Kind of amazing how bad Dave’s arguments were. He didn’t try to emphasize assimilation, crime, economic negatives, etc. Probably because the data isn’t on his side. He kept touting democracy, which he supposedly dislikes. Great job Alex! Know there are a lot of us who completely agree with you (and would go even further). Thanks.
I recall there was an analogy in the debate that goes sth like this: supposed a government operated factory is closing, wouldn't it be better if people can get back their share than the factory being bought by some foreign company? I think that is not the correct question to ask. If people get back their share but they cannot sell it (like you cannot sell your share of the public park), then what difference does it make?
I don't think this follows unless one thinks libertarians are committed to collapsing trust law. Dave is hardly the first libertarian to analogize the government to a trust with fiduciary duties, enforceable at equity but not at law. (See, oddly enough, Richard Epstein more than Rothbard here.)
What’s most astounding is how the comment section was flooded with people vigorously in support of Dave often touting anecdotal tales of lost jobs to immigrants. These people don’t like facts and they don’t like stats. For whatever reason people really love to give into the primal instinct of in group tribalism
Dave's defenses felt a lot more like a layperson's apprehensions with more immigration than relating it to libertarianism.
When he mentioned unpopularity several times, I thought to myself whether that would be a point he'd make if the topic was about whether there should be government services and taxation. Seeing as overwhelming majority does think government services should exist, but no one serious would use that argument to say it's more in line with libertarianism.
I watched the debate and thought you won. I think Dave Smith could have made a better argument for his side, but instead kept emphasizing that immigration is not popular. I kept thinking he would bring up arguments such as it would be better to unwind the welfare state first or that immigrants would vote for socialism. I do think the public property issue is tricky but Dave Smith wasn’t clear enough about the connection between his views on immigration being unpopular and his view on public property. Even then I think he doesn’t do enough to address that people may let immigrants on their property without the immigrants ever using public property. He is justifying a border immigration regime when it seems his argument only really proves that one can exclude immigrants from using government provided goods. I didn’t come away thinking his position was consistent with libertarianism because I don’t see how one get from his argument specifically to justifying a border immigration regime. Maybe one can argue this is the only practical way to stop immigrants from using government services, but he didn’t do anything to make that connection obvious to me. On the merits it really seemed like you one to me because it was just much clearer how your position was consistent, especially that you said it would be better to just put a ring around government services.
How are your points Libertarian when they are based on populism (voting with wallet) and optimal economic outcome? There are plenty of optimal economic outcomes that have nothing to do with Libertarianism. Isn't Dave's point basically a "Don't Tread On Me" point, which is a Libertarian concept? And if you both are basing your conclusions on popularity, neither are debating for the true Libertarian conceptually.
I can’t really make myself believe that the voters in the pew were libertarians. Dave’s arguments were almost without exception lame and inconsistent with libertarianism. And not in the way Walter Block ridiculously argued that ethical vegetarianism isn’t libertarian.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
I just thought the analogy was bad and off point.
Kind of amazing how bad Dave’s arguments were. He didn’t try to emphasize assimilation, crime, economic negatives, etc. Probably because the data isn’t on his side. He kept touting democracy, which he supposedly dislikes. Great job Alex! Know there are a lot of us who completely agree with you (and would go even further). Thanks.
I recall there was an analogy in the debate that goes sth like this: supposed a government operated factory is closing, wouldn't it be better if people can get back their share than the factory being bought by some foreign company? I think that is not the correct question to ask. If people get back their share but they cannot sell it (like you cannot sell your share of the public park), then what difference does it make?
I don't think this follows unless one thinks libertarians are committed to collapsing trust law. Dave is hardly the first libertarian to analogize the government to a trust with fiduciary duties, enforceable at equity but not at law. (See, oddly enough, Richard Epstein more than Rothbard here.)
What’s most astounding is how the comment section was flooded with people vigorously in support of Dave often touting anecdotal tales of lost jobs to immigrants. These people don’t like facts and they don’t like stats. For whatever reason people really love to give into the primal instinct of in group tribalism
Dave's defenses felt a lot more like a layperson's apprehensions with more immigration than relating it to libertarianism.
When he mentioned unpopularity several times, I thought to myself whether that would be a point he'd make if the topic was about whether there should be government services and taxation. Seeing as overwhelming majority does think government services should exist, but no one serious would use that argument to say it's more in line with libertarianism.
I watched the debate and thought you won. I think Dave Smith could have made a better argument for his side, but instead kept emphasizing that immigration is not popular. I kept thinking he would bring up arguments such as it would be better to unwind the welfare state first or that immigrants would vote for socialism. I do think the public property issue is tricky but Dave Smith wasn’t clear enough about the connection between his views on immigration being unpopular and his view on public property. Even then I think he doesn’t do enough to address that people may let immigrants on their property without the immigrants ever using public property. He is justifying a border immigration regime when it seems his argument only really proves that one can exclude immigrants from using government provided goods. I didn’t come away thinking his position was consistent with libertarianism because I don’t see how one get from his argument specifically to justifying a border immigration regime. Maybe one can argue this is the only practical way to stop immigrants from using government services, but he didn’t do anything to make that connection obvious to me. On the merits it really seemed like you one to me because it was just much clearer how your position was consistent, especially that you said it would be better to just put a ring around government services.
How are your points Libertarian when they are based on populism (voting with wallet) and optimal economic outcome? There are plenty of optimal economic outcomes that have nothing to do with Libertarianism. Isn't Dave's point basically a "Don't Tread On Me" point, which is a Libertarian concept? And if you both are basing your conclusions on popularity, neither are debating for the true Libertarian conceptually.
I can’t really make myself believe that the voters in the pew were libertarians. Dave’s arguments were almost without exception lame and inconsistent with libertarianism. And not in the way Walter Block ridiculously argued that ethical vegetarianism isn’t libertarian.
The debate was excellent. Your debating skills are impressive.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.
Centrist Libertarian here (classical liberal) and I thought both of you made solid arguments and had strong positions in which the debate proved necessary.
However, there is a real concern for substantial immigration in which finite resources such as a food and land are not easily distributed. Immigrants are not children (as you've suggested during the debate) they have their own preconditions they bring with them. That said, this debate is not anti-immigration. It is pro-American multiculturalism via efficienct immigration.
Factory farming and apartments highlight why population growth concern is well-founded from a libertarian perspective. They represent government-supported systems that clash with ethics and land ownership ideals, making a libertarian society harder to achieve as populations grow.