1 - 2
The problem isn't that the author ignores GLOBALISM (sic) or a central bank. The problem with this author's article is the same for *every* libertarian article: it ignores history and culture. The only history it looks at with any depth is economic history, as if economics can be separated from culture. Libertarianism has always, and increasingly has even more, relied on the purely theoretical - the abstract, the structural. It strongly tends to ignore the more subtle, and yet far more reaching, trends and threads within a society that can affect everything - including economics. Unfortunately, just like Marxism, libertarianism tends to tr to boil everything down to economics. Even "social issues" are analyzed through the lens of economics. In the end, such a worldview, just like Marxism, does not reflect or understand reality. Anything it proposes - if kept in such an artificial vacuum - will fail. Just like Marxism. Libertarians, like Marxists, tend to worship man (to one degree or another). It's just that where Marxists worship man in the collective, libertarians tend to worship man in the individual. Either way, reality states that such a worldview ends up in only one of two places: tyranny or chaos. Both give us death. A decent start to understanding how such egocentric elevation of the human intellect can damage political thought, I'd suggest "The Great Debate" about the debates between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. There's FAR too much Paine in libertarianism (and progressivism) - and that's because there is a fundamental disconnect with the very concept of the interaction between culture and politics. Politics is a function of humanity, and economics is a function of politics, not the other way around. As such, thinking that our problems can be solved through pure economic means - even economic problems - is a massive mistake (just as massive as thinking a secular governmental structure can solve our problems with new laws).
It's not just that. The culture the illegals are coming from is vastly different than those the Italians, Irish and Jews came from. Hispanics are VASTLY more "big government" than those other three immigrant examples. That is why the ol' "they're natural conservatives" canard is just that - a canard based on a false assumption regarding the Latinism (colloquially, Catholicism) of Hispanics. First, they tend to be very much "Catholic" in name only. Second, there has been an explosion over the last decade or so in quasi-Pentecostal "churches" in Hispanic communities - "true believers" are leaving in probably pretty shocking numbers (which would explain why the Latins are pushing so hard for amnesty, as well: to try to curry favor with a population that is leaving in droves). The fact is, Hispanics are NOT natural conservatives, because they, like Europeans, have been raised on Marxist, or some derivation of Marxist, historical and economic theory.
1 - 2