Rob, thanks for a great post.

mb, the letter you’re thinking of is Tolkien’s draft of a letter to the Potsdam publishing house Rütten & Loening Verlag, from 25 July 1938. It’s reprinted in Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (letter #30; cf. also letter #29 to his English publisher Allen & Unwin). In the reprinted letter he wrote “I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.”

I have more (including some background a full copy of the excerpts reprinted in Letters) at G 2006-04-27: From the geek archives: Jews, Tolkien, and a parting note to some ruddy little ignoramuses.

Joe: Liberals argue that private charities will not be sufficient. That’s an empirical question, and it’s one that would be hard to answer short of actually trying it.

These premises aren’t sufficient to make the liberal case for the welfare state against libertarian objections, unless you add the further premise (or a more rigorous formulation thereof):

If voluntary charity isn’t sufficient to provide for autonomy, then people can legitimately be coerced into making up the difference.

But that’s not an empirical claim, and it doesn’t just fall out of a “respect for autonomy,” either: after all, it involves sacrificing at least one person’s autonomy, putatively to bolster another person’s autonomy; and it involves sacrificing one form of autonomy, putatively to bolster another form. Libertarians could very well regard charity as a duty, and could hold, empirically, that voluntary charity won’t in fact be “sufficient” (by whatever standards) for everyone to count as having lived up to that duty. The only thing they would need to maintain, to remain consistently libertarian, is that you also have a duty not to coerce anybody to make it “sufficient.”

Brandon,

Could you explain in some more detail which expenditures are being counted as “defense” expenditures? For example, are V.A. benefit pay-outs being counted as “defense” or “non-defense”? What about “Homeland Security” grants to state and local governments? Are 100% of debt interest payments being counted under “non-defense”?

“The Libertarian Guy”: If you’re not a citizen, you damn well SHOULD notify the government you’re here.

Why?

“The Libertarian Guy”: That same government has no damned business knowing MY business, however.

Why not?

Why do you think the government is justified in making this distinction solely on the basis of nationality? Why has it got more of a right to demand, without probable cause, to know the whereabouts and intentions of (say) Mexican immigrants, than it has to know yours?

Or, in other words, why do you make distinctions as to whether blanket surveillance is or isn’t justified based solely on nationality?

Please note that I’m asking a moral question, not a question of constitutional law. So set aside arguments about what the U.S. Constitution does or doesn’t allow for the moment, and put it in your own words.

Wendy Terry: Last year, about 135,000 “other than Mexicans,” or OTMs, were apprehended in Texas. Most were released on their own recognizance pending deportation hearings. But many failed to show up for their hearing dates, disappearing into the U.S. interior. … Are they terrorists? We don’t know because they were released.

Good.

What, did you think that systematic government searches and surveillance without probable cause are something that ought to be efficiently and successfully carried out?

Our founding principles are based not on submission, but on its exact opposite. That’s why the founders fought a revolution. … I know this all should be obvious, but sometimes it helps to remember the obvious. That’s why we used to have Civics classes.

… because the American Revolution was obviously inspired by lessons learned in government civics classes?

Kennedy,

That again begs the crucial question: Is America the collective property of it’s citizens?

No more so than saying “You’re using democratic mysticism to justify aggression against innocent dissenters” begs the question. Of course you need to have some further argument to demonstrate that democratic mysticism is wrong, and that the consent of 50%+1 isn’t binding on any of the 50%-1, but if you’ve got a general case that political collectivism as such is wrong, then a fortiori you’ve got a case that democratic mysticism is wrong, and with that case in hand, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that “You’re using democratic mysticism to excuse aggression against innocent dissenters” is indeed the structure of the argument. I’m just saying that it works the same way when people use racial, class, national, religious, or other forms of bigotry to excuse aggression.

As far as premises behind anti-immigration arguments go, I think that the claim that America is collectively the property of its citizens is only one among many, although it’s a very common one, especially amongst people who like to play at libertarian. But it’s not the only one. For example, a lot of the Law-and-Order types more or less explicitly operate on a premise of collective punishment, to the effect that if some illegal immigrants commit crimes against person and property, then the government is entitled to force all of them to submit to ex ante screening, searches, etc. with or without probable cause, on the excuse that it’s a defensive measure (even though they would never accept that kind of treatment for, say, anyone who happened to come from the same state as Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph).

In either case, though, operating from a premise that all and only members of a particular national group are either (1) collectively entitled to control land that has neither been freely given to them nor homesteaded by them, solely in virtue of their nationality, or else (2) are fair game for collective punishment and preemptive violence without probable cause, solely in virtue of their nationality, just means operating from a bigoted premise. Specifically, both premises are instances of some of the cruder and more militant forms of nationalist bigotry.

Describing the argument as “bigoted” may or may not be persuasive in a given context (in fact it’s usually not, since it raises people’s hackles), but it can be an accurate description of the content of the premises, and not just an attempt at psychoanalysis of the motives behind them, as you seem to suggest. Since the point of describing the structure of a bad argument is not always persuading the person who made the argument not to make it anymore, I can’t see what’s wrong with the procedure.

Tom,

If you’re taking this from the standpoint of concrete historical acts, then the abolition of slavery is a far more complex issue than the unilateral acts of any American politician, involving the actions of millions of people (including the slaves themselves, who often freed themselves by rebelling or leaving; this was nearly as large a military liability for the South throughout the Civil War as the Union army was).

If you’re taking this from the standpoint of legal ritual, the Emancipation Proclamation professed to free only slaves in some of the rebelling states, and as a matter of military necessity rather than as a legal abolition of slavery. Slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, which was passed not by the unilateral action of the President, but rather by the Congress and the legislatures of the several states, and which was not ratified until well after Lincoln’s death.

“The Libertarian Guy”:

“As Dennis Miller put it… we don’t mind if you come here, but at least sign the f’in guest book first.”

Why should they?

Do you notify the government of your whereabouts and plans at all times? Do you think that you should be forced to?

Kennedy:

No such general case exists. It’s perfectly legitimate to use force to keep anyone you like off of your own property, even if your reasons for for doing so are bigotted.

It’s not a crime to do so, but it is a vice. As it is a vice to do anything from collectivist (or, more specifically, bigotted) premises, actually.

But that wasn’t my point anyway, and if I was unclear, then my bad. Read “use violence against innocent third parties” where I wrote “use violence” above; criticizing someone for offering bigotted reasons to excuse aggression against innocent third parties is no more problematic than criticizing them for using any other form of collectivism (e.g. democratic mysticism, corruption of the blood, etc.) in order to excuse aggression against innocent third parties.