# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?

## LibertyEagle

> We are where we are. Either mass-immigration must be stopped with the means currently at hand, or it will not be stopped. This means passports and visas, and agencies empowered to seek out and return those who slip through the first line of immigration control. Where the refugees in Calais are concerned, it means deporting them to the last non-European country they left, and making sure that no more of them are allowed to reach the northern shores of the Mediterranean.
> 
> This is, I hasten to add, only part of the solution. Our governments must also stop turning much of the Third World into slagheaps soaked in human blood. They must stop veering between support of local tyrants and their more recent insistence on forms of government inappropriate to actual conditions. They must, so far as possible, leave other peoples to work out their own destinies in their own ways. This will, I have no doubt, reduce the outward push behind the migrants. Even so, we must secure our own borders.
> 
> Now, for many of those libertarians who accept the existence of a problem, this solution is itself a problem. An ideology that cannot be followed in extreme cases must be a false ideology. If the non-aggression principle is not to be consistently applied, is it worth applying at all?
> 
> I appreciate the difficulty. At the same time, it is a manufactured difficulty. It would not have been recognised as a difficulty by most of our intellectual ancestors. If many libertarians, when they think about mass-immigration, are now beginning to look like scared ostriches, or the more double-joined Indian fakirs, this is not because of any defect in the libertarian fundamentals. It is because, over the past few decades, libertarianism has been re-interpreted in ways that part company with reality. To be specific, the non-aggression principle has been raised from something to be desired within circumstantial constraints to an abstract and absolute imperative. If the only legitimate use of force is to protect individual rights, all other uses of force are illegitimate, and must be rejected out of hand by libertarians.
> 
> Let us consider how distant this imperative is from reality.


more....

----------


## Ronin Truth

Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.

----------


## rg17

I believe in moderately strong borders.

----------


## Dr.3D

Open borders is what those working toward a one world government would like to see.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.


But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.

----------


## fisharmor

> But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.


...Yes?  Is that all you need?  Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?

If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.

But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.

----------


## Dr.3D

> But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.


Thing is, it won't fail the way they think it would.  One must look at the reality of the situation and respect the fact there will never be NO government.

----------


## Rad

I don't think its the immigrants that people are really angry about. Its economic inequality perpetrated by the system. We have a cradle to grave system that is designed to manufacture human beings for use by government and business (youtube: "John Taylor Gatto"). I think immigration is more free than our economic system. I think they should be in balance otherwise doesn't harm come to those who can not game the system thus violating the no harm principle? Isn't that what people are really angry about?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> ...Yes?  Is that all you need?  Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?
> 
> If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.
> 
> But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.


No, I know some of you don't.  And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.

Just making sure everyone else knows where some of you stand and what you are about.  Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Thing is, it won't fail the way they think it would.  One must look at the reality of the situation and respect the fact there will never be NO government.


True.  That is why they are useful idiots.

----------


## Dr.3D

> True.  That is why they are useful idiots.


Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another form of government.  One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't last very long.  Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain anarchy and fights to keep it, would become the government they despise.

----------


## fisharmor

> No, I know some of you don't.  And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.


You don't post about liberty here.  You don't post about freedom.
All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
You don't fear the county that would come in after.  You fear losing the county you have.
If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's _your_ cage.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You don't post about liberty here.  You don't post about freedom.
> All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
> You don't fear the county that would come in after.  You fear losing the county you have.
> If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
> But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's _your_ cage.


Maybe some feel it's better to try to fix what we already have, rather than hope we get something better from the rubble of a collapse.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You don't post about liberty here.  You don't post about freedom.
> All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
> You don't fear the county that would come in after.  You fear losing the county you have.
> If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
> But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's _your_ cage.


Because it's dumb as dirt to believe that if the country fell, that we would be allowed to rebuild it from the ashes.  Don't you get that the globalists WANT the country to fall?  They have espoused it in their books, speeches, etc., yet here you are doing your best to help them.   When the country falls, we will be ushered into world government.  If you think it's bad now and you cannot see a way through, imagine how you will work with that crap.

I don't like the situation we are in any better than you do.  But, I damn sure don't want to take 100 steps backward and make our path IMPOSSIBLE.

----------


## Sola_Fide

If you are against the drug war, you must want everyone to do drugs.

----------


## groverblue

I believe in open borders, but I also believe in national sovereignty and the right to self defense.  So, it's a fluid position for me. We all recognize that the real solution is to end the welfare state and stop military adventurism, which are really the cause for the "border issue."

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I believe in open borders, but I also believe in national sovereignty and the right to self defense.  So, it's a fluid position for me. We all recognize that the real solution is to end the welfare state and stop military adventurism, which are really the cause for the "border issue."


And the horrible trade deals.

----------


## Dr.3D

> And the horrible trade deals.


Yeah, the wind is still blowing to the south, and taking jobs with it.

----------


## The Gold Standard

Depends on what you mean by libertarians. And what you mean by borders.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No, I know some of you don't.  And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.
> 
> Just making sure everyone else knows where some of you stand and what you are about.  Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.


You are an authoritarian so I don't really understand what your problem is with a one world government.

Is it because you are worried that your postcards won't be delivered to your leaders? (Leaders who don't give a $#@! about what you think regardless)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Even Lew Rockwell thinks those of you who believe this way are dumbasses.


Yet Lew Rockwell is an anarchist who does not reject the NAP, as the OP  article implies he must.
(Nor does this necessarily constitute a  contradiction on Rockwell's part.)

And just for the record (so that no one makes a mistaken assumption  about what my position on this matter is), I do not take either  side of the so-called "open borders" issue. I understand and am  sympathetic to the concerns and arguments on both sides of the debate.  But within the context of a statist system, there is no viable solution  to the problem. Indeed, such problems only manifest as "problems" in the  first place because of the nature of the statist systems in which they  occur.

To clarify what I mean by this, consider the analogous "problem" of  whether evolution or creationism (or both, or neither, or something  else) ought to be taught in so-called "public" schools. This "problem"  only exists due to the "publicness" of those schools, with all the  things that are necessarily and unavoidably involved with that  "publicness" - things such as mandatory attendance laws or the forcible  extraction of funding from those who do not agree with whatever is being  taught (not to mention the extraction of such funding from those who do  not even have any children at all). No matter what "side" of the  "evolution vs. creationism in public schools" issue one might take,  someone's gonna get screwed. The problem here is not with  "evolution" or "creationism," but with "public schools" as such - thus,  so long as the context remains that of "public" schools, it comes down  to a matter of "pick your poison." The only genuinely viable solution is  to remove the issue entirely from the "public" sphere and place it  where it belongs - in the realm of individual choice and private property. And likewise for immigration ...

So long as immigration remains a "public" issue in the context of a  statist system, there can be no "solution" that isn't just as  problematic as the "problem" it supposedly addresses. The "open borders" side of the issue involves the exacerbation of an already bloated and over-burdened welfare system, the dilution of social cohesion, and the further empowerment of the forces of political progressivism (among other things). The opposing side of the issue involves (among other things) systematic and extensive interferences in the economy (requiring, as it does, the policing of employer-employee relations, to give just one example) and the reinforcement, amplificiation and aggravation of the problems associated with an already overweening "security" state ("Papers, please!"). So once again, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison."

The only genuinely viable solution to the immigration "problem" is to  remove the immigration issue entirely from the "public" sphere of "open  borders vs. state controls" and place it where it belongs - in the realm  of individual choice and private property (where "borders" may be as  "open" or "closed" as the owners want them to be). This is, essentially, the Hoppean position on immigration (without  Hoppe's concessions to "public" property, which I regard as problematic - in short, just as I am opposed to "public schools," I am also opposed to "public immigration," regardless of whether  it involves more immigration or less).

Now, you may object that such a solution is not very likely to be implemented any time soon - and if so, I freely  acknowledge that you are probably correct. I don't think that it's very  likely, either - at least not under present circumstances. But that does  not mean that I am incorrect - it merely means that under present  circumstances, no satisfactory resolution of the issue is possible. (This  absence of the possiblity of satisfactory solutions is a hallmark of  the state. An inherent characteristic of all states is that they usurp  the rightful authority of individuals to exercise their property rights in order to  resolve ostensible "problems" via mutual, non-violent cooperation - and  democratic states especially thrive on the artificial divisions that  are fostered and encouraged by such usurpations. The immigration  "debate" in America is a perfect example of this.)

----------


## MelissaWV

> I don't think its the immigrants that people are really angry about. Its economic inequality perpetrated by the system. We have a cradle to grave system that is designed to manufacture human beings for use by government and business (youtube: "John Taylor Gatto"). I think immigration is more free than our economic system. I think they should be in balance otherwise doesn't harm come to those who can not game the system thus violating the no harm principle? *Isn't that what people are really angry about*?


They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."

----------


## angelatc

> ...Yes?  Is that all you need?  Confirmation that I don't give a rat's ass about the blood-soaked false hope that is the United States?
> 
> If you stop drying your eyes with the flag for a second and recognize that a lot of us have no allegiance to the state, maybe our position would make more sense.
> 
> But that would require you to snap out of your Stockholm Syndrome.


But doesn't that make you an Anarchist, or a freedomist or whatever.....as opposed to a constitutionalist Libertarian?

----------


## angelatc

> They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."


I deal with those people every day in my job and I freaking hate them.  Move to France and don't learn French, and you'll get much the same reception.

----------


## Occam's Banana

I don't want to turn this into yet another interminable argument over  anarchism, but since you brought it up (), I would like to make just a few brief observations:




> Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another   form of government. [...] Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain  anarchy and  fights to keep it, would become the government they  despise.


If by "government" you mean anything like "a group  of people that coercively maintains a monopoly on the use and  application of force, and which seeks to exert sole and exclusive authority to  adjudge all other uses and applications of force," then none of what you  said here necessarily follows.




> One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't  last very long.


One could as easily say the same regarding "limited" or "minimal" states - and to as little effect.

All historical situations are composed of unique constellations of myriad contingencies.

Thus, history  does not and cannot "prove" anything regarding the alleged  non-viability of anarchy, minarchy, maxarchy or whatever-archy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You are an authoritarian so I don't really understand what your problem is with a one world government.


I am, am I?  lol.  I'm not a libertine, no.  I believe people should be responsible for their actions.




> Is it because you are worried that your postcards won't be delivered to your leaders? (Leaders who don't give a $#@! about what you think regardless)


I believe in a very small, limited government.  If in your mind, that is an authoritarian, I guess that means you are a pie in the sky anarchist.

----------


## euphemia

I don't mind open borders.  It's the nanny state I despise.  End the nanny state, equalize relations with our neighbors so we can retire in Mexico if we want, and then open the gates.

I will not support any kind of open borders, or much immigration at all until the nanny state ends.

----------


## Rad

> They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."


I agree there is fear of change in there. I think a lot of it is fear of competition for the menial task that America's corporate masters hand out. What options do they have but to compete for those jobs? I maybe wrong and the root of the problem may be more racism instead of anger from economic inequality due to a rigged system. There is a lot of lashing out and the illegal immigrants have suffered at the hands of Empire. If they don't want immigrants to come they would get rid of corporate friendly trade deals such as NATO. That is something the left and right could get behind. It is far too easy to blame "the other" and scapegoat them for what the American people time and time again voted for with money and ballots.

"Ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hate, and hate leads to violence. This is the equation." - Averroes. Does this make Yoda Islamic?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> They do a very good job of hiding it behind threads about being annoyed that people are speaking Spanish and not assimilating into "American Culture."


So, Americans should want people entering the country illegally who have no interest in assimilating or in communicating with other Americans?  Gotcha.

----------


## euphemia

I love it when people play the race card when Americans stand against the open door to the nanny state.

What do your neighbors look like?  What kind of art is on your walls?  Who wrote the books on your shelves?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I am, am I?  lol.  I'm not a libertine, no.  I believe people should be responsible for their actions.
> 
> *
> I believe in a very small, limited government*.  If in your mind, that is an authoritarian, I guess that means you are a pie in the sky anarchist.


A very small, limited government with a very large military/ security apparatus to completely seal the border (which is an impossible task).  

If one is opposed to a 100% sealed border one must therefore be in favor of 100% unlimited immigration.   False dichotomy.  

There is a trade-off between freedom of citizens and restrictions on immigration.  The question is how much of one you are willing to give up in exchange for the other.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> A very small, limited government with a very large military/ security apparatus to completely seal the border (which is an impossible task).  
> 
> If one is opposed to a 100% sealed border one must therefore be in favor of 100% unlimited immigration.   False dichotomy.  
> 
> There is a trade-off between freedom of citizens and restrictions on immigration.  The question is how much of one you are willing to give up in exchange for the other.


When did I ever say I was for a "100% sealed border"?    Hint:  I didn't.

Your dichotomy is bull$#@!, zippo.  It's nothing new to care about who entered the country, whether they were carrying any diseases, whether they could support themselves or were sponsored by another American, etc.   It used to be law.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I love it when people play the race card when Americans stand against the open door to the nanny state.
> 
> What do your neighbors look like?  What kind of art is on your walls?  Who wrote the books on your shelves?


There are a lot of reasons to want to restrict or track immigration, or at least limit the welfare/benefits that a noncitizen can get.  My point was merely in response to the person seeming to think that no one on this forum is repeating those reasons out of one side of their mouth while talking about issues they have with immigrants merely because they are different.  The latter scenario is always curious to me since it doesn't magically go away once someone becomes a legal immigrant.  Someone who's spoken another language their entire life so far, is going to be more comfortable in that language among peers, family, and anyone who's going to speak that language with them.  They should also be able to speak in the language of the land when called to do so, but not ridiculed for accent, or looked at with disgust.

