drug war, which
you undoubtedly love as well. Yes, I know "It hasn't been
enforced." Yeah, right. It too has brutalalized and destroyed countless
innocent people.
It's
called the black market, which is the real free market.
You
see, Dr. Peterson, unlike conservatives and liberals, libertarians don't
slavishly look at a law and automatically conclude that it's moral. There
were people who broke the law when they tried to cross teh Berlin Wall, and
yes, I know your response--that they deserved being shot becuase the law is
the law. Well, that's not the way libertarians think. The real lawbreakers
were the brutes doing the shooting, not those crossing the wall.
And
we libertairans don't believe in any of your beloved socialistic welfare
state systems. They should all be repealed, not reformed. Please don't think
for a moment that we libertarians are going to compromise (abandon) our
moral prnciple becuase of your socialsit system. By the way, do you ever see
the private sector (Wal-Mart) complaining that too many people are coming
into its stores? Nope, that's only the governmetn sector that does that.
Your
lament about billions of people wanting to come and live here reflects a
woeful lack of understanding of markets. As people move into a particular
area in response to market signals (ie, rising wage rates), prices of other
items (housing) begins to rise as well. As prices get too high, the demand
for moving into that area begins to diminish. Perhaps you can explain to me
how it is that some 30 percent of Italian immigrants who came here in the
1800s (when there was open immigration) returned permanently to Italy.
As
Americans our heritage is free markets and the price system, not the
socialist central planning that characterizes immigration controls. The
reason there are so many perversions in the immigration sector is the same
reason there are so many perversions in the drug war sector--socialism and
interventionism produce perversions. the free market produces natural
harmonies. Thank goodness our (American) forefathers guaranteed open borders
(including open immigration) between teh respective states in the
Constitution. If they hadn't, there would be walls being built all across
America.
Your
fear of immigrants is nothing new. Xenophobia has long characterized a
segment of the American people, even when the borders were opened in the
1800s. your fear of cultural difrerences, disease, etc. was said about the
Italians, the Irish, the Germans, and countless others. It's nothign new.
Fortunately, our (American) forefathers didn't use it as an excuse to close
the borders.
Your
fear of population growth is also groundless. You need to read Julian Simon.
Why, you probably pace the floors in fear that we're going to run out of
food, just like Malthus. But if excess population is the problem you say it
is, then isn't that a call for mandatory population control, like in Red
China?
The
fact is that you people are still not satisfied despite your 700-mile long
Berlin Wall you succeeded in getting. I have long predicted this--I have
long maintained that you people aren't going to be happy even with a Berlin
Wall but instead with a total military sealing of the border, including
banning of all toursists (they might overstay their visa or be terrorists)
just like North Korea. But what you fail to recognize (I think) is that you
continue sending our nation into the opposite direction envisionsed by our
(American ancestors), who rejected not only drug laws, Social Security, and
immigration controls but most of the other socialist and intervnetionist
programs that North Koreans stand for.
Finally,
you should know that while libertarians love expanding the ranks of
libertarianism, unlike conservatives and liberals they will not compromise
their principles in the attempt to do so.
If
you are not subscribing to our FFF Email Update, I would like to invite you
to do so. Also be sure to check out our big upcomign conference: REstoring
the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties.
Best
regards and thanks again for taking the time to share your perspectives with
us.
Jacob
G. Hornberger
Founder
and president
The
Future of Freedom Foundation
So you see, the venom expressed above is not at all
acceptable or appropriate therefore I decided to warn others who may
consider joining or aligning themselves with this organization so that
they are aware of the person behind the fff.org front.
Hopefully you will understand that I normally would
not reveal the senders names, but in this case it is necessary and most
appropriate.
Daneen