# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  So We Anti Globalists Are now xenophobic Nationalists.

## AngryCanadian

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd.  We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity  enough.

Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.

----------


## AZJoe

> So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.


Does that make the alternative country-phobic Globalists.

----------


## nikcers

> So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.
> 
> Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd.  We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity  enough.
> 
> Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.


The only thing that can fight globalism is free markets. This is just more muddying the waters.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.
> 
> Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd.  We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity  enough.
> 
> Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.


They upset we are winning, anything they hate is good for you....

----------


## PierzStyx

Define "anti-globalist." 

If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.

If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist. Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.

These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.
> 
> Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd.  We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity  enough.
> 
> Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.


Do you disagree with that assessment?

Why else would you be anti-globalist, and not count yourself among those who are pro-migrant and pro-diversity?

I'm anti-global government, but I'm not anti-globalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac

----------


## AngryCanadian

> Define "anti-globalist." 
> 
> If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.
> 
> If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist. Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.
> 
> These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.






> These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.


Does that include Free Open border policy which Europe had?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Does that include Free Open border policy which Europe had?


It does mean free open borders. I don't think it's accurate to say Europe had that policy. But the USA did up until a century ago.

----------


## presence

> Does that include Free Open border policy which Europe had?


europe doesn't have a "free open border policy"

they have a import "refugee" and bait them with "free" government cheese program which is totally different

free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from

----------


## Ender

> Define "anti-globalist." 
> 
> If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.
> 
> If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist. Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.
> 
> These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.


YEP.

----------


## Ender

> europe doesn't have a "free open border policy"
> 
> they have a import "refugee" and bait them with "free" government cheese program which is totally different
> 
> free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from


THANK YOU!

----------


## PierzStyx

> europe doesn't have a "free open border policy"
> 
> they have a import "refugee" and bait them with "free" government cheese program which is totally different
> 
> free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from


Or immigrants just come her eon their own dime. Like most Hispanic, whether from Mexico, Cuba, or Chile, immigrants do. And they, like everyone else, would have to compete in the market, for success or failure.

The problem is that nativists hate the free market. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first American law limiting immigration in 1882, was passed because it turned out Chinese people were not just cleaner than your average white European but they worked harder and were more economically successful. The politically dominate whites in power hated having to compete on the market against them so used the violence of the government to attack them and keep them from entering the country. Which reveals the next truth.

Closed borders are inherently protectionist and anyone who promotes free market capitalism cannot be a proponent of closed borders.

----------


## LibForestPaul

Which is worse
globalist, or nationalist.

I believe globalist, still possible to leave one nation to another. Can't leave the globe.
3rd WW will sort this all out. 1-3 billion dead, human race will survive.

----------


## MallsRGood

> Or immigrants just come her eon their own dime. Like most Hispanic, whether from Mexico, Cuba, or Chile, immigrants do. And they, like everyone else, would have to compete in the market, for success or failure.
> 
> The problem is that nativists hate the free market. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first American law limiting immigration in 1882, was passed because it turned out Chinese people were not just cleaner than your average white European but they worked harder and were more economically successful. The politically dominate whites in power hated having to compete on the market against them so used the violence of the government to attack them and keep them from entering the country. Which reveals the next truth.
> 
> Closed borders are inherently protectionist and anyone who promotes free market capitalism cannot be a proponent of closed borders.


Yes, Trumpian nationalism is just unionism writ large, with a border wall for a picket line and Mexicans for "scabs."

----------


## osan

> Define "anti-globalist." 
> 
> If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.


Oh good grief... more anti-border talk.

Firstly, nationalism in itself is not a problem when your population isn't composed mainly of imbeciles.  This "nationalism = badness" meme is a load of nonsense.

Secondly, given the political organization of the planet, having and protecting national borders is essential if you want to have a country.  If you live in a land where freedom reigns, for example, and the rest of the world is made up of slaver nations, you almost certainly need protected borders.  If the people of the rest of the world disdain your freedom, then you most certainly need borders that are maintained.

This notion that anyone can show up willy-nilly and take up residence, while perhaps a nice ideal, has no place in this world when one wishes his nation, such as it may be, to continue.  To allow the unrestricted movements of those from without to enter within is to invite national suicide.  Just look what happens when an aggressive predatory culture inundates another nation.  Doesn't happen, you say?  Look to Europe and then tell me it doesn't happen.




> If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist.


Your tacitly implied presumption here is that anyone who recognizes that a nation cannot allow unrestricted immigration without facing destruction as that nation is a fascist is not valid.  People are what they are, and most folks like the idea of their national identity, rightly or otherwise.  Why are they wrong for this?  I see no problem with it at all.  




> Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.


And what happens when there is no more unowned land?  Hell, what happens when one parcel of unowned land becomes isolated from the rest because it is surrounded by that which is privately held?




> These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.


In theory, yes.  In practice in a context of globally poisoned thinking, not quite.

*ETA:* It was late-ish and I was very tired, thereby forgetting to add this bit:  Free markets, free will, and free men do not preclude strongly defended borders.  In circumstances such as those we find common in the world today, such borders are likely to prove the only means of retaining the "free" status of those markets, as well as the men and their wills.

Once again, in case you didn't grok: imagine you are the freest nation on earth like, oh I dunno... America.   Now imagine you are surrounded by other nations who, if you let them, would take what you have and make you unfree.  Even Canada would do this, gigantic pussies they may otherwise be, were the simply free to move their people southward, and we know by all means the lingering hatreds, resentments, and desires of our trusty neighbor to the south.  In small time would they roll their aggressions across those imaginary and purportedly arbitrary lines on the ground and would make their attempts at eating as many of us as they could and enslaving the rest.

That is what governments do.  They oughtn't, but they do because that's what people let them do.  _THEY_ oughtn't, but they do.

They world OUGHT not be as it is, but it is.  Therefore, you deal with what is in front of you and now as your fantasies say they should be. To do otherwise drives right into insanity's garage.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.
> 
> Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd.  We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity  enough.
> 
> Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.


Anything that stands against evil is labeled "evil". 

Let us deport the traitors from our nations to the 3rd world they adore.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Or immigrants just come her eon their own dime. Like most Hispanic, whether from Mexico, Cuba, or Chile, immigrants do. And they, like everyone else, would have to compete in the market, for success or failure.
> 
> The problem is that nativists hate the free market. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first American law limiting immigration in 1882, was passed because it turned out Chinese people were not just cleaner than your average white European but they worked harder and were more economically successful. The politically dominate whites in power hated having to compete on the market against them so used the violence of the government to attack them and keep them from entering the country. Which reveals the next truth.
> 
> Closed borders are inherently protectionist and anyone who promotes free market capitalism cannot be a proponent of closed borders.


So what do you do again? Would you mind if  I force you to compete against 50 people who will do your job for cheaper then you?
Protectionism/immigration limits work.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Secondly, given the political organization of the planet, having and protecting national borders is essential if you want to have a country.  If you live in a land where freedom reigns, for example, and the rest of the world is made up of slaver nations, you almost certainly need protected borders.  If the people of the rest of the world disdain your freedom, then you most certainly need borders that are maintained.


I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."

Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.

For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So what do you do again? Would you mind if  I force you to compete against 50 people who will do your job for cheaper then you?
> Protectionism/immigration limits work.


It's not about anyone forcing anything. It's about allowing that competition to happen, and not having the government try to stop it when it does.

Do you honestly think government should do that? Manipulate labor markets and protect some people from having to compete against others for their jobs?

----------


## osan

> Anything that stands against evil is labeled "evil".


This is quotable fare.  Nicely done.  Here... <SLOGSCHPLUMF>  ...have some rep.




> Let us deport the traitors from our nations to the 3rd world they adore.


It is a commendable idea.  Somalia would be a prime candidate.  It is pretty much unowned land anyhow, practically speaking. 

Ideally, we build a huge manmade island in the pacific and one in the Atlantic.  All male exiles go to one, all female the other.  That way there is no propagation of the faulty genes that lead to their bankrupt lives in the first place.   Each would be free to have all the gaysex they wanted.  They would be initially provided with implements for basic farming and nothing more.  Live freely, as commies, or any other ways you might please.  Be one happy family, or kill each other off.  Makes no difference to the rest of the world because such lives have ceased to matter.  The only thing you cannot do is leave.  Shark infested waters and 24x7 gunboat patrolling, with anything human flopping about in the waters shot into the next life as a matter of law, no catch and return allowed.  You get exactly one chance and no more, because the rest of us are so painfully serious about not having you in our company any longer.  Any vessels approaching will be warned off and sunk where heed it not taken because we no longer care what you think or want regarding this very specific matter.  The inmates stay in and everyone else out.  No visitors, thankyouverymuch.

It is a perfect solution - as perfect as this sort of necessity allows, anyway.  You're not killing anyone, just sending them to a place where they will no longer be able to harm your own.  They are left there, to their devices.  Can't expect better than that.  I'd be willing to donate to such a project. 

Could you imagine Obama and the tranny in such a place.  Barry might one day grow a pair and kill Michael who undoubtedly would drive him to murder with his whining about having broken yet another nail.  Michael, OTOH, might actually and finally find some satisfaction with the boundless gaysex it is likely to have at its beck and call... that is if the whining doesn't turn them away.

As for funding: recoup the development and maintenance costs by establishing _The Exile Island Channel_, where video cameras capture the hilarious escapades of the inmates, charging the customary monthly fees, of course.  It has something for everyone including *****sex, lezzysex, catfighting, eye-gouging, domination, live warring, cannibalism in times of famine, and all the other truly entertaining interactions that keep 'em coming back for more, year after year, no matter how boring.

Imagine a community with no medical establishment other than that as chance might provide!  That scratch from a thorn bush could prove fatal!  You can't buy _that_ at Walmart!  We'd get to watch the effects of famine on the social fabric, including the much coveted act of cannibalism, for which a premium fee would naturally be charged.   See the spontaneous ascension of a Lord of the Flies culture as the strong subjugate the weak.   I bet there's dozens, if not hundreds of PhD theses in that arrangement, so it can be said that Exile Island aids in the education and science of mankind.  It would be like evolution in a test tube.  The imagination reels at the possibilities.  Entertainment, CONtainment, and science all wrapped into one neat little package that also serves to keep the rest of us safe from tyrants, liberals, and other undesirables who trespass upon the rights of their fellows while in political office.  It's like a dream come true!

----------


## osan

> I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."


Don't be obtuse; it's very unflattering.

I am decidedly not "anti-immigration".  I am stating the practical realities of a world that is artificially far from perfect due to the choices vast legions of humanity freely make.  "Protected border" is no euphemism, and I gave very specific reasons describing why they must be protected.  Go back and read once again, or a dozen times, until it becomes clear because there is likely nothing more that I could add to make it any more so.  Protecting one's borders makes perfect sense in a world drowning in the aggressions of one subpopulation against another.  This is the reality of man's devolution.

The so-called "enlightenment" probably saw humanity's apex.  It's been politically downhill ever since.  Whatever the real cause(s), we are in some deep and rapidly spoiling kimchee.




> Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.


Once again, and I'm not sure why I bother sometimes, I direct your attention to Europe, which as we type these words is being consumed by the predatory Islamic cultures of the middle east.  Now, tell me once again how limiting movement is evil.




> For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.


Bull.

$#@!.

I take it you are familiar with a place called "Ellis Island"?  People were routinely sent back whence they came for any of a list of reasons, most of them medical.

Should serial killers be granted entry?  Child molesters?  Other hard-core felons?  People with communicable diseases?  Shall we find the next Typhoid Mary in some third-world $#@!hole and bid her come to America and christen us with her warming presence?

The world of humanity is hopelessly $#@!ed up at the moment.  The mental landscape is a disaster area, with thinking gone so far afield from basic rationality that it becomes something of a mystery as to how we have not collapsed in on ourselves yet.  But that may come before much longer in any event.  Because of this terrible circumstance of galloping insanity raging across the globe, men have been given the choice of taking measures or being consumed.  You can talk your idealistic talk all you want, but I would bet money I do not have that were the real results of your ideals to make themselves felt in your life, you would be screaming for someone to do something about it.  The world is now less warm and fuzzy than perhaps it has ever been in all human history, for not only do we remain a highly aggressive species, we now lack most of the cultural inhibitions against wholesale insanity that kept the world from flying apart in the past.

The whole thing is a jumbled mess, to be sure, and there is no room here for dissecting the endless litany of historical causes lead us to today.  Suffice to say that this is where we are; people are not only _not_ getting better, but worse on the whole in terms of their thinking.  This thinking leads Brother Ass about by the end of its nose and in some cases its pecker.  Therefore, prancing about in a vapor of bunnies and light isn't going to get you far, but please do show us the way its done.  If you can pull it off, I will happily amend my views and publicly announce my wrongness and your rightness. Seriously, I would, because my inner liberal would like nothing more than to see this world come to something closer to what I would consider right.

Until then, I would recommend you think things out a bit more carefully.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> THANK YOU!


Then perhaps you should be focusing on getting rid of the handouts to illegals, including birthright citizenship, BEFORE you push so much to bring more in.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The 20th century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.
> 
> No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 – coincided with periods of mass immigration.
> 
> Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.
> 
> In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?
> 
> The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.
> ...


Much more here...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/...vate-property/

----------


## osan

> The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The 20th century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.




And what is the underlying cause of the problems in each of the cited cases?  Unjust use of force.

Not all force is wrong.  The mugger whom I meet with force, whether I shoot the ghost from his worthless carcass or wax kindly and lock him up until police (ugh...) arrive, my use of force is just.

Forcing groups who have long histories of mutual enmity to mix in unwanted fashion is unjust.  It denies the right to hate, and make no mistake about it: people hold every right to hate what they want, when they want, for any reason they want including no reason at all.  Opinions and emotions are no business of "government".  They are nobody's business insofar as interference is concerned.  Action is the only avenue of potential concern for such entities, and only those that are objectively criminal in nature.




> No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 – coincided with periods of mass immigration.


I was unaware of this, but it accords perfectly with what is happening in Europe, save that the current situation is far worse, posing existential threats to long-established European cultures.




> Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.


See?  I'm not the only one.




> The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.


And this speaks very directly to the raving hypocrisy of the "diversity is God" crowd.  How is the destruction of one culture for the sake of another diverse?  It is nothing more than the supplanting of one for the other.  These people are either clinical idiots or hard-core criminals.  Perhaps they are both, and that is why they should be stopped with unequivocal force.




> It is impossible to believe that the U.S. or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration.




Since when does any of this have anything to do with freedom?  The filth on the "left" don't even pay much boilerplate lip service to freedom anymore.  They appear to be confident enough in their supremacy that they no longer feel the need to mitigate their true positions with feathery words.  That position is nothing less than bald-faced force.  With them, it is "our way or the reeducation camp".  If those people were set loose upon the land, politically speaking, every Christian and non-progressive Jew in America would be in a concentration camp, their properties seized, and their status as last-class citizens guaranteed.  I would be in no way surprised to see them going the Mao/Stalin route with mass exterminations.  I have been around such people my entire life, especially while growing up in NYC.  Their viciousness is unmitigated, held in check only because Law keeps them in check... that and the fact that their phag-asses don't believe in guns while those they would see murdered are armed to the teeth.  Be grateful for the 2A.




> Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.


Ayuh.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I am decidedly not "anti-immigration".  I am stating the practical realities of a world that is artificially far from perfect due to the choices vast legions of humanity freely make.  "Protected border" is no euphemism, and I gave very specific reasons describing why they must be protected.


You are anti-immigration. That's the whole point of your post. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration. "Protect the border" is not an accurate description of what you advocate, neither is "maintain the border." These are just euphemisms you use to make immigration restriction sound like something more basic and harmless than it is.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Bull.
> 
> $#@!.
> 
> I take it you are familiar with a place called "Ellis Island"?  People were routinely sent back whence they came for any of a list of reasons, most of them medical.


I said, "for most of our country's history." You're referring to something that did not apply to most of our country's history.

----------


## osan

> You are anti-immigration. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration.


So you know my mind better than do I.  Right.

Talk to me when you get a proper clue.  I've no time for willful or feckless nonsense.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You are anti-immigration. That's the whole point of your post. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration. "Protect the border" is not an accurate description of what you advocate, neither is "maintain the border." These are just euphemisms you use to make immigration restriction sound like something more basic and harmless than it is.


I don't know about Osan, but absolutely, I am against unlimited immigration.  Only a complete dumbass or someone wanting to destroy what's left of our country, would be for it.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So you know my mind better than do I.  Right.
> 
> Talk to me when you get a proper clue.  I've no time for willful or feckless nonsense.


No. I accurately describe the position you have laid out here using words.

If those words don't accurately reflect your mind, that's on you. In that case, the mind I'm talking about is the person you're pretending to be when you write anti-immigration posts.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I don't know about Osan, but absolutely, I am against unlimited immigration.  Only a complete dumbass or someone wanting to destroy what's left of our country, would be for it.


There will always be natural factors that limit immigration in a free market. But the state, by use of force, should never limit it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There will always be natural factors that limit immigration in a free market. But the state, by use of force, should never limit it.


Bull$#@!.  Borders are a way for people to group who want to live under a certain set of guidelines.  Not to be flooded by people who do not share those views.  Not to mention use up said natural resources in the process.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Bull$#@!.  Borders are a way for people to group who want to live under a certain set of guidelines.  Not to be flooded by people who do not share those views.  Not to mention use up said natural resources in the process.


There you go again.

It's as if, in your mind, if the government doesn't restrict immigration, that's the same as borders not existing.

Also, I never said anything about a group of people who want to live together under a certain set of guidelines. I specifically mentioned the state. When the state restricts immigration, that isn't a group of people making their own choices about what they want, it's the government imposing its rules on them, whether they like it or not.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There you go again.
> 
> It's as if, in your mind, if the government doesn't restrict immigration, that's the same as borders not existing.


Uh huh.  Because ignoring them is the same as not having them.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Uh huh.  Because ignoring them is the same as not having them.


You're still doing it.

So in order not to ignore the borders the government has to restrict immigration?

Stop using these euphemisms and say the words you actually mean.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You're still doing it.
> 
> So in order not to ignore the borders the government has to restrict immigration?
> 
> Stop using these euphemisms and say the words you actually mean.


I am not mincing words; you are being dense.  Hell yes, the government should restrict immigration into the U.S..  We have immigration laws; they should be followed.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I am not mincing words; you are being dense.  Hell yes, the government should restrict immigration into the U.S..  We have immigration laws; they should be followed.


Then don't talk like all you want is "a border." You know full well that having a border doesn't mean you have to have the government restrict immigration.

It's not the border you care about, it's restricting immigration.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then don't talk like all you want is "a border." You know full well that having a border doesn't mean you have to have the government restrict immigration.
> 
> It's not the border you care about, it's restricting immigration.


I told you in no uncertain words what I was talking about.  You are intentionally being obtuse.   Have fun playing with yourself.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I told you in no uncertain words what I was talking about.  You are intentionally being obtuse.   Have fun playing with yourself.


Nobody's disputing what you want. It's your euphemisms. You know full well that what you want is immigration restriction. And you know full well just because someone doesn't support that, it doesn't mean they want to get rid of borders, or don't want to "protect the border" or "maintain the border" or whatever other bland euphemism you want to use for restricting immigration.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Nobody's disputing what you want. It's your euphemisms. You know full well that what you want is immigration restriction. And you know full well just because someone doesn't support that, it doesn't mean they want to get rid of borders, or don't want to "protect the border" or "maintain the border" or whatever other bland euphemism you want to use for restricting immigration.


Of course I want immigration restriction.  I have always said I was against open borders.  Only cultural marxists and dumbasses think unlimited immigration would benefit our country.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Of course I want immigration restriction.  I have always said I was against open borders.  Only cultural marxists and dumbasses think unlimited immigration would benefit our country.


Careful. Aside from name calling, you're also violating site guidelines with regard to our mission statement. I don't think Ron Paul is either a cultural marxist or a dumbass, just because he doesn't support your anti-immigration ideology.

