[Another one] of the inherent contradiction(s) of the Left

I previously wrote a piece on how Lefties are contradictory when they simuntaneously protect women's right to their bodies in Abortion debates, while refrain from the same protection in Labour Market debates. I added the Wage Gap vs Profit-Seeking Contradiction a few weeks ago. Here's another amusing contradiction:

We Want to Help the Poor!

Yesterday, citizens all over Sweden laid their votes for what kind of socialists ought to rule their country over the next four years. The Parlamentary situation is peculiar, to say the least:

Neither proper socialists (in red) nor the conservative/liberal socialists (in blue) want to cooperate with Anti-Immigration socialists (in yellow), which means effective governing is bound to get interesting. 

Anyways, the weeks leading up to election time has obviously been chaotic, with politicians on the streets, on tv and even phone calls tried to persuade the voters where to lay their vote. I met a guy representing the Social Democrats, with whom I argued a bit. He justified his position of taxation/redistribution with the following:

We Want to Help the Poor

Now, that's an admirable trait, I suppose, Morality/Theft/State Oppression set aside. But let me have a look at that statement. 

• Almost 100% of the poor on the Planet live outside Fort Europa.
• You raise and maintain Physical as well as Trade-related barriers against all Non-EU countries 
• You prevent third-world farmers, the poorest of the poor, to sell their crops within Fort Europa.
• You tax the entire economy, using some of that proceeds to subsidise inefficient farmers within the European Union
• You destroy crops to maintain high prices for your own wealthy farmers, while effectively keeping the poor alienated
• ... and for the few lucky ones who actually make it past Frontex or Immigration Authorities, you effectively price them out of the labour market by Minimum Wage laws or Union activity.

And while all of this is happening you're campaigning for redistribution among and within the top 5% wealthiest people on the planet?

You're not helping the poor. You're HARMING the poor with your protectionist measures. You're killing the poor with your subsidies, with your Inflation. And all of this you justify by your concern for the poor. 

You're not helping the poor. You're a hypocrite. You're disgusting. Arrogant. Egotistical to the point of narcissism. Everything you accuse the Market, the Liberals and Conservatives for. Disgusting. 

Addressing the comments I had on the Immigration Post

So I got a few objections to my post on UK Immigration the other day, and I'd like to address them in a more structured manner than just plainly answering in the comment field.

Here we go:

Short answer: you're not making sense, any of you.

"1You're comparing Isa to a criminal in prison, saying that even if the laws are wrong, someone who's not complying with them should not be released. You realise he's not a criminal, right? He hasn't broken any laws, and he's not in prison - he's in an immigration detention centre, a place where the UKBA can send any asylum seeker at any point in the asylum process at their own discretion."  - Kit's comment here.

1) Isa's asylum application has been denied, that is, he was deemed not to fill the criteria needed to get british citizenship. Without a citizenship or a visa, he is then not allowed on British soil, thus as far as the law is concerned, yes, he is a criminal to be removed from this country. I don't particularly agree with those laws, but nevertheless by being here without a visa/citizenship he violates them, thus making him a criminal. You can't argue with that.

"2. You're completely trivialising the whole concept of hunger strikes - you realise he's not the first person to refuse food as a form of protest, don't you? Do you think it would have been acceptable for the government to just let the hunger-striking suffragettes die because "they made a choice not to eat"? Hunger striking is a legitimate form of protest and the detention centre's decision to ignore it and let him die is a hugely unethical thing to do." Kit's comment here.

2) Right, so you're mixing apples and pears here. Whether or not he's the first person to refuse food, or if such protests are "legitimate" ways of protesting is beside the point. The detention centre has no responsibility to act according to some ethics where certain actions would result in certain effects. Hunger striking is a personal choice, a protest anyone is allowed to participate in, but it does not change any moral aspects of this debate. Such actions carries consequences, something Isa's fully aware of. What if we'd carry such an idea further? What you're essentially saying is that because hunger is a legitimate form of protest (wait, who's even to determine what ways to protest are legitimate and what ways are not?), he is to be released from whatever law he's found not to comply with. If that is the case, I believe we'd have quite some hunger strikes going on in British prisons, and you'd have a hard time distinguishing Isa's right to be released over theirs.

"3. No-one is "blaming" Virgin Airlines for taking him as a passenger - Virgin are being petitioned because they have the ability to refuse to accept him as a passenger. If you had been involved in any anti-deportation campaigns before, you would know that this was a very valid and useful method of helping people at risk of deportation. Yes, there are other airlines the UKBA could put him with, but because his flight is booked THIS WEDNESDAY on a Virgin flight, their refusal to take him would mean new removal arrangements would have to be made with a different airline, buying him extra time in this country. Other airlines would then also be more likely to refuse to take him if they knew that Virgin had already refused." Kit's comment here.

Thanks for reducing my experiences in earlier campaigns, and no, such measures have had very little success from what I've seen.
Two things. First, yes you are "blaming" Virgin Airlines, trying to "lobby" them and persuading them to on ethical grounds obstain from providing a service the British State pays them to do. Second, why would other airlines refuse? If indeed you would create large enough a public demand/critique against moving him, there'd be other airlines or transport methods that would comply. That's how choice works in a voluntarily-based market. Your only valid point here is that enough protest could possibly buy him some marginal amount of time. Question is, is the effort and time you invest in that tiny amount of time worth the tradeoff? No improvements have been made to its actual cause, and British Immigration laws will produce more Isas in the future, thus making your actions rather futile. Beside, you have very little hope of actually save Isa from deportation - only prolong it, as you yourself admitted.

