A good argument against cracking down on illegal immigration. Worth a listen, imo.

Can you (or can anyone) summarize the main points of the argument so that I can participate in a discussion with y'all? Thanks.

Stef talks about a new Oklahoma law (house bill 1804) which makes it a felony to transport or shelter illegal immigrants. It also requires some employers to verify the identity of job applicants.

The law is driving a bunch of illegals out of the state. Stef says that'll result in higher food prices which will lead to more farm subsidies. Also, it'll be more of a hassle to hire people. Some people will lose jobs because they're wrongly suspected of being illegal. And with the higher labor costs, there's an incentive for illegals to get some false papers and stick around.

Also on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuZaiQKkaQ


Excellent video.

So Stef is saying we OUGHT to care about what government does but we can not do anything about it if we OUGHT not to vote.
If he is just showing how governing bodies will enact bad laws he may be on to something. Otherwise he is talking more about what is going wrong while preaching that we should not care. After all, our personal freedom is more important than thinking about what we cannot change.
I guess he's just hypocritical again. All FDR'ers know government is flawed and thus they shouldn't waste time thinking about these things.

haven't watched the video yet, but I think Stef's position may not be that hypocritical if he did the video to show that when libertarians do want to use the government for certain things (limiting immigration) then the shit will hit the fan. so then it's just another argument for him to say: don't bother with the government at all. it's directed at people (like I may still be) who think that it is good for governments to do certain things as long as they're still there anyway like limiting immigration. it's not directed at people who believe this already to make them sit up and pay attention to and care about what the government is doing some more

Conrad,

How is asking the government to limit immigration (your personal violence preference) because it's "still there anyway" any different from a person who would like to use government to redistribute wealth in the form of higher taxes and larger welfare programs (their personal violence preference) because it's "still there anyway."

And to Phlogiston and others, I don't think SM sets out to try to be hypocritical on a point like this because he probably isn't urging you to "don't just sit there, do something!" about this. As Conrad mentions, it's more likely an attempt to demonstrate further the "law of unintended consequences" concerning government intervention into the ("illegal") labor market. He wants you to see that, from a utilitarian perspective, you have a lot to lose by advocating that the government limit immigration, even if you aren't yet convinced that it's not RIGHT for the government to do so from the perspective of justice/morality.

Madvillain, do you want to do a Skype conversation and podcast on the topic of illegal immigration? PLEASE?!

it's a very interesting topic to analyse from a libertarian p.o.v. and i have switched positions about 5 times in the past year or so.

i think with your input added we can give a rather comprehensive analysis of the question

as to your question, i think a better analogical question would be (I just thought of this now): 'As long as there is a welfare state still why not tax people for smoking, being obese and so on, as theyir health care costs are higher and thus they take more money from others' and yeah, the answer to that question seems to be 'no way dude' so there goes that argument. damn...

Conrad,

Would love to try my hand at the ol' Skype-cast thing as I've never done one before. My login is "sologue" you're welcome to add me and message me if you see me on. If you want to do something more formal than that, just PM me a few date/times that work for you, or general hours you're around, and we'll try to make it happen. Keep in mind I am in New York City right now so I am on EST.

And yes, that is the problem with statist logic... once the State is allowed to control/regulate one area, it is inevitable that they clamor to control all the micro-activity related to that area. One example of this is State control of healthcare. Now that the State is in charge of healthcare, it thinks it should also be in control of things which contribute to a person's positive or negative state of health.

Another example is roads. Let the State control the roads, and suddenly it wants to put up streetlights and signs, place parking meters and regulate parking, charge congestion fees, license vehicles and require fees for certain types of vehicles deemed to be problematic on the roads, etc. etc.