From the community guidelines:



> Support our Mission.
> No promoting agendas that counter our Mission.
> Candidates and public officials need to be vetted though the site's evaluation process before being promoted in a significant manner. See the "Candidate / Public Official Support" section for more details.
> Non-functional criticism of site supported candidates or politicians is outside the scope of the site's Mission.
> Do not be combative in response to public officials, candidates, campaign staff or other notable public figures who are site members and advancing our Mission.
> Positive energy should be used with content related to the achievement of our Mission. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
> Wholesale disrespecting of the site and declarations of leaving are counter to our Mission.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."
> 
> Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.
> 
> For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.


Untrue.

There were restrictions in place starting in 1790 with United States Naturalization Law, which restricted immigration by race, country of origin and "possessing good moral character" and established residency requirements to become a citizen.

That said I'm sure that there were plenty of people here who were not citizens, because there was no border to speak of and certainly not much in the of border protection, the entire western and northern borders being essentially wilderness populated by aboriginal tribes.

And ask *them* how well unbridled immigration of a culture foreign to them worked out.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Then don't talk like all you want is "a border." You know full well that having a border doesn't mean you have to have the government restrict immigration.
> 
> It's not the border you care about, it's restricting immigration.


By default controlling borders is restricting immigration. Do you have a door? Is it closed now? Well you are doing the same thing.

Open border people are losing the mind....Anyone else not tried of winning yet?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Careful. Aside from name calling, you're also violating site guidelines with regard to our mission statement. I don't think Ron Paul is either a cultural marxist or a dumbass, just because he doesn't support your anti-immigration ideology.
> 
> From the community guidelines:


So want to shut down others based on their view points? How leftist of you.

Ron Paul is a man, and is wrong on this issue.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."
> 
> Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.
> 
> For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.


I know its very upsetting that you have no counter points or ways to lie about the harm that mass immigration posses.

You have to limit the movement of burdens, threats, and hostile groups or else your nation turns into a warzone.

Not true, we had immigration laws dating back to Jamestown. Learn your history.




> Untrue.
> 
> There were restrictions in place starting in 1790 with United States Naturalization Law, which restricted immigration by race, country of origin and "possessing good moral character" and established residency requirements to become a citizen.
> 
> That said I'm sure that there were plenty of people here who were not citizens, because there was no border to speak of and certainly not much in the of border protection, the entire western and northern borders being essentially wilderness populated by aboriginal tribes.
> 
> And ask *them* how well unbridled immigration of a culture foreign to them worked out.


You mean immigration destroys nations and the people who make them up? OH NO! That would mean open border "libertarains" are people who take self self defeating potion on an issue that decides all others and should be at best ignored if not mocked out of the nation.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It's not about anyone forcing anything. It's about allowing that competition to happen, and not having the government try to stop it when it does.
> 
> Do you honestly think government should do that? Manipulate labor markets and protect some people from having to compete against others for their jobs?


Well lets see how you react when its you who is replaced by cheap labor.

Yes, as allowing in hordes of cheap labor harms the nation, its people, their wages, unity, the power of the vote, the very culture of the nation itself. 

Hate to break it to you, saving 3 cents on lettuce but taking your nation into a 3rd world slum is not worth it.

----------


## timosman

> Well lets see how you react when its you who is replaced by cheap labor.
> 
> Yes, as allowing in hordes of cheap labor harms the nation, its people, their wages, unity, the power of the vote, the very culture of the nation itself. 
> 
> Hate to break it to you, saving 3 cents on lettuce but taking your nation into a 3rd world slum is not worth it.


Would you like to subscribe for our reward card?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Don't be obtuse; it's very unflattering.
> 
> I am decidedly not "anti-immigration".  I am stating the practical realities of a world that is artificially far from perfect due to the choices vast legions of humanity freely make.  "Protected border" is no euphemism, and I gave very specific reasons describing why they must be protected.  Go back and read once again, or a dozen times, until it becomes clear because there is likely nothing more that I could add to make it any more so.  Protecting one's borders makes perfect sense in a world drowning in the aggressions of one subpopulation against another.  This is the reality of man's devolution.
> 
> The so-called "enlightenment" probably saw humanity's apex.  It's been politically downhill ever since.  Whatever the real cause(s), we are in some deep and rapidly spoiling kimchee.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, and I'm not sure why I bother sometimes, I direct your attention to Europe, which as we type these words is being consumed by the predatory Islamic cultures of the middle east.  Now, tell me once again how limiting movement is evil.
> ...


The Cult of the Zeroth Amendment really do believe that the dirt is magic and any one who comes here will be transformed into Liberty minded voter who supports the Constitution, the facts prove them wrong so they retreat into myth and out right lies.

They would rather this nation become a failed state if that means facing the fact that immigration is harmful, lowers wages, that some groups can not be allowed in as they are at best a burden and at worst will destroy us.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Would you like to subscribe for our reward card?



That is all you people have is jokes and quips. This is why WE are winning.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Oh good grief... more anti-border talk.
> 
> Firstly, nationalism in itself is not a problem when your population isn't composed mainly of imbeciles.  This "nationalism = badness" meme is a load of nonsense.
> 
> Secondly, given the political organization of the planet, having and protecting national borders is essential if you want to have a country.  If you live in a land where freedom reigns, for example, and the rest of the world is made up of slaver nations, you almost certainly need protected borders.  If the people of the rest of the world disdain your freedom, then you most certainly need borders that are maintained.
> 
> This notion that anyone can show up willy-nilly and take up residence, while perhaps a nice ideal, has no place in this world when one wishes his nation, such as it may be, to continue.  To allow the unrestricted movements of those from without to enter within is to invite national suicide.  Just look what happens when an aggressive predatory culture inundates another nation.  Doesn't happen, you say?  Look to Europe and then tell me it doesn't happen.
> 
> 
> ...


Very well said.

----------


## presence

> I don't know about Osan, but absolutely, I am against unlimited immigration.  Only a complete dumbass or someone wanting to destroy what's left of our country, would be for it.


so why not move your banter over to a xenophobic alt right site where it belongs?

this is not Ron Paul liberty immigration platform you espouse

_green card with an asterisk for all, that says no soup for you, is Ron's policy

_I stand with Ron and I stand with with _non-citizen resident immigrants_ to be left to the free market in peace

----------


## otherone

> so why not move your banter over to a xenophobic alt right site where it belongs?
> 
> this is not Ron Paul liberty immigration platform you espouse
> 
> _green card with an asterisk for all, that says no soup for you, is Ron's policy
> 
> _I stand with Ron and I stand with with _non-citizen resident immigrants_ to be left to the free market in peace


Agreed.  I haven't read an argument from the Wallsters, either with pith or loquacity, that convinces me that expanding or enforcing the authority of the federal government will lead to Liberty.  "Dumbass" is not an argument.  The implication from such non-arguments is that the state controlling the movement of people is axiomatic.  So be it.  Either one believes in the Rights of the individual, or one believes in the sovereignty of the collective.

----------


## presence



----------


## Superfluous Man

> Well lets see how you react when its you who is replaced by cheap labor.


You should read Bastiat's, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen."

You want to focus on the person who loses a job that you can point to and say, "Look what happened," without considering all of the cumulative effects of millions of smaller benefits that you can't point to, which, ultimately improve the whole economy as a net result.

I'm sure I wouldn't like losing my job. But I also wouldn't want the government to intervene in the marketplace just to protect my job.

And it's pretty astounding that someone with the handle "RestorationOfLiberty" would use such a statist argument. You don't want liberty and the risks and responsibilities that go with it, you want a nanny state to take care of you.

----------


## timosman

> You should read Bastiat's, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen."
> 
> You want to focus on the person who loses a job that you can point to and say, "Look what happened," without considering all of the cumulative effects of millions of smaller benefits that you can't point to, which, ultimately improve the whole economy as a net result.
> 
> I'm sure I wouldn't like losing my job. But I also wouldn't want the government to intervene in the marketplace just to protect my job.
> 
> And it's pretty astounding that someone with the handle "RestorationOfLiberty" would use such a statist argument. You don't want liberty and the risks and responsibilities that go with it, you want a nanny state to take care of you.


The economy improves as more people are getting $#@!ed. Seems logical.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

Muh border!

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The economy improves as more people are getting $#@!ed. Seems logical.


No. It's that the gains outweigh the losses. And you can't just pick out item on one side of the ledger and look at it, ignoring the total results.

I mean good grief, why does this even need to be said here to longtime members of the site?

The mistrust of free markets is really disconcerting.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You should read Bastiat's, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen."
> 
> You want to focus on the person who loses a job that you can point to and say, "Look what happened," without considering all of the cumulative effects of millions of smaller benefits that you can't point to, which, ultimately improve the whole economy as a net result.
> 
> I'm sure I wouldn't like losing my job. But I also wouldn't want the government to intervene in the marketplace just to protect my job.
> 
> And it's pretty astounding that someone with the handle "RestorationOfLiberty" would use such a statist argument. You don't want liberty and the risks and responsibilities that go with it, you want a nanny state to take care of you.



Tell that to everyone who has their wages lowered, their jobs lost by mass immigration. you expect people to have blind faith in your idealism of "muh economy"

You never said what you do, I wonder why.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No. It's that the gains outweigh the losses. And you can't just pick out item on one side of the ledger and look at it, ignoring the total results.
> 
> I mean good grief, why does this even need to be said here to longtime members of the site?
> 
> The mistrust of free markets is really disconcerting.


What is the gain from importing millions of hostile, low IQ, wage suppressing, violate, marxist voting aliens?

We DO see the total results, and it being the displacement/replacement of us by hostile aliens who vote against us, our rights, our wealth and dim our future, who cares if we save a few cents in the long run?

So that is disconcerting, not being out voted by imported serfs? You are the poster child as to why we the Alt Right will win.

----------


## Ender

> Then perhaps you should be focusing on getting rid of the handouts to illegals, including birthright citizenship, BEFORE you push so much to bring more in.


Perhaps YOU should start behaving like your avatar.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Not true, we had immigration laws dating back to Jamestown. Learn your history.


Source?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What is the gain from importing millions of hostile, low IQ, wage suppressing, violate, marxist voting aliens?


I never said anything about importing them. Just don't stop them from coming. We all gain. It's an aspect of free trade.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Untrue.
> 
> There were restrictions in place starting in 1790 with United States Naturalization Law, which restricted immigration by race, country of origin and "possessing good moral character" and established residency requirements to become a citizen.
> 
> That said I'm sure that there were plenty of people here who were not citizens, because there was no border to speak of and certainly not much in the of border protection, the entire western and northern borders being essentially wilderness populated by aboriginal tribes.
> 
> And ask *them* how well unbridled immigration of a culture foreign to them worked out.


That's naturalization. That did not restrict immigration at all. Those are two separate things. People who weren't naturalized by that act weren't prevented from being able to stay in the USA or to move freely across the border. Such an idea never even crossed the founders' minds.

Establishing a uniform code of naturalization is a power enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution. Regulating immigration is not.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> By default controlling borders is restricting immigration.


No it isn't, and the equation of those two things is ridiculous.

Do you think that no border between Indiana and Michigan exists?

Do you think that throughout most of the history of the USA when there were no limits on movement of people across the border that no border existed?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I never said anything about importing them. Just don't stop them from coming. We all gain. It's an aspect of free trade.


Once again, what do we gain from them begin here?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No it isn't, and the equation of those two things is ridiculous.
> 
> Do you think that no border between Indiana and Michigan exists?
> 
> Do you think that throughout most of the history of the USA when there were no limits on movement of people across the border that no border existed?


You are trying to reason with an ideologue, that is what open border believers are.

They can not see the different between states and nations but mandate that no one cross their borders to their property all the while claim borders do not exist....

----------


## timosman

> Once again, what do we gain from them begin here?


We can show everybody how virtuous we are!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Source?



http://usinc.org/wp-content/uploads/...torylutton.pdf

Contrary to the claims expressed by some historians,Colonial America did not welcome any and all who tried to enter and they were right to do so.

----------


## presence

> What is the gain from importing millions of hostile, low IQ, wage suppressing, violate, marxist voting aliens?


If we allow immigration by government fiat and give benefits to legally "VETTED" immigrant "citizens" we get government cheese suckers who vote for more cheese.

If we allow free market immigration; green card with a no free cheese asterisk, where only those who could get a job and a home in the free market survive... we get hard working, assimilated, intelligent, VALUABLE immigrants, who vote for free market principles.


Markets; survival of the fittest; NOT governments fiats, should vet immigrants because ONLY _individual actors in free markets_ can solve the_ Local Knowledge Problem.


"In economics, the local knowledge problem  is the observation 
that the data required for rational economic  planning 
are distributed among individual actors, 
and thus unavoidably  exist outside 
the knowledge of a central authority." 


_


> Friedrich Hayek described this distributed local knowledge: Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not  the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that there  is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge  which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of  general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and  place. It is with respect to this that practically every individual has  some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information  of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only  if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his  active coöperation. We need to remember only how much we have to learn  in any occupation after we have completed our theoretical training, how  big a part of our working life we spend learning particular jobs, and  how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people, of  local conditions, and of special circumstances. To know of and put to  use a machine not fully employed, or somebody's skill which could be  better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn  upon during an interruption of supplies, is socially quite as useful as  the knowledge of better alternative techniques. And the shipper who  earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of  tramp-steamers, or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost  exclusively one of temporary opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains  from local differences of commodity prices, are all performing  eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances  of the fleeting moment not known to others.[1]Because this distributed knowledge, while incomplete, is essential to  economic planning, its necessity is cited as evidence in support of the  argument that economic planning must be performed in a similarly  distributed fashion by individual actors. In other words, economic  planning by a central actor (e.g. a government bureaucracy or a central  bank) necessarily lacks this information because, as Hayek observed,  statistical aggregates cannot accurately account for the universe of  local knowledge: One reason why economists are increasingly apt to forget about the  constant small changes which make up the whole economic picture is  probably their growing preoccupation with statistical aggregates, which  show a very much greater stability than the movements of the detail. The  comparative stability of the aggregates cannot, however, be accounted  for—as the statisticians occasionally seem to be inclined to do—by the  "law of large numbers" or the mutual compensation of random changes. The  number of elements with which we have to deal is not large enough for  such accidental forces to produce stability. The continuous flow of  goods and services is maintained by constant deliberate adjustments, by  new dispositions made every day in the light of circumstances not known  the day before, by B stepping in at once when A fails to deliver. Even  the large and highly mechanized plant keeps going largely because of an  environment upon which it can draw for all sorts of unexpected needs;  tiles for its roof, stationery for its forms, and all the thousand and  one kinds of equipment in which it cannot be self-contained and which  the plans for the operation of the plant require to be readily available  in the market.[1]As such, the local knowledge problem is a microeconomic  counterargument to macroeconomic arguments that favor central planning  and regulation of economic activity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Once again, what do we gain from them begin here?


Countless economic benefits. Again, you are trying to concentrate on that which is seen and not the unseen. Read Bastiat.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> http://usinc.org/wp-content/uploads/...torylutton.pdf
> 
> Contrary to the claims expressed by some historians,Colonial America did not welcome any and all who tried to enter and they were right to do so.


That's colonial America. That's not the USA.

The federal government of the USA did not restrict immigration for most of this country's history (N.B. this country = the USA). And in fact, the framers of the Constitution did not include it among the enumerated powers.

That's why the Naturalization Act Antifederalist mentioned earlier did not include any regulations of immigration or any crossing of the nation's borders by anyone.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Perhaps YOU should start behaving like your avatar.


He is,he is cutting the welfare state.

You have no case against those ideas so you are using "MUH FEELS!", it does not work anymore.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No it isn't, and the equation of those two things is ridiculous.
> 
> Do you think that no border between Indiana and Michigan exists?
> 
> Do you think that throughout most of the history of the USA when there were no limits on movement of people across the border that no border existed?


You can not immigrate within the same nation, word games no longer work.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You can not immigrate within the same nation, word games no longer work.


What is a "nation"? Does the Constitution call the USA a nation? Or does it only refer to it in the plural as "states"?

And I don't see why you're even trying to make such a distinction. Not everyone who crosses a border is immigrating.

My point is that the existence and maintenance of borders does not require regulating the crossing of them, as you claimed. And the borders between the states are proof of that. Up until about a century ago, that's how all borders were. Your notion that a nation can't be a nation unless it keeps certain people from being able to cross its borders is ridiculous and ahistorical.

Passports didn't even exist until WWI, and then supposedly only as a wartime measure.

It should practically go without saying that we at this website would not support the requirement of passports to cross borders. But obviously for someone with your ideology that's unthinkable.

----------


## timosman

> Countless economic benefits. Again, you are trying to concentrate on that which is seen and not the unseen. Read Bastiat.


Name one.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> If we allow immigration by government fiat and give benefits to legal immigrants we get government cheese suckers.
> 
> If we allow free market immigration where only those who could get a job and a home in the free market survive... we get hard working, assimilated, intelligent, valuable immigrants, who vote for free market principles.
> 
> 
> Markets; survival of the fittest; NOT governments fiats, should vet immigrants because ONLY individual actors in markets can solve the _Local Knowledge Problem.
> _


Funny how that led to the creation of the welfare state, namely by Eastern Euro immigrants who largely voted for FDR.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Name one.


Labor is the obvious one. If we actually lost all of our unlawful residents in America, it would be disastrous to our economy. We would all see the effects very quickly, and we would all want them back.

Why would people in a website with a free market mission statement like this one have trouble with this concept?

----------


## timosman

> Labor is the obvious one. If we actually lost all of our unlawful residents in America, it would be disastrous to our economy. We would all see the effects very quickly, and we would all want them back.


Are you sure about that?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> We can show everybody how virtuous we are!


Because as the slaves know "virtue" matters more then Victory, "equality" more then victory.




> Countless economic benefits. Again, you are trying to concentrate on that which is seen and not the unseen. Read Bastiat.


"cheap" labor isnt cheap. We have shown this. Higher cost of living, lower wages, more crime, how they vote. What is seen and felt matters more then "MUH FEELS".
You are just mad you can not make a point.




> That's colonial America. That's not the USA.


Holy God you are dense. Read the damn link, educate yourself on how immigration laws existed since the beginning of this nation and how they were a net positive.




> The federal government of the USA did not restrict immigration for most of this country's history (N.B. this country = the USA). And in fact, the framers of the Constitution did not include it among the enumerated powers.
> 
> That's why the Naturalization Act Antifederalist mentioned earlier did not include any regulations of immigration or any crossing of the nation's borders by anyone.


You can repeat your feel goodism as long as you want. Fewer and Fewer people care. We did not have welfare voters then nor did we have forced interaction and forced inclusion, so once again we have to act in our best interests and if that means excluding others, so be it.

"We did not do X before so we can not do X now", great argument.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Are you sure about that?


Of course.

Why would you doubt it?

And if you do, then why are you here?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Labor is the obvious one. If we actually lost all of our unlawful residents in America, it would be disastrous to our economy. We would all see the effects very quickly, and we would all want them back.
> 
> Why would people in a website with a free market mission statement like this one have trouble with this concept?


No it would not http://www.vdare.com/posts/wsj-on-ar...o-materialized

Wages would increase, tax burdens would drop, crime, welfare would go do, would be leftist voters would no longer threaten our future. All around a net win.

We have proof of this between 1924-1970 wages increased 90%. Less labor=Increase value in Labor.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Holy God you are dense. Read the damn link, educate yourself on how immigration laws existed since the beginning of this nation and how they were a net positive.


No, actually, I had it right. And your article backs me up. If you actually did read it, you should read it again.

When are you gonna change your handle? If you ever did pretend to be libertarian, you've obviously come out of the closet since then.

----------


## timosman

> Of course.
> 
> Why would you doubt it?
> 
> And if you do, then why are you here?


Holy crap, dude. You are overdoing it.

----------


## timosman

> No, actually, I had it right. And your article backs me up. If you actually did read it, you should read it again.
> 
> When are you gonna change your handle? If you ever did pretend to be libertarian, you've obviously come out of the closet since then.


