From the Archives: Libertarian reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces

Libertarian reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces
May 2, 2011 9:25 AM MST

In response to a request for a comment from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, retired U.S. Air Force colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, who is challenging incumbent Representative Bob Goodlatte for the 2012 Republican nomination in Virginia’s Sixth Congressional District, said with regard to the killing of Osama bin Laden this weekend:

“I tend to share the views of former President George W. Bush, recalling Bush's March 13, 2002, press conference, where he acknowledged that we hadn't heard a lot from Osama bin Laden (even nine years ago) and that the US does not believe bin Laden is ‘at the center of any command structure.’"

‘Bring the troops home’
Dr. Kwiatkowski, who has been a popular speaker on the libertarian lecture circuit, added that “it was interesting that late Sunday night President Obama indicated we had the body, and then by Monday morning we hear that the body was buried at sea. I expect that this sudden lack of a viewable corpse will be a point of debate for both those who support the Bush/Obama policy in the region, and for those who oppose it. I encourage the President and the Congress to use the published death of Osama bin Laden as a real opportunity to bring the troops home from both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to use those billions and billions of tax dollars to truly defend our borders, and to balance our budget at home.”

Kwiatkowski was one of several prominent libertarians who have reacted to the news of the al-Qaeda founder’s death in Pakistan. Here is a sampling of their opinions from around the World Wide Web.

Wayne Allyn Root, currently the chairman of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee and the Libertarian Party’s 2008 vice-presidential candidate, issued a brief statement late Sunday that said, in part (emphasis in original):

“I want to congratulate the Navy Seal Team that tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden. I feel blessed for their courage.

“Congratulations are due for all American military and intelligence on their RELENTLESS decade long battle to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

“Tonight there is no politics, or partisan divide. This was a victory for America and all Americans.”

‘Establishing more liberal societies’

Christopher A. Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, wrote on the Institute’s blog, Cato@Liberty:

“Bin Laden’s death does not end the threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates, but it goes a long way toward delivering justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and al Qaeda’s other acts of terrorism. Importantly, the operation appears to bear resemblance to earlier operations that captured the 9/11 plotters Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. The details should remind us that some of the most effective counterterrorism techniques do not rely on tens of thousands of troops stationed indefinitely in distant lands.”

Preble’s Cato colleague, director of information studies Jim Harper, argued in a separate blog post:

“Osama bin Laden failed to reach any of his geopolitical goals. He did not topple any Middle East dictator toward the end of establishing a Muslim caliphate. Indeed, the people of the Middle East have begun toppling their own dictators toward the end (we earnestly hope) of establishing more liberal societies.”

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said simply in a news release:

"I commend our troops, the intelligence community, and the military leaders involved in both the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama for their perseverance and courage in pursuit of this most grievous enemy of the United States of America."


‘Rethink our foreign policy’
Dave Nalle, national chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, wrote on BlogCritics.org:

“Even though it's basically meaningless, let's all pretend that killing bin Laden makes all the difference and puts the specter of 9/11 to rest. Let's say ‘mission accomplished’ and move on the way we should have when Bush first made that declaration. This shouldn't be a milestone in the War on Terror, it should be the gravestone which marks the end of that ill-conceived venture which has been as bungled by this administration as it was by the previous one.

“Let's call it a turning point and an opportunity to rethink our foreign policy and what our objectives ought to be. This might be the time to return to a model of foreign policy which doesn't rely on the failed Wilsonian vision of being everyone's big sister and forcing obedience where we can't buy affection. We've tried that approach and we can no longer afford to try to out-tyrant the tyrants and out terrorize the terrorists. That's a game which no one wins.”

‘Intelligence gathering’
Writing at the Nolan Chart, libertarian blogger Evan Mazur noted:

“Yes, America finally killed bin Laden and that's something everyone can be grateful for, but his death was not due to the presence of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan, but from intelligence gathering and a surgical strike in Pakistan that reportedly involved no civilian casualties. Such a focused strike was exactly the plan former Congressman and 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr had in mind. Congressman Ron Paul, who originally voted in favor of the use of force in Afghanistan on the condition that troops would be used to focus on the terrorists, came to regret that decision because the nature of the mission changed from that of terrorist hunting to nation building. Like Barr, he wanted to focus not on conducting a war in Afghanistan but on Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts.”