Just my two cents, though.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> or at least limit the welfare/benefits that a noncitizen can get.


Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for federal benefits.  Legal immigrants are not eligible for their first five years.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> When did I ever say I was for a "100% sealed border"?    Hint:  I didn't.
> 
> Your dichotomy is bull$#@!, zippo.  It's nothing new to care about who entered the country, whether they were carrying any diseases, whether they could support themselves or were sponsored by another American, etc.   It used to be law.


If you want to stop all illegal immigration, that requires a 100% sealed border.  But even that is not enough.  About 45% of all those currently in the country illegally came here legally- they overstayed their visas.  So we need to issue zero visas and have a 100% sealed border if we want zero illegal immigrants coming here.

Or instead of zero visas, we need tracking chips on people entering the country even for vacation and a large police- type force to track and round up all those who over-stay their visas and then deport them. Papers please!

Or you don't mind having a few illegal immigrants in the country.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Yes, more or less.

The reason which would allow a libertarian to accept immigration restrictions (security considerations) are known only to sensible minarchists.

But, generally speaking, immigration should be unrestricted.

...now, nationalists, my shrift for you is about as short as for the bolsheviks.

----------


## Dianne

Hell No !!  I've never heard of libertarians in any country, other than the United States.   I've never heard of a Constitution in any other country.  So why the hell do we allow millions and millions from dictatorships enter this country in hopes of destroying our constitution.   Obama and Paul Ryan are doing a damn good job of that themselves, they don't need multi millions more aiding them.  

If anyone believes 9/11 was not an inside job, then you have to acknowledge all the perps were from Saudi Arabia and entered this country on Visas..    Look at how that event has changed the entire make up of the U.S.    Now you have to go through naked body scans at the airport just to get in or out of this hell hole, formerly known as America?

----------


## erowe1

> But, then again, you WANT the country to fall.


By "the country" you mean the federal government.

Yeah, I want that to fail.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> By "the country" you mean the federal government.
> 
> Yeah, I want that to fail.


The country, as led by the natives, with their voting habits, is doing just swell, amiright?

Donald Trump is about to be nominated by the white Anglo-Saxon protestant worthies of our party.

..while don Hillary'll be nominated by the donkey party.

Freedom...........................................  .......................

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

Yes, libertarians must believe in open borders.

If you don't "believe in open borders," and oppose them based on the reasons typically given on these forums, you are generally going to be a conservative of some stripe (I'd venture to say not even "constitutional," since the Constitution does not provide any explicit directions for policing national borders) and not a libertarian. This is strictly speaking in terms of 90% of the membership on these forums; it's possible to oppose them and be a liberal, though I don't think we have any people of that particular persuasion on these forums currently.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, libertarians must believe in open borders.
> 
> If you don't "believe in open borders," and oppose them based on the reasons typically given on these forums, you are generally going to be a conservative of some stripe (I'd venture to say not even "constitutional," since the Constitution does not provide any explicit directions for policing national borders) and not a libertarian. This is strictly speaking in terms of 90% of the membership on these forums; it's possible to oppose them and be a liberal, though I don't think we have any people of that particular persuasion on these forums currently.


Who's your new avatar?

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Who's your new avatar?


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

Good introduction of sorts (well, not really, but if you already know a little about virtue ethics): 
Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing

----------


## Cabal

States do not have the right to property, much less any rights short of, perhaps, rights loaned to them via unanimous consent (which is practically almost certainly impossible to attain, and in any case, would no longer constitute a State, per se). Thus, States do not have a right to exercise property rights over land, or anything else. So, the idea of closed borders is fundamentally at odds with libertarian philosophy.

There doesn't seem to be any real way to argue the contrary without first bastardizing and compromising libertarian philosophy to something diametrically opposed to libertarianism (i.e. statism). 

That being said, it's also something of a catch-22 given the inclusion of State-enforced welfarism, among other considerations. But even when taking these things into account, it is a difficult, if not impossible case to make against open borders (at least where current State borders are concerned) from a legitimately libertarian point of view.

A libertarian should be for open borders and against coercive welfarism simultaneously, if they intend to be consistent with and true to libertarianism.

----------


## PierzStyx

[B]


> No, I know some of you don't.  And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.
> 
> *The only treason is the treason to truth, to the natural human rights of the individual. No state or government has a right to exist, it is of worth when it protects the inherent rights of man. Where it violates those rights it is to be dissolved and replaced. The Founding Fathers knew this, Thomas Jefferson knew this, and it was codified into the American Canon in the Declaration of Independence. If you would wake up from your idolatry of the state and actually study the words of those you claim to venerate you would realize that what you call treason is nothing less than loyalty to the ideals America was founded upon. 
> 
> Further, if you actually cared about the Constitution and upholding it then you would oppose any form of government regulation of the borders. The Constitution have the federal government the power to decide laws regarding naturalization, the process by which one became a citizen. No where does the Constitution authorize the government to regulate immigration, how and who enters the country. 
> 
> Not only is the statist position of immigration regulation anti-libertarian as it violates the NAP, you are initiating violence against someone who has not committed violence against you (note that violating the law nor being economic competition count as violence- otherwise our entire ideology is overthrown), it is anti-liberty as you are regulating not just their right to move across unowned land and are violating the rights of association to those who wish to associate with them, it is unconstitutional on the very face of it, and the Constitution is something you at least pretend to care about.*


Response in bold.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Hell No !!  I've never heard of libertarians in any country, other than the United States.   I've never heard of a Constitution in any other country.  So why the hell do we allow millions and millions from dictatorships enter this country in hopes of destroying our constitution.   Obama and Paul Ryan are doing a damn good job of that themselves, they don't need multi millions more aiding them.  
> 
> If anyone believes 9/11 was not an inside job, then you have to acknowledge all the perps were from Saudi Arabia and entered this country on Visas..    Look at how that event has changed the entire make up of the U.S.    Now you have to go through naked body scans at the airport just to get in or out of this hell hole, formerly known as America?


So, just because you're totally ignorant of the rest of the world you think that justifies your foolish beliefs?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> [B]
> 
> Response in bold.


Blah, blah, blah.  Another useful idiot to the globalists.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yes, libertarians must believe in open borders.
> 
> If you don't "believe in open borders," and oppose them based on the reasons typically given on these forums, you are generally going to be a conservative of some stripe (I'd venture to say not even "constitutional," since the Constitution does not provide any explicit directions for policing national borders) and not a libertarian. This is strictly speaking in terms of 90% of the membership on these forums; it's possible to oppose them and be a liberal, though I don't think we have any people of that particular persuasion on these forums currently.


Or Lew Rockwell.
Or Ron Paul.
Or Rand Paul.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Or Lew Rockwell.
> Or Ron Paul.
> Or Rand Paul.


Don't forget Rothbard.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Or Lew Rockwell.
> Or Ron Paul.
> Or Rand Paul.


Rand isn't a libertarian.  Ron was a little closer to libertarianism, but still was not completely libertarian.   Lew Rockwell is a culture warrior.  Murray Rothbard picked up on those themes too.

Harry Browne was closer to a true libertarian as far as recent electoral politics go.

----------


## jkob

I'm not an anarchist, we don't live in a vacuum in some perfect world, people that advocate for open borders are advocating for the destruction of western civilization.  Useful idiots is the least that could be said about open border advocates.

----------


## jmdrake

> more....


Donald Trump believes in amnesty.  Yet people keep defending him against the "lies" of the liberal media.  People don't understand that he is working with the liberal media.  He throws out a bombastic comment, the liberal media goes crazy, the polls go up, and conservatives who would hate his actual positions turn around and defend him against the "lies of the liberal media" rather than saying "Wait a minute.  He supports amnesty."

----------


## William R

No!!

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Or Lew Rockwell.
> Or Ron Paul.
> Or Rand Paul.


Those people (and 90s Rothbard, who is mentioned in the next post) belong somewhere on the conservative axis, not the libertarian one. The only closed-border position theoretically compatible with 100% libertarianism is if all property owners along the border decided not to let people  cross. I doubt, however, that this has a high chance of occuring, because it is completely ahistorical (the entire property of the world has never been appropriated legitimately by private means; the population growth curve is starting to level off and may even be in decline by the end of the century, so it is highly unlikely that every square inch of land will be human-occupied and cultivated in accordance with libertarian homesteading principles). 

Rockwell's argument in favor of closing the border, at least the most recent one that I have read, is pretty shockingly bad for a number of reasons - the main one being that it is completely at odds with history as I alluded to earlier, and the argument that immigration is "subsidized," (therefore libertarians must oppose it) can just as easily apply to the exchange of virtually any item bought or sold, since it all ends up being subsidized in one way or another.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I understand and am  sympathetic to the concerns and arguments on both sides of the debate. 
> 
> The "open borders" side of the issue involves the exacerbation of an already bloated and over-burdened welfare system, the dilution of social cohesion, and the further empowerment of the forces of political progressivism (among other things). The opposing side of the issue involves (among other things) systematic and extensive interferences in the economy (requiring, as it does, the policing of employer-employee relations, to give just one example) and the reinforcement, amplificiation and aggravation of the problems associated with an already overweening "security" state ("Papers, please!"). So once again, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison."


This is a very well-put and comprehensible statement.  You do, indeed, understand both sides of the debate.  I wish that more people could.  We need more honesty and thought, and less posturing and rhetorical wrangling.

----------


## Cabal

> Yet Lew Rockwell is an anarchist who does not reject the NAP, as the OP  article implies he must.
> (Nor does this necessarily constitute a  contradiction on Rockwell's part.)
> 
> And just for the record (so that no one makes a mistaken assumption  about what my position on this matter is), I do not take either  side of the so-called "open borders" issue. I understand and am  sympathetic to the concerns and arguments on both sides of the debate.  *But within the context of a statist system, there is no viable solution  to the problem.* Indeed, such problems only manifest as "problems" in the  first place because of the nature of the statist systems in which they  occur.
> 
> To clarify what I mean by this, consider the analogous "problem" of  whether evolution or creationism (or both, or neither, or something  else) ought to be taught in so-called "public" schools. This "problem"  only exists due to the "publicness" of those schools, with all the  things that are necessarily and unavoidably involved with that  "publicness" - things such as mandatory attendance laws or the forcible  extraction of funding from those who do not agree with whatever is being  taught (not to mention the extraction of such funding from those who do  not even have any children at all). No matter what "side" of the  "evolution vs. creationism in public schools" issue one might take,  someone's gonna get screwed. The problem here is not with  "evolution" or "creationism," but with "public schools" as such - thus,  so long as the context remains that of "public" schools, it comes down  to a matter of "pick your poison." The only genuinely viable solution is  to remove the issue entirely from the "public" sphere and place it  where it belongs - in the realm of individual choice and private property. And likewise for immigration ...
> 
> So long as immigration remains a "public" issue in the context of a  statist system, there can be no "solution" that isn't just as  problematic as the "problem" it supposedly addresses. The "open borders" side of the issue involves the exacerbation of an already bloated and over-burdened welfare system, the dilution of social cohesion, and the further empowerment of the forces of political progressivism (among other things). The opposing side of the issue involves (among other things) systematic and extensive interferences in the economy (requiring, as it does, the policing of employer-employee relations, to give just one example) and the reinforcement, amplificiation and aggravation of the problems associated with an already overweening "security" state ("Papers, please!"). So once again, it comes down to a matter of "pick your poison."
> 
> ...


Great post, and the bold is basically what I've seemed to conclude as well. The ideal libertarian position on this issue simply isn't going to be realized under a State's reign, or at least I don't see how it ever could.

----------


## otherone

> Great post, and the bold is basically what I've seemed to conclude as well. The ideal libertarian position on this issue simply isn't going to be realized under a State's reign, or at least I don't see how it ever could.


Good point.
I'd like to add that philosophy can never substitute for actual policy.

----------


## Cabal

> Good point.
> I'd like to add that philosophy can never substitute for actual policy.


That doesn't mean it should be disregarded, either. 

Similarly, taxation will never cease under a State's reign, or at least, I don't see how it ever could. That doesn't mean should just settle for 'better' tax policy.

----------


## otherone

> That doesn't mean it should be disregarded, either.


disregarded by whom?

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

If libertarianism is a series of axioms that must be dogmatically stuck to, regardless of what their implementation does to the libertarian civilization, then it's a useless philosophy that needs to be thrown out. Open border types would let their country be overrun by non-white statists, see the last scraps of negative liberty get destroyed, then count that as some sort of victory for the liberty movement. When it comes to statecraft and civilization building, consequentialism is an absolute necessity.

----------


## Cabal

> disregarded by whom?


Anyone who means to advocate and promote libertarianism, of course.

----------


## Dianne

> Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for federal benefits.  Legal immigrants are not eligible for their first five years.


That's bull$#@!.   http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201..._per_chil.html

*US spending $252 a day per child to care for young illegal immigrants, fourth military base now housing site.  The total cost of care is expected to top $2 billion this year and will be covered through HHS. *  

HHS is you and me, by the way.   And those figures are just for the kids.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If libertarianism is a series of axioms that must be dogmatically stuck to, regardless of what their implementation does to the libertarian civilization, then it's a useless philosophy that needs to be thrown out. Open border types would let their country be overrun by non-white statists, see the last scraps of negative liberty get destroyed, then count that as some sort of victory for the liberty movement. When it comes to statecraft and civilization building, consequentialism is an absolute necessity.