I did not read.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What is a "nation"? Does the Constitution call the USA a nation? Or does it only refer to it in the plural as "states"?
> 
> And I don't see why you're even trying to make such a distinction. Not everyone who crosses a border is immigrating.
> 
> My point is that the existence and maintenance of borders does not require regulating the crossing of them, as you claimed. And the borders between the states are proof of that. Up until about a century ago, that's how all borders were. Your notion that a nation can't be a nation unless it keeps certain people from being able to cross its borders is ridiculous and ahistorical.
> 
> Passports didn't even exist until WWI, and then supposedly only as a wartime measure.
> 
> It should practically go without saying that we at this website would not support the requirement of passports to cross borders. But obviously for someone with your ideology that's unthinkable.


Well its just proves how worthless open borders really are, thanks for making the case against your ideal.

And this is why you guys do not win.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No it would not http://www.vdare.com/posts/wsj-on-ar...o-materialized
> 
> Wages would increase, tax burdens would drop, crime, welfare would go do, would be leftist voters would no longer threaten our future. All around a net win.
> 
> We have proof of this between 1924-1970 wages increased 90%. Less labor=Increase value in Labor.


That's ridiculous. You can't attribute that to immigration laws. And you also can't pick out the price of labor by itself and measure the health of the economy by it. More expensive labor isn't automatically a good thing. But free markets are, regardless where they lead the price of any given thing to end up.

Do we really need to trade links like this? How about some from the Mises Institute or the Independent Institute, or anything by any actual economists, rather than vdare (I'm not even sure why you shared that one. Like your link about history of immigration laws, it didn't even say what you claimed it did).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Holy crap, dude. You are overdoing it.


Overdoing what? Freedom?

I mean really, this is basic stuff. I don't get why it still needs to be debated here.

----------


## timosman

Do we have anything less controversial?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No, actually, I had it right. And your article backs me up. If you actually did read it, you should read it again.
> 
> When are you gonna change your handle? If you ever did pretend to be libertarian, you've obviously come out of the closet since then.


If you did read it would know that colonies/states banned groups from immigrating to them. Anyone who reads it will see for themselves.

I am a Libertarian Closed border Nationalist. I have nothing to be ashamed. But hey keep allowing in people who undermine and vote against your rights under the guise of bring "moral" and "MUH freedom". All it is is cuckoldry.  




> Holy crap, dude. You are overdoing it.


Autism speaks...And it posts. 




> I did not read.


Thank, where did he find what he claims. Maybe be should share it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That's ridiculous. You can't attribute that to immigration laws. And you also can't pick out the price of labor by itself and measure the health of the economy by it. More expensive labor isn't automatically a good thing. But free markets are, regardless where they lead the price of any given thing to end up.
> 
> Do we really need to trade links like this? How about some from the Mises Institute or the Independent Institute, or anything by any actual economists, rather than vdare (I'm not even sure why you shared that one. Like your link about history of immigration laws, it didn't even say what you claimed it did).


Oh but we can, thanks to SB1070.

You have theory, we have fact and practice. I wonder who wins. 

Yes the link does, maybe you should read.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If you did read it would know that colonies/states banned groups from immigrating to them. Anyone who reads it will see for themselves.


Which one? Colonies or states? And in what time period? The colonial time period is irrelevant. We're talking about the laws of the federal government of the USA pursuant to the US Constitution.

----------


## timosman

> Which one? Colonies or states? And in what time period? The colonial time period is irrelevant. We're talking about the laws of the federal government of the USA pursuant to the US Constitution.


This is really bad. Nurse!

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Oh but we can, thanks to SB1070.
> 
> You have theory, we have fact and practice. I wonder who wins. 
> 
> Yes the link does, maybe you should read.


In economics, theory wins.

You can't prove anything with your facts because they're not amenable to scientific study. You have no control group to allow you to compare situations and pinpoint which effects come from which causes.

This is the essence of Austrian Economics.

ETA: And in this case, you're not even right about the facts.
https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Which one? Colonies or states? And in what time period? The colonial time period is irrelevant. We're talking about the laws of the federal government of the USA pursuant to the US Constitution.


Both Colonies and States, if you read that link you would know. From Jamestown to the 1880s when Feds started taking over the issue.

Wrong, if you bothered to know the first immigration law in America 1790, you would know it does matter. as they had solid bases to base it on.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Both Colonies and States, if you read that link you would know. From Jamestown to the 1880s when Feds started taking over the issue.
> 
> Wrong, if you bothered to know the first immigration law in America 1790, you would know it does matter. as they had solid bases to base it on.


That wasn't an immigration law, it was a naturalization law. Those are not the same thing.

There's a reason that law didn't regulate immigration. While establishing a uniform code of naturalization is among the federal government's enumerated powers in the Constitution, regulating immigration is not.

Go back and re-read your own link. In that entire period from the 1780s until the 1880s none of the laws it talks about in any way restricted immigration. Some deal with naturalization, and others deal with the question about whether or not to encourage immigration positively, but none involve any limits on anyone crossing the nation's borders or staying any amount of time when they did, up until the Chinese Exclusion Act. And even that was anomalous up until the Wilson years.

And why you would still persist in wanting to bring the colonies into this I can't fathom, unless it's because you think you need to change the subject to avoid looking dumb.

----------


## timosman

> if you read that link you would know.


If you actually understood the question.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> In economics, theory wins.
> 
> You can't prove anything with your facts because they're not amenable to scientific study. You have no control group to allow you to compare situations and pinpoint which effects come from which causes.
> 
> This is the essence of Austrian Economics.
> 
> ETA: And in this case, you're not even right about the facts.
> https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...migration-tax/

Its basic logic, the more of something means the less value it has.

Cato is nothing more then cucks and whores to cheap labor.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That wasn't an immigration law, it was a naturalization law. Those are not the same thing.
> 
> There's a reason that law didn't regulate immigration. While establishing a uniform code of naturalization is among the federal government's enumerated powers in the Constitution, regulating immigration is not.
> 
> Go back and re-read your own link. In that entire period from the 1780s until the 1880s none of the laws it talks about in any way restricted immigration. Some deal with naturalization, and others deal with the question about whether or not to encourage immigration positively, but none involve any limits on anyone crossing the nation's borders or staying any amount of time when they did, up until the Chinese Exclusion Act. And even that was anomalous up until the Wilson years.
> 
> And why you would still persist in wanting to bring the colonies into this I can't fathom, unless it's because you think you need to change the subject to avoid looking dumb.


If you read the link you would know STATES controlled immigration. And the banned beggars, the unemployed, papaists, tories, etc.Holy God.
Because if you read the link you would see the banned alot of groups from entering their state and nation as a whole.

No YOU are looking dumb because you are.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Its basic logic, the more of something means the less value it has.


You mean price, not value.

And that's fine.

Whatever price obtains in a free market, that is the ideal. Government manipulation to drive any given price up or down, including the price of labor, is always bad. A higher price for labor isn't automatically a good thing.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> If you read the link you would know STATES controlled immigration. And the banned beggars, the unemployed, papaists, tories, etc.Holy God.
> Because if you read the link you would see the banned alot of groups from entering their state and nation as a whole.


Banned how?

Go back and read your own link for crying out loud.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...er-immigration

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You mean price, not value.
> 
> And that's fine.
> 
> Whatever price obtains in a free market, that is the ideal. Government manipulation to drive any given price up or down, including the price of labor, is always bad. A higher price for labor isn't automatically a good thing.


So what you are saying is if double  the amount of something the value is is in no way effected? Please do go on.

To the workers/voters It always is, more over it would lead to more innovation.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...er-immigration



When the federal government fails, the states prevail.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So what you are saying is if double  the amount of something the value is is in no way effected? Please do go on.


No. I'm saying that that question is not answerable. Value is subjective and not quantifiable. But price is what you really mean. Price is quantifiable and is affected by supply.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Banned how?
> 
> Go back and read your own link for crying out loud.


They were not allowed off the ships. If they were they would be imprisoned if they were sick they were sometimes shot.

Its called google. Maybe you should use it. Its ok, If my dream of unlimited immigration I would be upset as your are, but Immigration Patriots are going to keep winning.
Next stop is 1924 Immigration Act, Redux!

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No. I'm saying that that question is not answerable. Value is subjective and not quantifiable. But price is what you really mean. Price is quantifiable and is affected by supply.


So wrong.

Lets double the number of people in your field and see if your income is effect.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> They were not allowed off the ships. If they were they would be imprisoned if they were sick they were sometimes shot.


You're back to talking about the colonial period.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So wrong.
> 
> Lets double the number of people in your field and see if your income is effect.


Of course my income would be affected.

Income. That would be "price," exactly like I said. Not "value," which was my point.

And so what? You talk like that's necessarily a bad thing. Would you also support banning technology that makes workers who do certain things obsolete? Are you a luddite?

----------


## Superfluous Man

By the way @RestorationOfLiberty, you're an immigrant yourself, aren't you? What's your native language. It's clearly not English.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You're back to talking about the colonial period.


And post Colonial, almost up to 1880. Maybe you should learn to read.




> Of course my income would be affected.
> 
> Income. That would be "price," exactly like I said. Not "value," which was my point.
> 
> And so what? You talk like that's necessarily a bad thing. Would you also support banning technology that makes workers who do certain things obsolete? Are you a luddite?


So why dont you make less money now and see if that is a bad thing, you know led by example.

No, why? Because robots do not commit crime, have kids they can not afford, use welfare, and oh yeah VOTE FOR MARXIST. More over automation has made immigration obsolete.



You are bob.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> By the way @RestorationOfLiberty, you're an immigrant yourself, aren't you? What's your native language. It's clearly not English.


No,Native born and my grammar is a non issue, but you are resorting to that because you open border zelots can not fool enough people.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So why dont you make less money now and see if that is a bad thing, you know led by example.


It would be bad for me. But that wouldn't make it bad for the whole economy. When sewing machines were invented, it was bad for tailors, but great for the whole economy. You can't just focus on the people whose wages go down like that.

And again, as for your link, go back and read it again. It doesn't say what you're claiming, not unless you willy nilly switch between the colonies and the states like you keep trying to do.

And even the regulations of ports that states did enact in the 19th century, that isn't regulation of immigration. Nothing would stop immigrants from going to other ports and then traveling to any state they wanted and staying however long they wanted.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It would be bad for me. But that wouldn't make it bad for the whole economy. When sewing machines were invented, it was bad for tailors, but great for the whole economy. You can't just focus on the people whose wages go down like that.
> 
> And again, as for your link, go back and read it again. It doesn't say what you're claiming, not unless you willy nilly switch between the colonies and the states like you keep trying to do.
> 
> And even the regulations of ports that states did enact in the 19th century, that isn't regulation of immigration. Nothing would stop immigrants from going to other ports and then traveling to any state they wanted and staying however long they wanted.


So what if we have tens of millions of people with lower wages or out of work? What might that do for the nation. Apples and oranges. Machines do not increasing the cost of housing, taxes, commit crimes, vote marxist.

Captains were fined if unwanted persons left the ship, maybe you skipped that part.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."
> 
> Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.
> 
> For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.





> It's not about anyone forcing anything. It's about allowing that competition to happen, and not having the government try to stop it when it does.
> 
> Do you honestly think government should do that? Manipulate labor markets and protect some people from having to compete against others for their jobs?





> You are anti-immigration. That's the whole point of your post. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration. "Protect the border" is not an accurate description of what you advocate, neither is "maintain the border." These are just euphemisms you use to make immigration restriction sound like something more basic and harmless than it is.





> so why not move your banter over to a xenophobic alt right site where it belongs?
> 
> this is not Ron Paul liberty immigration platform you espouse
> 
> _green card with an asterisk for all, that says no soup for you, is Ron's policy
> 
> _I stand with Ron and I stand with with _non-citizen resident immigrants_ to be left to the free market in peace





> You should read Bastiat's, "What is Seen and What is Not Seen."
> 
> You want to focus on the person who loses a job that you can point to and say, "Look what happened," without considering all of the cumulative effects of millions of smaller benefits that you can't point to, which, ultimately improve the whole economy as a net result.
> 
> I'm sure I wouldn't like losing my job. But I also wouldn't want the government to intervene in the marketplace just to protect my job.
> 
> And it's pretty astounding that someone with the handle "RestorationOfLiberty" would use such a statist argument. You don't want liberty and the risks and responsibilities that go with it, you want a nanny state to take care of you.





> No. It's that the gains outweigh the losses. And you can't just pick out item on one side of the ledger and look at it, ignoring the total results.
> 
> I mean good grief, why does this even need to be said here to longtime members of the site?
> 
> The mistrust of free markets is really disconcerting.





> I never said anything about importing them. Just don't stop them from coming. We all gain. It's an aspect of free trade.





> That's naturalization. That did not restrict immigration at all. Those are two separate things. People who weren't naturalized by that act weren't prevented from being able to stay in the USA or to move freely across the border. Such an idea never even crossed the founders' minds.
> 
> Establishing a uniform code of naturalization is a power enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution. Regulating immigration is not.





> No it isn't, and the equation of those two things is ridiculous.
> 
> Do you think that no border between Indiana and Michigan exists?
> 
> Do you think that throughout most of the history of the USA when there were no limits on movement of people across the border that no border existed?





> In economics, theory wins.
> 
> You can't prove anything with your facts because they're not amenable to scientific study. You have no control group to allow you to compare situations and pinpoint which effects come from which causes.
> 
> This is the essence of Austrian Economics.
> 
> ETA: And in this case, you're not even right about the facts.
> https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA709.pdf





> That wasn't an immigration law, it was a naturalization law. Those are not the same thing.
> 
> There's a reason that law didn't regulate immigration. While establishing a uniform code of naturalization is among the federal government's enumerated powers in the Constitution, regulating immigration is not.
> 
> Go back and re-read your own link. In that entire period from the 1780s until the 1880s none of the laws it talks about in any way restricted immigration. Some deal with naturalization, and others deal with the question about whether or not to encourage immigration positively, but none involve any limits on anyone crossing the nation's borders or staying any amount of time when they did, up until the Chinese Exclusion Act. And even that was anomalous up until the Wilson years.
> 
> And why you would still persist in wanting to bring the colonies into this I can't fathom, unless it's because you think you need to change the subject to avoid looking dumb.





> It would be bad for me. But that wouldn't make it bad for the whole economy. When sewing machines were invented, it was bad for tailors, but great for the whole economy. You can't just focus on the people whose wages go down like that.
> 
> And again, as for your link, go back and read it again. It doesn't say what you're claiming, not unless you willy nilly switch between the colonies and the states like you keep trying to do.
> 
> And even the regulations of ports that states did enact in the 19th century, that isn't regulation of immigration. Nothing would stop immigrants from going to other ports and then traveling to any state they wanted and staying however long they wanted.


"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Superfluous Man an infinite number of times."

----------


## presence

> So wrong.
> 
> Lets double the number of people in your field and see if your income is effect.


lets say you're a ditch digger making $20 an hour, you wish you were a mason making $40... 
you have the skills but there is no demand because you're the only ditch digger 
and you're pretty expensive to dig ditches let alone fill them with concrete to finish.
So nobody wants to pay you $40/hr as a mason.


and then pablo, santos, carlos, and ruiz move into your town an start digging ditches for 3 ears of corn each a per day.

$#@!! suddenly you're out a job... 

but all you neighbors have all the ditches they ever wanted and so cheap...

and they're doing all kinds of productive things with these new cheap ditches they had never considered doing before... 

farming fish, building houses, making roads

cheap ditches everywhere

suddenly they have disposable income to afford 

YOU

the $40/hour mason

----------


## timosman

> No. I'm saying that that question is not answerable. Value is subjective and not quantifiable. But price is what you really mean. Price is quantifiable and is affected by supply.


You were supposed to go home. This is total BS.

----------


## timosman

> It would be bad for me. But that wouldn't make it bad for the whole economy. When sewing machines were invented, it was bad for tailors, but great for the whole economy. You can't just focus on the people whose wages go down like that.
> 
> And again, as for your link, go back and read it again. It doesn't say what you're claiming, not unless you willy nilly switch between the colonies and the states like you keep trying to do.
> 
> And even the regulations of ports that states did enact in the 19th century, that isn't regulation of immigration. Nothing would stop immigrants from going to other ports and then traveling to any state they wanted and staying however long they wanted.


The number of available seats on these ships was minuscule according to today's standards. Insignificant.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> so why not move your banter over to a xenophobic alt right site where it belongs?
> 
> this is not Ron Paul liberty immigration platform you espouse
> 
> _green card with an asterisk for all, that says no soup for you, is Ron's policy
> 
> _I stand with Ron and I stand with with _non-citizen resident immigrants_ to be left to the free market in peace


And then marxists win elections and then give them all the free stuff they want. So it makes since to keep them out of the nation to begin with to avoid everything.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> lets say you're a ditch digger making $20 an hour, you wish you were a mason making $40... 
> you have the skills but there is no demand because you're the only ditch digger 
> and you're pretty expensive to dig ditches let alone fill them with concrete to finish.
> So nobody wants to pay you $40/hr as a mason.
> 
> 
> and then pablo, santos, carlos, and ruiz move into your town an start digging ditches for 3 ears of corn each a per day.
> 
> $#@!! suddenly you're out a job... 
> ...


You left out the illegals becoming masons, or the cost of more immigration related to crime, welfare, education, etc.

More over we have machines for digging ditches and masonry.

----------


## Ender

> He is,he is cutting the welfare state.
> 
> You have no case against those ideas so you are using "MUH FEELS!", it does not work anymore.


Bull$#@!.

I believe in no entitlements- just as Ron Paul does. Maybe you should read up on the guy the form is named after?

----------


## timosman

> lets say you're a ditch digger making $20 an hour, you wish you were a mason making $40... 
> you have the skills but there is no demand because you're the only ditch digger 
> and you're pretty expensive to dig ditches let alone fill them with concrete to finish.
> So nobody wants to pay you $40/hr as a mason.
> 
> 
> and then pablo, santos, carlos, and ruiz move into your town an start digging ditches for 3 ears of corn each a per day.
> 
> $#@!! suddenly you're out a job... 
> ...


You win a lottery and move to a bigger mansion. Chicks dig you.

----------


## timosman

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> I believe in no entitlements- just as Ron Paul does. Maybe you should read up on the guy the form is named after?


Did you notice the discrepancy between what you believe and what does exist? Don't you think different circumstances call for different actions?

----------


## otherone

> ;Don't you think different circumstances call for different actions?


suuuuure, buddy.   As long as no ones Rights are violated.

----------


## presence

> Bull$#@!.  Borders are a way for people to group who want to live under a certain set of guidelines.  Not to be flooded by people who do not share those views.  Not to mention use up said natural resources in the process.


*
Contracts* are a way for people to group who want to live under a certain set of guidelines and do so peacefully. 

*Borders* are a way for people to impose their beliefs upon others by force of dictate and arms.

----------


## timosman

> *
> Contracts* are a way for people to group who want to live under a certain set of guidelines and do so peacefully. 
> 
> *Borders* are a way for people to impose their beliefs upon others by force of dictate and arms.


You have the best arguments. They are so good, arguing with them is pointless.

----------


## presence

> Did you notice the discrepancy between what you believe and what does exist? Don't you think different circumstances call for different actions?


What you're saying is we should ignore the root cause of what is wrong and treat the symptoms.
When you get shot should you put direct pressure on the wound or spend time mopping up blood while you bleed out?

Spending tax money building and securing walls to mop up_ illegalized_ immigrants sounds a lot like bleeding out to me.
It would seem much more in line with fiscal conservatism and the principles of individual liberty 
to just put some direct pressure on their taxation-is-theft stolen entitlement flow.

----------


## timosman

> What you're saying is we should ignore the root cause of what is wrong and treat the symptoms.
> When you get shot should you put direct pressure on the wound or spend time mopping up blood while you bleed out?