Finally, Jeff Frazee, chairman of Young Americans for Liberty, pointed out in a widely-quoted Facebook status update:

"Only government can fail for 10 years and spend trillions of [your] dollars over budget and still be cheered and celebrated after it finally accomplishes what it originally set out to do."

As this article went to press, neither of the two libertarian-identified candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination – Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson – had commented publicly on the death of Osama bin Laden.


Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on May 2, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Immigration laws may make United States poorer, says economist Daniel Lin

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on February 22, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Immigration laws may make United States poorer, says economist Daniel Lin

America is, “on average, poorer” because immigration laws limit the number of willing workers who can come to the United States and offer their services to willing employers.

That was one of the points made by economist Daniel Lin during an interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner after he delivered a lecture at the University of Virginia on the topic, "Who Wins? Who Loses? The Economic Effects of Immigration."

Educated at UCLA and George Mason University, Lin teaches economics at American University, where his research interests include the industrial organization of entertainment industries, the theory of the firm, and the antitrust implications of various theories of competition. His lecture at UVA was sponsored by Young Americans for Liberty and the Institute for Humane Studies.

“Most of the discussion about whether we should allow more immigrants” into the United States, Lin said in the interview, focuses on the question, “Is the increase in well-being that we see for the immigrants, is that enough to justify the fact that Americans suffer?”

'Foreigners benefit us'
Even if you don't “say that foreigners are worth just as much as Americans,” he continued, “you can say that we should focus on Americans first.”

Still, Lin added, “what this discussion is missing is: Do we really know what's happening to Americans? And are we really paying attention to how much foreigners benefit us when they come here?”

The purpose of his lecture, he said, was to point out how “we're not really sure about either of those things. It turns out the effects on Americans, when we allow more foreigners, are not conclusively negative.”

Some “respectable economists,” he explained, argue that “when we allow more foreigners in, it allows more Americans to specialize in higher-wage jobs, to do more,” and the wages of Americans “go up.”

Complementing Americans
Part of the reason for this is complementarity, meaning that immigrants do jobs that free up Americans to do other jobs, often jobs that pay higher wages and are more productive.

“When we see workers coming in,” Lin explained, “we often think that they directly compete with all Americans, but that's not quite correct. When new workers come into this country, they are also complements to American workers.”

He offered the example of someone who is a programmer or a scientist.

“If you have that person mow his own lawn, or cook his own food, or make his own clothes, he's going to have to take time away from being a scientist [or] being a programmer,” he said.

If, instead, someone else performs those tasks, the American “can focus more time on being a scientist, being a programmer, and do more work, be more productive,” Lin explained. “The helper is not a direct competitor to the scientist or the programmer or the teacher or researcher, whatever.”

The immigrant is instead “a complement, who makes that person [the American] better off. That is why you don't see people who are hiring nannies or gardeners recoiling when they do that. They're not forced to do those things. They want to do those things. It's the laws that are trying to prevent those things from happening.”

The people “who are doing the hiring and the people who are doing the working,” Lin pointed out “both benefit when they are allowed to contract with each other.”

Making Americans poorer
Having laws that impede immigration into the United States makes everybody poorer, he explained.

“The current laws allow foreigners to come in but it is a trickle compared to the number of people who want to come in and the number of people who Americans want to hire,” Lin said.

“If you look at the waiting list for visas” for people who want to work in the United States, which are often multiple-years long, Lin said, “we certainly can conclude that America is, on average, poorer because we block these types of contracts from happening – these exchanges from happening.”

When people who want to work in the United States “are being prevented from coming here and the Americans who would benefit from having these extra workers are not allowed to have those benefits,” he argued, “we certainly do see Americans on the whole being poorer than otherwise they would be.”

The stereotype that immigrants are hard-working and ambitious is “rooted in truth,” Lin said, because of “selection bias” that comes from people who are “willing to overcome the cultural differences, the language differences, moving apart from [their] home town [and] family,” in order to come here to work, as well as who are “willing to put up with a lot of bureaucracy” to get that “golden ticket” permitting them to work in the United States.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Charlottesville entrepreneur Paul Jones sells non-lethal self-defense products
What is the DREAM Act, and why is it important? A conversation with Claire Gastañaga
Omidyar Network's Karol Boudreaux offers optimistic view of African economies
Economist Peter Boettke deflates candidates’ concept of ‘energy independence’
James Robinson discusses 'why nations fail' at George Mason University

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/immigration-laws-may-make-united-states-poorer-says-economist-daniel-lin