Agree that consequentialism is necessary

Disagree that there's a sound consequentialist case for restricting immigration

----------


## Zippyjuan

> That's bull$#@!.   http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201..._per_chil.html
> 
> *US spending $252 a day per child to care for young illegal immigrants, fourth military base now housing site.  The total cost of care is expected to top $2 billion this year and will be covered through HHS. *  
> 
> HHS is you and me, by the way.   And those figures are just for the kids.


That was temporary housing for the wave of unacompanied children who came in last summer. Most are now in other housing such as charities or volunteers or deported.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So, Americans should want people entering the country illegally who have no interest in assimilating or in communicating with other Americans?  Gotcha.


Americans should mind their own business.

----------


## RandPaul4Prez

I don't believe in open borders. It's a form of theft.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm not an anarchist, we don't live in a vacuum in some perfect world, people that advocate for open borders are advocating for the destruction of western civilization.  Useful idiots is the least that could be said about open border advocates.


I'd say that the masters so many revere are more of a threat to western civilization than freedom.

It's not like they've detonated 10,000 nuclear warheads, or poison large swaths of earth, or get in pissing competitions leading to a nuclear stand off or anything.

Yes, economic freedom is the real threat.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

"open" is a word used in a specific connotation by politicians to make you feel  vulnerable and prone to being robbed/attacked. Should we have less regulation at the border? YES.Should expatriation be free? YES. I want to move to another country, the cost is high and the IRS would audit me on everything.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

I also do not believe the border is the problem...here is a short list of the problems that create fear in americans over the border topic:

1.people are unwilling and afraid to defend themselves(perhaps lazy)
2.people believe its your duty to pay taxes to provide for the security of their property(again lazy, unwilling to defend themselves)
3.people believe in militarism and want a berlin wall without understanding that what is kept out also keeps them locked in as prisoner citizens
4.people ultimately think that the government is there to nanny them,and nanny their property.

----------


## Michael1928

> Open borders is what those working toward a one world government would like to see.


This. Believing in open borders is unrealistic and nothing but a libertarian extremist pipe dream.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't believe in open borders. It's a form of theft.


Who's stealing what from whom?

----------


## Cabal

> This. Believing in open borders is unrealistic and nothing but a libertarian extremist pipe dream.


"Believing in open borders" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is neither here nor there.

You either agree that the State has property rights, or you do not.

----------


## Lord Xar

OPEN BORDERS coupled with a WELFARE STATE coupled with a BIG GOVERNMENT LOOKING FOR DEPENDENTS....

*IS FUKKING STUPID*

I believe many here, posing as 'libertarians', are actually marxists etc...

----------


## The Gold Standard

> OPEN BORDERS coupled with a WELFARE STATE coupled with a BIG GOVERNMENT LOOKING FOR DEPENDENTS....


The question didn't mention a welfare state or a big government looking for dependents.

----------


## Cabal

> OPEN BORDERS coupled with a WELFARE STATE coupled with a BIG GOVERNMENT LOOKING FOR DEPENDENTS....
> 
> *IS FUKKING STUPID*


So your argument is that statism justifies more, sustained statism? That's very convenient for the State, and I'm sure it appreciates your obedience and loyalty to it.

----------


## presence

zing

----------


## cajuncocoa

The thought that occurs to me most when I read the topic title "Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?" is, a true libertarian would probably say "nobody tells me what I *must* believe!!" LOL

----------


## presence

> Who's stealing what from whom?


government contractors that build and occupy detainment camps, housing, and fences are stealing how much from the common taxpayer, their minions are giving how much tax money away to bait their honey pot?

----------


## RJB

> The thought that occurs to me most when I read the topic title "Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?" is, a true libertarian would probably say "nobody tells me what I *must* believe!!" LOL


I was thinking the same thing.

----------


## Lord Xar

> So your argument is that statism justifies more, sustained statism? That's very convenient for the State, and I'm sure it appreciates your obedience and loyalty to it.


Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and 
overrun the school & medical systems is statism?

Think a little deeper please, your ignorance is costing me money AND growing the power of the state.

I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.

----------


## Lord Xar

> The question didn't mention a welfare state or a big government looking for dependents.


when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

----------


## Cabal

> Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and 
> overrun the school & medical systems is statism?


No, your argument was that 'because welfare' we must accept State violence to those wishing to cross a State-defined land border--i.e. since <this> statism exists, we must have <that> statism, too, 'or else.'

Straw manning me isn't making you look any more intelligent, either, btw.




> I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.


You're advocating for more, sustained statism, so I'm not sure how you have conned yourself into believing that will decrease the power of the State. Your argument is quite literally a rationalization for the right of State violence. Or is it that you are advocating State violence while knowing it doesn't have the right? In which case, what would that make you?

----------


## TheNewYorker

> when you subsidize something, you get more of it.


When the government provides a supply-side subsidy to the producers of a product, the supply curve shifts to the right and the demand curve remains the same. Because they are being subsidized, producers are encouraged to produce more of a product and are able to do so for less.

Because consumers will be paying less, producers can actually increase the price because producers can charge more and consumers are being artificially encouraged to purchase more products, producers are encouraged to produce more. The price and the quantity produced both increase.

----------


## otherone

> Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and 
> overrun the school & medical systems is statism?
> 
> Think a little deeper please, your ignorance is costing me money AND growing the power of the state.
> 
> I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.


BULL$#@!.   Theye will police YOUR immigrants by policing MY private business.  "Conservative" idiots fail to grasp that this is EXACTLY like 2nd amendment restrictions.  The criminals won't be affected; the law abiding will.  Bend over and spread 'em, idiot.

----------


## Dianne

> That was temporary housing for the wave of unacompanied children who came in last summer. Most are now in other housing such as charities or volunteers or deported.


You live in a fantasy world.. Not a one of those deported.

----------


## Dianne

> Not offering illegals welfare is statism? Not offering illegals birthright citizenship is statism? Not allowing hordes of people to come over the border and 
> overrun the school & medical systems is statism?
> 
> Think a little deeper please, your ignorance is costing me money AND growing the power of the state.
> 
> I believe history & pudding shows that what you strive for increases the power of the state, MUCH more than what I advocate.


Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money".   Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money".   Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.


Maybe we need more illegal immigrants to help pay for that.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-security.html




> *How Immigrants Will Save Social Security*
> 
> Illegal immigrants have already paid about *$1 trillion* into social security. And that’s helping the system stay afloat.
> 
> Contrary to the myth advanced by opponents of reform that illegal immigrants don’t contribute their fair share in taxes, and drain government benefits, the reality is that undocumented workers are helping to keep the social security trust fund in the black. *They do this because they are paying into the system typically with false social security numbers, which means they will never collect benefits. Their money, often collected for many years, helps keep the system afloat and benefits flowing to aging baby boomers*.

----------


## Cabal

> Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money".   Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.


A. Social security has always been bad, and always will be bad on its own--just as any coercive redistribution of wealth is--regardless of how many Mexicans have or haven't crossed an imaginary border on a map.

B. Like Lord Xar, you're just straw manning. I'm not promoting welfarism. I'm not advocating welfarism. I'm not saying welfarism is good, or right. I'm very aware of the role that welfare and other externalities play in relating to this topic. I'm simply rejecting the nonsensical argument that <this> State violence justifies <that> State violence.

None of you seem to be able to reconcile that with your alleged promotion of liberty.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Wait until Cabal applies for social security benefits after paying into the system for 20 or 30 years, and the Republicrats tell him "Sorry son, we spent your money".   Of course, by then they will be speaking in Spanish and he won't have a fricken clue what they are saying.


What a convincing argument.

If it saves my social security then pissing on rights is the way to go. Never mind me being robbed to pay for it in the first place, or that it was destined to fail from the beginning, or that anyone who put faith in the government were unfortunate and ignorant, or the modern branding of American workers/subsequent violation of rights by way of bastardizing contracts, it is possible welfare checks that ought decide ethics and morality.

And if _everyone_ is speaking Spanish, they'd understand each other. Not to mention I communicate with many I can't understand through simple gestures.

And again social security is/was a failed, wealth redistributing, ponzi scheme that was ordained to fail. Call it God's wrath on evil practices if you want.

----------


## DamianTV

My two cents on the topic in general:  Open Borders themselves are not the problem.  Open Borders + Welfare is a BIG problem.  So is Open Borders + a country that has pissed off nearly every other country on the planet to the point where we would end up in war with them very quickly is another damn big problem.

Flip the Coin.

Walls arent intended to keep Immigrants or other countries out, they will be put up to keep us in.  Doors and walls work both ways.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> My two cents on the topic in general:  Open Borders themselves are not the problem.  Open Borders + Welfare is a BIG problem.  So is Open Borders + a country that has pissed off nearly every other country on the planet to the point where we would end up in war with them very quickly is another damn big problem.


Did you notice that those two problems you mentioned are big problems even if you leave out the words "open borders"?

----------


## ProIndividual

> Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.


Also not a must. Been over this with you a lot. Doesn't seem to sink in. Libertarianism has more than one ethical theory, and some are amoralists (Stirner Egoists, some nihilists). What matters is the conclusions we draw, and therefore what actions we take, not what theory (or lack thereof) we use to arrive at those conclusions or actions. Someone who coerces a non-victimizers may espouse the NAP, but he isn't very libertarian (and some say they believe in the NAP and call for policies which clearly violate it - although they have their rationalizations, of course). Someone who never coerces a non-victimizer, no matter his theory (or lack thereof) in morality, is very libertarian (and some who don't believe in the NAP are the ones who aren't calling for policies that clearly violate it - with no rationalizations needed, of course). It's a philosophy, and an especially heterogeneous one. 

This litmus test in theories is silly. Either you believe in voluntary association and not coercing the innocent, or you don't. The NAP is one avenue to those stances, not the only one.

----------


## ProIndividual

> I don't believe in open borders. It's a form of theft.


See what I mean?

----------


## Dr.3D

Sure wouldn't want those Munchkins to cross the border and invade Fantasyland.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another form of government.  One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't last very long.  Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain anarchy and fights to keep it, would become the government they despise.


So let me get this straight....I force you, with guns to head, into a monopoly on law and defense. Then, it collapses. You blame anarchy for the chaos, not the threats of violence that kept out competing alternatives and which limit tort liability for the coerced monopoly and its cronies. 

It's like saying I hold a gun to you and tell you that if you stand anywhere, or try to sit, but on a rug in the middle of the room, I'll shoot you. You can't stand off the rug, not even one foot. You can't sit on the rug or off of it. You can't hang a rope from the ceiling which you attach to a harness you have on, to protect you from a fall. Then I pull the rug out from underneath you, and you fall and break your tail bone. You blame the lack of rug, not the forced aspects that caused the injury. Meanwhile, if you had been allowed those alternative means of support, there would have been no chaotic fall when the rug was removed from under your feet/the room. 

Stop blaming a lack of rug (lack of state). Blame the coerced monopoly on where you can stand (state), which inevitably ends badly. Go to the root of the problem, and quit the cult of statism already.

----------


## Dr.3D

> So let me get this straight....I force you, with guns to head, into a monopoly on law and defense. Then, it collapses. You blame anarchy for the chaos, not the threats of violence that kept out competing alternatives and which limit tort liability for the coerced monopoly and its cronies. 
> 
> It's like saying I hold a gun to you and tell you that if you stand anywhere, or try to sit, but on a rug in the middle of the room, I'll shoot you. You can't stand off the rug, not even one foot. You can't sit on the rug or off of it. You can't hang a rope from the ceiling which you attach to a harness you have on, to protect you from a fall. Then I pull the rug out from underneath you, and you fall and break your tail bone. You blame the lack of rug, not the forced aspects that caused the injury. Meanwhile, if you had been allowed those alternative means of support, there would have been no chaotic fall when the rug was removed from under your feet/the room. 
> 
> Stop blaming a lack of rug (lack of state). Blame the coerced monopoly on where you can stand (state), which inevitably ends badly. Go to the root of the problem, and quit the cult of statism already.


Man, you lost me with the rug, floor etc... just say what you are trying to say, without all of extraneous garbage mixed in.

How can one fight to maintain a state of anarchy without losing that anarchy in the process?

----------


## misterx

No! You shouldn't force someone to accept people he doesn't want into his home or nation.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No! You shouldn't force someone to accept people he doesn't want into his home or nation.


How do we decide who gets accepted into the nation? Do we vote?  Do we have to vote on everybody who applies to come here? Does that include those who want to come on vacation or to attend schools or work? You can decide who enters your home.

----------


## Dr.3D

> How do we decide who gets accepted into the nation? Do we vote?  Do we have to vote on everybody who applies to come here? Does that include those who want to come on vacation or to attend schools or work? You can decide who enters your home.


Well, when I visited Mexico, they put stickers on the windows of the car saying, "Tourist"  Guess they didn't want the local police bothering the tourists.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Either you believe in voluntary association and not coercing the innocent, or you don't. The NAP is one avenue to those stances, not the only one.


Not coercing the innocent = not aggressing against non-aggressors = Non-Aggression Principle (NAP for short).  It's all the same idea.  Don't get lost in semantics.

----------


## Lord Xar

> BULL$#@!.   Theye will police YOUR immigrants by policing MY private business.  "Conservative" idiots fail to grasp that this is EXACTLY like 2nd amendment restrictions.  The criminals won't be affected; the law abiding will.  Bend over and spread 'em, idiot.