What a $#@!ty analogy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What you're saying is we should ignore the root cause of what is wrong and treat the symptoms.
> When you get shot should you put direct pressure on the wound or spend time mopping up blood while you bleed out?


Are you unable to chew gum and walk?

If your house was on fire, would you refuse to take action to put out the fire or solely focus on finding who or what started it?

----------


## presence

when one man crosses from jurisdiction to jurisdiction there is no crime because there is no victim; at worst there is an infraction of edict

when one man is entitled to another man's property through taxation there is theft; theft is a crime and there is a victim.

governance in a libertarian society should concern itself with making victims whole not enforcing arbitrary edicts

----------


## osan

> *
> Contracts* are a way for people to group who want to live under a certain set of guidelines and do so peacefully. 
> 
> *Borders* are a way for people to impose their beliefs upon others by force of dictate and arms.


No d00d, this is simplistic.  It fails to take into account the full range of factors that come into play in human relations.  It certainly fails to account for aggression in a very big way.  It may be a valid normative, but this world is WAY too far gone to expect this to come to pass and remain sufficiently safe from the predatory Weakmen.

Empire is what we have.  It is based upon force and for some reason cultivates all the worst qualities of the human beast.  Short of my "reset event", Empire will remain with us for a very long time to come.  We are, therefore, presented with a choice: be like the liberal Weakmen and ignore reality, or bend it to our wills to the greatest extent possible.

It is high time the "liberty movement" faces the fact that the sort of freedom for which they seek will almost certainly not be forthcoming in our lifetime, or that of our children.  I doubt even three generations, but one cannot be too certain of things that far down the road.  So what do they want?  They can retire to their fantasies, replete with all the endless rehash of the same old outrages, or they can take the realistic view of things and work in a piecemeal fashion to return the world to a course headed not so perfectly away from freedom.  This is the method that the progressive Weakmen have employed for the past 100 years and look at where it has taken them. Piecemeal, they have lured the Meaner away from what little virtue he may have once had, in favor of the false prizes promised them by the perennially dishonest progressives.

The difference between the path back toward freedom and that heading to further destruction is that the former is an uphill journey, whereas the latter requires nothing of the individual save to lay down and roll.  Someone/something does all the heavy lifting.  Therefore, the road leading away from entropy is far more difficult to travel than the one toward it.

Until the "liberty movement" begins getting down to actualities, it will retain qualities more in keeping with a bowel movement.

----------


## The Northbreather

> So what do you do again? Would you mind if  I force you to compete against 50 people who will do your job for cheaper then you?
> Protectionism/immigration limits work.


As the consumer, no I would not.

----------


## otherone

> No d00d, this is simplistic.


Most Cardinal Postulates are.

----------


## presence

> It certainly fails to account for aggression in a very big way.


What is aggression if not the imposition of one's borders beyond those earned through the good will of mutual agreement?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...l-Consequences

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> As the consumer, no I would not.


But these alt-left Trumpflakes need affirmative action to protect their jobs.

----------


## The Northbreather

> No d00d, this is simplistic.  It fails to take into account the full range of factors that come into play in human relations.  It certainly fails to account for aggression in a very big way.  It may be a valid normative, but this world is WAY too far gone to expect this to come to pass and remain sufficiently safe from the predatory Weakmen.
> 
> Empire is what we have.  It is based upon force and for some reason cultivates all the worst qualities of the human beast.  Short of my "reset event", Empire will remain with us for a very long time to come.  We are, therefore, presented with a choice: be like the liberal Weakmen and ignore reality, or bend it to our wills to the greatest extent possible.
> 
> It is high time the "liberty movement" faces the fact that the sort of freedom for which they seek will almost certainly not be forthcoming in our lifetime, or that of our children.  I doubt even three generations, but one cannot be too certain of things that far down the road.  So what do they want?  They can retire to their fantasies, replete with all the endless rehash of the same old outrages, or they can take the realistic view of things and work in a piecemeal fashion to return the world to a course headed not so perfectly away from freedom.  This is the method that the progressive Weakmen have employed for the past 100 years and look at where it has taken them. Piecemeal, they have lured the Meaner away from what little virtue he may have once had, in favor of the false prizes promised them by the perennially dishonest progressives.
> 
> The difference between the path back toward freedom and that heading to further destruction is that the former is an uphill journey, whereas the latter requires nothing of the individual save to lay down and roll.  Someone/something does all the heavy lifting.  Therefore, the road leading away from entropy is far more difficult to travel than the one toward it.
> 
> Until the "liberty movement" begins getting down to actualities, it will retain qualities more in keeping with a bowel movement.


I understand your point of view here but it doesn't change the age old truth in that is a favorite to Dr Ron Paul himself.

That one can only lead by example, not force, is the only way to espouse the idea of liberty. 

You cannot restrict things into freedom.

The power of incentive is the way up if the ideas are understood correctly.

Much as you cannot beat morality into the immoral, just as you cannot make an individual student smarter or more ambitious no matter how many standardized tests you force them to take, you cannot force people to understand liberty.

----------


## The Northbreather

> But these alt-left Trumpflakes need affirmative action to protect their jobs.


I believe they would have labeled my ancestors parasitic immigrant hordes looking to steal jobs.

----------


## Ender

> Did you notice the discrepancy between what you believe and what does exist? Don't you think different circumstances call for different actions?


My actions promote freedom. 

Yours?

----------


## osan

> What is aggression if not the imposition of one's borders beyond those earned through the good will of mutual agreement?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...l-Consequences


You are operating under a profound fallacy or set thereof.

The Principles of Proper Human Relations is the ideal to which we should be striving.  It cannot be fully lived in the manner and degree to which your words suggest in THIS world precisely because of the threat of aggression posed by sufficient numbers of others, among other factors.

For one thing, there are perhaps 100 million or more Americans who are wholly unprepared for freedom.  Much of the absence of preparedness cannot be blamed on them.  We become what we are taught, largely.

Let me be clear: I am not saying the ideals are not attainable, but only that they are unattainable TODAY.  And so long as we have other nations and other forces that would see us brought to some heel, destroyed, or otherwise damaged, we must define and defend our borders as a matter of practical survival.  So long as we maintain a "free stuff" welfare state, we need to defend borders to prevent that which Europe is now suffering.

In short, there are a number of fundamental issues that require effective correction before we can even begin think of an open-borders policy.  Until all the nations that pose any credible risk to America's existence come to a new understanding on how to comport themselves as our global neighbors,  the choice remains for us to defend our borders or put up the "Hurt Me" neon sign.  We have FAR too many restrictions on weaponry, for another instance.  Until these issues are satisfactorily resolved, there is no rational possibility of doing what you suggest.  Freedom is not for the Weakman.  The Weakman _hates_ freedom because of the demands it threatens to place upon him;  he fears it.  Freemen represent a tiny minority of Americans, no more than 10%, and that's _very_ optimistic, IMO.

Were "we" to take control this afternoon, make me president, and I somehow made this nation 100% perfectly free, by nightfall the Great Mean Horde would be at the gates, torches and pitchforks at the ready.

Nothing wrong with the ideas, but one needs perspective as to the realities of getting there.

----------


## robert68

If the shoe fits.

----------


## osan

> That one can only lead by example, not force, is the only way to espouse the idea of liberty.


Force underpins all human transaction, even if only implicitly.  Force is absolutely necessary to the preservation of liberty and the rights of men.  If a mugger attempts to harm me in some dark alley (don't ask what I'm doing in that alley  ), I have the choice to allow it, or employ force to preserve my rights.  The same applies on the macro-scale of an entire nation.  There are bad actors out there.  Remember the Barbary Pirates?  I could be wrong, but I do not recall us as having yet adopted our currently disastrous foreign policy positions back in those days.  Therefore, the Barbary Pirates were misbehaving and causing us serious problems on the seas.  There have been plenty of other pirates as well.  There have been foreign aggressors.  Take the filthy British, just as one good example.  They attempted to put us in our places in 1776 and later in 1813 attempted to re-annex us and make us their subjects (slaves/property).

Leading by example does not preclude the use of force under certain circumstances, so force in itself is not the problem.  Rather, it is our corrupted application of force that has caused us the endless miseries we suffer at the hands of these scoundrels and scalawags.

This is what I mean about being circumspect - to understand a term's/concept's nuanced meanings and how they apply in real situations.  Too much of the hard core "full freedom this minute or $#@! you all" going on in the so-called "liberty movement".  It is unrealistic.  Theye are NEVER going to simply drop the reins and let men run freely.  If nothing else, Theye do not trust us not to run madly amok such that the streets of American would run hip-deep in blood and gore.  A more likely truth is that Theye have no interest in reducing their own statuses to those of just a raft of regular citizens.  Theye want the status and power of their offices, so forget about the flash-cut restoration.  And I will repeat what bears it: the vast majority of Americans are not even nearly prepared for actual freedom.  They would die off by the tens of millions in only a few short months.  One's "who cares?" sentiments aside, that sort of carnage is likely something none of us really wants to see, even if we think we do.

That brings us right back to the idea of this restoration taking time, being gained in piecemeal fashion, one small nibble at a time.  Breaking out the rifles may one day prove necessary, but that should be the absolute last option on anyone's mind, to be entered into only with the greatest reticence and trembling.  IMO, of course.

Far better that we grow our numbers peaceably, again leading by example, as you put it most excellently.




> You cannot restrict things into freedom.


Until we are properly free, we are not free at all.  We are all slaves - degree being irrelevant with regard to that particular status.  All we can reasonably expect, then, is to win back a scrap here and a nibble there with an eye toward our great grandchildren's time, building the portfolio of reclaimed liberties as opportunity and effort permit which, hopefully, will return our posterity to a condition far greater than that which we now endure.




> The power of incentive is the way up if the ideas are understood correctly.


You give the meaner WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY too much credit for smarts and integrity.  He doesn't WANT to understand such things correctly because he has been taught since infancy that freedom is slavery and danger and imposition and horror and is everything to be hated, despised, feared and rejected in a manner similar to that as given by the example of the drunkard, projectile hurling his dinner in a great jet, straightforward from his gape.

It's taken us at least 228 years to get into our currently wretched state.  It's going to take a while to get out.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> As the consumer, no I would not.


As a worker.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You are operating under a profound fallacy or set thereof.
> 
> The Principles of Proper Human Relations is the ideal to which we should be striving.  It cannot be fully lived in the manner and degree to which your words suggest in THIS world precisely because of the threat of aggression posed by sufficient numbers of others, among other factors.
> 
> For one thing, there are perhaps 100 million or more Americans who are wholly unprepared for freedom.  Much of the absence of preparedness cannot be blamed on them.  We become what we are taught, largely.
> 
> Let me be clear: I am not saying the ideals are not attainable, but only that they are unattainable TODAY.  And so long as we have other nations and other forces that would see us brought to some heel, destroyed, or otherwise damaged, we must define and defend our borders as a matter of practical survival.  So long as we maintain a "free stuff" welfare state, we need to defend borders to prevent that which Europe is now suffering.
> 
> In short, there are a number of fundamental issues that require effective correction before we can even begin think of an open-borders policy.  Until all the nations that pose any credible risk to America's existence come to a new understanding on how to comport themselves as our global neighbors,  the choice remains for us to defend our borders or put up the "Hurt Me" neon sign.  We have FAR too many restrictions on weaponry, for another instance.  Until these issues are satisfactorily resolved, there is no rational possibility of doing what you suggest.  Freedom is not for the Weakman.  The Weakman _hates_ freedom because of the demands it threatens to place upon him;  he fears it.  Freemen represent a tiny minority of Americans, no more than 10%, and that's _very_ optimistic, IMO.
> ...




So why import more people who will vote against/make achiving such things possible?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I believe they would have labeled my ancestors parasitic immigrant hordes looking to steal jobs.


Well if they shoe fits. You expect people to be smiling and happy at people driving down wages, voting against them?




> But these alt-left Trumpflakes need affirmative action to protect their jobs.



So  what do you do? You never replied back. I say we make you compete with 50 immigrants for your job and then you get to live by an example of your values.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> I believe in no entitlements- just as Ron Paul does. Maybe you should read up on the guy the form is named after?


How is turning away welfare burdens away, stopping them from immigrating not cut the welfare state?

----------


## Ender

> How is turning away welfare burdens away, stopping them from immigrating not cut the welfare state?


What do you want, more government or less government?

I'll take less.

----------


## osan

> So why import more people who will vote against/make achiving such things possible?


You only do such a thing if either you are A) severely brain damaged, or B), it is your goal to make such things impossible.

----------


## osan

> What do you want, more government or less government?
> 
> I'll take less.


Well, I prefer NO government. At all.

That does not mean I am for no governANCE.   Government or no, there remain certain things that need to be in place if a land does not wish to have to face threat after threat in open warfare.  And make no mistake, if we are ever perceived as weak, many nations would rush to take a swag at us.

The Soviets would have leveled several of our largest cities, had they thought they could have gotten away with it.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What a $#@!ty analogy.


Autism..




> Did you notice the discrepancy between what you believe and what does exist? Don't you think different circumstances call for different actions?


Of course not, just like leftists they fail to take human nature, culture, IQ into account. they both view humans as blank slates and view all of the world with the same lens, the ultimate form of collectivism that that the excuse everyone else of.




> My actions promote freedom. 
> 
> Yours?


Ours promote and PROTECT freedom. If you value something your protect it from those who harm it by the end result of their actions, that is why we on the alt right are winning, as our actions result in real world changes that protect and advance freedom and those who value it.

They idea that I promote freedom by allowing in hordes of people who want to live off the excess of what we create, want to vote away our rights for a welfare check, think they have a right to what we built or just plain want to kill us is moronic. You do not fight for the rights of your enemies, no one has every done this because it is suicidal.

I do not care about the rights of Marxists, open border advocates, gun grabbers, Globalists, etc as they use their rights (freedom of speech, association, privacy, property rights, right to keep and bare arms (their bodyguards)) to undermine, attack, and destroy mine/ours. So they have clearly violated the "Non aggression principal" you people REEEEEEEEEEE about.

They do not care. And Since they do not care and started this war the gloves are off and we are going to stop them. And if that means some "physical removal" has to happen, so be it, they have no issue about flooding the nations they claim to love with 3rd world serfs who will vote away all of the rights you claim to value (but will not defend by preventing them from entering the nation to vote against them in the $#@!ing first place), they have no issue under or disarming us and killing us, so why should we in any way hold back on them?

Self immolation is suicide, not virtue.

----------


## Ender

> Well, I prefer NO government. At all.
> 
> That does not mean I am for no governANCE.   Government or no, there remain certain things that need to be in place if a land does not wish to have to face threat after threat in open warfare.  And make no mistake, if we are ever perceived as weak, many nations would rush to take a swag at us.
> 
> The Soviets would have leveled several of our largest cities, had they thought they could have gotten away with it.


I have no problem with that POV.

My remark is about people wanting to have more laws and government, walls etc- paid by tax abiding citizens to keep immigrants out, rather than reducing gov by taking entitlements out of the hands of the feds and thus solving most people's complaints about immigrants.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What do you want, more government or less government?
> 
> I'll take less.


And what do you think happens when we allow in more welfare voters? Will the government grow or shrink? Sunken Cost Fallacy.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You only do such a thing if either you are A) severely brain damaged, or B), it is your goal to make such things impossible.


So what is the excuse of open border "Libertarians?"

----------


## Ender

> And what do you think happens when we allow in more welfare voters? Will the government grow or shrink? Sunken Cost Fallacy.


Repeat: take away entitlements; problem solved.

----------


## timosman

> And what do you think happens when we allow in more welfare voters? Will the government grow or shrink? Sunken Cost Fallacy.


How many times has this topic been discussed? Do we only have bots and shills left on this forum?

----------


## timosman

> Repeat: take away entitlements; problem solved.


Why don't you and Zippy stroke each other for a while?

----------


## Ender

> Why don't you and Zippy stroke each other for a while?


WTF? You think taking away entitlements is leftist propaganda now?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Are you unable to chew gum and walk?
> 
> If your house was on fire, would you refuse to take action to put out the fire or solely focus on finding who or what started it?


He would call it a statist as it was destroy his property but attack you for putting it out as it would violate the "NAP".

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Repeat: take away entitlements; problem solved.


And did when leftists get into power and give them entitlements again after we take them away?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How many times has this topic been discussed? Do we only have bots and shills left on this forum?



No, just a bunch of kids with Autism.

----------


## timosman

> No, just a bunch of kids with Autism.


I can buy that.

----------


## The Northbreather

/:

----------


## The Northbreather

> Well if they shoe fits. You expect people to be smiling and happy at people driving down wages, voting against them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So  what do you do? You never replied back. I say we make you compete with 50 immigrants for your job and then you get to live by an example of your values.


Lol. Muh jobs.

If you're such a valuable asset and expert in your chosen field you shouldn't be worried about it. 

In fact you might consider starting your own company to take advantage of all the cheap labor you're  so terrified of. $#@! you used to have to go to Asia for that!

Or you could cry and beg and lobby the nanny-state to drive away all those _mean wittle cheap workers_  for you.

Lead by example. Don't be a punk.

I find that most people who beg to end competition are either leftists or government employees(the ultimate non-competitors) or both.

Which are you?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Lol. Muh jobs.
> 
> If you're such a valuable asset and expert in your chosen field you shouldn't be worried about it. 
> 
> In fact you might consider starting your own company to take advantage of all the cheap labor you're  so terrified of. $#@! you used to have to go to Asia for that!
> 
> Or you could cry and beg and lobby the nanny-state to drive away all those _mean wittle cheap workers_  for you.
> 
> Lead by example. Don't be a punk.
> ...


 No one is not replaceable, maybe after you are replaced you will understand this. I can not nor can anyone compete against a race to the bottom nor a never ending wave of cheap labor. Its not possible. My God the autism of you open border fools is breath taking.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Lol. Muh jobs.
> 
> If you're such a valuable asset and expert in your chosen field you shouldn't be worried about it. 
> 
> In fact you might consider starting your own company to take advantage of all the cheap labor you're  so terrified of. $#@! you used to have to go to Asia for that!
> 
> Or you could cry and beg and lobby the nanny-state to drive away all those _mean wittle cheap workers_  for you.
> 
> Lead by example. Don't be a punk.
> ...


+rep

It's getting more and more obvious that  @RestorationOfLiberty chose their handle as a way to disguise their agenda. Every post of theirs reeks of an anti-free-market ideology.

----------


## otherone

> +rep
> 
> Every post of theirs reeks of an anti-free-market ideology.


...or a 17 year old who lost his gf to a black guy.
...or a chimpanzee pounding on a keyboard in a cage at MIT.

----------


## presence

_“I’ve always been amused by a kind of a paradox. Suppose you go around  and ask people: ‘The United States before 1914, as you know, had  completely free immigration. Anybody could get in a boat and come to  these shores and if landed at Ellis Island he was an immigrant. Was that  a good thing or a bad thing?'”

You  will find that hardly a soul who will say that it was a bad thing.  Almost everybody will say it was a good thing. ‘But what about today? Do  you think we should have free immigration?’ ‘Oh, no,’ they’ll say, ‘We  couldn’t possibly have free immigration today. Why, that would flood us  with immigrants from India, and God knows where. We’d be driven down to a  bare subsistence level.’

What’s the difference? How can people  be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing  before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a  sense in which that answer is right. There’s a sense in which free  immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible  today. Why not?

Because it is one thing to have free immigration  to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And  you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state  in which every resident is promised a certain minimal level of income,  or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or  not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.

If  you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody  benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came  benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought  he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants  provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for  the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit.

But  on the other hand, if you come under circumstances where each person is  entitled to a pro-rata share of the pot, to take an extreme example, or  even to a low level of the pie, than the effect of that situation is  that free immigration, would mean a reduction of everybody to the same,  uniform level. Of course, I’m exaggerating, it wouldn’t go quite that  far, but it would go in that direction. And it is that perception, that  leads people to adopt what at first seems like inconsistent values._

_Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration._ *Now,  that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good  thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United  States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as its illegal.*

-Milton Friedman

----------


## The Northbreather

> No one is not replaceable, maybe after you are replaced you will understand this. I can not nor can anyone compete against a race to the bottom nor a never ending wave of cheap labor. Its not possible. My God the autism of you open border fools is breath taking.


