# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Nick Freitas 2018 | Liberty Rising in Virginia

## notsure



----------


## Brian4Liberty

And tomorrow is the Primary...

----------


## Anti-Neocon

He probably lost to Stewart by a very small amount.

Bright is looking like he may not even make the runoff, by a small amount too if that happens.

This is all people falling for Trump's bull$#@!, that's the difference maker.

----------


## jeffro97

Sadly, Nick didn't make it. 100% in and 5,000 votes between Stewart and Freitas. 

https://www.politico.com/election-re...2018/virginia/

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Sadly, Nick didn't make it. 100% in and 5,000 votes between Stewart and Freitas. 
> 
> https://www.politico.com/election-re...2018/virginia/


Well I guess the silver lining is he didn't have much of a chance anyway. Virginia is generally seen as a safe Democratic seat. Maybe he can run for something else in 2020 that he can actually win now that he's generally built a positive profile.

----------


## thoughtomator

Anti-nationalist "liberty" people have no serious electoral prospects. They are too small and isolated a group, without any political allies with which to form a coalition. Guaranteed failure.

There is something sociopathic about this new strain of alleged libertarians that discomforts me greatly. "Libertarians" who are intentionally unresponsive to the crying needs of the people in favor of too-rigid ideology, yet bid to represent them - there is a big mismatch there, morally and intellectually this is not consistent behavior.

The people know, for example, that immigration has had catastrophic outcomes for citizens. It is not a matter in dispute for serious people. It does not matter how many figures, charts, and arguments one may have to the contrary; the known reality is baked in from decades of firsthand experience.

Likewise for our trade deals. The known reality is that we're not getting the benefits of free trade. Yet the wailing about (counter-)tariffs assumes and pretends that they are violating some existing state of free trade, a state of affairs that is completely insulting to those who have watched these deals unfold over time and seen the destruction wrought by them.

Represent, or get the hell out of the way. That's the message of this election.

----------


## AuH20

Freitas deserved to lose when he went into the gutter. You expect those type of vile attacks from the left. It sounded like the SPLC was running his campaign at one point.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Anti-nationalist "liberty" people have no serious electoral prospects. They are too small and isolated a group, without any political allies with which to form a coalition. Guaranteed failure.
> 
> There is something sociopathic about this new strain of alleged libertarians that discomforts me greatly. "Libertarians" who are intentionally unresponsive to the crying needs of the people in favor of too-rigid ideology, yet bid to represent them - there is a big mismatch there, morally and intellectually this is not consistent behavior.
> 
> The people know, for example, that immigration has had catastrophic outcomes for citizens. It is not a matter in dispute for serious people. It does not matter how many figures, charts, and arguments one may have to the contrary; the known reality is baked in from decades of firsthand experience.
> 
> Likewise for our trade deals. The known reality is that we're not getting the benefits of free trade. Yet the wailing about (counter-)tariffs assumes and pretends that they are violating some existing state of free trade, a state of affairs that is completely insulting to those who have watched these deals unfold over time and seen the destruction wrought by them.
> 
> Represent, or get the hell out of the way. That's the message of this election.


Liberaltarians are guilty of the same dissociation from reality as their statist brethren, they pretend that all people are good and the same and that groups don't exist, even if groups could be eliminated (they can't, they are part of human nature) they exist right now and must be dealt with until they don't exist. (never)

----------


## AuH20

> Liberaltarians are guilty of the same dissociation from reality as their statist brethren, they pretend that all people are good and the same and that groups don't exist, even if groups could be eliminated (they can't, they are part of human nature) they exist right now and must be dealt with until they don't exist. (never)


They are still playing checkers. Dumb $#@!ers. It doesn't matter who started the war. It's here.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> They are still playing checkers. Dumb $#@!ers. It doesn't matter who started the war. It's here.


Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.

It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.

----------


## AuH20

> Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.
> 
> It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.


Imagine a relatively watertight room filling up with water. Libertarians want to claw through the concrete walls with their bare fingernails, rather than to attempt shut off the accessible valve.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Freitas deserved to lose when he went into the gutter. You expect those type of vile attacks from the left. It sounded like the SPLC was running his campaign at one point.