Well, lets look at California - let that be your barometer... tool. And if you do not think there is a correlation between 
open borders/welfare/progressivism and ANTI-LIBERTY, move out of your moms basement.

----------


## otherone

> Well, lets look at California - let that be your barometer... tool. And if you do not think there is a correlation between 
> open borders/welfare/progressivism and ANTI-LIBERTY, move out of your moms basement.


You've missed my point entirely.

----------


## misterx

> How do we decide who gets accepted into the nation? Do we vote?  Do we have to vote on everybody who applies to come here? Does that include those who want to come on vacation or to attend schools or work? You can decide who enters your home.


On an individual basis you can decide who enters your home. On a group basis we should all vote on who enters our country and how many. The third world invasion is something that was forced on us even though the vast majority opposed it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So let me get this straight....I force you, with guns to head, into a monopoly on law and defense. Then, it collapses. You blame anarchy for the chaos, not the threats of violence that kept out competing alternatives and which limit tort liability for the coerced monopoly and its cronies. 
> 
> It's like saying I hold a gun to you and tell you that if you stand anywhere, or try to sit, but on a rug in the middle of the room, I'll shoot you. You can't stand off the rug, not even one foot. You can't sit on the rug or off of it. You can't hang a rope from the ceiling which you attach to a harness you have on, to protect you from a fall. Then I pull the rug out from underneath you, and you fall and break your tail bone. You blame the lack of rug, not the forced aspects that caused the injury. Meanwhile, if you had been allowed those alternative means of support, there would have been no chaotic fall when the rug was removed from under your feet/the room. 
> 
> Stop blaming a lack of rug (lack of state). Blame the coerced monopoly on where you can stand (state), which inevitably ends badly. Go to the root of the problem, and quit the cult of statism already.


Are you aware that nothing you said even vaguely intersected his post (much less addressed his points), or do you actually believe that you were responding to him?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Sum up, answer to the question "Must Libertarians Believe in Open Borders?": No, there are many libertarians on both sides of the issue.

  Immigration is actually a fairly complex and fascinating issue.  There are extenuating philosophical circumstances on both sides.  Thus the question is somewhat akin to "Must Libertarians Believe in School Vouchers?", though much more multi-faceted and interesting.

----------


## thoughtomator

*There are no libertarians on the open-borders side of the issue* - none, period complete stop - at least in the sense of having completely unregulated borders as many are suggesting. 

What you will find is that there are many _anarchists_ who mistakenly or deceptively apply the label of libertarian to themselves, and you will find anarchists advocating against borders.

This is really a fundamental litmus test that divides the two. *You cannot be a libertarian and be for unregulated borders OR advocate no state at all.* Those who advocate either are something besides libertarian (in the latter case, that is the literal definition of an anarchist).

*The defense of liberty requires sovereignty.* That is the fundamental bottom line of _libertarianism_, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Are you aware that nothing you said even vaguely intersected his post (much less addressed his points), or do you actually believe that you were responding to him?


you're dealing with an anarchist troll who has been like this from day 1

----------


## erowe1

> No! You shouldn't force someone to accept people he doesn't want into his home or nation.


How do you justify mixing together home and nation like that? The one is a person's property. The other isn't. What right do I have to dictate to other people in my nation whom they can and can't allow onto their own property?

----------


## erowe1

> Thus the question is somewhat akin to "Must Libertarians Believe in School Vouchers?", though much more multi-faceted and interesting.


Tax funded education vouchers?

How is that a question? Obviously to believe in that is to believe in something anti-libertarian.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> *There are no libertarians on the open-borders side of the issue* - none, period complete stop - at least in the sense of having completely unregulated borders as many are suggesting. 
> 
> What you will find is that there are many _anarchists_ who mistakenly or deceptively apply the label of libertarian to themselves, and you will find anarchists advocating against borders.
> 
> This is really a fundamental litmus test that divides the two. *You cannot be a libertarian and be for unregulated borders OR advocate no state at all.* Those who advocate either are something besides libertarian (in the latter case, that is the literal definition of an anarchist).
> 
> *The defense of liberty requires sovereignty.* That is the fundamental bottom line of _libertarianism_, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.


This is why I said it depends on what you mean by libertarian. A statist libertarian that will trade individual sovereignty for national sovereignty can certainly call on his rulers to keep the undesirables out. An anarchist will say that it is up to the property owner, period.

----------


## erowe1

> A statist libertarian that will trade individual sovereignty for national sovereignty can certainly call on his rulers to keep the undesirables out.


In what sense would that person be a libertarian at all?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> In what sense would that person be a libertarian at all?


Because they call themselves one? I don't know, what is the generally accepted definition of the label?

----------


## otherone

> *The defense of liberty requires sovereignty.* That is the fundamental bottom line of _libertarianism_, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.


The foundation of libertarianism is individual sovereignty, and the purpose of government is to secure that.

IRT to borders:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

----------


## Lord Xar

> You've missed my point entirely.


well, truth be told -- I was thinking "I'm not sure what angle this is....", so inevitably, I read your post the wrong way, it wasn't clear. my bad.

----------


## erowe1

> Because they call themselves one? I don't know, what is the generally accepted definition of the label?


I don't know. I avoid the label myself because of that problem. But I think it's safe to say that if you believe in compelling someone to do something against their will in any cases beyond preventing them from violating the person or property of someone else or punishing them for doing so, then you're not a libertarian.

----------


## erowe1

> The foundation of libertarianism is individual sovereignty, and the purpose of government is to secure that.
> 
> IRT to borders:
> We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


I think that particular statement is pretty good. But generally speaking I wouldn't appeal to the Libertarian Party as an example of something libertarian.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If libertarianism is a series of axioms that must be dogmatically stuck to, regardless of what their implementation does to the libertarian civilization, then it's a useless philosophy that needs to be thrown out. Open border types would let their country be overrun by non-white statists, see the last scraps of negative liberty get destroyed, then count that as some sort of victory for the liberty movement. When it comes to statecraft and civilization building, consequentialism is an absolute necessity.


You realize that you've opened the door to absolutely any argument whatsoever, right?  In other words, you've taken a completely subjectivist, moral relativist position here.  Effectively, your ideal society is one upon which you impose your views through diktat, utterly incompatible with limited government on its face, and anathema to individual sovereignty.  




> *The defense of liberty requires sovereignty.* That is the fundamental bottom line of _libertarianism_, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.


Do you understand sovereignty?  Sovereignty cannot exist on dual plains - one cannot be sovereign while being subject to a sovereign.  Either one is sovereign or one is not.  If an individual is subject to a higher authority, that individual is not sovereign.  That's how that works.  So if you advocate these imaginary "political" entities with this "sovereign" authority, you explicitly reject the entire concept of individual sovereignty, which is in fact the basis of libertarianism.

----------


## otherone

> I think that particular statement is pretty good. But generally speaking I wouldn't appeal to the Libertarian Party as an example of something libertarian.


No one is asking you to.  You're as welcome to pull something from your ass as anyone else here.

----------


## otherone

> well, truth be told -- I was thinking "I'm not sure what angle this is....", so inevitably, I read your post the wrong way, it wasn't clear. my bad.


It's the "angle" that every time the state reacts to people's fears, it's the liberty of it's own people that is violated.
Patriot Act
Gun Control
NSA
CIA
FBI
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH

----------


## erowe1

> No one is asking you to.  You're as welcome to pull something from your ass as anyone else here.


That's a false dichotomy.

----------


## erowe1

> If libertarianism is a series of axioms that must be dogmatically stuck to, regardless of what their implementation does to the libertarian civilization, then it's a useless philosophy that needs to be thrown out. Open border types would let their country be overrun by non-white statists, see the last scraps of negative liberty get destroyed, then count that as some sort of victory for the liberty movement. When it comes to statecraft and civilization building, consequentialism is an absolute necessity.


Then stop pretending you're any kind of libertarian.

----------


## otherone

> That's a false dichotomy.


followed by irony.

----------


## erowe1

> followed by irony.


Explain?

----------


## otherone

> Explain?


You assumed that my prior comment claimed the LP was the only authority on libertarianism.
My ass-pulling comment was based on the dearth of ANY references in this thread.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> When did I ever say I was for a "100% sealed border"?    Hint:  I didn't.
> 
> Your dichotomy is bull$#@!, zippo.  It's nothing new to care about who entered the country, whether they were carrying any diseases, whether they could support themselves or were sponsored by another American, etc.


The false dichotomy is implied somewhat in the title of your effing thread.  Or one might call it 'false association'.  Maybe your cut-n-paste screed is intended to disuade people of a myth, but it reinforces the dichotomy.

Read, reread, and then summarize in YOUR OWN words the Banana Razor post guy:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6079554

And your comment about "It used to be law." I'd site Poe's Law but unfortunately the odds of it being sarcasm are 0.0001%.  Geesh!

----------


## erowe1

> You assumed that my prior comment claimed the LP was the only authority on libertarianism.
> My ass-pulling comment was based on the dearth of ANY references in this thread.


I didn't assume that. I only assumed that you treated the LP as AN authority on libertarianism, not that it was the only one.

In fact the LP has very little to do with libertarianism. If they happened to stumble onto a libertarian idea, it was probably an accident.

----------


## Lord Xar

> It's the "angle" that every time the state reacts to people's fears, it's the liberty of it's own people that is violated.
> Patriot Act
> Gun Control
> NSA
> CIA
> FBI
> BLAH
> BLAH
> BLAH
> ...


Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a 
an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency  AND open borders.... which, imho, means more 
statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less. 

IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for 
"SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.

----------


## otherone

> I didn't assume that. I only assumed that you treated the LP as AN authority on libertarianism, not that it was the only one.


Then in what way did I create a false dichotomy?

----------


## erowe1

> Then in what way did I create a false dichotomy?


The dichotomy between accepting the LP as an authority on libertarianism or else pulling something out of my ass was a false one.

----------


## otherone

> The dichotomy between accepting the LP as an authority on libertarianism or else pulling something out of my ass was a false one.


WRONG.  Hence my irony comment.  I never claimed that.  I never disputed anyone's SOURCE.   
The ass comment was because there were NO sources cited.  Don't like my LP source?  FINE.   REFERENCE ANOTHER.   Otherwise, you're pulling it out of your ass.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
> IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a 
> an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency  AND open borders.... which, imho, means more 
> statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less. 
> 
> IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for 
> "SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.


Your apparent presumption is that those sealed off within the borders - a problem in and of itself - are favorably disposed to limited government.  They're demonstrably not, unless you want to posit that the expansion of government over nigh 150 years has been a consequence specifically of immigration.  I presume you do not.  

While I sympathize with the idea that uninhibited immigration doesn't necessarily diminish the authority of the state, there doesn't seem to be anything which suggests it particularly empowers it.  And while in an ideal world we'd see the retrenchment of the welfare state, I do not see any reason to advocate the retrenchment of the rights of the individual until further time as those particular goals are achieved.  On those grounds, then, do you?

----------


## erowe1

> FINE.   REFERENCE ANOTHER.   Otherwise, you're pulling it out of your ass.


And that right there is a false dichotomy.

See? I was right after all, as usual.

----------


## angelatc

> Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
> IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a 
> an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency  AND open borders.... which, imho, means more 
> statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less. 
> 
> IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for 
> "SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.


Me too.  I would much rather live in a nation with no welfare and open borders.  But that isn't an option these days.  

I hate what "closing the borders" entails.  I means living in a "Papers, please!" environment.  There really isn't a win/win to be had here.

----------


## erowe1

> Me too.  I would much rather live in a nation with no welfare and open borders.


I don't see why these are so often put together like this.

No welfare is always better than welfare, regardless if the borders are open or closed. And open borders are always better than closed borders, regardless if there's welfare or not.

The way to fix any government created problem is always to undo or reduce whatever government intervention caused it in the first place, not to add on top of it some new government solution that's going to cause more problems. And if you can't undo the first problem, it's still better not to add on those additional ones.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Me too.  I would much rather live in a nation with no welfare and open borders.  But that isn't an option these days.  
> 
> I hate what "closing the borders" entails.  I means living in a "Papers, please!" environment.  There really isn't a win/win to be had here.


Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose the welfare state to instead call for closing the borders because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state. That only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.

----------


## angelatc

> Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose the welfare state to instead call for closing the borders because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state. That only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.


Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose secured borders to instead call for ignoring or bankrupting the welfare state because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state.

Adding more citizens to the benefits list  only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.

----------


## angelatc

> I
> 
> The way to fix any government created problem is always to undo or reduce whatever government intervention caused it in the first place, not to add on top of it some new government solution that's going to cause more problems. And if you can't undo the first problem, it's still better not to add on those additional ones.


But we already have a welfare state and an immigration policy.  The only thing that's getting added are welfare recipients.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Adding more citizens to the benefits list  only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic


Actually, it is the only way to make it realistic. Make it so big the government bankrupts itself. And you can accomplish that without violating the rights of everyone already here any further by checking their papers and keeping them from leaving.

----------


## navy-vet

> Maybe some feel it's better to try to fix what we already have, rather than hope we get something better from the rubble of a collapse.


Yes sir, I'm in that boat myself.

----------


## misterx

> How do you justify mixing together home and nation like that? The one is a person's property. The other isn't. What right do I have to dictate to other people in my nation whom they can and can't allow onto their own property?


That's exactly what you're trying to do though. If you want to live in Mexico then move there instead of forcing the rest of us to change our country into Mexico. Why don't you just admit that you don't believe in nations. You are opposed to the very idea of the nation state, and your only aim is to dismantle it. You are a marxist disguised as a libertarian.