We already have a system set up we're you don't even have to compete to be rewarded silly. 

Head on down to your welfare office and pick up your very own participation trophy because you're so special I believe that the world should adapt to _you._ 

Wouldn't it be better if there was some all encompassing authority that could guarantee everyone's complete happiness and value to the world?..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

And this weapons grade autism is why you guys will never win.

----------


## otherone

> And this weapons grade autism is why you guys will never win.


The Liberty-minded can never win because they are vastly outnumbered by public schooled, state-fluffing vacu-jacks.
The best they can hope for is to survive long enough to see the inevitable collapse of your centralist dystopia.

----------


## osan

> So what is the excuse of open border "Libertarians?"



Doing and advocating are not quite the same.  So I will attribute advocacy to a failure in analytic thought.  Call me generous.

----------


## timosman

> The Liberty-minded can never win because they are vastly outnumbered by public schooled, state-fluffing vacu-jacks.
> The best they can hope for is to survive long enough to see the inevitable collapse of your centralist dystopia.


This is bollocks.

----------


## timosman

> And this weapons grade autism is why you guys will never win.


Well, at least the autistic people have found a captive audience who will not do anything to shut them down because of liberty principles! Did I mention 9/11?

----------


## otherone

> This is bollocks.

----------


## osan

> I have no problem with that POV.
> 
> My remark is about people wanting to have more laws and government, walls etc- paid by tax abiding citizens to keep immigrants out, rather than reducing gov by taking entitlements out of the hands of the feds and thus solving most people's complaints about immigrants.


Well yeah, of course.  But until the welfare state is rolled back...

But then there is the issue of aggression.  The Muslims have flooded into Europe and that continent is looking to be headed to a very sad end.  Once again, foreign aggression ruins things.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> WTF? You think taking away entitlements is leftist propaganda now?


I don't know if Timo's Man thinks that. But the actual problem is that the views he himself propagates here are leftist views. Where he differs with you and Zippy, as well as Ron Paul, is precisely because you are too libertarian for his taste.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Well yeah, of course.  But until the welfare state is rolled back...
> 
> But then there is the issue of aggression.  The Muslims have flooded into Europe and that continent is looking to be headed to a very sad end.  Once again, foreign aggression ruins things.


Aggression does ruin things. But only actual aggressors should be treated as such, as individuals, and not as members of some collective group.

----------


## timosman

> Aggression does ruin things. But only actual aggressors should be treated as such, as individuals, and not as members of some collective group.


I am not sure. Right now my feelings towards basement dwellers are not that great.

----------


## The Northbreather

> And this weapons grade autism is why you guys will never win.


Hey bud here's a tip. Many of the free market liberty lovers you keep calling autistic are actually running circles around you gaining capital. 

It's a good place to learn if you but like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...

Winning vs Whining

P.S. around here ad hominem attacks have the opposite of their intended effect.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Hey bud here's a tip. Many of the free market liberty lovers you keep calling autistic are actually running circles around you gaining capital. 
> 
> It's a good place to learn if you but like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water...
> 
> Winning vs Whining
> 
> P.S. around here ad hominem attacks have the opposite of their intended effect.


Do we have a free market now? Yes or no?

----------


## The Northbreather

> Do we have a free market now? Yes or no?


No. But it's ok to understand the moral superiority and benefit of such as system.

Does your original name start with an E and end with an O?

Yea or no?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No. But it's ok to understand the moral superiority and benefit of such as system.
> 
> Does your original name start with an E and end with an O?
> 
> Yea or no?


So since we do not have that system, why do you wish to play by a non existent rule book? That is the problem with you guys you failed to understand the world is not as you want to be.


Meanwhile my side keeps winning.

----------


## osan

> Aggression does ruin things. But only actual aggressors should be treated as such, as individuals, and not as members of some collective group.



In theory, yes.  In practice... think "friction".  IOW, small factors, sometimes with many unknown variables that, when present, cause real-world results to vary from those of theory, often wildly.

How's about we take this closer to reality.  Lets assume that we have just established the Superfluous States of America and you, Superfluous Man, are in charge.  Begin with your immigration policy.  What will they be?

I, complementarily, shall represent the interests of the rest of the world.

So then, what will your rules state?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> In theory, yes.  In practice... think "friction".  IOW, small factors, sometimes with many unknown variables that, when present, cause real-world results to vary from those of theory, often wildly.
> 
> How's about we take this closer to reality.  Lets assume that we have just established the Superfluous States of America and you, Superfluous Man, are in charge.  Begin with your immigration policy.  What will they be?
> 
> I, complementarily, shall represent the interests of the rest of the world.
> 
> So then, what will your rules state?


There will be no laws limiting the crossing of borders by peaceful people, no requirement for passports, no regulation of whom employers hire, nor whom property owners rent or sell to, on the basis of having or lacking papers proving lawful residence, and no deportation of noncriminals.

Same position as Ron Paul's.

----------


## timosman

> There will be no laws limiting the crossing of borders by peaceful people, no requirement for passports, no regulation of whom employers hire, nor whom property owners rent or sell to, on the basis of having or lacking papers proving lawful residence, and no deportation of noncriminals.
> 
> Same position as Ron Paul's.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> 


Why do you come here if all you want to do is mock Ron Paul supporters?

----------


## timosman

> Why do you come here if all you want to do is mock Ron Paul supporters?


This question would better be directed at you.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> This question would better be directed at you.


All I ever do is support his positions. All you ever do is mock them.

----------


## osan

> There will be no laws limiting the crossing of borders by peaceful people, no requirement for passports, no regulation of whom employers hire, nor whom property owners rent or sell to, on the basis of having or lacking papers proving lawful residence, and no deportation of noncriminals.
> 
> Same position as Ron Paul's.


OK, let us see how your structures stand up to the realities.

Reminder: we live in a politically harsh world.  Just beneath all the flimsy superficialities of cell phones and snazzily painted automobiles, we are a weak, smelly species of bipedal mammal.  We want what we want.  We believe what we believe.  We covet power.  We are morally "flexible".  The list goes on, but perhaps the point is made.

Given these, be further reminded that the Superfluous States has neighbors seeking to get an "edge" on it.  It even has outright, mortal enemies.  It matters no whit how they came to be our sworn foes, or with whom the blame lies.  It is a given that has to be dealt with TODAY.

"No laws limiting the crossing of borders by peaceful people".  This is laudable, the theory and sentiment behind it sterling.  Question: how does one determine "peaceful" status?  You have neglected to define the term, so until we have it in sufficiency of coverage and accuracy, we can go no further.  Define your term, please.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> All I ever do is support his positions. All you ever do is mock them.


Because he is wrong on some of them, he fails to understand that some people do not value freedom and the end result of the actions harm it. Ron Paul is a man, he is not God.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> OK, let us see how your structures stand up to the realities.
> 
> Reminder: we live in a politically harsh world.  Just beneath all the flimsy superficialities of cell phones and snazzily painted automobiles, we are a weak, smelly species of bipedal mammal.  We want what we want.  We believe what we believe.  We covet power.  We are morally "flexible".  The list goes on, but perhaps the point is made.
> 
> Given these, be further reminded that the Superfluous States has neighbors seeking to get an "edge" on it.  It even has outright, mortal enemies.  It matters no whit how they came to be our sworn foes, or with whom the blame lies.  It is a given that has to be dealt with TODAY.
> 
> "No laws limiting the crossing of borders by peaceful people".  This is laudable, the theory and sentiment behind it sterling.  Question: how does one determine "peaceful" status?  You have neglected to define the term, so until we have it in sufficiency of coverage and accuracy, we can go no further.  Define your term, please.


He and those like him can not understand human nature, nor the fact that people are not equal, interchangeable cogs.

The "Superfluous States" would be drowned in waves of immigrants who then vote in marxists. who then turn into a Gulag.

Its not like people can just lie right? 

We are "bad" people because we understand that the impossible is just that, and for good reason...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Because he is wrong on some of them, he fails to understand that some people do not value freedom and the end result of the actions harm it. Ron Paul is a man, he is not God.


It's one thing not to agree with him about everything.

It's another thing to be a single issue voter on the thing you most strongly disagree with him about and spend your whole time here criticizing his positions.

And it's not just you. A lot of Trumpsters do that.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It's one thing not to agree with him about everything.
> 
> It's another thing to be a single issue voter on the thing you most strongly disagree with him about and spend your whole time here criticizing his positions.
> 
> And it's not just you. A lot of Trumpsters do that.


Well immigration is an issue that effects and decides all others..

----------


## The Northbreather

> So since we do not have that system, why do you wish to play by a non existent rule book? That is the problem with you guys you failed to understand the world is not as you want to be.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile my side keeps winning.


It's because ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....

The concept of  personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free.

----------


## otherone

> It's because ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....


Unfortunately, most of those ideas come from the MIC.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> It's because ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....
> 
> The concept of  personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free.


+rep
This is poetry. And truer than anything I've heard in a long time.

----------


## osan

> So since we do not have that system, why do you wish to play by a non existent rule book? That is the problem with you guys you failed to understand the world is not as you want to be.


Whoa there, cowboy... you are deeply failing by conflating the habits of the Bunnies&Light progressives and liberals with those of thinking men who understand the extreme value and potential power of a valid concept.

It is one thing to hold such concepts in one's mind and assess them rationally and perhaps choose some as ideals toward which to apply one's resources.  It is quite another to assess the world in deep error, insist it is the only way things can and must be, and drive all your energies toward that demented milestone.  That marks a central difference between the proclivities of Strongmen and Weakmen.

It serves you ill to conflate the two habits.




> Meanwhile my side keeps winning.


Would you care to identify your "side"?

----------


## osan

> It's because ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....
> 
> The concept of  personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free.


Holy crap, d00d, that was very well put.

"Screaming from the ether..."  I'll have to remember that one.

----------


## osan

> He and those like him can not understand human nature, nor the fact that people are not equal, interchangeable cogs.


That is certain one of the broader problems, but I don't think it is central, but merely contributory.




> The "Superfluous States" would be drowned in waves of immigrants who then vote in marxists. who then turn into a Gulag.


I am waiting for his definition of "peaceful", in order that we might see where his model of governance WRT immigration takes our little thought experiment.




> We are "bad" people because we understand that the impossible is just that, and for good reason...


This is a far bigger statement, I suspect, than most people would ever realize, and there is a potential error in it.

Do not conclude that because something is not real today, that it is "impossible".  In January 1903, powered human flight was "impossible".  By December, that was no longer the case, despite literally centuries and more of some men declaring it beyond possibility.  That is always dangerous talk for any of several reasons, some speaking to personal credibility, others to the literal physical safety of entire populations.  Therefore, be very careful about that which you declare "impossible"; it may turn around and bite you deeply.

To be more specific, there is nothing in theory that says we cannot effectively live our ideals as men.  There is no reason in theory that makes clear the impossibility of leading worthwhile anarchic lives.  How those lives would appear, well that is quite a matter of speculation.  But there is nothing inherent in our knowledge and principles that tells us that it cannot be done.  We have a long history of anarchic tribal life.  It was not until the walls of Sumer were raised that things changed, at least in the context of the past 8,000 or so year slice of history.  What happened prior, purported Atlantis and the such, we do not appear to know with any relevant certainty, which bids me stick to what we think we know.

I don't know whether Sumer was built by volunteers or slaves, though the latter seems comparatively very unlikely.  What I _DO_ know is that once those walls rose, human thought changed fundamentally, if subtly and very quietly.  Sumer may not represent the birth of Empire, but it was the birth of Empire-potential.  I strongly doubt, for instance, that tribal men would have been able to keep slaves for any of a number of reasons.  For one thing, those tribal societies were mostly nomadic.  Even where settlements rose, methinks men probably had other things on their minds beside enslaving their fellows.  And the broader implications of the notion of the enslavement of one's fellows would likely not have been lost on all men, given the far lower noise levels in mens' thoughts back in the good old days.  Recall that mens' minds were not filled with the various polluting elements that today befoul their perceptions, leading them away from truth.  To see one man enslaving another would have been crystalline-clear in the minds of all who witnessed it, for its implications.  If it can happen to _him_, then why not to _me?_  That is _right_ thinking.  But we went astray from good habits precisely because of the bad ones into which we came, such as glomming on to the big-mouths who promised all manner of advantage if only we did as they bid.  How's _that_ working our for us?

Sumer, I suspect, changed the basic mental posture of the people living there in such ways that all manner of terribly misbegotten paths of thought came into being.  The double-edged sword of human creativity came into a position I suspect it could not have assumed prior to the physical changes that living in a walled city permitted and perhaps even nurtured.  Doubtlessly the swing away from individual sovereignty and respect for one another began slowly, but I would almost bet money I do not have that the turn could have hit a point of rapid change.  Imagine the first "king" or other leader who was able to get together a sufficiently large and willing raft of armed bully-boys to do as he commanded.  Instant slavery, if conceived and carried forth with cunning, care, and patience.  It has been down-hill ever since, in piecemeal fashion, mostly - though today the slices are larger than ever.

The minds of men are filled with so much irrelevant and misleading noise, it is no wonder the majority are unwilling to take proper stands on the most basic questions of human relations and their inherent rights as living beings.  They were taught from birth to be slaves - to think as slaves.  What, pray tell, can anyone expect of such people, to all of a sudden jump up with a huge arc-lamp issuing the actinic light of perfect understanding and say "I SEE!  I UNDERSTAND!"?  Not going to happen, which is why the path backward to something even vaguely resembling liberty shall not be trod down, if at all we even turn in the right direction, but _trudged_.  

The momentum of the tide against which liberty-minded men work is almost galactic in its proportion.  The vast and overwhelming majority of humans walking the planet today have less than zero interest in actual freedom.  They do, in fact, fear and thereby hate freedom with great venom and bile.  They want their Pretty Slavery, but they want it with "Freedom" stenciled shabbily over the true name.  They would live in their bunnies and light fantasies because, bankrupt as their miserable, colorlessly grey and washed-out existences are, in their minds they are still better off than they would be were they actually free.  It is the mindset of the defeated.  Welcome to the world of Weakmen.

Having come to the incredible 4-sigma proportion, Weakmen rule this world without any room for doubt about it.  Yes, Theye are Weakmen, also.  Being a Weakman does not mean perforce that one is not dangerous.  It does not mean that one does not wield power enough and aplenty.  Bear that clearly in mind at all times.

While the path of the Strongman back to broader freedom is to be at first trudged with the shuffling and strain of a team of draft horses set to draw uphill a load that dances around the edges of impossibility, they hold one advantage over Weakmen: their strength and courage.  Weakmen are called that precisely because they are weak.  Some are physically so, but that it not the important aspect.  They are all morally and mentally weak.  They are cowardly and avaricious, two more forms of weakness of which the Strongmen may take all good advantage.  Realize that with all their public protesting, replete with the noises they make and the petty violence in which they indulge themselves, the Weakmen of the lower strata present no great impediment to the Strongmen.

Have you never noticed the absence of courage in Weakmen?  Look at how they behave when rioting - always in huge crowds, often masked (that should be VERY telling), and the _very_ moment they meet with any real resistance, what do they do?  Run.  Away, that is.  Have you ever, in the past 20 years, seen any crowd of such Weakmen ever stand tall against that which they whine and moan?  I can recall no such instance - certainly nothing of significance.  THAT, my friends, is pure informational gold.

The Weakmen are precisely what the moniker suggests.  They are the very embodiment of _F.A.I.L._ Their successes, such as they may be, are due almost entirely to the cheating that is embodied in the *artificial and biased protections of corrupted government*. Without the support of courts, legislatures, and executive agents with guns, the Weakmen would have remained, at best, a vanishingly small minority of the population.  This is necessarily true, for without the artifice of official corruption, the Strongmen would have correctly chosen intolerance of the intolerable and made it clear to their ill-inclined brethren that the quality of their choices would reap rewards of similar flavor.  That and the absence of all the so-called "safety nets", erected through thievery and violence, which not only allow for Weakmanliness, but actually encourages and in many cases *requires* it, the Weakmen would have been faced with the choice of extinction or to toe other lines.

Weakmen get away with all that they do because men with guns threaten the rest with grave violence and death if they interfere in even the least measure.  There is method to this insanity, though the agents of force remain ignorant of it.  It is all about currying cooperation of the largest proportion of the population.  Win the mind and Brother Ass is certain to follow.  This is the face of modern despotism.  This is how Theye have evolved their model of control.  The days of open tyranny with frothing madmen at the national helm are likely over (all comments about Trump may be left at the door, as yet).  The quiet and Weakmanly madness of an Obama is the future, methinks... at least so long as the political status quo remains sufficiently intact.

Men with guns and courts running mad provide the guaranty of the promises of the legislators.  The Weakmen eat this up for any of many reasons.  But once again there is good news in all this for the Strongmen, and it is this: your opposition is constructed of naught but weakmen.  The great wad of Weakmen are open cowards and highly pussified.  The Men With Guns are so few in number that they pose little real threat in the broader context.  The Men With Guns only seem insurmountable because they assume the posture of authority, but bear in mind that they, too, are Weakmen.  Most of them would fold like cheap suits the moment they were faced with any real opposition; _armed_ opposition.  The only contingent of such men to pose a real threat are those in the armed forces, and not all of those are Weakmen.  In fact, I would assess most Marines as Strongmen.  The same for the Navy.  Army is less clear - a real mix, IMO.  Air Force is the real bastion of Weakmen and not to be trusted to the door, IMO.

But police?  They are no threat in a circumstance of open insurrection precisely because they are penultimate Weakmen.  They would mostly cave at the first sign of real and immediate threat to themselves.  The rest would be killed very easily, especially given what I have seen of police "marksmanship", which is the joke of the millennium.

Were the 2-3% of Americans who minimally qualify as Strongmen (I am perhaps waxing too optimistic) to stand tall and coherently in opposition to the Weakmen, the latter would be vanquished in short order precisely because they always do as they are told, regardless of who holds authority.  They are followers, like sheep, meek in the ways that count, bold in the ways that matter no whit in the scheme of things.  They would toe the line of the Strongmen, but that would not eliminate the dangers, I am afraid.  We are so far gone down the rabbit hole of Weakmanliness that the sudden yanking of the plug on all the artificial structures upon which Weakmen lean for their very survival would result in instant catastrophe for a vat number of them.  I would say that most would see the light of necessity and tow the line of the Strongman's ethic, but that would not render them Strongmen for they would undoubtedly fall backward upon their old ways the moment the opportunity presented itself.  They would do so with tears of joy and great cries of relief, for they are mostly corrupted beyond redemption.

Some would take up the mantle of Strongman, but those would be few and far between.  The rest would simply die, physically, for the lack of will to live as men, rather than as Weakmen.

Therefore, any such Strongman victory would be no cause for excessive celebration, for the dangers would continues as masses of hopeless people would begin to revert into their truer human forms.  They would, however, do it kicking and screaming every step of the way until either they died of circumstance, were killed off against their violence, or came to a proper attitude about things.  IOW, it ain't over 'til it's over.

As you should now see, "impossible" is a word with which one should use with great care and deliberation.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> It's because ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....
> 
> The concept of  personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free.


And some people will do everything possible to stop people from being free by intent or the end result of their actions.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Whoa there, cowboy... you are deeply failing by conflating the habits of the Bunnies&Light progressives and liberals with those of thinking men who understand the extreme value and potential power of a valid concept.
> 
> It is one thing to hold such concepts in one's mind and assess them rationally and perhaps choose some as ideals toward which to apply one's resources.  It is quite another to assess the world in deep error, insist it is the only way things can and must be, and drive all your energies toward that demented milestone.  That marks a central difference between the proclivities of Strongmen and Weakmen.
> 
> It serves you ill to conflate the two habits.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you care to identify your "side"?