What did he do?

----------


## AuH20

> What did he do?


He basically labeled Stewart a Nazi. Really low blows.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.
> 
> It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.


Anti-nationalist liberaltarianism is fundamentally based on the false premise that all people given liberty, will respect the liberty of others - or at least enough will to keep the situation from devolving into all-out liberty-destroying chaos.

But that's not true. Understanding liberty requires a cultural context most of the world doesn't have, and the cultures of much of the world's population forbids the respect of liberty in others. These cultures are not compatible with the liberty of free peoples. Mixing them in doesn't extend the reach of liberty - it removes it from the people who are left unprotected by the guardians set up to ensure their security.

----------


## not.your.average.joe

> Their worst problem is that they think they can change the whole world all at once, those who don't think that think that people will automatically be converted to their philosophy just by coming in contact with it, those who realize that neither one is possible would rather let the whole world go to the devil than enforce any rules or take control of any area since they consider those to be cardinal sins.
> 
> It doesn't matter if they are sincere useful idiots or pied pipers, both drive ordinary people away from small government and into the arms of one side or the other of the big government spectrum.


Ever since the first time I watched the For Liberty documentary, I guess I've thought that people will join the movement because it just makes sense- the whole thing, the ideology, the grassroots, the values. And in my experience, people my age have been receptive, or at least tolerant and understanding. People older than me tend to laugh it off (don't steal- funny, right?) or shut me off. Obviously most people are not going to be converted on contact, but it's really all I know how to do. What am I doing wrong/missing and what is the answer?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Anti-nationalist "liberty" people have no serious electoral prospects. They are too small and isolated a group, without any political allies with which to form a coalition. Guaranteed failure.


Like Rand, Ron, Massie, Justin, and the hundreds around the country in lower offices 


Now if they make anti-nationalism their entire platform during the election, then yeah, they are probably going to lose. But that is why the smart ones don't make that their central focus.






> There is something sociopathic about this new strain of alleged libertarians that discomforts me greatly. "Libertarians" who are intentionally unresponsive to the crying needs of the people in favor of too-rigid ideology, yet bid to represent them - there is a big mismatch there, morally and intellectually this is not consistent behavior.


No, not at all.  It isn't the government's job to respond to "the crying needs of the people"  but the trick is politically to still care without making it into policy.








> Likewise for our trade deals. The known reality is that we're not getting the benefits of free trade. Yet the wailing about (counter-)tariffs assumes and pretends that they are violating some existing state of free trade, a state of affairs that is completely insulting to those who have watched these deals unfold over time and seen the destruction wrought by them.


And there is the problem. Free trade doesn't require "deals" or treaties that are 30,000 pages long. Free trade is the unrestricted ability for people to do commerce with whomever they like, so long as they aren't harming others.   And tariffs = taxation which is always bad and should always be opposed.

----------


## thoughtomator

Matt, a protection of the states from foreign invasion is written in black and white as a fundamental duty of this government.

Ron voted for border security measures himself, as a Congressman. I'm pretty sure if I checked the others all but perhaps Amash would be similarly on the record as voting in support of such measures. On the record, these are, or were while in office, nationalist libertarians.

This is a function so fundamental that if you stripped government all the way down to doing only one single thing, this would be that one thing.

Anyone who can't deal with enough government to establish sovereignty is de facto an anarcho-communist at this point. A real an-cap would take advantage of any of the vast, all but completely lawless places on this planet to do their thing, so I ain't buying the virtue signal from any of them.

It is grossly irresponsible to expose Americans to the real risks and extreme costs that come from large scale third world immigration. One can't make a "oh you really can't keep government small, minarchists!" argument and then fight tooth and nail all the things needed to make that happen, and be credible.

Everybody thinks they know it all but when we look at examples of these high-minded theories playing out in real life, it turns out that there are always way more variables than comfortable philosophers predicted.

----------


## fisharmor

I am one of those potential 5,000 votes, and all anyone is doing here is trying to piss me off and make me continue not to participate.
I, and people like me, are the demographic that will make the difference in these elections.  We are either a bigger factor than you realize, or we're a bigger factor than you want to admit.  At some point, if winning is your goal - and let's face it, winning is the only thing you've ever cared about - you need to recognize that my voting block is kind of holding the keys here, so it's well past time to STFU with your statist nonsense and listen.




