Throughout history, personal liberty, free markets, and peaceable, voluntary exchanges have been roundly denounced by tyrants and often greeted with suspicion by the general public. Unfortunately, argues Dr. Walter E. Williams, Americans have increasingly accepted the tyrannical ideas of reduced private property rights and reduced rights to profits, and have become enamored with restrictions on personal liberty and control by government.
Richard Dawkins of course does not like ADF, saying of this case: “On its face, it’s a response to a specific complaint of alleged discrimination, similar to the cases ADF has taken defending bakers, florists, and photographers who have been found in violation of nondiscrimination ordinances for not serving same-sex couples. But this particular response is actually a messy overreach mirroring ADF’s other pre-enforcement challenges that seek to override all LGBTQ protections in the name of ‘religious liberty’.” (You can hear his snarkiness in his “religious liberty” comment come through his keyboard.)
You see, this is another piece of evidence (along with others: here, here, and here for examples) that you can either have liberty… liberty to start a religious bettered women’s shelter that helps a myriad of women and their children, or not have one at all – thus EQUALLY not helping all people. The Left really doesn’t care about battered women. They CARE about equality. And you cannot have liberty with that mindset. That is evident from this case and others.
NATIONAL REVIEW notes another similarity to “equal rights commissions” in other states with similar cases.
WND has an excellent synopsis as well:
Debunking the stupid #SJW myth that Republicans are only “pro-birth” not “pro-life.” Hint: it’s all about being pro-LIBERTY.
Libertarian Republican’s post caused me to wonder the following:
Wouldn’t there be then, a correlation to these “less-liberty” immigrants voting overwhelmingly Democratic? Doesn’t this — anecdotally — show that maybe, just maybe, the “statistically significant and sizable differences” signify something? Hmmmmm?
Here is LB’s post:
- “Marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants… statistically significant and sizable” differences from Americans
Excerpted, MarginalRevolution, “U.S. Immigrants’ Attitudes Toward Libertarian Values” (link to study by UCSD psychologist Hal Pashler):
While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined.
Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents.
These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.
Pro-Open Borders, liberal-leaning libertarian Cato Inst. admits increased immigration will lead to electoral failure for libertarians
Here are some reasons why Pashler’s paper shouldn’t worry libertarians much or convince many to oppose immigration: First, libertarians generally support immigration reform, the legalization of unauthorized immigrants, and increasing legal immigration because it is consistent with libertarian principles – not because immigration reform will lead to breakthrough electoral gains for libertarian candidates. The freedom for healthy non-criminals to move across borders with a minimum of government interference is important in and of itself. General libertarian support for immigration reform does not depend upon immigrants producing a pro-liberty Curley effect – as nice as that would be.
LR comments on CATO’s position:
Editor’s note – Of course, the Cato Institute is not in the business of electoral politics. They’re in the business of pointy-headed intellectualizing and policy paper pushing. Why should they give a “f” what the electoral consequences are, of vastly increasing liberty-hating immigrants into the U.S. and putting them immediately onto the voter rolls.
A mighty f-u you goes out to our friends at the Cato Institute this morning from the political arm of the libertarian movement.
See also: Egypt & Syrian Revolutions Compared