Should Illegal Immigrants Have Access to Government Subsidized Healthcare? Yes

Letter 1

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:17 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: isidewith

Hello Walter, how have you been? It was great seeing our email conversations published on LRC; I hope they helped other people working through the same issues. Thanks for sharing them with the world!

I’m just writing to get more of your thoughts on things. Have you ever taken the quiz on the website ISideWith? On most of the questions I was pretty sure what the libertarian answer was, but on some I wasn’t sure. E.g. I’m not entirely sure whether illegal immigrants should have access to government-subsidized healthcare. A lot of libertarians oppose this but I’m wondering if government should not bar access for the same reason it should not bar access to other public property. This ties in to our article on the ethics of public spending, I suppose.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

On November 20, 2019 at 7:32 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Letter 2

Dear Jonathan:

As long as the illegal immigrants are not members of the ruling class, I think it is more libertarian for them to have the money than for the government.

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Ron Paul and Matching Funds,” October 1;

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Letter 3

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:56 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

Thanks for your response! Would you say it depended on the immigrant’s own ideological beliefs? If an illegal immigrant were a libertarian, it seems he would have a right to take the state’s wealth, but if he were a statist who supported wealth redistribution, it seems arguable that him taking advantage of taxpayer-funded services counts as being an accomplice in the theft. Having the government perform political tests on potential welfare recipients seems impractical, though.

I notice you oppose lending to the government. If I had some government bonds in my portfolio, would you say I had an obligation to divest myself of them?

Letter 4

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 11:46 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

What do you think of the idea that convicted felons should get voting rights restored? Do you think there is a single libertarian answer or is this a fundamentally practical question?

On November 21, 2019 at 1:00 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

In my view, this would not depend upon his ideological beliefs. Rather, it would depend upon presence or absence in the ruling class.

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Letter 5

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 9:02 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

So it sounds like you think we should not extend the franchise, even if the new voter might be a libertarian?

On December 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

I don’t think convicted felons should be allowed to vote in political elections.

I don’t think women should be allowed to vote in political elections.

I don’t think men should be allowed to vote in political elections..

We should ban all votes apart from those where people have in advance signed something indicating they are willing to be bound by the result of the vote. Stockholders should be allowed to vote. Condominium owners should be allowed to vote.

On the other hand, as long as we have political elections, I think only libertarians should be allowed to vote

I think the best book ever written on this, by far is, Hoppe, Hans. 2001. Democracy: The God that Failed

Letter 6

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2019 9:43 PM

To: Jonathan Gress <jonathan.gress@lpmaryland.org>

Subject: RE: isidewith

I favor extending it, but, only to libertarians

Share

4:50 pm on May 1, 2020