> Anti-nationalist liberaltarianism is fundamentally based on the false premise that all people given liberty, will respect the liberty of others - or at least enough will to keep the situation from devolving into all-out liberty-destroying chaos.


Or, maybe what we've been saying ever since Rand left the fold is true.  Maybe the problem we've been screaming for 6 years is that we HAD someone we would have voted for (Ron), who was willing to take a second away from pushing things we didn't agree with (like unconstitutional and fascist immigration policy) to TEACH people why they should support the things we DO agree with (like almost everything else he said).

Maybe we're right when we tell you, ad nauseum, that _the reason nobody supports liberty is because nobody is running on it._  Don't give me that Rand bull$#@! - the man spent 17 hours bleating about how if we're going to extrajudicially murder citizens on US soil we need to fill out some paperwork, and this is what you're calling a liberty-loving candidate.

When we get another candidate who says "cut five cabinet level departments immediately" we'll come out of hiding and canvas and call and do all of that stuff.  Until then, you're always going to be 5000 votes short.




> But that's not true. Understanding liberty requires a cultural context most of the world doesn't have, and the cultures of much of the world's population forbids the respect of liberty in others. These cultures are not compatible with the liberty of free peoples. Mixing them in doesn't extend the reach of liberty - it removes it from the people who are left unprotected by the guardians set up to ensure their security.


I voted for Ron, so I'm willing to bend on the immigration thing in the short term, provided it's kept free of the cultural superiority bull$#@! like in this quote.  Leaving aside that I already pointed out you're not making any attempt to educate anyone and that's the root of the problem, let's move on to the point that only a remnant of Americans have any concept of liberty to begin with.  Are you seriously claiming that Americans are culturally more free?  Do you seriously not know that America hasn't been in the top 5 of any meaningful measure of freedom in over a decade?

There might be little to work with in an immigrant, but there's objectively more there to work with in a man who actively sought to escape his situation, than there is in an inner city baby momma who flunked out of the 9th grade, or the corn fed school bully in a blue uniform who is groping strangers at the airport.

----------


## fisharmor

> Matt, a protection of the states from foreign invasion is written in black and white as a fundamental duty of this government.


And when you can produce evidence of a foreign invasion, you won't get any argument here.
Invasion has three definitions:

an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.entrance as if to take possession or overrun
There is no army, so it doesn't fit definition 1.
You cannot show a concerted effort to overrun, so it doesn't fit definition 3.
All you have is definition 2 - which means you consider these people a disease.
That's not at all surprising since it fits with all the other anti-immigration rhetoric: They don't have rights, they aren't citizens, they aren't people.

Just cut the $#@!ing foreplay and call for their extermination.  It's what you really want.  It gets rid of the ones that are here, and if that won't prove to be an effective deterrent to future immigration, nothing will.




> Anyone who can't deal with enough government to establish sovereignty is de facto an anarcho-communist at this point. A real an-cap would take advantage of any of the vast, all but completely lawless places on this planet to do their thing, so I ain't buying the virtue signal from any of them.


Right, here we have the classic "if you don't like it you can leave" argument, but explicitly calling for us to move to Antarctica.  Real solution-minded of you.

I do also love the implication that if we're not in favor of your particular brand of fascist government, we must be in favor of a form of government that demonstrably can't exist, because it presumes both total state control and also no state.
You guys do a pretty good job making me think I've gone insane, you know.  I mean, one hallmark of insanity is recognizing something as real which isn't really... but the problem you have is that other people show up here periodically and agree with my assessment that you're talking nonsense, so either they got into the same blotter sheet as I did, or we're right, and you're not making any sense.




> It is grossly irresponsible to expose Americans to the real risks and extreme costs that come from large scale third world immigration.


I know, I mean, I got my entire kitchen remodeled for under $5000, we can't have that happening!




> One can't make a "oh you really can't keep government small, minarchists!" argument and then fight tooth and nail all the things needed to make that happen, and be credible.