The New Right or "Alt Right".

----------


## The Northbreather

> And some people will do everything possible to stop people from being free by intent or the end result of their actions.


And some people refuse to endorse immoral actions for short term benefit because they believe that impowering oppression will lead to less freedom in the long term.

Tell me more how you're going to protect a culture of freedom by using the government to crush your competitors

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> And some people refuse to endorse immoral actions for short term benefit because they believe that impowering oppression will lead to less freedom in the long term.
> 
> Tell me more how you're going to protect a culture of freedom by using the government to crush your competitors


And some people refuse to take the actions which are necessary out of cowardice or fear of disapprove of people who will destroy them and everything they claim to value.

We are using the government to keep out groups who by the end result of their limit our freedom by their actions. Mostly by crime/terrorism and how they vote. 

More over you guys have done $#@! all in the way of anything so you are not going to give advice or lecture us. Sorry you can not understand that mass immigration+Hyper inclusive mass democracy=You be displace/replaced in your nation and you being out voted and having your rights/wealth voted away and your future destroy. Sorry you can not see how that works.

----------


## MallsRGood

> Untrue.
> 
> There were restrictions in place starting in 1790 with United States Naturalization Law, which restricted immigration by race, country of origin and "possessing good moral character" and established residency requirements to become a citizen.


Untrue

The 1790 Naturalization Act didn't restrict immigration at all. Rather, as the name suggests, it restricted naturalization (i.e. who could become a citizen). Superfluous Man is correct that there were no federal immigration restrictions until the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Prior to that there were minor restrictions at the state level (aimed at excluding known criminals, carriers of infectious disease, etc). For all practical purposes, the US enjoyed open borders until 1882. This was more or less the norm throughout the West until the late 19th/early 20th century. In fact, for a long time governments actively competed for immigrants, sending out recruiters, in a deliberate attempt to increase their domestic populations.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Well immigration is an issue that effects and decides all others..


I understand that for you that is the case. That's why your handle is such a mockery and why it makes no sense for you to pretend to support this site's mission.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Untrue
> 
> The 1790 Naturalization Act didn't restrict immigration at all. Rather, as the name suggests, it restricted naturalization (i.e. who could become a citizen). Superfluous Man is correct that there were no federal immigration restrictions until the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Prior to that there were minor restrictions at the state level (aimed at excluding known criminals, carriers of infectious disease, etc). For all practical purposes, the US enjoyed open borders until 1882. This was more or less the norm throughout the West until the late 19th/early 20th century. In fact, for a long time governments actively competed for immigrants, sending out recruiters, in a deliberate attempt to increase their domestic populations.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MallsRGood again."

----------


## MallsRGood

> Once again, what do we gain from them begin here not kidnapping Mexicans?


What do we gain from not enslaving Canadians?

What do we gain from not killing Luxembourgers and stealing their $#@!?

...is any criminal act justifiable so long as it benefits the tribe of which you fancy yourself a member?

----------


## MallsRGood

> "No laws limiting the crossing of borders by peaceful people".  This is laudable, the theory and sentiment behind it sterling.  Question: how does one determine "peaceful" status?  You have neglected to define the term, so until we have it in sufficiency of coverage and accuracy, we can go no further.  Define your term, please.


Are you suggesting that, if the state can't determine that a person isn't dangerous, violence can be used against this person?

i.e. guilty until proven innocent?

Does that apply generally, or just to immigrants?

----------


## timosman

> Are you suggesting that, if the state can't determine that a person isn't dangerous, violence can be used against this person?
> 
> i.e. guilty until proven innocent?
> 
> Does that apply generally, or just to immigrants?


Are you going somewhere with this line of questioning?

----------


## MallsRGood

> Are you going somewhere with this line of questioning?


It already arrived at its destination (i.e. demonstrating the absurd conclusions which follow from Osan's reasoning).

----------


## timosman

> It already arrived at its destination (i.e. demonstrating the absurd conclusions which follow from Osan's reasoning).


Of course. You won.

----------


## MallsRGood

> Of course. You won.


Did you have a counterargument or...?

----------


## osan

> Are you suggesting that, if the state can't determine that a person isn't dangerous, *violence can be used against this person?*


Drama-queenery FAIL.  Come now, how often are our border patrol agents beating those whom they reject for unsuitability reasons alone... or any reason for that matter?  Let us please be real.  We are a tyrannical land, to be sure, but we are not quite _that_ far gone, yet.




> *i.e. guilty until proven innocent?*


Strawman fallacy.  We are not speaking of a criminal investigation where someone has been accused of a crime and for which the consequences could be dire, but of their suitability for admission.  The suitability deal can be problematic, so if that was your point, ill-formulated as your sentence may be, it is valid; but let us not ignore the fact that it is not problematic_ in sé_.  There is a very significant difference between the ideal world and the world of friction, which is to say between theory and reality.  It is the latter with which we must concern ourselves on a daily basis in practice, while the former is fit for our free hours in comfortable chairs, by the fire, with a good 120-year Cognac in hand and a fine cigar.  Each is important in equal measure, IMO, but the real world considerations must take precedence due to their immediacy and overwhelming numbers.  It's a busy world.

The deeper issue is one of competing harms and the matter of circumstantial partitioning.  Until you are demonstrated sufficiently harmless, you remain outside the walls of the City.

Philosophy aside, how then do you propose to resolve the eminently practical and immediate problem of defense against those who would bring destruction to the people of this land?

How would you defend against a group sneaking a high-yield nuke over the MX border into, say, San Diego?  Or do the lives of the people already established there not count as much as the poor, doe-eyed "refugee"?  We owe them nothing.  This notion that we are a land of obligatory sanctuary for every soul on the planet is unsupportable in theory, much less practice.  If 500 million souls from the other ends of the planet were to be standing at our door, asking to come in, I'd bet money I do not have that not only would you $#@! yourself for fear and worry, you would be among the first to call for border security.  Of course that is not going to happen, but the little thought experiment illustrates the basic problem with your position.  With this many people on the planet, the reality that your views would bring is untenable.

By your apparent position, we as a people are obliged to sit idly as Mexico moves armor and troops across the Rio Grande.  How much sense does that make to you?




> Does that apply generally, or just to immigrants?


Is this a serious question?  I will not spoon-feed you, but give you the biggest hint tantamount to doing the same: what is the purpose of such law/policy?  When you figure that out, you will have your answer.

One more time: the world of theory and that of friction are not the same.  Each is important, but their roles are not identical.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> What do we gain from not enslaving Canadians?
> 
> What do we gain from not killing Luxembourgers and stealing their $#@!?
> 
> ...is any criminal act justifiable so long as it benefits the tribe of which you fancy yourself a member?


Really, really, really hot women who are very kinky....

The fact it would cost more to go over and kill them then what they would have to take. Plus they are a high IQ people so it would be a net loss.

Any? No, Some? Yes.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> I understand that for you that is the case. That's why your handle is such a mockery and why it makes no sense for you to pretend to support this site's mission.


Says the person who can not understand importing welfare voters=you being outvoted and losing your rights..

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Drama-queenery FAIL.  Come now, how often are our border patrol agents beating those whom they reject for unsuitability reasons alone... or any reason for that matter?  Let us please be real.  We are a tyrannical land, to be sure, but we are not quite _that_ far gone, yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman fallacy.  We are not speaking of a criminal investigation where someone has been accused of a crime and for which the consequences could be dire, but of their suitability for admission.  The suitability deal can be problematic, so if that was your point, ill-formulated as your sentence may be, it is valid; but let us not ignore the fact that it is not problematic_ in sé_.  There is a very significant difference between the ideal world and the world of friction, which is to say between theory and reality.  It is the latter with which we must concern ourselves on a daily basis in practice, while the former is fit for our free hours in comfortable chairs, by the fire, with a good 120-year Cognac in hand and a fine cigar.  Each is important in equal measure, IMO, but the real world considerations must take precedence due to their immediacy and overwhelming numbers.  It's a busy world.
> 
> The deeper issue is one of competing harms and the matter of circumstantial partitioning.  Until you are demonstrated sufficiently harmless, you remain outside the walls of the City.
> 
> Philosophy aside, how then do you propose to resolve the eminently practical and immediate problem of defense against those who would bring destruction to the people of this land?
> ...


Thomas Jefferson was over two centuries ahead of his time, then again, perhaps no one would listen to his concerns today:




> It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants.
> 
> *They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave*,* imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogenous, incoherent, distracted mass.* I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable ? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?
> 
> *Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here*. _If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship ; but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements._

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Thomas Jefferson was over two centuries ahead of his time, then again, perhaps no one would listen to his concerns today:


It's funny how you didn't bold this part of that Jefferson quote:



> *If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship*

----------


## osan

> It's funny how you didn't bold this part of that Jefferson quote:


And hence "vetting", to determine whether they "come of themselves", an expression that speaks of the absence of taint of agency beyond the basic goodness born into men; of genuineness; of no unpublished and nefarious agendas.  This naturally implies the existence of criteria of character and intent for admission.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> And hence "vetting", to determine whether they "come of themselves", an expression that speaks of the absence of taint of agency beyond the basic goodness born into men; of genuineness; of no unpublished and nefarious agendas.  This naturally implies the existence of criteria of character and intent for admission.


So you agree with that Jefferson quote? As long as people come of their own accord, they should be allowed to immigrate to the USA without limit, and all be afforded citizenship?

----------


## osan

> So you agree with that Jefferson quote? As long as people come of their own accord, they should be allowed to immigrate to the USA without limit, and all be afforded citizenship?


That is DECIDEDLY NOT what the quote says.  Don't play games.

----------


## MallsRGood

> Really, really, really hot women who are very kinky....
> 
> The fact it would cost more to go over and kill them then what they would have to take. Plus they are a high IQ people so it would be a net loss.
> 
> Any? No, Some? Yes.


Your statement makes little sense.

Perhaps you should euthanize yourself.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> That is DECIDEDLY NOT what the quote says.  Don't play games.


Yes it is.

Do you agree with it?

----------


## timosman

> Your statement makes little sense.
> 
> Perhaps you should euthanize yourself.


Is this a new troll strategy? 

How to take over a web forum:

Suggest euthanasia to the opposing members....Profit!

----------


## MallsRGood

> Is this a new troll strategy? 
> 
> How to take over a web forum:
> 
> Suggest euthanasia to the opposing members....Profit!


No, it's pro bono..

----------


## timosman

> No, it's pro bono..


Are you a communist?

----------


## MallsRGood

> Are you a communist?


Who wrote this post for you?

----------


## timosman

> Who wrote this post for you?


I have a team of associates who create these posts and we submit them on various websites.

----------


## MallsRGood

> I have a team of associates who create these posts and we submit them on various websites.


Quality of life is important.

----------


## timosman

> Quality of life is important.


I know. I remember the time I had to do everything myself. It was terrible. I hope they assign a team to you because, frankly, your posts suck big time.

----------


## MallsRGood

> I know. I remember the time I had to do everything myself. It was terrible. I hope they assign a team to you because, frankly, your posts suck big time.


Well, gee whiz, what ever will I do..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So you agree with that Jefferson quote? As long as people come of their own accord, they should be allowed to immigrate to the USA without limit, and all be afforded citizenship?



No. why should we allow in people who will vote against us?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Your statement makes little sense.
> 
> Perhaps you should euthanize yourself.



Maybe you should learn to read, and or move to the 3rd world. I mean after all all people/cultures are equal and interchangable, right?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No. why should we allow in people who will vote against us?


Because you have no right not to. Your power stops at the property line of your own land. You don't get to control who I let on mine.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> It's funny how you didn't bold this part of that Jefferson quote:


It wasn't the emphasis of his argument? 

Most of what he wrote had to do with the dilemma of trying to maintain homogeny in principles when ideologies clashed due to untenable degrees of immigration. —Something open-border libertarians have absolutely NO idea how handle. (maybe that's why they keep getting 1-2% in elections, because they haven't figured out that the game is all about numbers)

Frankly, if I'd known you'd have hung up on those 14 words I neglected to bold, perhaps I would have, if it would have made you happy. I really don't think it damages osan's point. Good try though.

Whether it be 20,000,000 republican Americans in France. 500,000 Frenchmen in America. 10 million Mexicans dumped into the USA. millions of Arabs in Europe. It all causes unrest in the host country. Incrementally it could be manageable, if they come of their own accord, but I think we are a bit past the point of assimilation figures.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> It wasn't the emphasis of his argument?


But it qualified his argument. Emphasis or not, it totally contradicts the position you hold and tried to conscript him into.




> Most of what he wrote had to do with the dilemma of trying to maintain homogeny in principles when ideologies clashed due to untenable degrees of immigration. —Something open-border libertarians have absolutely NO idea how handle.


You mean open borders libertarians like Thomas Jefferson?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Because you have no right not to. Your power stops at the property line of your own land. You don't get to control who I let on mine.


So we have no right to self defense or self prevention, the foundation of rights? Thank you for proving how insane you and other open border zealots truly are.

Well when your actions burden or effect me, I get a say. Sorry but your ideas of an open border utopia is a shame.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> But it qualified his argument. Emphasis or not, it totally contradicts the position you hold and tried to conscript him into.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean open borders libertarians like Thomas Jefferson?


People like you could turn a Big mac as an excuse/jusifcation for open borders.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> So we have no right to self defense or self prevention


Of course you have a right to self defense and self preservation. But that right doesn't entail the right to boss around other people concerning whom they may or may not allow on their property, or rent or sell property to, or hire as employees, etc.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> People like you could turn a Big mac as an excuse/jusifcation for open borders.


You probably meant that ironically. But actually, I'm sure that there are plenty of ways that the sale of Big Macs could illustrate the value of free trade.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Of course you have a right to self defense and self preservation. But that right doesn't entail the right to boss around other people concerning whom they may or may not allow on their property, or rent or sell property to, or hire as employees, etc.


When I am effect by their actions, yes I do have that right.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You probably meant that ironically. But actually, I'm sure that there are plenty of ways that the sale of Big Macs could illustrate the value of free trade.


Thank you for making my point...

----------


## Superfluous Man

> When I am effect by their actions, yes I do have that right.


No you don't. Not until their actions directly violate your rights (not just vaguely "affect" you), do you have the right to use coercion against someone else.

----------


## timosman

> No you don't. Not until their actions directly violate your rights (not just vaguely "affect" you), do you have the right to use coercion against someone else.


So how many kidnapped people are you hiding in your basement?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> No you don't. Not until their actions directly violate your rights (not just vaguely "affect" you), do you have the right to use coercion against someone else.


Increase the cost of living
Lowering the standard of living
Increasing crime
Increasing poverty
Increasing taxes
And, oh yeah, VOTING IN MARXISTS.

All of those things are a clear burden/threat/act of aggression.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> So how many kidnapped people are you hiding in your basement?



Are clones of Taylor Swift legally people?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from


That sounds better than government, but, what if your neighbor is an idiot who sponsors a bunch of Jihadis? We have those liberal types whose minds have melted.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That sounds better than government, but, what if your neighbor is an idiot who sponsors a bunch of Jihadis? We have those liberal types whose minds have melted.


And is why you have ban some groups of people from entering the nation as a whole...

----------


## tod evans

> And is why you have ban some groups of people from entering the nation as a whole...


Good God!

"Banning" requires government you $#@!ing dense and repetitive imbecile, the same exact government that has flown, shipped and bused in foreigners by the thousands for decades.

Is this the government you actually think you can make do your bidding?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Good God!
> 
> "Banning" requires government you $#@!ing dense and repetitive imbecile, the same exact government that has flown, shipped and bused in foreigners by the thousands for decades.
> 
> Is this the government you actually think you can make do your bidding?


Hmm. That's a good point. However, the government did exactly what I wanted with the 1924 immigration act. The reason the government is out of control is because people are stupid multiculturalists and elected stupid multiculturalists so of course the government is doing that. Also, the Japanese government looks out for its people too. 

I just don't see an alternative. The arguments arguing property rights don't make total sense.

----------


## tod evans

> Hmm. That's a good point. However, the government did exactly what I wanted with the 1924 immigration act. The reason the government is out of control is because people are stupid multiculturalists and elected stupid multiculturalists so of course the government is doing that. Also, the Japanese government looks out for its people too. 
> 
> I just don't see an alternative. The arguments arguing property rights don't make total sense.


Look man, government is a very expensive cudgel..........

You have the option of trying to bludgeon your foes with that cudgel or throwing it out to sea while it's in your hands...

I know it's tempting to want to beat your foes after being beaten for the last number of years but how often do you have the option of throwing out the cudgel?

Only advice I have if you want to use the cudgel then kill your foe don't just beat him to where he can heal and take back the cudgel...

Far less fighting when there're no weapons to use, throw the cudgel of government out to sea, especially where social issues come into play. Repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to ferry, fly or bus foreigners into the US, repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to use tax money to support immigrants AND the native born. Defund every agency involved and make reinstating such lunacy treasonous.

Government is only a cudgel because everybody wants to take from others... Stop it!

----------


## osan

> Far less fighting when there're no weapons to use, throw the cudgel of government out to sea


Sure, but those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't.

Git me point?

----------


## otherone

> Repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to ferry, fly or bus foreigners into the US, repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to use tax money to support immigrants AND the native born. Defund every agency involved and make reinstating such lunacy treasonous.


This.  The answer to government-created problems is less government, not more.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Good God!
> 
> "Banning" requires government you $#@!ing dense and repetitive imbecile, the same exact government that has flown, shipped and bused in foreigners by the thousands for decades.
> 
> Is this the government you actually think you can make do your bidding?


And we can force said government to stop and reverse the flow. The government is a like a gun, in the right hands, OUR hands, it can do wonders for us. In the Wrong hands (anyone`s but ours) it can be a weapon used against us. Its  a tool that obeys the will of those who wield it, that is why we should be the ones in control of it, as to limit it its size and usage.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Hmm. That's a good point. However, the government did exactly what I wanted with the 1924 immigration act. The reason the government is out of control is because people are stupid multiculturalists and elected stupid multiculturalists so of course the government is doing that. Also, the Japanese government looks out for its people too. 
> 
> I just don't see an alternative. The arguments arguing property rights don't make total sense.


And what better what to starve those bastards then to STOP IMPORTING hostile cultures/peoples, etc? Stave them for votes.

Because its just nonsense. If we do not limit immigration the millions of low IQ hordes will elect more marxists who will allow in even more immigration, creating a permanent leftist majority and then you can kiss your property rights, gun rights, wealth, future goodbye. See NY or CA.








> Look man, government is a very expensive cudgel..........
> 
> You have the option of trying to bludgeon your foes with that cudgel or throwing it out to sea while it's in your hands...


Or we can bludgeon them to death, then get rid of it. You never take this option to consideration. Pinochet did this to great effect.

Take control of the super state, use to to "remove" marxists, then dis mantel said super state.






> I know it's tempting to want to beat your foes after being beaten for the last number of years but how often do you have the option of throwing out the cudgel?
> 
> Only advice I have if you want to use the cudgel then kill your foe don't just beat him to where he can heal and take back the cudgel...
> 
> Far less fighting when there're no weapons to use, throw the cudgel of government out to sea, especially where social issues come into play. Repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to ferry, fly or bus foreigners into the US, repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to use tax money to support immigrants AND the native born. Defund every agency involved and make reinstating such lunacy treasonous.
> 
> Government is only a cudgel because everybody wants to take from others... Stop it!


Peace was never and option. The left will not stop until we are dead or they are so they clearly have to go. At a min destroy vestiges of their power, if not deportation.

We are planning to end the left once and for all.










> Sure, but those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't.
> 
> Git me point?





> This.  The answer to government-created problems is less government, not more.


But we can do this if we are importing millions of people that vote for a government that gives them "free" things.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Look man, government is a very expensive cudgel..........
> 
> You have the option of trying to bludgeon your foes with that cudgel or throwing it out to sea while it's in your hands...
> 
> I know it's tempting to want to beat your foes after being beaten for the last number of years but how often do you have the option of throwing out the cudgel?