"Also, I'm pretty sure he's been declared medically unfit for detention, which means the government are breaking their own laws by keeping him prisoner. He actually is seriously ill, even above and beyond his hunger strikes - he has a range of other, preceding conditions including severe depression. 
Trust me when I say we ARE fighting the state on these issues, but allowing companies to do disgusting things just because the state is ultimately to blame is like allowing someone to shoot people just because they didn't make the gun!" Katie's comment here.

Again we come back to the criteria for which someone is allowed to stay in this country. Both of you are arguing that medically unfit people are to be deemed in a less severe manner because of this condition. I don't know the details of the UK Asylum process in this aspect, and you're welcome to enlighten me. I can, on the other had, object to the logic of such claim. The idea of an Asylum process is to only allow citizenship to those who are found complying with certain criteria, that is to filter some other people out of it. If there then is outside pressure (and the Home Office somehow unlikely would take that into consideration) that some criteria (medical condition) is more important than others, that would mean the proccess is somewhat undermined. Not a complete waste of time, I'd say, but it is based on the assumption that such a proccess is justified to begin with and that it only has to be mended where it fails. I refuse such an assumption, whereas you, by arguing medical condition, actually comply with it.

Katie says that we ARE fighting the state. I'd love to see where and how. All I see is some socialist-based critique against companies for performing services the State payed them for. That's not very "fighting the state", is it? Besides, you analogy is halting; shooting someone is an aggression against someone, while making a gun is not. That is, if we'd follow your analogy considering it correct, that'd mean the State (for making the gun/deciding to deport) is innocent and the Companies (for shooting/actually deporting) are to blame.

Frankly, it's the other way around. Virgin airlines provide a service that is usefull and demanded by lots of people; quickly transporting someone or something from one place to another. That is and can be used for a variety of reasons (just like a gun); their action is not inherently "evil" or unethical. Whereas the State's actually is. Deporting someone cannot be morally justified, and it's here the actual unethical action occurs.

___

So, thanks for your comments, but yes I do have a fairly good idea about this issue and I still suggest you to reallocate time and efforts towards the real enemy; the state and it's laws about limiting people's movement within whatever territory it claims to belong to it.

A word on UK Immigration Debate

Good evening!

In this blog I have never been very polite to my ideological opponents. That's not the purpose. Here and here, for example, I have been outright offensive to those whom I see deserve it. Arguably even for logical reasons. Often the inspiration for such posts has come from anger over inconsistencies or logical fallacies in my opponent's reasoning or arguments, without consideration for just whom I might hurt.

Tonight, I'm writing about a few friends of mine. After all, perhaps I don't even want them to see it. What will they think of me?

But for some reason I can't resist. Ok, enough apologies. Here we go.

Tonight's topic is immigration. Let me just first remind any reader of this blog that I am a libertarian; I don't recognize the state's power to decide who's allowed to live within a certain geografical area; the state has no property right to my land, and thus no saying in who happen to be there. I particularly don't accept the deportations done by UK and other countries, and I can feel the anger bursting inside of me whenever I see the letters "FRONTEX", or hear about anti-immigration laws. In fact, one of the reasons to why I became a libertarian in the first place was because I favoured free migration. Bottom line: remember, I'm a libertarian, and I favour free migration.

Having that said, I have quite a large issue with the entire Isa Muaza thing. For the last few days my friends have filled my facebook feed with links about the issue, urging me to take part in a petition for his freedom, demonstrating against the Home Office or against Virgin Airline for transporting him.

So, the guy refused eating some months back, in protest of the Asylum system and the way he's been treated. Now this action has rendered him seriously week, on the brink of dying. And the petition and demonstrations demands his freedom on medical grounds; simply, he is very ill, and holding him in custody is inhuman. Thus the anger towards the Detention Centre for holding him, Virgin Airlines for transporting him, and the Home Office for refusing to give him citizenship (if my understanding of the issue is correct).

Ok, we have a few things here. First, the UK Asylum system is riddiculous for several reasons. The way migrants are treated within it is absolutely preposterous. And I share as much anger over it as any of my friends or the NGOs involved in this matter. BUT. A person not complying with the laws of a country, (however faulty the laws) cannot and shall not be released on medical grounds. Put to the test, asking for his release becomes quite eerie. Should that apply to other violators of the law aswell? Abuse, robbery, theft? Released because their health is weak? Lack of logical coherence there.

Second of all, he wasn't taken ill suddenly by some mysterious disease; he refused food for political reasons, knowing what consequenses that might bring. That is, he made a choice, fully aware of what that choice eventually would lead to.

Thirdly, a petition for Virgin Airlines "not to be involved in this clear violation of the most basic of human rights.". A regular company, providing a service the State believe is necessary and payed for by taxmoney (that is, stolen money). And my friends put the blame on the company? Seriously. First the state robs you of your property in order to pay for whatever ends they find suitable, secondly they use that money to deport migrants. And you accuse the company? The obvious culprit, the blame, the bad guy, in this case is the State. Times two. Squared. Times a million.

Besides, what would happen if Virgin Airlines magically decided not to provide that service? I could name countless other airlines that would. Putting up petitions for those too? Every single one of them? Are you really willing to spend all that time, effort and resources trying to stop companies of performing the service the Bad Guy demanded? It would be like accusing the Shopkeeper for selling a pack of cigaretts to the Bank Robber, and then running around town trying to stop EVERY shopkeeper from selling anything that could be used in a robbery. Even in the highly unlikely event that it'd work, there are other non-aircraft ways to transport people. That is, we're all wasting our time with such efforts.

Come on people, I share your anger over the Asylum system, but you're completly missing the target here. The companies performing whatever service the State pays them to perform are not the Bad Guys. I do believe you are aware of this, but for some reason forgot about it.

 As the Hunger Games have it; Remember who the real enemy is . Now, let's stop wasting our time on accusing companies, making pointless petitions and instaed blame the State for what it's doing.