You can't make a "we have to kick 20 million people out and secure thousands of miles of open border" argument and not explode the budget light years beyond the gigantic, uncontrollable problem we have right now.
You can't keep the government small because you are actively shilling for making it exponentially larger.

----------


## fisharmor

Before we switch to Islamic immigration in Europe, I'd like to point out that large-scale third-world immigration has been happening in this country for at least 40 years, so whatever risks come with that, we're already exposed.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss Islam as a problem, and I'm willing to go farther than any of you anti-immigration types in decrying it, so if you want to have that discussion, let's.  But don't wrap an anti-Islam position in an anti-immigration blanket.

----------


## thoughtomator

> And when you can produce evidence of a foreign invasion, you won't get any argument here.
> Invasion has three definitions:
> 
> an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.entrance as if to take possession or overrun
> There is no army, so it doesn't fit definition 1.
> You cannot show a concerted effort to overrun, so it doesn't fit definition 3.
> All you have is definition 2 - which means you consider these people a disease.
> That's not at all surprising since it fits with all the other anti-immigration rhetoric: They don't have rights, they aren't citizens, they aren't people.
> 
> ...


Invasion does not require a formal army. If they meant that they would have said so. They didn't, because they were quite aware of Indian attacks on the frontier.

The Constitution is also quite explicit about the duty of the feds to regulate immigration. No way to do that without enforcement against unregulated entry. We regulate to prevent the entry of disease, dependents, criminals, and enemies. Basic sovereignty 101 and if you aren't in favor of that you are a time wasting bull$#@! artist.

The rest of your arguments are dishonest nonsense and don't deserve to be responded to. Genuine truth seeking questions only please, to that alone I will engage.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> He basically labeled Stewart a Nazi. Really low blows.


Liberty people eat their own worse than any other group.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Ever since the first time I watched the For Liberty documentary, I guess I've thought that people will join the movement because it just makes sense- the whole thing, the ideology, the grassroots, the values. And in my experience, people my age have been receptive, or at least tolerant and understanding. People older than me tend to laugh it off (don't steal- funny, right?) or shut me off. Obviously most people are not going to be converted on contact, but it's really all I know how to do. What am I doing wrong/missing and what is the answer?


If you are in favor of controlled immigration then you aren't missing anything, if you think anyone who wants to should be able to come here in unlimited numbers and gain citizenship and the right to vote then you are flying in the face of reality, unlimited immigrants will not assimilate into libertarian political philosophy before they turn the country communist, some percentage of people never will listen and it takes time to convert the rest.

The point is supposed to be to create and maintain a liberty nation and you can't do that if you are constantly overwhelmed with people whose native culture is totally ignorant about liberty.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And there is the problem. Free trade doesn't require "deals" or treaties that are 30,000 pages long. Free trade is the unrestricted ability for people to do commerce with whomever they like, so long as they aren't harming others.   And tariffs = taxation which is always bad and should always be opposed.


You only control one side of the trade, if the other side tries to take advantage of your low tariffs and puts up high tariffs you need to get an agreement for them to not do so, the only way to get that agreement is to put up defensive tariffs and then negotiate for both sides to drop their tariffs.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> And when you can produce evidence of a foreign invasion, you won't get any argument here.
> Invasion has three definitions:
> 
> an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.entrance as if to take possession or overrun 
> There is no army, so it doesn't fit definition 1.


It does fit definition 1, 1 says "especially by an army" especially doesn't it has to be an army, it just means that if it is an army then it fits even more.




> You cannot show a concerted effort to overrun, so it doesn't fit definition 3.


We most certainly can, the Demoncrats have stated their intention to change the demographics to create a permanent majority for them and the Mexicans have stated their intention to take the southwest back for Mexico.




> All you have is definition 2 - which means you consider these people a disease.
> That's not at all surprising since it fits with all the other anti-immigration rhetoric: They don't have rights, they aren't citizens, they aren't people.
> 
> Just cut the $#@!ing foreplay and call for their extermination.  It's what you really want.  It gets rid of the ones that are here, and if that won't prove to be an effective deterrent to future immigration, nothing will.