I see your point. 





> Only advice I have if you want to use the cudgel then kill your foe don't just beat him to where he can heal and take back the cudgel...


That sounds like a Hitleresque dictatorship which I do not support. But I understand your logic. 




> Far less fighting when there're no weapons to use, throw the cudgel of government out to sea, especially where social issues come into play. Repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to ferry, fly or bus foreigners into the US, repeal every law/order or edict that permits government to use tax money to support immigrants AND the native born. Defund every agency involved and make reinstating such lunacy treasonous.


Of course I agree with that. That is my goal. 




> Government is only a cudgel because everybody wants to take from others... Stop it!


I am the opposition from people who want to steal from us. I naturally oppose this.

----------


## tod evans

> And we can force said government to stop and reverse the flow. *The government is a like a gun, in the right hands, OUR hands, it can do wonders for us*. In the Wrong hands (anyone`s but ours) it can be a weapon used against us. Its  a tool that obeys the will of those who wield it, that is why we should be the ones in control of it, as to limit it its size and usage.





> And what better what to starve those bastards then to STOP IMPORTING hostile cultures/peoples, etc? Stave them for votes.
> 
> Because its just nonsense. If we do not limit immigration the millions of low IQ hordes will elect more marxists who will allow in even more immigration, creating a permanent leftist majority and then you can kiss your property rights, gun rights, wealth, future goodbye. See NY or CA.
> 
> *Or we can bludgeon them to death*, then get rid of it. You never take this option to consideration. Pinochet did this to great effect.
> 
> *Take control of the super state, use to to "remove"* marxists, then dis mantel said super state.
> 
> *Peace was never and option*. The left will not stop until we are dead or they are so they clearly have to go. At a min destroy vestiges of their power, if not deportation.
> ...

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> 


You must spread some reputation around before giving it to todd evans again.

----------


## otherone

> 


cuckface

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Are you going somewhere with this line of questioning?





> Is this a new troll strategy? 
> 
> How to take over a web forum:
> 
> Suggest euthanasia to the opposing members....Profit!





> Are you a communist?





> People like you could turn a Big mac as an excuse/jusifcation for open borders.





> And what better what to starve those bastards then to STOP IMPORTING hostile cultures/peoples, etc? Stave them for votes.
> 
> Or we can bludgeon them to death, then get rid of it. You never take this option to consideration. Pinochet did this to great effect.
> 
> We are planning to end the left once and for all.


 @osan - You're aligning yourself with intellectual chimpanzees.

----------


## timosman

> @osan - You're aligning yourself with intellectual chimpanzees.


This definitely should be avoided.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Or we can bludgeon them to death, then get rid of it. You never take this option to consideration. Pinochet did this to great effect.
> 
> Take control of the super state, use to to "remove" marxists, then dis mantel said super state.


JRR Tolkien dedicated his life's work to dispelling this fallacious notion.  In his work of fiction, you're extremely well suited to portray the character, "Boromir".

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> This definitely should be avoided.


ooh ooh, aah aah

----------


## timosman

> ooh ooh, aah aah


I am not crazy, I just post stupid $#@! on the internets.

----------


## osan

> @osan - You're aligning yourself with intellectual chimpanzees.


Care to elaborate?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> 



As always, you have no real answers, and follow thru with the classic leftist reactions, screaming "racist" or screaming "WOW JUST WOW". We have moved above and beyond you. If people like you try and derail us we will treat you as what you are, a burden at best, a threat at worse.

Go read Hoppe and listen to Cantwell`s show.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> @osan - You're aligning yourself with intellectual chimpanzees.


And yet WE are winning. Never forget that. So just sit on the hills you have selected to die upon and let us do the winning, ok? OK, alright then.

----------


## jmdrake

> Or we can bludgeon them to death, then get rid of it. You never take this option to consideration. Pinochet did this to great effect.
> 
> Take control of the super state, use to to "remove" marxists, then dis mantel said super state.


One can only hope that if this happens that you and your children are mistaken to be "marxists."

----------


## otherone

> One can only hope that if this happens that you and your children are mistaken to be "marxists."


Usually I ignore his posts, but in reading your reply, this comment was poignant: 
_ "Take control of the super state, use to to "remove" marxists, then dis mantel said super state."_

This "strategy" is identical to the _Communist Manifesto_.  The idea that decentralization of authority (liberty) can be achieved through centralization of authority is ludicrous.

----------


## tod evans

> As always, you have no real answers, and follow thru with the classic leftist reactions, screaming "racist" or screaming "WOW JUST WOW". We have moved above and beyond you. If people like you try and derail us we will treat you as what you are, a burden at best, a threat at worse.
> 
> Go read Hoppe and listen to Cantwell`s show.


I didn't try to provide "answers" to your demented prose, why would I, there were no questions merely the ramblings of an authoritarian big government shill. 

My only wish is that your low IQ and ignorance would be as painful for you to exhibit as it is for those who read it.

----------


## osan

> And yet WE are winning. Never forget that. So just sit on the hills you have selected to die upon and let us do the winning, ok? OK, alright then.


Who are "we"?

What are they "winning"?

None of that is clear, no matter who "we" are.  Not at this point.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Care to elaborate?


I do, but I don't have much free time at the moment.  In the meantime, I give you...




> And yet WE are winning. Never forget that. So just sit on the hills you have selected to die upon and let us do the winning, ok? OK, alright then.


...as an example.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> One can only hope that if this happens that you and your children are mistaken to be "marxists."


Why would I be? More over we would go after the high ranking Marxists, without leadership the ankle biters will at best do nothing but whine. Google what Pinochet did.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Usually I ignore his posts, but in reading your reply, this comment was poignant: 
> _ "Take control of the super state, use to to "remove" marxists, then dis mantel said super state."_
> 
> This "strategy" is identical to the _Communist Manifesto_.  The idea that decentralization of authority (liberty) can be achieved through centralization of authority is ludicrous.


No, we are merely using the state to destroy our enemies BEFORE they use it to destroy us, then limiting the power of the state before it is rustled away from us to be used against us,






> I didn't try to provide "answers" to your demented prose, why would I, there were no questions merely the ramblings of an authoritarian big government shill. 
> 
> My only wish is that your low IQ and ignorance would be as painful for you to exhibit as it is for those who read it.



Because you do not have any answers.






> Who are "we"?
> 
> What are they "winning"?
> 
> None of that is clear, no matter who "we" are.  Not at this point.



We on the new/alt right. 

We are winning in elections, alt media, cultural issues/war and just growing at a massive rate.







> I do, but I don't have much free time at the moment.  In the meantime, I give you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...as an example.


Its ok, you are just losing.

----------


## tod evans

> Because you do not have any answers.


No lad, like I said you have failed to pose a question.

----------


## otherone

> No, we are merely using the state to destroy our enemies BEFORE they use it to destroy us, then limiting the power of the state before it is rustled away from us to be used against us,


Why limit it then?  It could be used to remove cripples and those who carry the "retard gene".
Oh...wait.  Never mind.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Why limit it then?  It could be used to remove cripples and those who carry the "retard gene".
> Oh...wait.  Never mind.


That is not an argument nor the topic.

----------


## osan

> We on the new/alt right.


Does that term have a reasonably rigorous definition?  I really don't even know what it means.  The innuendo seems to bias towards liberty, but I'm not in possession of a real definition.




> We are winning in elections, alt media, cultural issues/war and just growing at a massive rate.


Could be a good start, but how many on the so-called "alt-right" understand freedom properly?  If the alt-right ends up as nothing better than advocates of a strong state, however pared back, then what have we bought... unless we take those gains as mere steps toward a more completely thought out goal.  And where is the plan?  Waging the battle in ad hoc, seat of the pants fashion is not the way to wage this war, and be sure that it is indeed warfare.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Does that term have a reasonably rigorous definition?  I really don't even know what it means.  The innuendo seems to bias towards liberty, but I'm not in possession of a real definition.
>  ]We are winning in elections, alt media, cultural issues/war and just growing at a massive rate.
> 
> Could be a good start, but how many on the so-called "alt-right" understand freedom properly?


http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/w...-right-is.html

They understand that some groups do not understand it, can not understand it because of their cultural mores or their low IQ, and if they are not kept out will destroy us and Freedom along with us.

If you understand and value something, you would logical have to defend it. 

We support property rights, freedom of association, privacy rights, sound money, term limits, limiting the power of the courts, non interventionism, properly worked vouchers/school choice ( no strings attached as the government can not force itself in education) Pro national sovereignty, anti internationalism, and the most pro gun faction in existence.

----------


## osan

> http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/w...-right-is.html


Some elements are OK-ish, some not so OK, and some scary.

Note how "freedom" is mentioned nowhere.  FAIL.  

This strikes me as more of the same old $#@!.

I would also like to know where these defining elements came from in the sense of authority to be there.  This looks like one man's opinion on the matter, which is fine so far as that goes.  I would, however, take the description with a boulder of salt.

Points 7, 8, and 9 are particularly failsome.




> If you understand and value something, you would logical have to defend it.


I don't have a problem with "nationalism" per sé, but in practice it has proven beyond men's will to remain rational and reasoned.




> We support property rights, freedom of association, privacy rights, sound money, term limits, limiting the power of the courts, non interventionism, properly worked vouchers/school choice ( no strings attached as the government can not force itself in education) Pro national sovereignty, anti internationalism, and the most pro gun faction in existence.


That is not made overly clear on the page you cite.  I read tons of possibly strident nationalism.  Some of it is reasonable, but I see the potential aplenty to run amok in short order.  What I read there is scarier than it is anything else because I know how humans behave and have absolutely zero basis for confidence that they would do anything better this time.

Freedom is the only way forward that does not promise misery, poverty, destruction, and death.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> @<u><a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=25257" target="_blank">osan</a></u> - You're aligning yourself with intellectual chimpanzees.


because multiculturalism is working brilliantly as planned by the left? 

I don't understand why many libertarians agree with the globalists on this important issue. Talk to this girl:

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Some elements are OK-ish, some not so OK, and some scary.
> 
> Note how "freedom" is mentioned nowhere.  FAIL.  
> 
> This strikes me as more of the same old $#@!.
> 
> I would also like to know where these defining elements came from in the sense of authority to be there.  This looks like one man's opinion on the matter, which is fine so far as that goes.  I would, however, take the description with a boulder of salt.
> 
> Points 7, 8, and 9 are particularly failsome.
> ...


And marxism or open borders is rational or reasoned?

Nationalism works, the only reason it failed was the leadership, not the concept or the people.

Well you have reason to think this, we are in for a correction, the time to do this without pain or stain is over with. Do not blame us for what is about to happen, we were not in charge to prevent it, but we now have to fix the legion of mistakes and damage that was carried out in "our name" or "for the greater good"..

Now who is being naive? Misery, poverty etc will always happen and be apart of the human condition. If such of those things is required to create or protect freedom so be it.

----------


## otherone

> Nationalism works, the only reason it failed was the leadership, not the concept or the people.


Nationalism is the creation of the Rothschilds. The only beneficiaries are the ruling oligarchs and the banks that support them.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Nationalism is the creation of the Rothschilds.


I never heard that one. I will look into it but I will appreciate if you can give me a source for this. 




> The only beneficiaries are the ruling oligarchs and the banks that support them.


Its true the powerful benefit a lot by dominating nationalist democracies. However, I believe everyone benefits under nationalism. At least we the people are not screwed over by the money grubbing elite who bring in foreigners for a few extra bucks.

----------


## otherone

> I never heard that one. I will look into it but I will appreciate if you can give me a source for this. 
> 
> 
> 
> Its true the powerful benefit a lot by dominating nationalist democracies. However, I believe everyone benefits under nationalism. At least we the people are not screwed over by the money grubbing elite who bring in foreigners for a few extra bucks.


You can do your own research.  You can start with the push for nationalism that occurred in the 19th century after Napoleon, question why all the European flags look similar, and who had the most to gain from toppling the church-dominated power structure.

 "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
-Napoleon 

It is no coincidence that the Civil War took place during this push.  Centralization of power is always a win for banking interests.  Wars can not be fought without banks.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You can do your own research.


Alright. 




> "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
> -Napoleon 
> 
> It is no coincidence that the Civil War took place during this push.  Centralization of power is always a win for banking interests.  Wars can not be fought without banks.


I know. This is the reason I am against the federal reserve.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nationalism is the creation of the Rothschilds. The only beneficiaries are the ruling oligarchs and the banks that support them.


No, it was not. God you lie so much.

----------


## osan

> And marxism or open borders is rational or reasoned?


Firstly, one ought not put words into the mouths of others.

Secondly, two wrongs don't make a right, even if three rights make a left.




> Nationalism works, the only reason it failed was the leadership, not the concept or the people.


Nationalism tends to fail because people take it too far, universally at the behest of "leaders".  To marginalize "leadership" as you do here by not-that-subtle innuendo is to ignore reality.  It is precisely because the average man is a Weakman that leaders have almost universal power of those they ostensibly serve.  They are the masters and the rest are in servitude.  That is the practical reality, all words, titles, and other purports to the contrary notwithstanding.




> Well you have reason to think this, we are in for a correction, the time to do this without pain or stain is over with.


Agreed.




> Do not blame us for what is about to happen, we were not in charge to prevent it, but we now have to fix the legion of mistakes and damage that was carried out in "our name" or "for the greater good"..


I blame every one of us.  I blame every American since 1789.  I blame the Framers for foisting this hideous federalism upon us.  It may have been the best for which we could hope in the context of the rest of the world, so I cannot hold them in too great a contempt, save perhaps for that traitorous Hamilton.

But we have all been to blame for failing to murder those who have been violating us for 229 years.  The justices in Marbury should have been apprehended and executed on the spot.  Had we responded to usurpation and tyranny with blood-thirsty murder from the beginning, you'd better bet your ass we would be in a better condition than this.  But that required knowledge, attitude, and courage, neither of which have ever been present here in sufficient measure.  Recall the 3%, the 97% having spent their time sitting on the fence, American flag in one hand, British in the other.

So yeah, we are to blame, Alt-Righters included.  You know whom I do not blame?  The Freemen, Randy Weaver, the guy down in Texas whose name escapes me, and all others who stood tall against the tyrants, virtually all of whom have been murdered by Themme.

We need a different system; one where those in "government" suffer ruined health from the fear they experience at the very thought that so much as the appearance of impropriety might end them up in a dank, horrific prison cell for years.  What's the chance of that happening?  Slim at best, methinks, and yet we need this more than anything else, politically speaking.




> Now who is being naive? Misery, poverty etc will always happen and be apart of the human condition. If such of those things is required to create or protect freedom so be it.


I made no mention of eliminating the "down-side" of life.  Indeed, I have no desire for such an impossible goal, but only that of artificially introduced instances, which comprises the vast and overwhelming majority of all such occurrences, mostly by "government".  Government is the main culprit in the broad condition of human poverty.  Government is culpable for the vast majority of murder, the rest comprising a vanishingly small drop in the bucket.  Government accounts for a similar proportion of theft.  Government contributions to destruction and misery dwarfs all the rest combined by a ratio of perhaps thousands to one.

Eliminate government contribution to the pool of human miseries and that body of wretchedness shrinks away to ready manageability.  I can see valid roles for "government" in this horribly mangled world, relating back to my references to lowest common denominator in terms of international aggressions, but those holding such positions should literally quake in their shoes with terror as they discharge their duties for fear of mis-stepping, breathing sighs of deep and welcome relief when their tenures come up, holding no desire for a repeat performance.  That would be the better order of things; the vastly better order.

Humanity is its own worst enemy.  In my entire lifetime, the ONLY thing that has ever damaged me was another human being.

----------


## timosman

> Nationalism is the creation of the Rothschilds. The only beneficiaries are the ruling oligarchs and the banks that support them.


Is your helmet too tight?

----------


## otherone

> No, it was not. God you lie so much.


You are starting to smell like a sockpuppet.

----------


## otherone

> Is your helmet too tight?


lol.
Take off the sunglasses and pick up a book.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> You are starting to smell like a sockpuppet.


So what would it take for you to get on my helicopter?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> We on the new/alt right.





> Does that term have a reasonably rigorous definition?


Yes. It's a euphemism for white nationalism.




> Could be a good start, but how many on the so-called "alt-right" understand freedom properly?


Zero. They don't want freedom at all.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Yes. It's a euphemism for white nationalism.


What is the reason you reject white nationalism?




> Zero. They don't want freedom at all.


Do you have any proof to back that up?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Nationalism tends to fail because people take it too far, universally at the behest of "leaders".  To marginalize "leadership" as you do here by not-that-subtle innuendo is to ignore reality.  It is precisely because the average man is a Weakman that leaders have almost universal power of those they ostensibly serve.  They are the masters and the rest are in servitude.  That is the practical reality, all words, titles, and other purports to the contrary notwithstanding.


You're thinking about fascism. America was a nationalistic country in the past and it didn't result in fascism. Japan is a nationalist country today and its good. 

I don't know why people are against nationalism. Nationalism to me is just putting our country first and rejecting liberalism.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> What is the reason you reject white nationalism?


Because I support freedom.





> Do you have any proof to back that up?


Yes. Everything the alt-right propounds as its agenda backs it up.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> You're thinking about fascism. America was a nationalistic country in the past and it didn't result in fascism. Japan is a nationalist country today and its good. 
> 
> I don't know why people are against nationalism. Nationalism to me is just putting our country first and rejecting liberalism.


No. The nationalism you're talking about is liberalism, in the modern sense of that word.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Because I support freedom.


me too and I am in the alt right. 




> Yes. Everything the alt-right propounds as its agenda backs it up.


No offense, but I don't think you know what the alt-right is. Most of us want the government off our backs and are free market libertarians.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> You're thinking about fascism. America was a nationalistic country in the past and it didn't result in fascism. Japan is a nationalist country today and its good. 
> 
> I don't know why people are against nationalism. Nationalism to me is just putting our country first and rejecting liberalism.


Nationalism must always devolve into fascism because when your country is first, by definition everything else is second, people included.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> No. The nationalism you're talking about is liberalism, in the modern sense of that word.


How so?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> me too


No you don't.

You're a fraud. You chose your sn to make yourself look like you fit in here on the advice of your cohorts at stormfront, many of whom followed the exact same strategy.




> No offense, but I don't think you know what the alt-right is. Most of us want the government off our backs and are free market libertarians.


You want it off your backs and on other peoples'. You are not free market libertarians. Not by a long shot.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> How so?


Look at your examples. The ones that you yourself chose to mention.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Nationalism must always devolve into fascism because when your country is first, by definition everything else is second, people included.


I see your point. I agree that extreme nationalism is bad. There should be a little bit of a counterweight. But I don't see a better alternative to moderate nationalism. Again, by definition nationalism to me is putting your country first. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't put our country first and put other countries ahead of us or have open borders? That doesn't make much sense to me. Also, some food for thought, America was a nationalist country and it devolved into the total opposite up until Trumps election.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> No you don't.
> 
> You're a fraud. You chose your sn to make yourself look like you fit in here on the advice of your cohorts at stormfront, many of whom followed the exact same strategy.


Lets keep this civil and not resort to false accusations. 

Stormfronters are allowed to post here? lol. 




> You want it off your backs and on other peoples'. You are not free market libertarians. Not by a long shot.


Care to explain? Then why did white nationalists heavily support Dr. Ron Paul?

I think you need to read the history of conservatism and racism. Racists like the Founding fathers made this country.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Racists like the Founding fathers made this country.


And that's a good thing to you?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> And that's a good thing to you?


The constitution is a good thing, yes.

----------


## osan

> Yes. It's a euphemism for white nationalism.


How do you justify this claim?





> Zero. They don't want freedom at all.


And this?  What I have seen of those ID'ing as "Alt-Right", they seem to be interested in at least some aspects of freedom.  Perhaps you go too far.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Look at your examples. The ones that you yourself chose to mention.