----------


## misterx

> And that right there is a false dichotomy.
> 
> See? I was right after all, as usual.


Your arrogance is unbecoming.

----------


## otherone

> And that right there is a false dichotomy.
> 
> See? I was right after all, as usual.


Regardless, I still wait for a source pertaining to the libertarian view on borders.

----------


## Cabal

> *The defense of liberty requires sovereignty.* That is the fundamental bottom line of _libertarianism_, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.


You mean national sovereignty, I presume? As in, that which establishes a sovereign State-- a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area? In which case, you're suggesting that liberty is dependent upon that which is required for statism--the State being the single greatest active oppressor of liberty in all of history, whose very existence necessarily requires liberty to be forfeited under threat of violence and/or forcibly taken away by way of violence. 

That's quite the paradoxical "philosophy" you've conjured up there. I'm not sure how that qualifies as libertarian, either.

Can you outline the libertarian philosophy that you are promoting here, and explain why oppression of liberty and centralized violence against liberty are compatible and consistent with that libertarian philosophy? Evidently your definition of libertarianism has nothing to do with individualism, property rights, or non-aggression (core principles that have been paramount to libertarian philosophy as I understand it), so your use of "libertarian" is a very foreign one to me. I'll be needing some further explanation.

You see, a philosophy with individual liberty and non-aggression at its core cannot simultaneously include national sovereignty without immediately contradicting itself, and thus becoming self-detonating due to internal inconsistency. You cannot be for individual liberty and for statism at the same time--one must necessarily take precedent over the other, as they are necessarily incompatible, and cannot coexist on equal ground. Either statism must give way to individual liberty, or individual liberty must be forfeited and sacrificed for the sake of statism.

----------


## erowe1

> But we already have a welfare state and an immigration policy.  The only thing that's getting added are welfare recipients.


That's not the only thing that's getting added. Employees, consumers, and tax payers are all getting added. Any change in policy we can make that lessens the control the regime has over whom we can and can't hire as employees and rent property out to is a good change.

----------


## thoughtomator

> This is why I said it depends on what you mean by libertarian.


If by "libertarian", you mean "fish", then we're not speaking the same language. If by "libertarian" you mean "libertarian", then the person must at a minimum implicitly recognize the need for a state. If you reject the fundamental reasons for the existence of nations, then you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. That's why there are two words used, they are two different concepts, and the differing opinion on benefits of the existence of nationhood is the key differentiator between them.




> A *statist libertarian* that will trade individual sovereignty for national sovereignty can certainly call on his rulers to keep the undesirables out. An anarchist will say that it is up to the property owner, period.


There are no "statist libertarians" and "non-statist libertarians". *A libertarian recognizes the benefits of having a state.* Someone who wishes for additional government action beyond those limited but vital benefits is not a libertarian.

If you're an anarchist, "statist" is a pejorative applied to anyone who is not also an anarchist - including libertarians. For libertarians, "statist" is someone who prefers state action to private action - in other words, someone who _isn't_ a libertarian.

I suggest you take the word "statist" out of your vocabulary unless your intent is to obfuscate and not resolve the issues under discussion.

----------


## Dianne

If we put a border anywhere, it should be between the Congressional Building/White House and the American people.  That's the border fence we need.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose secured borders to instead call for ignoring or bankrupting the welfare state because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state.
> 
> Adding more citizens to the benefits list  only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.


I would agree. Abandoning the position of ending the welfare state would be a mistake.

The closest tangible libertarian solution to the immigration/welfare issue would be eliminating welfare for non-citizens and immigrants. Even this is probably unrealistic, however (and also includes issues on its own - what authorities and powers will the government have/use/require to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens, etc), so I don't see it as beneficial to abandon principle and advocate a potentially harmful solution that is additionally unlikely to become law.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't see why these are so often put together like this.
> 
> No welfare is always better than welfare, regardless if the borders are open or closed. And open borders are always better than closed borders, regardless if there's welfare or not.
> 
> The way to fix any government created problem is always to undo or reduce whatever government intervention caused it in the first place, not to add on top of it some new government solution that's going to cause more problems. And if you can't undo the first problem, it's still better not to add on those additional ones.


Exactly.   Plus, it is incorrect to frame the debate as an "open borders vs. closed borders" debate.  Libertarians don't advocate for closed OR open borders, they simply affirm private property and are anti-state.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Blah, blah, blah.  Another useful idiot to the globalists.



Rich coming from another statist coward.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If by "libertarian", you mean "fish", then we're not speaking the same language. If by "libertarian" you mean "libertarian", then the person must at a minimum implicitly recognize the need for a state. If you reject the fundamental reasons for the existence of nations, then you are not a libertarian, you are an anarchist. That's why there are two words used, they are two different concepts, and the differing opinion on benefits of the existence of nationhood is the key differentiator between them.
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "statist libertarians" and "non-statist libertarians". *A libertarian recognizes the benefits of having a state.* Someone who wishes for additional government action beyond those limited but vital benefits is not a libertarian.
> 
> If you're an anarchist, "statist" is a pejorative applied to anyone who is not also an anarchist - including libertarians. For libertarians, "statist" is someone who prefers state action to private action - in other words, someone who _isn't_ a libertarian.
> 
> I suggest you take the word "statist" out of your vocabulary unless your intent is to obfuscate and not resolve the issues under discussion.


I would not say that you are totally off, but you aren't entirely convincing. I believe that what you just described is a minarchist, not a libertarian. If a libertarian has to accept the NAP, which while being a debatable premise isn't without merit for a bare bones for what makes someone libertarian, then a libertarian cannot accept the state in any form as by its very it is about initiating violence. A libertarian I would argue supports the idea or desirability of some form of government that violates neither the NAP or individual human rights. This differs from an anarchist who would argue that any form of central government is unneeded and inherently dangerous.

So, I think you can have statist libertarians, for the reasons you describe, and non-statist libertarians. For a non-statist libertarian national borders are a convenient way to divide up the world, but they have no inherent worth beyond that.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Ok I am on board with this - I never wasn't. I never insinuated otherwise. But this is precarious situation.
> IF we do NOT get rid of the welfare & dependency state while having very porous borders -- there is a 
> an issue there -- so, we continue the welfare/dependency  AND open borders.... which, imho, means more 
> statism, never less. More lovers of statism, never less. 
> 
> IF the controllers will not turn off the spiket, what choice is there? I can't answer that... but rather than advocating for 
> "SEAL THE BORDERS" -- I go the route of "TURN OFF THE SPIKET" -- that does not mean one wants to seal the borders.


Not really. Open the borders, stop making immigrant labor illegal, and tax it. If anything that would HELP the welfare state and it is easy. The issue is that the Democrats are owned by the unions, which see cheap labor as a  threat to union labor monopolies.

----------


## PierzStyx

> *There are no libertarians on the open-borders side of the issue* - none, period complete stop - at least in the sense of having completely unregulated borders as many are suggesting. 
> 
> What you will find is that there are many _anarchists_ who mistakenly or deceptively apply the label of libertarian to themselves, and you will find anarchists advocating against borders.
> 
> *You're confusing libertarian and minarchists. Minarchists believe in the necessity of a minimal state. Libertarians hold to the NAP and individual rights above all- in defiance of the state. Libertarians may support voluntary governments but they cannot support a state as a state is founded on the monopoly  on violence and the right to initiate violence to compel obedience. Anarchists are suspect of even the voluntary government of libertarianism, seeing even the concept of an official government as obsolete.Immigration is not a threat to the existence of a rights based government, only to the statist government  based on compulsion. Further, as closed borders immigration laws necessitate violating both the NAP and basic human rights, libertarians have a duty to oppose closed borders laws.*
> 
> *The defense of liberty requires sovereignty.* That is the fundamental bottom line of _libertarianism_, and any philosophy based on something that contradicts this principle cannot meaningfully be called libertarian.
> 
> *Yes, individual sovereignty! The state has no rights, it is not a person, merely an organization. It has no rights to rule, no power to rule. Only individuals have sovereign rights and powers, and those only over themselves and what they own. A place where the nation is  sovereign by definition has an oppressed populace who is not sovereign. This is the fundamental bottom-line of libertarianism: The individual is sovereign over themselves and their property, with no power to regulate, command, or rule over anyone or anything else.*


Replies in underlined bold. I think you're confusing libertarian for minarchist.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Replies in underlined bold. I think you're confusing libertarian for minarchist.


You, and several others in this thread, seem to believe that "libertarian" is a direct synonym for "anarcho-capitalist." It should be petty obvious that this is simply not so.

----------


## Cabal

> You, and several others in this thread, seem to believe that "libertarian" is a direct synonym for "anarcho-capitalist." It should be petty obvious that this is simply not so.


You, and several others in this thread, seem to be incapable of explaining how libertarianism is compatible with statism. It should be pretty obvious that this is simply not so. 


But then, you're the same guy who has convinced yourself that the Constitution established a voluntary society...

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Nope, the NAP is the only MUST.



No self preservation is. Open borders means the destruction of your culture/values/ and population.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You don't post about liberty here.  You don't post about freedom.
> All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
> You don't fear the county that would come in after.  You fear losing the county you have.
> If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
> But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's _your_ cage.



Well what happens when you bring in tens of millions of Low IQed welfare voters?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I believe in open borders, but I also believe in national sovereignty and the right to self defense.  So, it's a fluid position for me. We all recognize that the real solution is to end the welfare state and stop military adventurism, which are really the cause for the "border issue."


So what if open borders leads to the changing of your nation population/ a replacement of your culture and and your rights are limited via the election of leftists?

What then?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So, Americans should want people entering the country illegally who have no interest in assimilating or in communicating with other Americans?  Gotcha.



Any voting to limit our rights and steal our wealth.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> A very small, limited government with a very large military/ security apparatus to completely seal the border (which is an impossible task).  
> 
> If one is opposed to a 100% sealed border one must therefore be in favor of 100% unlimited immigration.   False dichotomy.  
> 
> There is a trade-off between freedom of citizens and restrictions on immigration.  The question is how much of one you are willing to give up in exchange for the other.


Switzerland does it. How much are you? Look at how much Liberty was lost after 9/11 which was caused in large part to mass immigration.

*Unrestricted Immigration*=Restricted *Liberty*

Or

*Restricted Immigration*=Unrestricted *Liberty

You can have one or the other not both.

*maximum security at the borders and maximum liberty within the borders.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for federal benefits.  Legal immigrants are not eligible for their first five years.


Zippy you have been told countless times that is a lie and you repeating it does not change it.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> If you want to stop all illegal immigration, that requires a 100% sealed border.  But even that is not enough.  About 45% of all those currently in the country illegally came here legally- they overstayed their visas.  So we need to issue zero visas and have a 100% sealed border if we want zero illegal immigrants coming here.
> 
> Or instead of zero visas, we need tracking chips on people entering the country even for vacation and a large police- type force to track and round up all those who over-stay their visas and then deport them. Papers please!
> 
> Or you don't mind having a few illegal immigrants in the country.



No, you have a entry/exist tracking system of the visas, but hey keep lying. 

We do mind having 30 million plus illegals on top of 50 million plus legal immigrants. Mass immigration is a disaster  and has brought us nothing we would not be able to do/create/archive ourselves.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> By "the country" you mean the federal government.
> 
> Yeah, I want that to fail.


And what happens with those 30 million illegals? Do you think they will support Liberty or a tyrannical goverment that gives them free stuff?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The country, as led by the natives, with their voting habits, is doing just swell, amiright?
> 
> Donald Trump is about to be nominated by the white Anglo-Saxon protestant worthies of our party.
> 
> ..while don Hillary'll be nominated by the donkey party.
> 
> Freedom...........................................  .......................



So lets make it worst by importing welfare voters, amright?

----------


## Anti Federalist

Ask the Cherokee or Apache people what they think of "open borders".

----------


## angelatc

> Ask the Cherokee or Apache people what they think of "open borders".


Its ok.  We "gave" them some land to live on.  And casinos!

----------


## thoughtomator

> Replies in underlined bold. I think you're confusing libertarian for minarchist.


I'm not confusing libertarian for minarchist. You and others who are not comprehending what I am saying are confusing libertarian for something other than minarchist. A libertarian would be a subset of minarchist, should any other types of minarchist (not motivated by preservation of liberty) actually exist.

Let's make this simple.


*If you are a libertarian you are a minarchist.

If you are an anarchist you are not a libertarian.

If you are a libertarian you are not an anarchist.
*


Why anarchists are so dissatisfied with being called anarchists is beyond me; you believe it, you should own it. Regardless, what you are not allowed to do is redefine a very distinct and different term to shoehorn it into your belief system because it has more positive connotations than the correct word for your beliefs.

A libertarian is someone who believes the fundamental principle expressed in the Declaration of Independence: that government should exist for the sole purpose of protection of liberty - and should have no other role. NOT that government shouldn't exist at all. Yes this requires a monopoly on the lawful use of violence within a defined territory (which is the definition of sovereignty). This is the "necessary evil" part of the libertarian description of government. 

What makes it necessary is that this arrangement provides for maximum human liberty, far more than the every-man-for-himself anarchist approach, where the only liberty you really have is your natural right to violence. Which will make for a bloody affair, by the way, as everyone else will also have theirs as well, and if you understand human beings at all you know they will use it liberally and without conscience.

If you believe government should not exist at all, there is a perfectly good word already available for you to use: "anarchist". It literally means absence of government, and if that's what you believe in, that's what you are.