They are not the disease anymore than a TB patient is TB, but just like a TB patient they carry a disease, that disease of communism is far more dangerous and incurable than TB.
We don't call for their extermination and we don't need to, they can revel in their communism for all we care as long as they stay in their country and don't come here.







> You can't make a "we have to kick 20 million people out and secure thousands of miles of open border" argument and not explode the budget light years beyond the gigantic, uncontrollable problem we have right now.
> You can't keep the government small because you are actively shilling for making it exponentially larger.


That is nonsense, they will self deport if you start to have any decent level of enforcement and securing the border is easy if we bring the troops home and have them patrol it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, a protection of the states from foreign invasion is written in black and white as a fundamental duty of this government.
> 
> Ron voted for border security measures himself, as a Congressman. I'm pretty sure if I checked the others all but perhaps Amash would be similarly on the record as voting in support of such measures. On the record, these are, or were while in office, nationalist libertarians.


You are confused. Having secure borders, whether open or not, does not equate to the same thing as "nationalism"








> It is grossly irresponsible to expose Americans to the real risks and extreme costs that come from large scale third world immigration.


Maybe, maybe not. The jury is out on that. In some ways open borders are very beneficial, and in other ways they could be potentially damaging. There are two sides to that issue which is not settled. 

I personally lean more towards tight immigration restrictions, but I also realize that the government's job isn't to set the price and supply curves for labor.

----------


## Matt Collins

> You only control one side of the trade, if the other side tries to take advantage of your low tariffs and puts up high tariffs you need to get an agreement for them to not do so, the only way to get that agreement is to put up defensive tariffs and then negotiate for both sides to drop their tariffs.


Or how about "in a free society none of this is the government's job"

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Or how about "in a free society none of this is the government's job"


Protecting the citizens against foreign predation is government's job.

----------


## thoughtomator

> You are confused. Having secure borders, whether open or not, does not equate to the same thing as "nationalism"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. The jury is out on that. In some ways open borders are very beneficial, and in other ways they could be potentially damaging. There are two sides to that issue which is not settled. 
> 
> I personally lean more towards tight immigration restrictions, but I also realize that the government's job isn't to set the price and supply curves for labor.


If you cannot find it in your brain or heart to prefer your countrymen over any arbitrary foreign national who shows up, it's time to leave the United States. What is to come will not be comfortable for you or anyone else who can't bring yourself to align with the principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Protecting the citizens against foreign predation is government's job.


Only militarily. The government has no authority to have anything to do with the economy really, other than coining money and determining weights and measures.


Besides there are few things the government can do that are more anti-freedom than tell me who I can and cannot do business with, or raising my taxes, or penalizing me for doing business with certain people.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If you cannot find it in your brain or heart to prefer your countrymen over any arbitrary foreign national who shows up,


False dichotomy, Hobson's choice.  

But not only that, all people are equal in the eyes of the law, since all people have natural rights.





> What is to come will not be comfortable for you or anyone else who can't bring yourself to align with the principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.


What kind of crack are you smoking?  What are you even talking about?

----------


## thoughtomator

> False dichotomy, Hobson's choice.  
> 
> But not only that, all people are equal in the eyes of the law, since all people have natural rights.
> 
> 
> What kind of crack are you smoking?  What are you even talking about?


I'm saying we the people intend to exercise our sovereign power to secure our border as a means to securing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And you will not stop us. If you try, you'll be steamrolled just like everyone else and it will not be pleasant at all.

Get on board or get out of the way, those are the only options on the table for the forseeable future.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm saying we the people intend to exercise our sovereign power to secure our border as a means to securing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> 
> And you will not stop us. If you try, you'll be steamrolled just like everyone else and it will not be pleasant at all.
> 
> Get on board or get out of the way, those are the only options on the table for the forseeable future.


You're smoking some serious crack. I highly suggest you get a mental evaluation at your earliest convenience:








and PS - no one said anything about unsecured borders.

----------


## thoughtomator

> You're smoking some serious crack. I highly suggest you get a mental evaluation at your earliest convenience:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and PS - no one said anything about unsecured borders.