Which ones are you speaking of? If you are talking about my support for a little regulation of the free market, then I guess you are right. But in my view you can be a libertarian and have a little regulation.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I see your point. I agree that extreme nationalism is bad. There should be a little bit of a counterweight.


You agree with whom? I sure don't agree with those sentences. ALL nationalism is bad. All nationalism is extreme. A little counterweight to nationalism is like leaning in towards a volcano with a little counterweight pulling you away from it. The biger the counterweight the better, but the ideal solution is to stop sticking your head in the volcano.




> But I don't see a better alternative to moderate nationalism. Again, by definition nationalism to me is putting your country first.


How about putting people first. Why is that something you haven't even thought of?




> Are you suggesting that we shouldn't put our country first and put other countries ahead of us or have open borders? That doesn't make much sense to me.


You know very well I didn't say that. If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop using deliberate misdirection.




> Also, some food for thought, America was a nationalist country and it devolved into the total opposite up until Trumps election.


Wrong. America was not a nationalist country till the Civil War; the founding documents are clear that all power and authority rests in individuals alone. Those individuals can collect their power into states and those states collected their power into a federation. Nationalism is not the opposite of globalism, it is the opposite of individualism.

----------


## osan

> You're thinking about fascism. America was a nationalistic country in the past and it didn't result in fascism. Japan is a nationalist country today and its good. 
> 
> I don't know why people are against nationalism. Nationalism to me is just putting our country first and rejecting liberalism.


What part of "tends" do you not grok?

Nationalism has not fared that well through history, but I did not say there was anything wrong with it, _in sé_.  In fact, I went to some effort to say otherwise.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Which ones are you speaking of? If you are talking about my support for a little regulation of the free market, then I guess you are right. But in my view you can be a libertarian and have a little regulation.


You can have a little regulation just like you can be a little pregnant.

----------


## otherone

> And this?  What I have seen of those ID'ing as "Alt-Right",_ they seem to be interested in at least some aspects of freedom._  Perhaps you go too far.


federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.

The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign.  They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You agree with whom?


You.




> I sure don't agree with those sentences. ALL nationalism is bad. All nationalism is extreme.


Do you think American nationalism was extreme up till the civil war?




> How about putting people first. Why is that something you haven't even thought of?


It is. That is why I am a nationalist. 

Liberalism/globalism is putting other countries ahead of our people and giving our hard earned tax money that we cant spare to other countries. Like Obamas philosophy. 




> You know very well I didn't say that. If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop using deliberate misdirection.


I didn't accuse you of saying it. It was a question. 




> Wrong. America was not a nationalist country till the Civil War; the founding documents are clear that all power and authority rests in individuals alone. Those individuals can collect their power into states and those states collected their power into a federation.


In my view, America still had nationalistic tendencies up till around the 1940s although not always. 




> Nationalism is not the opposite of globalism,


How come?




> it is the opposite of individualism.


I don't see how that is true but I understand why you may think that if you are talking about extreme nationalism like under Hitler which puts the state first. I am not that sort of nationalist.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> You can have a little regulation just like you can be a little pregnant.


Ill give you one example. Companies in China don't give a damn about the environment and that is why you have to wear a mask in Beijing because the smog is so bad. This is one of the few instances where I believe there should be gov regulation.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Ill give you one example. Companies in China don't give a damn about the environment and that is why you have to wear a mask in Beijing because the smog is so bad. This is one of the few instances where I believe there should be gov regulation.


Apparently no one has ever told you that China is a Communist country? They are not under-regulated I assure you.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.
> The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign.  They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.


Have you ever researched the alt-right? If what you said is true I would not be part of it. I want to downsize the fed gov dramatically. Most of the fed gov is worthless and abuses their power which I hate.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> They are not under-regulated I assure you.


I know. But why is there crazy amounts of smog?

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Nationalism has not fared that well through history,


It depends on the degree of nationalism IMO. fascist nationalism is always bad. Moderate nationalism was good for the United States and is good for Japan now. I just don't see anything wrong with being a light nationalist who does what is best for our people but at the same time doesn't worship the state and put it ahead of the people (fascism).




> but I did not say there was anything wrong with it, _in sé_.  In fact, I went to some effort to say otherwise.


I know.

----------


## otherone

> Have you ever researched the alt-right? If what you said is true I would not be part of it. I want to downsize the fed gov dramatically. Most of the fed gov is worthless and abuses their power which I hate.


Every proclamation of your "nationalism" is a pump on the federal vacu-jack.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> I know. But why is there crazy amounts of smog?


Because of their nationalism. If they ditched nationalism for individualism, each individual would have the incentive to keep the air they breath clean. The problem Communist China has is TOO MUCH government not too little. It's called the Moral Hazard.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Every proclamation of your "nationalism" is a pump on the federal vacu-jack.


Wouldn't you agree that being an American nationalist is following the constitution? 

I don't see any evidence to support your assertion.

----------


## osan

> federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.


Or perhaps just federally protected?

Just a thought.




> The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign.


Do you have evidence of this?  I have not noticed it as yet.  They _seem_ to be calling for the rights of men.  Granted, this is not a thing I am expert on so perhaps I have just missed the essentials.




> They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.


I could be mistaken, but this sounds a bit presumptuous.

----------


## Ron Paul in 2008

> Because of their nationalism. If they ditched nationalism for individualism, each individual would have the incentive to keep the air they breath clean. The problem Communist China has is TOO MUCH government not too little. It's called the Moral Hazard.


I read about moral hazard just now. I bookmarked your link and I will study it when I sign off. 

However, I have one objection. 

I just read the definition of individualism from Wikipedia:

"Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[1][2] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[3] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[3] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[3] Individualism is often defined in contrast to totalitarianism, collectivism and more corporate social forms.[4][5]"

The problem with the smog example I gave you is that people are not always perfect. Lots of them are immoral and they will ruin the environment for an extra buck. I don't see how there cant be a least a little government control to ensure they follow rules to not maximize profit but have clean air. And I do believe that you can be a nationalist and an individualist.

----------


## otherone

> Or perhaps just federally protected?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidence of this?  I have not noticed it as yet.  They _seem_ to be calling for the rights of men.  Granted, this is not a thing I am expert on so perhaps I have just missed the essentials.
> 
> 
> ...


They seem to be calling for the rights of _certain_ men.

----------


## osan

> They seem to be calling for the rights of _certain_ men.


Examples?  I have yet to see this.

Thus far I am seeing what appears as a textbook ID-based campaign; against alt-right because they are alt-right.  I am still not clear on who/what they are, but so far the words against them have been nothing more than buck-naked assertions.  If anyone can show me some convincing evidence that "alt-right" is what is being claimed, I will accept it.  Thus far, I keep asking and keep getting what seem to be deflections.

----------


## timosman

> Thus far, I keep asking and keep getting what seem to be deflections.


You are not the target audience for this PR effort.

----------


## otherone

> Examples?  I have yet to see this.
> 
> Thus far I am seeing what appears as a textbook ID-based campaign; against alt-right because they are alt-right.  I am still not clear on who/what they are, but so far the words against them have been nothing more than buck-naked assertions.  If anyone can show me some convincing evidence that "alt-right" is what is being claimed, I will accept it.  Thus far, I keep asking and keep getting what seem to be deflections.


Who's words do you consider to be exemplary of the "alt-right"?  Those who identify themselves as such here?  The alt-right believes that it is the responsibility of the federal government, as controlled by their inclinations, to alienate individuals from their rights, based on race, nationality, IQ, political leanings, culture, or anything else that does not align with their vision of America.  In doing so, they believe that everyone's rights of free association, free travel, and free markets should be violated.
Examples are manifest throughout this thread, and many others on RPF.  Their label is meaningless.  Their intent, as communicated through their own words, can not be misconstrued as being remotely friendly to liberty.

----------


## undergroundrr

> The alt-right believes that it is the responsibility of the federal government, as controlled by their inclinations, to alienate individuals from their rights, based on race, nationality, IQ, political leanings, culture, or anything else that does not align with their vision of America.  In doing so, they believe that everyone's rights of free association, free travel, and free markets should be violated.


This is well and succinctly put and applies to every argument I've seen about the issues that REALLY, REALLY concern the alt-right defenders (not to say self-identifiers) to the point of nail-biting hysteria. 

I know this video is a cliche now, but it applies directly to what they're calling for.




At its worst, a few here in their neuroses about Islamofascism have really gone full-circle to neoconland and seem to be ready to send their own kids to Syria.

----------


## otherone

> At its worst, a few here in their neuroses about Islamofascism have really gone full-circle to neoconland and seem to be ready to send their own kids to Syria.


More likely they'll cheer as a cop pulls me over to make sure I'm not transporting a beaner in my trunk.  I'm hoping that I'll have my papers in order, or at least my implanted chip is functioning correctly.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

The Autism on this thread is proof that libertarianism is a dead letter if not co opted by the left.

----------


## tod evans

> The Autism on this thread is proof that libertarianism is a dead letter if not co opted by the left.


Speaking of autism.......

I'm still waiting on you to ask questions Ace...

Come on buck up, try to start discourse if you're capable...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Autism on this thread is proof that libertarianism is a dead letter if not co opted by the left.


LOL  You realize this isn't actually a libertarian forum, yes? (despite being ironically named after a quite hardcore libertarian) Most of the actual libertarians that came to these forums over the years have either been banned or primarily participate in the off-topic/hot-topicish subforum places.

----------


## osan

> Who's words do you consider to be exemplary of the "alt-right"?  Those who identify themselves as such here?  The alt-right believes that it is the responsibility of the federal government, as controlled by their inclinations, to alienate individuals from their rights, based on race, nationality, IQ, political leanings, culture, or anything else that does not align with their vision of America.  In doing so, they believe that everyone's rights of free association, free travel, and free markets should be violated.
> Examples are manifest throughout this thread, and many others on RPF.  Their label is meaningless.  Their intent, as communicated through their own words, can not be misconstrued as being remotely friendly to liberty.


And once again you answer with no evidence other than your apparent opinion.

I don't know enough about "alt-right" to take anyone's word as exemplary.

It is as if people are pulling new words from their bootholes and the whole world takes them as somehow authoritative.  I suspect this sort of thing is primarily the product of noise campaigns designed to get people worked up in one direction of another.

The signal to noise ratio is so low in human communications anymore, I can barely believe anyone is able to order a fookin' pie from Pizza Hut (EEEeeeeewwww...) these days.

Humanity is an unmitigated, ambulatory disaster.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Speaking of autism.......
> 
> I'm still waiting on you to ask questions Ace...
> 
> Come on buck up, try to start discourse if you're capable...


Can you understand that if you import millions of people who will vote against your rights, you will lose your rights?

why import more welfare voters?




See how this works out? You lose everything if they are not kept out. But hey I guess you like losing.




> LOL  You realize this isn't actually a libertarian forum, yes? (despite being ironically named after a quite hardcore libertarian) Most of the actual libertarians that came to these forums over the years have either been banned or primarily participate in the off-topic/hot-topicish subforum places.



Shocking.....

----------


## otherone

> And once again you answer with no evidence other than your apparent opinion.


None, other than the words of those who identify themselves as alt-right.  Even within these fora.  Not sure what else you are looking for.  A manifesto?

Here's a primer:

http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/...-by-nick-land/

----------


## osan

> None, other than the words of those who identify themselves as alt-right.  Even within these fora.  Not sure what else you are looking for.  A manifesto?


I was thinking notable "personalities", but now that I think of it, this is the sort of political bullshittery that someone yanks from their butts and all of a sudden it's a "movement".  This is not so very much unlike  terms such as "trigger" and so forth.  Some douche wagon misuses it in this way or that and the surrounding landscape absorbs and regurgitates without the least thought given as to propriety, stupidity, or anything else carrying the risk of further intellectual atrophy.

----------


## otherone

> I was thinking notable "personalities", but now that I think of it, this is the sort of political bullshittery that someone yanks from their butts and all of a sudden it's a "movement".  This is not so very much unlike  terms such as "trigger" and so forth.  Some douche wagon misuses it in this way or that and the surrounding landscape absorbs and regurgitates without the least thought given as to propriety, stupidity, or anything else carrying the risk of further intellectual atrophy.


Actually, you are describing the origin of nearly every human endeavor, especially as history revisions it's endeavors.

----------


## osan

> Actually, you are describing the origin of nearly every human endeavor, especially as history revisions it's endeavors.


Perhaps, but the degree of it is beyond the pale in ways never before imagined.

What makes me laugh is how the "left" call the rest "intolerant".  Their stupidity is so overwhelming and toxic that the fact the rest of us have not murdered them in all manner of unspeakable and freakishly horrid ways speaks in bold defiance to their dull-witted accusation.

----------


## TheCount

> No, we are merely using the state to destroy our enemies BEFORE they use it to destroy us, then limiting the power of the state before it is rustled away from us to be used against us


I've heard this argument before... when it was used to support passage of the PATRIOT Act.

If you wouldn't mind, please name for us all of times in the history of the United States when this actually happened... when the government was temporarily granted a power to defeat some (imaginary) enemy, and then later relinquished that power before using that power against the people as a whole.

----------


## otherone

> Perhaps, but the degree of it is beyond the pale in ways never before imagined.
> 
> What makes me laugh is how the "left" call the rest "intolerant".  Their stupidity is so overwhelming and toxic that the fact the rest of us have not murdered them in all manner of unspeakable and freakishly horrid ways speaks in bold defiance to their dull-witted accusation.


Yes.
Propaganda in the "Information" Age.  Ironic, the offspring of the Age of "Enlightenment".

----------


## tod evans

> Can you understand that if you import millions of people who will vote against your rights, you will lose your rights?.


Quite a simple concept, hence easy to "understand".

Now you show me where I have ever advocated importing even one voter let alone millions.




> why import more welfare voters?
> .


Why would you? 

This is not something I have ever promoted.





> See how this works out? .


What?

You making false and unsubstantiated accusations?





> You lose everything if they are not kept out. But hey I guess you like losing..


What have I supposedly "lost"? 

Once again you insist on attributing actions or beliefs to me when I have never expressed them. What kind of a special idiot keeps on in that vein? 







> Shocking.....


No your behavior isn't "shocking" in the least, in fact it's quite typical of a spoiled child who has been told how wonderful they are their entire life when they discover the real world doesn't find them special or even remotely interesting. Running around bleating like a goat with a cob up its ass time and again without substance is more typical than "shocking". You're nothing special, in fact I'd bet good money the sub 100 IQ people you carry on about could pose more logical and convincing arguments.

Now go find me advocating for importing anyone or sit down and shut the $#@! up with your tiresome rhetoric..

----------


## otherone

> Now you show me where I have ever advocated _importing_ even one voter let alone millions.


That participle is the strawman that nativists enjoy torching.  That, and immigrants bypassing naturalization on their race to the ballot box.

----------


## tod evans

> That participle is the strawman that nativists enjoy torching.  That, and immigrants bypassing naturalization on their race to the ballot box.


That particular boy seems to be 'bout half a bubble off to begin with, one of those who are capable of whipping themselves into a frenzy and then trying to hang their antics on another....

There's probably some psych term to describe such behavior but I'm not interested enough to look it up..

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Quite a simple concept, hence easy to "understand".
> 
> Now you show me where I have ever advocated importing even one voter let alone millions.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you? 
> 
> This is not something I have ever promoted.
> ...



You lost a massive amount of wealth and freedoms thanks to adding 60 million people via post 1965 immigration.

You are really mad that you can not make a case against voter displacement via mass immigration. 

If you look at the home nation of those sub 100 IQ people you would see they lack the brain power to have much logic or debates, that and their voting habits prove it. How can you be logical if you support marxism, a proven failure?

Aww...Whats wrong? Resorting to name calling? I get it, you are suffering from autism and context Blindness. Its ok. We are going to do the winning for you, build the wall, deport them all, limit legal immigration and restrict voting rights as to protect and restore Liberty.

To you oppose or support mass immigration? Yes or No?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> That participle is the strawman that nativists enjoy torching.  That, and immigrants bypassing naturalization on their race to the ballot box.





> That particular boy seems to be 'bout half a bubble off to begin with, one of those who are capable of whipping themselves into a frenzy and then trying to hang their antics on another....
> 
> There's probably some psych term to describe such behavior but I'm not interested enough to look it up..


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...re-its-all-to/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.ddf16045f085

Yeah, its not like they vote while illegal or after they become citizens, right?

----------


## tod evans

> You lost a massive amount of wealth and freedoms thanks to adding 60 million people via post 1965 immigration.
> 
> You are really mad that you can not make a case against voter displacement via mass immigration. 
> 
> If you look at the home nation of those sub 100 IQ people you would see they lack the brain power to have much logic or debates, that and their voting habits prove it. How can you be logical if you support marxism, a proven failure?
> 
> Aww...Whats wrong? Resorting to name calling? I get it, you are suffering from autism and context Blindness. Its ok. We are going to do the winning for you, build the wall, deport them all, limit legal immigration and restrict voting rights as to protect and restore Liberty.
> 
> To you oppose or support mass immigration? Yes or No?


English $#@!, use it to communicate.

I set forth a pretty simple task for you and once again you failed. 

Try as you may to attribute your failings or follies to me or anybody else it'll only serve to shine light on your empty rhetoric.

As to your only query;



> To you oppose or support mass immigration?


I do not support ANY government action regarding immigration other than that which takes place on Ellis Island and I'd be okay with ending that too. 

I do not support big government for your causes or anybody elses cause.

Now go back and find where I advocated importing voters or admit you're a lying piece of $#@! who is unable to couch an argument.

----------


## pcosmar

> *So We Anti Globalists Are now xenophobic Nationalists.*


Some are.
I oppose it for spiritual reason,, and recognize the futility at the same time.
I remain opposed to satan's plan. 

It won't change anything though.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I've heard this argument before... when it was used to support passage of the PATRIOT Act.
> 
> If you wouldn't mind, please name for us all of times in the history of the United States when this actually happened... when the government was temporarily granted a power to defeat some (imaginary) enemy, and then later relinquished that power before using that power against the people as a whole.



How long do you intend to keep up this charade?  Until your replacement?  People like you love government.  You help to build government.  You build it in one area, only to complain when it grows in a another area.  Go back to DU and educate all your friends.

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> How long do you intend to keep up this charade?  Until your replacement?  People like you love government.  You help to build government.  You build it in one area, only to complain when it grows in a another area.  Go back to DU and educate all your friends.



They do not understand that displacement is their end.

----------


## TheCount

> They do not understand that displacement is their end.


Nobody has displaced me.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> They do not understand that displacement is their end.


Displacement, like if I choose to sell my house to someone, they displaced me?

----------


## Ender

> I've heard this argument before... when it was used to support passage of the PATRIOT Act.
> 
> If you wouldn't mind, please name for us all of times in the history of the United States when this actually happened... when the government was temporarily granted a power to defeat some (imaginary) enemy, and then later relinquished that power before using that power against the people as a whole.


Never have- never will. The income tax was only supposed to be for a short time- look what happened to that.

Here's Ron Paul on the Patriot Act still prying into everyone's lives:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...13#post6440413

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Nobody has displaced me.



Keep telling yourself that. Its not like any illegals voted in this or any other election or newly naturalized people "just in time" to vote for Clinton, right?

----------


## RestorationOfLiberty

> Displacement, like if I choose to sell my house to someone, they displaced me?



No, like allowing in millions of people who do not share the same culture, values, not against your rights. Maybe you should learn be fore posting.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> No, like allowing in millions of people who do not share the same culture, values, not against your rights. Maybe you should learn be fore posting.


I do still need to learn a lot.

For instance, I can't make any sense out of your first sentence.

----------


## merkelstan

> federally-authorized, federally-mandated, federally-regulated, federally-dispensed freedom.
> 
> The alt-right believes the federal government is sovereign.  They just use the words "nation" and "country" instead.


The term "nation" does not equal "state".  Whether a newish country like the USA really is a nation is up to debate.  Older European countries on the other hand are/were definitely nations, which are being destroyed.

----------

