ka1igu1a,

I don’t want to be rude here, but, in all frankness, how do you have any idea whether or not my position on the so-called “sex industry” is “a load of dialectical drivel” or not? The way to determine that would be to read and engage with the arguments that I give in favor of my conclusion; but your post doesn’t show any signs of having engaged with such an argument, and the only writing of mine that you link to on the topic — my remarks on MacKenzie’s paper on exploitation — deliberately doesn’t give the argument in favor of that conclusion, bracketing that as something to discuss at a later date. (I decided to so bracket it because the remarks were intended as commentary on another paper, and I wanted to highlight one possibly interesting area of discussion, but didn’t want to spend long elaborating on such a tagential point.)

If you want to find out what my argument actually is, the essay that Roderick and I co-wrote on Libertarian Feminism discusses some over-arching reasons for radical libertarians to prefer feminist commitments to non-feminist commitments (or a “thin” non-commitment); and some reasons for preferring radical feminist commitments to non-radical feminist commitments. On pornography and prostitution in particular, you will find some discussion of each at my blog (in the categories for Prostitution and for Pornography; however, note that I’ve been writing that blog for more than 7 years now, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the earliest material I wrote on those topics). However, I think that many of the best reasons for the position that I take are simply to be found in radical feminist works on prostitution and pornography — works which certainly take a more complex position than simply claiming that the sex industry “is a by-product of female exploitation/oppression in the context of male-dominated patriarchical power systems” (for one thing, antipornography and antiprostitution feminists generally claim that pornography and prostitution are not mere by-products, but actually themselves serve to express and reinforce the oppression of women), and which also are certainly aware that there is a distinction between the labor conditions for women working in, say, “mainstream” American pornography and those faced by women and girls trafficked in the international sex trade. (Antipornography feminists are not especially positive on the former, but they recognize that the latter are much worse; however, the feminist case against pornography has to do not only with exploitation at the point of production, but also with what they argue to be the effects on men and male culture at the point of consumption.)

If you’re interested in discussing these things at greater length, I would be happy to do so; or, if not, I’d be happy not to do so. But in either case it seems to me that you’ve hardly provided any evidence for the claim that you know whether my arguments are good arguments or bad arguments.

And, for what it’s worth, while Roderick and I agree broadly about the desirability of libertarians committing to an anti-statist form of radical feminism, on this particular issue I am speaking only for myself. I don’t know how far Roderick does or does not agree with my views on prostitution and pornography specifically. And whatever Roderick’s specific views may be, in general, one could accept the argument for a thick libertarian commitment to radical feminism, while also arguing that the particular form of radical feminism one should be committed to is a form that is not antiprostitution or antipornography (e.g., the so-called “sex-positive” radical feminism of someone like Ellen Willis). That would be no less a form of “thick libertarianism” than the form I defend; although I would disagree with it on that specific point, I wouldn’t characterize it as somehow less “thick” or more “thin” than what I do agree with.

… big thinkers like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, and the like …

May I suggest that Thomas Jefferson be excluded from consideration, along with any other so-called “liberal” or “libertarian” who unrepentantly presumed to dominate his fellow human beings and force them into an abject condition of chattel slavery?

As for genuinely libertarian heroes, off the top of my head, I’d like to recommend Thomas Paine, Henry David Thoreau, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Frederick Douglass, Sarah Moore Grimké, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lysander Spooner, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Ezra Heywood, Angela Tilton Heywood, Benjamin Tucker, William Graham Sumner, Mark Twain, Dyer Lum, Voltairine de Cleyre, Emma Goldman, Randolph Bourne, Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, and Samuel E. Konkin III.

For what it’s worth, to-day is the 200th birthday of Lysander Spooner, one of America’s foremost radical libertarian heroes.

R.E.: I completely agree that invading Iraq was a mistake and that the U.S.’s continued presence there isn’t helping things, but that does not mean our presence there isn’t critical or that we don’t owe it to the Iraqis to try and fix things.

1. If the U.S.’s continued presence there admittedly isn’t helping things, how do you expect them to go about trying to fix things, at this point, by staying in Iraq? How is that a better strategy than trying to put out a fire you set by dumping more gasoline on it?

