First, I want to say thank you to everyone who read (and especially those who purchased) Issue I of WAL Reader. I truly hoped all of you enjoyed it and/or learned something valuable from it – I know that everyone who contributed to the inaugural issue put a lot of work into it. Secondly, of course, I want to thank all of you who are now reading the second issue (and again, a special thank you to those of you who purchased it in one form or another). I am extremely proud to be putting out the magazine you're now holding or looking at on a screen. While I think the first issue was a great success, I believe this second issue has raised the bar.
Burning or otherwise desecrating the American flag is an especially derisive gesture, like urinating on the Washington Monument or the graves at Arlington Cemetery. It is an act of such heinous disrespect for the history of the United States and for the millions of men and women who have risked or given their lives to preserve what that flag stands for, that many Americans might react to such a gesture with utter disgust, nationalistic pride, vitriol, or a desire for justice, whether in a court of law or a back alley. These reactions are understandable.
The month of June commemorates the impact the LGBTQ+ community has made here in the United States and around the world. June was chosen for pride month because of its connection to the Stonewall riots which occurred in June of 1969. The LGBTQ+ community’s struggle for marriage equality has been a long and hard struggle. Although the Libertarian Party has supported marriage equality since the moment of the party’s conception in 1971, gay marriage only became legal a few years ago in the United States and in many countries around the world it is still illegal. This is one of the many reasons why pride month is important in our society because individual liberty is non-negotiable for a free society.
I guess sometimes the best thing to do is just come clean, be open with one’s self and just start with step one of the process of growth and recovery. Hello, I’m Remso W. Martinez and I’m a former lover of Universal Basic Income. It started as a summer fling, like with a girl your parents warned you about, the type of girl your friends have heard rumors about, but everywhere you go, everyone just runs over to tell you how much trouble she is. That’s the problem though; you like trouble, and she’s sending you all the right signals.
Restorative justice is a principle I believe in – I desire a world that makes new, rather than continues to down the tired old path of tearing down. We have tried an eye for an eye for long enough, how about we try something new? Why not try liberation from the washed up ways of faux justice? Restoration is an idea that can break toxic cycles of revenge. It can attempt to make things whole again; this includes the idea of reparations. Just to be clear, I don’t know exactly how legitimate, ideal reparations will look in the modern age. I don’t know how the exact payment will take place. I don’t claim to know all of the answers as to how to right the wrongs for our sins of the past, but I do know one thing: They are overdue, and I intend to explore the options for reparations from the perspective of a libertarian socialist. This essay intends to explore ways in which reparations can become a reality, and argues that reparations themselves are libertarian.
On the 4th of July every year we celebrate our independence once again. While reading our declaration, it brings to question whether or not we still have the liberties, accurate representation, and fair and just laws that were hard fought to attain. It brings to mind that we may need to seek our independence once again. Not to separate ourselves from a tyrannical dictator, but to free ourselves from a government that has long since for-gotten what liberty is. We celebrate, every year, the day we declared that our nation shall be free and independent of an empire that sought to control us without adequate representation and the fight for this freedom would take another seven bloody years to attain after this declaration.
Can I be honest? Immigration is not a pet issue of mine. It has never ranked highly in my political awareness, I don't tend to traffic in the latest statistics or partisan trends, and I don't subscribe to any of the sensational viewpoints. As with so many other policy areas, the debate has been forced into two largely opposing viewpoints: those who would seemingly allow unhampered immigration and those who would crack down heavily and spend more resources attempting to wall off vast stretches of border territory.
As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent. Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands. What have we, as libertarians, to say about this?
Before explaining the issue that is illegal migration of humans, is is necessary to first dispel several social stigmas: I unequivocally reject the notion that those who believe in border control are the bigots, racists, and xenophobes they are often branded as by the media. Most are justifiably concerned that an unmitigated flow of people will change the world around them. Undoubtedly, they are correct to believe this. Since it can take 21 years or more in order to get into the United States legally, allowing the 4.4 million people waiting to get into the United States immediately sounds like it might funnel too many families in a tube that is not large enough. These figures do not include the portion of the planetary population that does not bother to try to legally immigrate due to the prohibitively long waiting time. The goal of this article is not to dismiss these concerns – in fact, I acknowledge their validity – but to respond to them using examples from economics, history, mathematics, and ethics, in an effort to make the intensity of information match the intensity of intention for those who are concerned.
There are few words more indelibly attached to the American myth than those so eloquently put by Emma Lazarus in her 1883 sonnet, “The New Colossus,” in which she writes, “Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” These words are now immortalized in bronze for all casual New York City tourists to pore over perfunctorily as they shuffle through the Statue of Liberty museum. Yet, they are worth a closer look, not only for the poetically inclined, but for those considering the United States’ immigration policies in 2019. In the modern era, most substantive debate on immigration (which unfortunately seems increasingly hard to come by) is centered around the skills and attributes which the ideal immigrant would posses, and how we should go about screening for these attributes. Many suggest...