Also, "individual sovereignty" is the same thing as anarchism, it's just a more complicated way to say it.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Blah, blah, blah.  Another useful idiot to the globalists.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Its ok.  We "gave" them some land to live on.  And casinos!


I think we made them build their own casinos though.  And then told them what kinds of gambling they were and were not allowed to do in them.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Its ok.  We "gave" them some land to live on.  And casinos!


So you assume because we took mercy on them and allowed them to exist the same thing will happen to us?

Why not avoid being put in such a position to begin with.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I'm not confusing libertarian for minarchist. You and others who are not comprehending what I am saying are confusing libertarian for something other than minarchist. A libertarian would be a subset of minarchist, should any other types of minarchist (not motivated by preservation of liberty) actually exist.
> 
> Let's make this simple.
> 
> 
> *If you are a libertarian you are a minarchist.
> 
> If you are an anarchist you are not a libertarian.
> 
> ...



I do not understand how people can not understand the difference?

----------


## otherone

> So you assume because *we* took mercy on them and allowed them to exist the same thing will happen to us?


lol

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> lol


Yeah, because stating history and not wanting to repeating makes a person a Fascist.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I do not understand how people can not understand the difference?


They want YOU to not understand the difference so as to attempt to convert libertarians to the anarchist cause. Sadly, the defense of liberty also requires wariness of ideologies which may have a lot of surface appeal, before you consider how exactly they may play out in the real world.

Personally I think most anarchists are just staggeringly naive about human nature. They think their anarchic world will mean liberty for them, rather than being the express superhighway to another form of tyranny. It should be self-evident... after all, look at the tyrannies people are crying out for in the absence of lawful government. A deliberate absence thereof would be nothing but a very brief interregnum, all it really represents is a random roll of the dice. Given that human nature leads most probably to pretty nasty outcomes and that the concept of liberty itself is a grand achievement of humanity that took nearly our entire existence to express in clear terms, the outcome of anarchy is astronomically unlikely to result in liberty.

Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.

----------


## otherone

> Yeah, because stating history and not wanting to repeating makes a person a Fascist.


Nah, bro.
You said "we" in reference to events that happened over a century ago.  The fascinating thing is that you have positive rep on THIS site.  Trump might get elected yet.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Nah, bro.
> You said "we" in reference to events that happened over a century ago.  The fascinating thing is that you have positive rep on THIS site.  Trump might get elected yet.


Yes, I do as open border/mass immigration only destroys a nation.

----------


## thoughtomator

Nobody took any mercy on the natives of this continent. When we got here they ruled a third of the world's land mass, now their culture exists only in a grossly stunted form on tiny aboriginal reservations carved from the worst lands that could be ceded to them. Every agreement they made with Europeans was broken, without exception.

It should be a warning to anyone who would welcome a wholly foreign culture to a) take root here; and b) outpopulate the people who were here when they arrived.

The American Indians are an object lesson in how immigration can go very very very wrong, and why open borders is a suicidal policy. They had open borders - now they're gone. So will you be, if you have the same.

----------


## Wilf

> The American Indians are an object lesson in how immigration can go very very very wrong, and why open borders is a suicidal policy. They had open borders - now they're gone. So will you be, if you have the same.


This has nothing to do with open borders. Instead, this has to do with the fact that the Americans indians chould adapt to the adversities that face their societies. No one says that the China collapsed because of open border but it was there conservative nature that prevented them to make reforms (reducing state agression) in order to compete with other countries.

----------


## Cabal

> 


Enslavement, eh?

Like how we are all effectively indentured serfs to the State by way of taxation?

Human capital, eh?

As in tax livestock and cannon fodder for the State, with which it may continue to leverage greater, and greater sums of debt; with which it may continue to indefinitely perpetuate wars both domestically and internationally? 

This same State whose borders (read: claim to property) you're trying to rationalize?

Or is that truth too inconvenient?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [Liberty] requires a monopoly on the lawful use of violence within a defined territory (which is the definition of sovereignty). This is the "necessary evil" part of the libertarian description of government. 
> 
> What makes it necessary is that this arrangement provides for maximum human liberty, far more than the every-man-for-himself anarchist approach, where the only liberty you really have is your natural right to violence. Which will make for a bloody affair, by the way, as everyone else will also have theirs as well, and if you understand human beings at all you know they will use it liberally and without conscience.





> Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.


The reason I find it impossible to take arguments like this seriously is that the people who make them so obviously do not take them seriously, either.

You can make as many breathlessly Hobbesian pronouncements on the matter as you like - but you don't get to have it both ways.

If what you are pleased to call (and to so contemptuously regard as) "human nature" is as ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish as you need it to be in order to prop up your thesis, then it is grotesquely absurd to declare that this can be mitigated by placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence in the hands of some few of those miserable wretches whose nature you say is so ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish. Indeed, to the extent that "human nature" is as depraved as you assert, then far from the amelioration of the consequences of that nature, the existence of a monopoly on the use of force can serve only to aggravate and magnify those consequences ...




> The debate between statists and anti-statists is in my judgement not evenly matched. Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires﻿ that one imagine non-state chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that non-state actors seem completely incapable of causing.

----------


## thoughtomator

Here is a very timely example of how migrants from a foreign culture destroy liberty, with specific respect to the topic of open borders.

In Europe, the "Schengen Area" is - or I should say _was_ - exactly what the open-borders advocates on this thread hope for. Visa-less passage across national borders, no checks whatsoever, not even the showing of ID.

Well, thanks to their counterparts in Europe letting their minds be so open their brains fell out, *opening the borders to foreign migrants has directly resulted in closed borders between similar cultures where there was previously conflict-free free passage*.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35218921

Thanks to "open borders" insanity over there, the Schengen Area is rapidly falling apart, with border checks now going up in quite a number of European countries.

Yeah, open borders with culturally similar peoples IS good and DOES work. But note the prerequisite. Now in Europe, nations which are extremely friendly and culturally similar can no longer securely permit free passage thanks to the poison of the foreign culture being injected into the people stream.

Wake the hell up and cut out this "open borders" nonsense, if you value your own liberty.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> This has nothing to do with open borders. Instead, this has to do with the fact that the Americans indians chould adapt to the adversities that face their societies. No one says that the China collapsed because of open border but it was there conservative nature that prevented them to make reforms (reducing state agression) in order to compete with other countries.


Apples and Oranges.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Enslavement, eh?
> 
> Like how we are all effectively indentured serfs to the State by way of taxation?
> 
> Human capital, eh?
> 
> As in tax livestock and cannon fodder for the State, with which it may continue to leverage greater, and greater sums of debt; with which it may continue to indefinitely perpetuate wars both domestically and internationally? 
> 
> This same State whose borders (read: claim to property) you're trying to rationalize?
> ...



So why import more serfs who do not understand nor support reducing the state?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So why import more serfs who do not understand nor support reducing the state?


Why should New Hampshire allow Massachusetts liberals who don't agree with reducing government?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Why should New Hampshire allow Massachusetts liberals who don't agree with reducing government?


Not the question, Americans have the right to travel with the nation, no one has the right to immigrate to the United States but nothing.

----------


## thoughtomator

> The reason I find it impossible to take arguments like this seriously is that the people who make them so obviously do not take them seriously, either.
> 
> You can make as many breathlessly Hobbesian pronouncements on the matter as you like - but you don't get to have it both ways.
> 
> If what you are pleased to call (and to so contemptuously regard as) "human nature" is as ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish as you need it to be in order to prop up your thesis, *then it is grotesquely absurd to declare that this can be mitigated by placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence* in the hands of some few of those miserable wretches whose nature you say is so ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish. Indeed, to the extent that "human nature" is as depraved as you assert, then far from the amelioration of the consequences of that nature, the existence of a monopoly on the use of force can serve only to aggravate and magnify those consequences ...


If you intentionally misconstrue the argument, it is no wonder that you can't take it seriously.

Why not try getting the argument correct and considering that idea, instead?

There is no proposal to "place sole and exclusive authority to employ violence". It is very specifically "placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence" *for the well-defined and sharply limited set of responsibilities for which there is no better alternative than to have a state*.

When you leave out that last part it completely changes the character of the argument, and of course becomes advocacy of open-ended use of the monopoly on violence for any purpose - an advocacy completely at odds with libertarianism.

It's not an optional part of the argument - it is _absolutely essential to the nature of what libertarianism is_, and the very thing that differentiates libertarianism from other philosophies of government.

----------


## Cabal

> So why import more serfs who do not understand nor support reducing the state?


Who said anything about importing anyone? 

How is encouraging State violence and the State's claim to property rights going to reduce the State, exactly?

----------


## Ender

> Who said anything about importing anyone? 
> 
> How is encouraging State violence and the State's claim to property rights going to reduce the State, exactly?


Stop making sense, Cabal.

----------


## DFF

Open borders are ideal if you're a globalist cuck.

But if you're a nationalist, a category which most people in the United States fall under, they're an anathema.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Who said anything about importing anyone? 
> 
> How is encouraging State violence and the State's claim to property rights going to reduce the State, exactly?


How is importing tens of millions of welfare voters going to do that?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Open borders are ideal if you're a globalist cuck.
> 
> But if you're a nationalist, a category which most people in the United States fall under, they're an anathema.


Careful loving your nation, culture, Liberty, and people is "racist"!. (sarcasm) 

If people here think open borders are a good ideas, why do they not the walls and doors off their homes?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not the question, Americans have the right to travel with the nation, no one has the right to immigrate to the United States but nothing.


We've already been through this, but you are simply not sophisticated enough to make a consistent argument.    Are people in Europe less free than Americans?   Is a libertarian in Canada less free than a Marxist American?   

You see, you don't have a philosophy of rights that makes freedom natural to men.  You propose rights that are granted by the state.  This alone should render you a laughingstock on this board,  but sadly this board is bereft of real libertarians nowadays.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> We've already been through this, but you are simply not sophisticated enough to make a consistent argument.    Are people in Europe less free than Americans?   Is a libertarian in Canada less free than a Marxist American?   
> 
> You see, you don't have a philosophy of rights that makes freedom natural to men.  You propose rights that are granted by the state.  This alone should render you a laughingstock on this board,  but sadly this board is bereft of real libertarians nowadays.


No, you keep making that statement as you are not capable of making an a point. Yes they are less free, they do not have protected right to speak freely, can and are arrested for speaking their mind, they can not keep and bare arms without a ever growing number of hoops to jump through will the Arab/African hordes flood their nation and smuggling in AK, RPG, and sheer numbers of persons as to change the entire make up of their nations and destroying their culture.

No, I do have a philosophy of rights namely the right of self preservation, open borders and mass immigration harmful to that and all other rights so we are going to prevent it from happening.

You moralist/cultural relativist fail to understand the some cultures/peoples/ can not, and will never understand and value freedom, that does do not will be keep out as do protect Liberty and those that value it. 

People like you who would fall on your sword rather then swing it at the enemy are a joke.

----------


## Cabal

> How is importing tens of millions of welfare voters going to do that?


Again, who said anything about importing anyone?

So far, you haven't been able to adequately respond to anything, particularly where your advocacy of State violence and State property rights is concerned. Are you going to reconcile these things at all, or are you just an unapologetic statist?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Again, who said anything about importing anyone?
> 
> So far, you haven't been able to adequately respond to anything, particularly where your advocacy of State violence and State property rights is concerned. Are you going to reconcile these things at all, or are you just an unapologetic statist?


You were aware when people immigrate they tend to you know, move to another nation?

Once again you have not given any ideas so until you do you have less then no right to call out anyone for their ideas. 

Can they be reconciled?

Do you see the state having any role in society? Yes or no? If no then you are an anarchist.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose the welfare state to instead call for closing the borders because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state. That only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.


But, then again, you've already stated that it is your wish that our country falls.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, you keep making that statement as you are not capable of making an a point. Yes they are less free, they do not have protected right to speak freely, can and are arrested for speaking their mind, they can not keep and bare arms without a ever growing number of hoops to jump through will the Arab/African hordes flood their nation and smuggling in AK, RPG, and sheer numbers of persons as to change the entire make up of their nations and destroying their culture.
> 
> No, I do have a philosophy of rights namely the right of self preservation, open borders and mass immigration harmful to that and all other rights so we are going to prevent it from happening.
> 
> You moralist/cultural relativist fail to understand the some cultures/peoples/ can not, and will never understand and value freedom, that does do not will be keep out as do protect Liberty and those that value it. 
> 
> People like you who would fall on your sword rather then swing it at the enemy are a joke.


^^^
Some people are more free than others, and people have rights because a government declares it so.

You are a Marxist. 

This is the wrong website for you.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> But, then again, you've already stated that it is your wish that our country falls.


Some people want to see progress toward actual liberty, regardless of the consequences to the state. Others want what's best for the state, and hope some of your rights are left afterwards. Whatever floats your boat.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Strategically speaking, it strikes me as unwise for those with the proclivity to oppose the welfare state to instead call for closing the borders because of the unlikely possibility of the shrinking or abolition of the welfare state. That only serves to make the notion of eliminating the welfare state even more unrealistic, and what we're left with is an increase in state power and size, as you pointed out in your post - the opposite (presumably) of the wants of those who wish to see the welfare state wither away.


So what abo

What about the millions of people that would flood in and vote to recreate the welfare state after we just abolished it?