2. What do you mean, “We”? I don’t owe a cent to any Iraqi, and unless I’m mistaken neither do you. I, at least, opposed this war and this occupation from the start, and neither I nor you played no role in launching or sustaining it. The criminal gang that launched this disaster of a war owe quite a bit to quite a few Iraqis, but continuing the bloody occupation is no way to pay down that debt, and they certainly have no right to try to pay off their debts on my dime.

R.E.: We need to clearly define to the Iraqi people the terms under which we will stay in Iraq.

The U.S. government has no moral authority to define any terms “to the Iraqi people,” whether they are clear or unclear, short-term or long-term. It is, after all, the Iraqis’ land that they are on, and not the U.S. government’s. As invaders, their duty is simply to remove themselves from the invaded territory as quickly as possible.

“Your questions challenge the some of the most basic elements of international customary law”

That’s deliberate, and it’s a matter of conviction rather than ignorance. I don’t accept the legitimacy of “international law.” My interest is not in how well governments get along with each other, but rather in the kind of powers that governments do or do not have over peaceful individuals who are harming no-one.

“We make immigrants and non-immigrant visitors identify themselves and their intentions (filling out paperwork) to demonstrate to foreign countries that we are taking steps to ensure the safety of their citizens (read: we can easily find and identify them upon request). You would be surprised to know how many criminals and terrorists can be turned away by a little paperwork and an interview.”

You seem to have switched from one justification to another in mid-sentence. In the first case you seem to claim that the government is justified in using force against immigrants without documentation in order to assure the governments over their former home that the U.S. government is adequately attending to their safety. In the second you seem to claim that the government is justified in using force against undocumented immigrants to block or remove “criminals and terrorists,” presumably for our safety. Those are two separate claims; and frankly I don’t find either very persuasive. The latter because the government has no right whatever to force people through ex ante screening (that is, treating them as presumptive criminals) without probable cause. The former because the rights of peaceful immigrants not to be molested are more important than how comfortable the governments they formerly lived under are made. Neither you nor the government have any right to arrest, beat, restrain, confine, or exile an immigrant who has chosen to come here without a permission slip from the federal government, just in order to make their former government feel better, of all things, about the physical security (!) of their emigre subjects.

“I am not advocating that we criminal illegal border crossing, but we should be able to take such individuals back to the border to fill their paperwork out properly before re-entry.”

You act as if La Migra were just walking them home after school. In fact what you’re proposing is that La Migra use force against undocumented immigrants, arrest them, restrain them, confine them, beat or shoot them if it’s necessary to ensure compliance, and ship them in chains down to the border to get them to fill out the right forms in triplicate. Whether you call this “criminalizing” or not, that’s treating innocent people as criminals when they have violated nobody’s rights. And for what?

“Finally, allowing foreign citizens to enter the US in contravention of their domestic laws causes unnecessary political headaches.”

So what?

“Changing citizenship is a big deal and customary law dictates that both states involved in the immigration process have a voice in the process.”

Well, I didn’t say anything about changing citizenship. What I’m talking about is whether people who are in this country without a permission slip from BICE and who don’t have citizenship status should be arrested and forced into exile for it. I don’t think they should. If undocumented immigrants were free to live on property where they were welcome, and free to work for willing employers, with or without citizenship status—if they weren’t treated as outlaws and put at the mercy of La Migra, then I really wouldn’t care much at all how byzantine the rules for changing citizenship were. The issue here isn’t so much changing citizenship as whether or not non-citizens have rights that the State is bound to respect, and if so how far those rights extend. I think that they extend, at the very least, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“The core values of an immigration system should be responsibility, expediency, and fair treatment.”

The core values of an immigration system should be packing up their guns and going home. Moving is not a crime, and it’s not a problem to be solved.

“We are bound to treat foreign citizens as well as we would be expect our citizens to be treated when they are abroad.”

How does forcing would-be immigrants to fill out government paperwork affect whether or not they’re being treated as well as we would expect our citizens to be treated when they are abroad?

Wouldn’t it be easier to just treat all immigrants decently, and forget about the paperwork?

“It is also incumbent upon a host government to provided foreign citizens with adequate access to the diplomatic services of their home country.”

How does using force against immigrants who haven’t filled out government paperwork improve anyone’s access to the diplomatic services of their home country?

“Most importantly, the US needs to ensure that a foreign individual’s home country will allow them to leave before we allow them to enter …”

Why?

DevP: “Immigration needs reform, and illegal immigration is indeed a crime.”

A crime against whom, exactly?