Most libertarians like to pretend that things like national sovereignty don't really matter much. It's a key part of the reason why they are so dismissive, often in bitter and vitriolic ways, of people who raise concerns about issues ranging from immigration restrictions, to how much ethnic diversity is good for society.
Much of this tendency in libertarians comes from an irredeemably presentist view of the world. Issues like how to maintain a free society almost invariably get short thrift; they're up to the individuals that compose society, not the libertarian proposing a libertarian policy. This is a lot like looking at an engineering design or a business plan and finding a lot of blank spots toward the end, where implementation and support finally start getting figured out. No wonder that mainstream libertarianism is largely irrelevant today; a lot of people can sense that it is a short-sighted, incomplete philosophy.
Modern Africa is seeing a new round of colonialism, this time from the Chinese. The Chinese import labor in droves, exploit weak governments and are just generally starting to take over. Africa has its own problems, and many of them are its own fault, but that doesn't mean that China isn't creating many new problems either. China is exploiting Africa's structural, governmental and cultural weaknesses for its own benefit, and not in the benign way that most libertarians think happen as a result of international trade. After all, China has been a major source of the antagonism in Sudan, and they have no problem arming the Mugabe regime while exploiting it to gain economic advantage in Zimbabwe.
What many libertarians fail to realize is that the Chinese are doing to Africa, precisely what many Americans who want immigration restrictions fear would happen with an open borders policy in place. It's a simple fact that under a libertarian immigration system, there would be nothing in place to stop the People's Republic of China if they were to sponsor the emmigration of twenty or thirty million of their citizens, and distributed them strategically. Combined with the automatic citizenship of their children born in the United States and it would represent an existential blow to our country as a free society.
Some might argue now that immigration and citizenship are technically two separate issues, and that immigration should not be dependant on citizenship laws. A similar relationship exists between tax rates and government spending, yet it's unlikely that any libertarian would argue that taxes should be cut to a minimum when there is no possibility of cutting spending. While separate issues, they are deeply interdependant. Most Americans are rightly upset at the idea that all a foreigner has to do to make their children citizens is to give birth to them on some piece of land that is claimed by the federal government, especially since that confers political power on them.
One of the few dynamics that we know that does work with reasonably free societies is that they must be vigorously maintained, and they must be choosy in who they accept within their borders. There is precedent of any successful society, let alone a free society, simply inviting anyone that wants to work and contribute to the economy to come live within its borders and surviving. Even modern America, with its slowly failing economy and political system is an example of this as it has become so diverse that the only thing all fifty states have in common are the English language and federal rule. Xenophobia is an extreme to avoid, but all successful, especially free, societies have always maintained a healthy skepticism of the motives of foreigners who want to come within their territory. Africa, in its relationship with the Chinese, is showing just what can happen when a society does not resist a politically-driven influx of immigrants.
Much of this tendency in libertarians comes from an irredeemably presentist view of the world. Issues like how to maintain a free society almost invariably get short thrift; they're up to the individuals that compose society, not the libertarian proposing a libertarian policy. This is a lot like looking at an engineering design or a business plan and finding a lot of blank spots toward the end, where implementation and support finally start getting figured out. No wonder that mainstream libertarianism is largely irrelevant today; a lot of people can sense that it is a short-sighted, incomplete philosophy.
Modern Africa is seeing a new round of colonialism, this time from the Chinese. The Chinese import labor in droves, exploit weak governments and are just generally starting to take over. Africa has its own problems, and many of them are its own fault, but that doesn't mean that China isn't creating many new problems either. China is exploiting Africa's structural, governmental and cultural weaknesses for its own benefit, and not in the benign way that most libertarians think happen as a result of international trade. After all, China has been a major source of the antagonism in Sudan, and they have no problem arming the Mugabe regime while exploiting it to gain economic advantage in Zimbabwe.
What many libertarians fail to realize is that the Chinese are doing to Africa, precisely what many Americans who want immigration restrictions fear would happen with an open borders policy in place. It's a simple fact that under a libertarian immigration system, there would be nothing in place to stop the People's Republic of China if they were to sponsor the emmigration of twenty or thirty million of their citizens, and distributed them strategically. Combined with the automatic citizenship of their children born in the United States and it would represent an existential blow to our country as a free society.
Some might argue now that immigration and citizenship are technically two separate issues, and that immigration should not be dependant on citizenship laws. A similar relationship exists between tax rates and government spending, yet it's unlikely that any libertarian would argue that taxes should be cut to a minimum when there is no possibility of cutting spending. While separate issues, they are deeply interdependant. Most Americans are rightly upset at the idea that all a foreigner has to do to make their children citizens is to give birth to them on some piece of land that is claimed by the federal government, especially since that confers political power on them.
One of the few dynamics that we know that does work with reasonably free societies is that they must be vigorously maintained, and they must be choosy in who they accept within their borders. There is precedent of any successful society, let alone a free society, simply inviting anyone that wants to work and contribute to the economy to come live within its borders and surviving. Even modern America, with its slowly failing economy and political system is an example of this as it has become so diverse that the only thing all fifty states have in common are the English language and federal rule. Xenophobia is an extreme to avoid, but all successful, especially free, societies have always maintained a healthy skepticism of the motives of foreigners who want to come within their territory. Africa, in its relationship with the Chinese, is showing just what can happen when a society does not resist a politically-driven influx of immigrants.
That post is typical of a paranoid american white citizen blog.
Completely paranoid and uninformed. You should start to learn about your own country.
You think USA is a better country for human rights than China ? Let's talk about guantanamo where hundred of prisonners (including kids) have been staying for years without trial. Let's talk about the more than 100 000 thousands civilians who died in the IRAK war, a war that was done for the only reason of stealing oil, as everybody know Sadam had no massive destruction weapons. From this and the many wars that USA has conducted we can learn that USA is a terrorist country that it is a huge danger for other countries.
It would be easier to take your points seriously if they were a little more original than stock left-wing talking points about the occupation of Iraq. The very fact that you compare Guantanamo Bay to China's legal system and Laogai System shows what a warped sense of reality you have. It also further hurts your case when you flat out deny the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it's an indisputable fact that they were used on the Kurds in the aftermath of the original Persian Gulf conflict. You're either extremely ignorant, or a liar. Which is it?
Well written, well thought out. Thanks for the Hitchens article.
What a poor American paranoia! Are you crying for America's loss of Africa? Well, you'd better prepare to cry for losing more. American era is ending.
Who armed Iraq? Still remember?
You Americans and Europeans had ruled Africa over hundred years, what have you done to Africa? Stop pretending like a saint.
African people know what they need and what they like to be.
Something tells me that Chinese is not one of those things...
Well, we'll see.
Who laughs last laughs best.