Did we always have a welfare state? No, we go it after we let in  a bunch of Eastern Europeans, most of which were supportive of redistribution of wealth, odd is it not? Its like they change the culture/political nature of the nation by being in it?

Why that is what happened.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> ^^^
> Some people are more free than others, and people have rights because a government declares it so.
> 
> You are a Marxist. 
> 
> This is the wrong website for you.


No, you are a person that can not understand self interest and how it is illogical to work against your own, mass immigration is against our interests as it imports tens of millions of people that will support leftist ideals/politics and will reshape our demographics as to insure we never have any real power.

If you can not understand this it is your problem and all the name call and cries of "racist" or "Marxist" does not change it.

Cucknservativism and Libertardism are done, if Liberty is to survival we will restore sanity, and we are not going to do i nicely as doing things nicely got us into the situation that we are in.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Some people want to see progress toward actual liberty, regardless of the consequences to the state. Others want what's best for the state, and hope some of your rights are left afterwards. Whatever floats your boat.


When has anarchy led to Liberty? How did that work out well in any nation since oh I do not know..Rome? The French Revolution, Spain, Russia, China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, How is Liberty in the middle East?

----------


## erowe1

> Not the question, Americans have the right to travel with the nation, no one has the right to immigrate to the United States but nothing.


What's the difference? If we have the right to cross state lines, why should national borders be treated any differently?

----------


## erowe1

> When has anarchy led to Liberty? How did that work out well in any nation since oh I do not know..Rome? The French Revolution, Spain, Russia, China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, How is Liberty in the middle East?


None of those are examples of anarchy. All of them followed your left-wing closed border policies.

----------


## erowe1

> No, you are a person that can not understand self interest and how it is illogical to work against your own, mass immigration is against our interests


Why do you say "our interests," as if my interests have to be the same as yours?

How about you pursue what you think your interests are, and you don't interfere with me pursuing what I think my interests are. If I want to hire a so-called illegal immigrant to work for me, you have no right to get involved in any way.

----------


## otherone

> When has anarchy led to Liberty?


It occurs to me that you are somewhat new here, and to have a better understanding of your argument, I'd like to know how you define "liberty".

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What's the difference? If we have the right to cross state lines, why should national borders be treated any differently?


Those are states within a nation. Because different nations of different people, with different cultures and different political values and some are just superiority to others, those that are superiority should not be brought down by those that are inferior.

Not all people, ideals, values, and politics are conducive to Liberty.

----------


## otherone

> Those are states within a nation. Because different nations of different people, with different cultures and different political values and some are just superiority to others, those that are superiority should not be brought down by those that are inferior.
> 
> Not all people, ideals, values, and politics are conducive to Liberty.


It's ironic that a xenophobe has taken as his screen name a swarthy-skinned people that invaded a fair-skinned one.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> None of those are examples of anarchy. All of them followed your left-wing closed border policies.


So does Switzerland, yet a peaceful nation. You understand leftist are for open border as they can import future welfare voters, collapse the system and reboot with millions of voters with no loyalty to the nation, culture, and people right?




> Why do you say "our interests," as if my interests have to be the same as yours?
> 
> How about you pursue what you think your interests are, and you don't interfere with me pursuing what I think my interests are. If I want to hire a so-called illegal immigrant to work for me, you have no right to get involved in any way.


Do you value having a say? Do you value not having your wealth/property stolen at a faster and faster right?

Do you value not being a made a minority in your own nation, your culture displace, subverted or destroyed?

Do you value having self determination over your future/nation, culture, etc?

Do you value not being stripped of the few rights/freedoms you have left?

Seeing how they are using roads, hospitals, services that they and their kids use that we,I pay for as do most Americans, we do get a say, and we say no way.





> It occurs to me that you are somewhat new here, and to have a better understanding of your argument, I'd like to know how you define "liberty".


The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Those are states within a nation. Because different nations of different people, with different cultures and different political values and some are just superiority to others, those that are superiority should not be brought down by those that are inferior.
> 
> Not all people, ideals, values, and politics are conducive to Liberty.


The people in some states are less conducive to liberty than people from other states.  Therefore, travel must be restricted, and people must be deported.

----------


## Cabal

> You were aware when people immigrate they tend to you know, move to another nation?


Again, who said anything about importing anyone?




> Once again you have not given any ideas so until you do you have less then no right to call out anyone for their ideas.


This is the first time you've made such a criticism of me in this exchange. "Once again" doesn't apply. You're not the greatest with words, and their meaning, are you?

Also, I have every right to call you out on your flagrant promotion of State violence and State property rights. What do you know about rights, anyway? You think the State has property rights, and the right to initiate violence. Your understanding of rights is clearly, and unfortunately quite lacking.




> Do you see the state having any role in society? Yes or no? If no then you are an anarchist.


Of course the State has no legitimate role in society. The only way the State could ever conceivably have a legitimate role in society is when it has achieved universal, unanimous consent from those it would mean to govern. 

So what if I'm an anarchist? That doesn't make your promotion of State violence and property rights any more compatible with liberty.

----------


## erowe1

> You understand leftist are for open border


No. Open borders is a libertarian position. Leftists have always been for closed borders.




> Do you value having a say?


Over what other people do with their own property? No. I have no right to have a say in that. And they don't have a right to have a say over what I do with mine.




> Do you value not having your wealth/property stolen at a faster and faster right?


Yes. That's why I oppose laws that entail the state effectively taking over my property by telling me who I may or may not allow onto it.




> Do you value not being a made a minority in your own nation


No. Not one bit. I am an individual, just like you are. And the individual will always be a minority in any nation.




> your culture displace, subverted or destroyed?


How? The fact that someone else wants to eat a taco doesn't keep me from eating a hamburger. My culture will survive for as long as I choose to observe it. So will yours. You need to disabuse yourself of this left-wing victim mentality you have.




> Do you value having self determination over your future/nation, culture, etc?


Yes. Ergo, the state must not be permitted to regulate culture.




> Do you value not being stripped of the few rights/freedoms you have left?


Yes. That's why I oppose your continual insistence on stripping me of these rights.




> Seeing how they are using roads, hospitals, services that they and their kids use that we,I pay for as do most Americans, we do get a say, and we say no way.


No we don't. You might. But we don't. You worry about yourself and leave the rest of us alone.

Illegal immigrants pay for those services just as much as natural born citizens do. Some of them don't. And some citizens don't (you in particular I'm guessing). None of those things should be paid for by taxes. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, you are a person that can not understand self interest and how it is illogical to work against your own, mass immigration is against our interests as it imports tens of millions of people that will support leftist ideals/politics and will reshape our demographics as to insure we never have any real power.
> 
> If you can not understand this it is your problem and all the name call and cries of "racist" or "Marxist" does not change it.
> 
> Cucknservativism and Libertardism are done, if Liberty is to survival we will restore sanity, and we are not going to do i nicely as doing things nicely got us into the situation that we are in.




No?  

You just said: 

1. some people are more free than others
2. people get rights from government

You are a MARXIST.  Those are MARXIST ideas.  You do not, in any way, support liberty or freedom.  

You are one of those useless numbskulls who globs on to state-generated slogans, never understanding your own slavery.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It's ironic that a xenophobe has taken as his screen name a swarthy-skinned people that invaded a fair-skinned one.


No, not wanting to be replaced and your nation/culture/Liberty Destroyed is not "xenophobic" its call self preservation sorry if you can not understand that some people, cultures, values, and political views are not conducive to Liberty.

----------


## Cabal

> When has anarchy led to Liberty? How did that work out well in any nation since oh I do not know..Rome? The French Revolution, Spain, Russia, China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, How is Liberty in the middle East?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The people in some states are less conducive to liberty than people from other states.  Therefore, travel must be restricted, and people must be deported.


Yeah, that 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendment makes that no possible.

But I total see the reasoning as people from the North East/Commieforina always spread their sickness else where.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, you are a person that can not understand self interest and how it is illogical to work against your own, mass immigration is against our interests as it imports tens of millions of people that will support leftist ideals/politics and will reshape our demographics as to insure we never have any real power.
> 
> If you can not understand this it is your problem and all the name call and cries of "racist" or "Marxist" does not change it.
> 
> Cucknservativism and Libertardism are done, if Liberty is to survival we will restore sanity, and we are not going to do i nicely as doing things nicely got us into the situation that we are in.




No?  

Well, you just said: 

1. some people are more free than others
2. people get rights from government

You are a MARXIST.  Those are MARXIST ideas.  You do not, in any way, support liberty or freedom.  

You are one of those useless numbskulls who glombs on to state-generated slogans, never understanding your own slavery.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah, that 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendment makes that no possible.
> 
> But I total see the reasoning as people from the North East/Commieforina always spread their sickness else where.


Are ideas physical things that remain in a person's skull in their own location?  Or are ideas immaterial things that do not stay inside a person's body?

And if the ideas do float around, why are we freedom-loving Kentuckians allowed to see, hear or read the ideas from these Commifornians?  Shouldn't their press and publications be monitored and censored to protect the rest of us white patriots?

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, that 8th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendment makes that no possible.


Why would some spots of ink on paper make it impossible?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No. Open borders is a libertarian position. Leftists have always been for closed borders.


Leftists are for open borders.  You're with Pelosi and McCain.  Enjoy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> We've already been through this, but you are simply not sophisticated enough to make a consistent argument.    Are people in Europe less free than Americans?   Is a libertarian in Canada less free than a Marxist American?   
> 
> You see, you don't have a philosophy of rights that makes freedom natural to men.  You propose rights that are granted by the state.  This alone should render you a laughingstock on this board,  but sadly this board is bereft of real libertarians nowadays.


You get all this from saying that he believes in national sovereignty and deciding who and how many immigrate to the nation?  

Fact is, you don't want a nation, much less national sovereignty.  Your ideals are right in keeping with the globalists.  You should be ashamed, Sola.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Again, who said anything about importing anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first time you've made such a criticism of me in this exchange. "Once again" doesn't apply. You're not the greatest with words, and their meaning, are you?
> 
> Also, I have every right to call you out on your flagrant promotion of State violence and State property rights. What do you know about rights, anyway? You think the State has property rights, and the right to initiate violence. Your understanding of rights is clearly, and unfortunately quite lacking.
> 
> 
> ...


That is what immigration is, the importation of people, their cultures and their politics, how you open border supporters not understand this is beyond us.

I know they do not exist or are protected when you have majority of people that do not understand them, value you or vote/act to protect them.


You want to take about some perfect solution while the nation burns, I seek to put out the flames and repair damage.





> No. Open borders is a libertarian position. Leftists have always been for closed borders.


Yeah, once they have used mass immigration to collapse the nation as to create a police state.

Switzerland has a close border, yet very right leaning.




> Over what other people do with their own property? No. I have no right to have a say in that. And they don't have a right to have a say over what I do with mine.


No, I pay, I get a say, and I NOPE.

Deal with it.






> Yes. That's why I oppose laws that entail the state effectively taking over my property by telling me who I may or may not allow onto it.


So why not stop the importation of people that overwhelming support a bigger goverment and if given the chance will vote for it as they will out vote you and your interests?









> No. Not one bit. I am an individual, just like you are. And the individual will always be a minority in any nation.


Yeah, and this sort of nonsense will not protect your rights from being voted away by imported voter blocs. 

Do you want to live in NYC, or the California where you vote nor your rights will never matter? Because that is why that sort of foolishness will get you.





> How? The fact that someone else wants to eat a taco doesn't keep me from eating a hamburger. My culture will survive for as long as I choose to observe it. So will yours. You need to disabuse yourself of this left-wing victim mentality you have.


No, you fail to understand that some cultures do not want to nor can co exists as well as the power of bloc voter bases.


Sorry if you can not understand having your nation and countrymen harmed by mass immigration, from crime to terrorism, to demographic tilting is a very real issue.




> Yes. Ergo, the state must not be permitted to regulate culture.


No, culture regulates the state, and we are going to use it to protect our interests.




> Yes. That's why I oppose your continual insistence on stripping me of these rights.


You do not have the right to aid and abide law breakers not commit treason. 




> No we don't. You might. But we don't. You worry about yourself and leave the rest of us alone.


[/QUOTE]

No, since your actions effect me I am going to watch what your side does and stop it when its asshatery effects me.




> No?  
> 
> You just said: 
> 
> 1. some people are more free than others
> 2. people get rights from government
> 
> You are a MARXIST.  Those are MARXIST ideas.  You do not, in any way, support liberty or freedom.  
> 
> You are one of those useless numbskulls who globs on to state-generated slogans, never understanding your own slavery.


Never said the latter, you clearly are not capable of understanding what I mean when talking about the 1st.

You always scream "Marxist" as if that make so, it does not. 

Yes, I have no idea about slavery but you support importing people that will vote away your rights, freedom, wealth, and future.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Those are states within a nation. Because different nations of different people, with different cultures and different political values and some are just superiority to others, those that are superiority should not be brought down by those that are inferior.
> 
> Not all people, ideals, values, and politics are conducive to Liberty.


Fact is, each nation should be able to decide who they want to immigrate to their country.  In the U.S., we were very picky until 1965 when Teddy Kennedy opened the floodgates to people in nations we previously did not allow immigrants from.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Are ideas physical things that remain in a person's skull in their own location?  Or are ideas immaterial things that do not stay inside a person's body?


If they are not in our nation, they can not greatly effect us. That is a fact.

IF they are kept out of our nation, they can not effect our lives, cost us money, or effect our elections.