It's called the will of the people, Matt, and if you understood that better you may have been somewhat successful at your career.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Only militarily. The government has no authority to have anything to do with the economy really, other than coining money and determining weights and measures.
> 
> 
> Besides there are few things the government can do that are more anti-freedom than tell me who I can and cannot do business with, or raising my taxes, or penalizing me for doing business with certain people.


So you would be happy to be conquered by a hostile foreign power as long as it was economic warfare that was used?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> False dichotomy, Hobson's choice.  
> 
> But not only that, all people are equal in the eyes of the law, since all people have natural rights.


But they don't all have citizenship rights in America.
If you think the foreigners are going to treat you as an equal and look out for your interests as much as they do their fellow citizens/subjects you are sadly mistaken, even those that don't actively plot against you seek their own interests and their shared interests with their peers ahead of yours.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It's called the will of the people


Seeing as the US is not monolithic or homogeneous that concept only really exists in abstract. And since we are not a democracy, but a Republic, the "will of the people" only extends so far as to not violate the rights of other individuals.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So you would be happy to be conquered by a hostile foreign power as long as it was economic warfare that was used?


In a free market it is almost impossible to wage economic "warfare".

----------


## Matt Collins

> But they don't all have citizenship rights in America.


Citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege. Government cannot grant rights.

If you are born here then you are granted certain privileges, including the privilege of voting.  If you move here and become a citizen then you get those privileges too. 


But individual rights still exist whether or not one is a citizen.




> even those that don't actively plot against you seek their own interests and their shared interests with their peers ahead of yours.


Every human seeks their own interests regardless of national origins. Not sure what your point is.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> In a free market it is almost impossible to wage economic "warfare".


The world is not a free market, if you are claiming it is impossible to wage economic warfare against a free market then you are just wrong.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege. Government cannot grant rights.
> 
> If you are born here then you are granted certain privileges, including the privilege of voting.  If you move here and become a citizen then you get those privileges too.
> 
> 
> But individual rights still exist whether or not one is a citizen.


There are rights that come from citizenship beyond those  that come from being human, I have a right to be in America but  foreigners don't for one.




> Every human seeks their own interests regardless of national origins. Not sure what your point is.


Your fellow Americans share interests with you that foreigners do not, foreigners should not be treated as no different than Americans for your own good.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Seeing as the US is not monolithic or homogeneous that concept only really exists in abstract. And since we are not a democracy, but a Republic, the "will of the people" only extends so far as to not violate the rights of other individuals.


If your principles dictate a situation where Americans cannot control who enters the USA, your principles are immoral and anti-Constitutional, and it's no wonder you haven't been able to do anything worthwhile in your career.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The world is not a free market, if you are claiming it is impossible to wage economic warfare against a free market then you are just wrong.


Maybe maybe not. But it is anti freedom for the government to tax us and tell us who we can't do business with. Do you hate freedom?

----------


## Matt Collins

> There are rights that come from citizenship beyond those  that come from being human, I have a right to be in America but  foreigners don't for one.


You are confusing rights and privileges. 





> Your fellow Americans share interests with you that foreigners do not, foreigners should not be treated as no different than Americans for your own good.


Ok, that's just subtly racist. Most foreigners I've met come over here to vacation or to work hard and build a better life. Even the illegals are mostly coming here to work hard because they don't have that opportunity where they come from.

I agree that doesn't necessarily mean the government should just let anyone in either.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If your principles dictate a situation where Americans cannot control who enters the USA, your principles are immoral and anti-Constitutional, and it's no wonder you haven't been able to do anything worthwhile in your career.


Well, you obviously know nothing about what I've accomplished, but let's just say, a lot more than you.

Some people see the issue as property rights, people shouldn't be allowed to trespass. Others see it as an economic issue where the government has no authority to set the supply and price curves of labor. I agree with both which I realize is also a bit of a contradiction.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You are confusing rights and privileges.


You are reducing rights to privileges.





> Ok, that's just subtly racist.


No it isn't, I didn't say "brown people" or "black people" or "yellow people", I said foreigners, I don't care if they are blue eyed blondes or green eyed red heads, until the assimilate they will share interests with their native countrymen that you do not and they won't share interests with you that Americans do.




