How Judges Change the Meaning of Laws Over Time

The following is a fictional story about the colors of traffic lights and how unelected judges change the meaning of a law over time.

Many years ago, when cars were starting to show up on city streets, traffic lights were installed in every village. Some villages designated that a green light meant a car could proceed or go, and a red light meant that a car must stop and wait until the light turned green before it could proceed. Other villages designated that red meant “GO” and green meant “STOP”. It was so confusing for travelers.

While there was a general recognition that there should be a standard traffic light for all the country and many villages had changed their traffic lights to be consistent with what was becoming the standard, a few villages refused to change. Representatives in the legislature passed a law mandating that red meant stop and green meant go. The people overwhelmingly agreed that the new law was a good thing. The wording of the law was simple and clear. It said, “Red will mean stop and green will mean go for all traffic lights in every village.”

For many years there was not a problem as every village complied with red meant stop and green meant go. One village decided that it was going to use red-violet to mean stop and blue-green to mean go. A traveler to this village was confused. He challenged the color change in court. The court heard his case but the judge ruled that red-violet was still red and blue-green was still green. A few years later, another village decided to use violet for stop and blue for go. When that change went to the courts, a judge ruled that violet is close enough to red-violet and blue is close enough to blue-green and, therefore, it is permissible. “After all,” said the judge, “since red-violet has been ruled to be acceptable, it only makes sense that violet is acceptable since red-violet has violet in the name and that has been ruled on already. And likewise, for blue-green. And besides, there was precedent.”

The judge was praised for being progressive and not being constrained by the historical meaning of the words, after all, words change over time and the law is a living document. Some originalist judges – those who interpreted the words of the law to mean what they originally meant - argued that red meant red and green meant green.

A few years go by, a village decided to make blue-violet mean stop and blue-violet mean go. It was so very confusing. A judge ordered that the village change blue to mean stop and violet to mean go. As a progressive judge, he viewed his likes and dislikes as always being consistent with society's likes and dislikes. It became the law of the land. Until, one village decided to make red-violet mean go and blue-green to mean stop. Once again, a judge said it was allowable because violet is essentially the same as red-violet and blue is essentially the same as blue-green. And besides, there was precedent for this and he started shouting some Latin word "stare decisis" as if it was some magical chant.

One hundred years after the enactment of the traffic light law, a village changed its traffic lights so that red meant go and green meant stop. Again, a judge ruled -  based on precedent  - that this was allowed. And furthermore, in keeping with the original intent of the law, all traffic lights throughout the land must be consistent. And that is how red became to mean go and green became to mean stop.

Fight Authority, Unless

Young people today have been so effectively brainwashed that they don't even realize that the leftists are the authority now. Leftists control the schools, the universities, the media, social platforms, the entertainment industry, most all large cities, and many large companies.

Do you really want liberty?

Roman historian Sallust observed that, " Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master. This desire for simple answers to complex questions forms a perpetual clamor for Masters with Answers, and Masters must have slaves."  

Liberty is messy.  While order exists, it is not centrally planned order; it is an order that spontaneously comes about when the plans of others collide when people interact, trade and strive.  And just when the emerging order settles down the forces of creative destruction redoes it all over again.  Most people are not comfortable with change.  They like order and control.  They may not admit it but their clamor for government control of almost every aspect of society is their way of admitting it.  

Liberty means mostly that you are responsible for you (and whomever you choose to be responsible for).  With that responsibility comes the recognition that failure is your fault and success is your choice.

Follow These Steps Before Demanding that the Government Do Something

Statists Play the Indoctrination Long Game

On Christmas Eve, I went to a chain bookstore looking for a box set of the Little House books for a friend's young daughter. While I was there I noticed a section of biographical and historical books for children. As I looked closer I noticed there were plenty of books on America's founders like Washington and Jefferson, but no Madison or Mason. There were also a few books on entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Edison and sports figures like Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali. But there were also many books lionizing liberal icons such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Gloria Steinem and Obama. Then I saw a book on The Great Depression. I quickly scanned it. Not surprising, it was the usual “unfettered capitalism failed and FDR, using the power of the federal government, came to the rescue” narrative. It even promoted the standard claim that, while FDR's programs were turning the corner, ultimately it was World War 2 that finally got the US out of The Great Depression.

These books only reinforce the indoctrination from schools that those who used the power of government are the heroes and those that fought for less government were standing in the way of progress. What is puzzling to me is why don't teenagers and college students revolt against the indoctrination that they have been force fed since preschool? They certainly did in the '60s. Why has the statist worldview continued to be cool while liberty not so much? I believe it is mostly due to libertarian voices being lumped in with conservative voices who have become easy targets of leftist social media activists. Maybe a separation of social conservatives and interventionists from libertarians is coming. But without being able to make the case for liberty through social media, libertarian ideas will not stand a chance. 

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” – Mark Twain

No to Open Borders: When Immigrants Undermine Liberty

In one of my previous posts I made the argument that open borders was not always the practical libertarian position.  In my Two Islands post, I argued that statist-minded immigrants could and likely would destroy liberty if allowed to immigrate in large numbers.  Here is what I said: 

Let’s suppose there are two island nations. One is named Liberty Island and the other one is Statist Island. Both are democracies. Neither have a constitutionally constrained government. Both practice open immigration. Since both island nations are democracies, the people get the government they vote for.

On Liberty Island, the people prefer smaller government, one which protects life, liberty, and property. In general, the government doesn’t interfere unless a citizen violates someone else’s right to life, liberty, and property. For the most part, the role of government is to provide a small, defensive military. Consequently, the tax rates are very low. The people of Liberty Island are very prosperous.

On Statist Island, the people want their government to provide a wide range of services and to regulate the affairs of its citizens and companies. Consequently, the government consumes a very large proportion of the wealth. Statist Island has high unemployment and low growth rates. Over the past few years, things have been so bad that many have migrated to Liberty Island, not in search of liberty but primarily as a way to feed their families. They have brought with them many of their customs and culture which have made Liberty Island a more vibrant and diverse island.
Unfortunately, they have also brought with them their statist political philosophy.
The new arrivals join with a minority of Liberty Island voters and start winning elections. These elected representatives encouraged more and more Statist Islanders to migrate to Liberty Island. Soon the statists were in control of the Liberty Island legislative branches and the presidency. They then enacted statist policies and liberty was no longer to be found on Liberty Island.

Over at Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen links to a study of U.S. Immigrants' Attitudes Toward Libertarian Values by Hal Pashler which found that immigrants to the US generally are hostile toward libertarian ideas.  Here is the abstract:

While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.

While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/u-s-immigrants-attitudes-toward-libertarian-values.html#sthash.9gnQg64r.dpuf

While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/u-s-immigrants-attitudes-toward-libertarian-values.html#sthash.9gnQg64r.dpuf

If the primary purpose of government is to protect liberty, which most libertarians believe, then a government is justified in restricting immigration of individuals who hold views contrary to a constitutionally constrained government.  Furthermore, if a group of immigrants has been shown to be overwhelmingly anti-libertarian in their views, then government is justified in limiting entry of individuals from that group just because they are from those countries where the people are hostile toward liberty.  

Unfortunately, the US government's policy has been to encourage immigration from countries where there is little support for limited government, free exchange of ideas and products, and the rule of law.  When a country is fairly evenly divided, these statist voters will have a huge impact in the future direction of the US.

EDIT: The original title of this post was "Libertarian Case Against Open Borders."