> Most foreigners I've met come over here to vacation or to work hard and build a better life. Even the illegals are mostly coming here to work hard because they don't have that opportunity where they come from.
> 
> I agree that doesn't necessarily mean the government should just let anyone in either.


In the first place they still have different interests as I stated above and in the second we are talking about foreigners who don't come here as well as those that do, tariffs are applied to defend American industries against trade warfare by foreigners who don't come here.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Maybe maybe not. But it is anti freedom for the government to tax us and tell us who we can't do business with. Do you hate freedom?


It is not anti-freedom for the government to protect Americans from hostile foreign trade war, tariffs are one of the forms of taxation the founders approved of because they are one of the forms that is least onerous on Americans citizens.
Trade warfare is used to weaken America and the ordinary middle class American to facilitate world government and domestic socialism, to allow it is to be anti-freedom.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Well, you obviously know nothing about what I've accomplished, but let's just say, a lot more than you.


Go ahead and list your accomplishments here:

1)

2)

3)

4)

.
.
.

----------


## Matt Collins

> until the assimilate they will share interests with their native countrymen that you do not and they won't share interests with you that Americans do.


You are basing your thoughts on the false supposition that there is some sort of monolithic or homogeneous "American culture"... and while there are certainly parts of our society and culture that might be fit in to that category, the  whole of the people here is neither. 





> tariffs are applied to defend American industries against trade warfare by foreigners who don't come here.


Tariffs punish some people and reward others. You must have failed economics 101.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It is not anti-freedom for the government to protect Americans from hostile foreign trade war, tariffs are one of the forms of taxation the founders approved of because they are one of the forms that is least onerous on Americans citizens.
> Trade warfare is used to weaken America and the ordinary middle class American to facilitate world government and domestic socialism, to allow it is to be anti-freedom.


Wrong... You too must have failed economics.

Tariffs make things more expensive. And all taxation is theft.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You are basing your thoughts on the false supposition that there is some sort of monolithic or homogeneous "American culture"... and while there are certainly parts of our society and culture that might be fit in to that category, the  whole of the people here is neither.


There is an American culture and while some Americans may share more or less of it foreigners share none of it until they are assimilated.






> Tariffs punish some people and reward others. You must have failed economics 101.


So do trade wars waged by foreigners, people get hurt in wars so it is best to discourage others from waging them against you.




> Wrong... You too must have failed economics.
> 
> Tariffs make things more expensive. And all taxation is theft.


"All taxation is theft" makes a nice bumper sticker but only anarchist really believe it, government has a legitimate role in life and minimal taxes to support that role aren't theft.
Even defensive wars are expensive and countering foreign subsidies designed to turn America into a dependent welfare state incapable of resisting foreign domination and domestic socialism doesn't really make things more expensive, the subsidies make things less expensive in a bad way and the tariffs correct the price.

The best policy is to make it clear that we will defend ourselves against trade warfare and negotiate low tariffs with our would be antagonists.

----------


## Keith and stuff

Unless Trump manages to fire hundreds of thousands of federal employees, Virginia is lost for probably at least the next four years if not for an extremely long period of time. Best to not waste any effort at all promoting Liberty inside Virginia. North Carolina is still winnable as is South Carolina, and, Tennessee even Kentucky. Why West Virginia is a Backwater when it comes to Freedom like Kentucky. Even West Virginia is highly winnable.

----------


## Matt Collins

> There is an American culture and while some Americans may share more or less of it foreigners share none of it until they are assimilated.


That is one of the most ignorant things I've read on here.







> "All taxation is theft" makes a nice bumper sticker but only anarchist really believe it, government has a legitimate role in life and minimal taxes to support that role aren't theft.


In addition to being ignorant on economics you must also not know what the definition of "theft" is 


And no, I'm not an anarchist.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That is one of the most ignorant things I've read on here.


What I responded to was one of the most ignorant thins I've read.







> In addition to being ignorant on economics you must also not know what the definition of "theft" is 
> 
> 
> And no, I'm not an anarchist.


Money payed for a legitimate service is not theft just because in some cases the organization it is owed to has to extract it from someone who attempts to avoid paying what they owe.
Anarchists believe the government doesn't have a legitimate purpose so they can claim that all taxation is theft.

----------