> And if the ideas do float around, why are we freedom-loving Kentuckians allowed to see, hear or read the ideas from these Commifornians?  Shouldn't their press and publications be monitored and censored to protect the rest of us white patriots?


1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, Freedom to travel inside the nation.

----------


## LibertyEagle

The thing you have to understand, Spartan, is that some here WANT the country to fall.   They are ignorant enough to believe that they will be allowed to rebuild it from the ashes.  lol.   So, anything they can do to speed up the fall, they are all for.

Obviously, I am not one of them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If they are not in our nation, they can not greatly effect us. That is a fact.
> 
> IF they are kept out of our nation, they can not effect our lives, cost us money, or effect our elections.


What?  How can ideas "stay out of our nation"?  Can't anyone go on the net and read anything they want?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You get all this from saying that he believes in national sovereignty and deciding who and how many immigrate to the nation?  
> 
> Fact is, you don't want a nation, much less national sovereignty.  Your ideals are right in keeping with the globalists.  You should be ashamed, Sola.


He should be alast he does not nor will he...They want a massive world wide gulag, it will be a living hell but along as they feel morally superior to all the "bigots" and "racists" all will be well.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He should be alast he does not nor will he...They want a massive world wide gulag, it will be a living hell but along as they feel morally superior to all the "bigots" and "racists" all will be well.


No, they don't really want that.  They just are extremely naive and don't get that when our country falls, we will be ushered into world government.

Even Lew Rockwell at Mises thinks their open borders BS is dumbass.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Fact is, each nation should be able to decide who they want to immigrate to their country.  In the U.S., we were very picky until 1965 when Teddy Kennedy opened the floodgates to people in nations we previously did not allow immigrants from.


Yes and then we started our path to national decline, but not to worry soon immigration sanity will reign.

Why some people do not understand they will be out voted by allowing the floodgates to open to the 3rd world is beyond me. Do they just ignore reality because it is "offensive"?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The thing you have to understand, Spartan, is that some here WANT the country to fall.   They are ignorant enough to believe that they will be allowed to rebuild it from the ashes.  lol.   So, anything they can do to speed up the fall, they are all for.
> 
> Obviously, I am not one of them.


Yeah, they think if they import enough collectivist, tribalism, low IQed 3rd worlders and things go to crap things will work out, why is beyond me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What?  How can ideas "stay out of our nation"?  Can't anyone go on the net and read anything they want?


Yes, but they won't be spreading their ideology in our schools or voting booths.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah, they think if they import enough collectivist, tribalism, low IQed 3rd worlders and things go to crap things will work out, why is beyond me.


Because they don't value nations.  They only value personal private property.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What?  How can ideas "stay out of our nation"?  Can't anyone go on the net and read anything they want?


I mean we can keep people out of the nation.

----------


## Cabal

> why is beyond me.


Many things seem beyond you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Never said the latter, you clearly are not capable of understanding what I mean when talking about the 1st.


You just said that some people do not have the rights that white Americans have.  How did the white Americans get those rights and the other people not?




> You always scream "Marxist" as if that make so, it does not. 
> 
> Yes, I have no idea about slavery but you support importing people that will vote away your rights, freedom, wealth, and future.


I'm not screaming it, I'm describing your view of rights.  You don't have a view of rights that makes freedom natural to man.  You think some have rights that others don't.  And the only way that you can believe that is if rights come from a government decree.

If rights don't come from a government decree, then where do they come from?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Yes, but they won't be spreading their ideology in our schools or voting booths.



And without that mass of imported voters the left will die.

----------


## erowe1

> Leftists are for open borders.  You're with Pelosi and McCain.  Enjoy.


That's false, and it always has been.

You're with Stalin, Mao, and Bernie Sanders.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Many things seem beyond you.


Yes, if he'd just get in line and become a leftist tool for the globalists, he'd be all good, right?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Because they don't value nations.  They only value personal private property.


And they still can not understand it will be taken away from them when the 3rd worlders get power.

In the end they lose everything.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I mean we can keep people out of the nation.


That is why I asked you about ideas.  Are ideas physical things that get locked into a person's skull and sticks in their head and moves around with them?   Or are ideas immaterial entities that are not bound by a person's head.

If ideas are not bound by a physical person's head, then restricting immigration does nothing to solve the problems you think exist in this country.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's false, and it always has been.
> 
> You're with Stalin, Mao, and Bernie Sanders.


No, it's true.  Wear it.  You've earned it, erowe.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You just said that some people do not have the rights that white Americans have.  How did the white Americans get those rights and the other people not?


I said that some do not fight the rights that Anglo Americans are fighting to protect.




> I'm not screaming it, I'm describing your view of rights.  You don't have a view of rights that makes freedom natural to man.  You think some have rights that others don't.  And the only way that you can believe that is if rights come from a government decree.
> 
> If rights don't come from a government decree, then where do they come from?


 From your existence or God depending on your views. That being said the right to immigrate/tresspass does not exinst.

----------


## Cabal

> That is what immigration is, the importation of people


No, it isn't. Immigration is people moving (usually of their own will, under their own power, and at their own expense) from one region to another, usually across some State-defined borders.

That you'd like to imagine these words are the same doesn't make them so. As I observed earlier, you seem to have issues when it comes to words and their meaning. I would suggest you become more literate and accurate with your use of words, for our sake as much as your own.




> I know they do not exist or are protected when you have majority of people that *do not understand them*


Such as yourself?




> You want to take about some perfect solution while the nation burns, I seek to put out the flames and repair damage.


Where have I said anything about a so-called "perfect solution?"

You want to "repair" (whatever that means) and sustain the State?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And they still can not understand it will be taken away from them when the 3rd worlders get power.
> 
> In the end they lose everything.


The idea of nations is to carve out a part of the world to allow like-minded people who want to live by some basic rules to congregate together.  So that if they were attacked, they would have a prayer of defending their little plot of land and the culture they had built.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That is why I asked you about ideas.  Are ideas physical things that get locked into a person's skull and sticks in their head and moves around with them?   Or are ideas immaterial entities that are not bound by a person's head.
> 
> If ideas are not bound by a physical person's head, then restricting immigration does nothing to solve the problems you think exist in this country.


Ideas are worthless without supporters. If you do not have tens of millions of welfare voters, leftism would go no where fast.

No, those problems do exist, and your denial of readily only shows the lunacy of the open borders faction.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And they still can not understand it will be taken away from them when the 3rd worlders get power.
> 
> In the end they lose everything.


The idea of nations is to carve out a part of the world to allow like-minded people who want to live by some basic rules to congregate together.  So that if they were attacked, they would have a prayer of defending their little plot of land and the culture they had built.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it's true.  Wear it.  You've earned it, erowe.


No it isn't. Immigration regulation came about here as part of the progressive movement, and it has always gone hand in hand with socialism. Just look on this site. The ones who support it the most are the most progressive statist ones like you and AmericanSpartan. All of the libertarians follow Ron Paul's lead in opposing all of the big government restrictions on immigration that you want. This is Ron Paul Forums, after all, not Bernie Sanders Forums.

----------


## erowe1

> The idea of nations is to carve out a part of the world to allow like-minded people who want to live by some basic rules to congregate together.


So do that. I don't want to stop you. Just don't try to impose your like-mindedness on me.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No it isn't. Immigration regulation came about here as part of the progressive movement, and it has always gone hand in hand with socialism. Just look on this site. The ones who support it the most are the most progressive statist ones like you and AmericanSpartan. All of the libertarians follow Ron Paul's lead in opposing all of the big government restrictions on immigration that you want. This is Ron Paul Forums, after all, not Bernie Sanders Forums.


Neither Ron or Rand agree with your open borders bull$#@!, erowe.  A fact that has been pointed out to you time and time again.  Hell, even Lew Rockwell doesn't agree with you.  lol

----------


## erowe1

> Neither Ron or Rand agree with your open borders bull$#@!, erowe.  A fact that has been pointed out to you time and time again.  Hell, even Lew Rockwell doesn't agree with you.  lol


If you think they agree with your closed border policies, you're crazy. They have come out against them very vocally, especially Ron Paul, the guy this website is named after. This has been pointed out to you time and time again, yet you keep lying about it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So do that. I don't want to stop you. Just don't try to impose your like-mindedness on me.


The U.S. already exists.  So, if you want some little commie enclave, you are going to need to go find a new plot of land and start your own thing.  See ya.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No, it isn't. Immigration is people moving from one region to another, usually across some State-defined borders.


Yes it is as those people have a culture, values, and political views.






> That you'd like to imagine these words are the same doesn't make them so. As I observed earlier, you seem to have issues when it comes to words and their meaning. I would suggest you become more literate and accurate with your use of words, for our sake as much as your own.


Please tell lying to yourself, it does not work on the non weak minded.




> Such as yourself?


No, such as the 3rd world hordes that vote for them same failed ideas they supported back home.





> Where have I said anything about a so-called "perfect solution?"
> 
> You want to "repair" (whatever that means) and sustain the State?


No, the nation, culture, and the means to maintain and protect it.

----------


## erowe1

> No, the nation, culture, and the means to maintain and protect it.


How do you propose doing that without a state?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The idea of nations is to carve out a part of the world to allow like-minded people who want to live by some basic rules to congregate together.  So that if they were attacked, they would have a prayer of defending their little plot of land and the culture they had built.


But some how importing the dregs of the 3rd world will make things perfect and not create Hell on Earth.

----------


## erowe1

> The U.S. already exists.  So, if you want some little commie enclave, you are going to need to go find a new plot of land and start your own thing.  See ya.


I don't. I want freedom. Commie enclaves always support strict immigration restriction. They're where you got the idea from.

----------


## otherone

> The idea of nations is to carve out a part of the world to allow like-minded people who want to live by some basic rules to congregate together.  So that if they were attacked, they would have a prayer of defending their little plot of land and the culture they had built.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If you think they agree with your closed border policies, you're crazy. They have come out against them very vocally, especially Ron Paul, the guy this website is named after. This has been pointed out to you time and time again, yet you keep lying about it.


You lie on so many fronts.  Number one, I never said I was for "closed" borders.  I want legal immigration and plenty of travel.  

Both Ron and Rand have stated numerous times that they are not for open borders in any way while the welfare state exists.  Lew has said same.  Ron Paul has also stressed his belief in national sovereignty; something you hate.  

So, go spread your lies elsewhere, erowe.  I've had your number for a very long time.

----------


## erowe1

> But some how importing the dregs of the 3rd world will make things perfect and not create Hell on Earth.


So don't import them. Just leave people alone to be able to come here on their own without being imported.

----------


## erowe1

> Number one, I never said I was for "closed" borders.


Oh good. Then you're for open borders. Open and closed are the only options.

Now which one of those two were you saying Ron Paul supported again?

Just to be clear, when you bring up Ron Paul's policy prescriptions; he is against regulating who people can and cannot hire and rent out or sell property to. He is against deporting people. He is against Social Security Cards and other national ID. He is against E-Verify. He is against a wall at the border. He is against every possible means of effectively restricting immigration. I agree with him in all of those points. Do you? Yes or no?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't. I want freedom. Commie enclaves always support strict immigration restriction. They're where you got the idea from.


You don't want a nation at all!!!!!

----------


## Cabal

> Yes it is as those people have a culture, values, and political views.


So?




> Please tell lying to yourself, it does not work on the non weak minded.


I don't even know wtf you're trying to say here.




> No, such as the 3rd world hordes that vote for them same failed ideas they supported back home.


So, you're not a fan of the idea that other people can rule over and impose on you via the State through voting? Me neither.

Congratulations on finding a reason to reject statism.




> No, the nation, culture, and the means to maintain and protect it.


And do those means include the State?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No it isn't. Immigration regulation came about here as part of the progressive movement, and it has always gone hand in hand with socialism. Just look on this site. The ones who support it the most are the most progressive statist ones like you and AmericanSpartan. All of the libertarians follow Ron Paul's lead in opposing all of the big government restrictions on immigration that you want. This is Ron Paul Forums, after all, not Bernie Sanders Forums.


And it worked, you left that part out. You know what always has gone hand in hand with socialism, drink water and breath air.

And how has mass immigration worked out? What have we gotten so far? Oh yeah THE PATRIOT ACT, AFTER 9/11 WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED BY TERRORIST THAT IMMIGRATED HERE ON STUDENT VISAS, SO MASS IMMIGRATION CAUSED THE GROWTH OF THE POLICE STATE, WHICH YOU SAID WOULD NOT HAPPEN IF WE DID NOT RESTRICT IMMIGRATION!




> So do that. I don't want to stop you. Just don't try to impose your like-mindedness on me.



No, you are trying to destroy us and reduce our power, liberty, and future, you get no say.




> If you think they agree with your closed border policies, you're crazy. They have come out against them very vocally, especially Ron Paul, the guy this website is named after. This has been pointed out to you time and time again, yet you keep lying about it.


May want to look up Rand`s stance they are a changin.




> How do you propose doing that without a state?


Never said they we were and are going to do it without a state, not sure it can be done. But then again the role of the state is the protection of the nation, if you do not think the state has a role then you are an anarchist and really you have no value.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh good. Then you're for open borders. Open and closed are the only options.


Bull$#@!.  I want a border, travel and lawful immigration.  

You don't want a country at all.

----------


## erowe1

> You don't want a nation at all!!!!!


Says who?

I don't want a state at all. I've never said or implied that I didn't want a nation.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I don't. I want freedom. Commie enclaves always support strict immigration restriction. They're where you got the idea from.


So you want freedom, but not the burden of protecting it? Well might as well out on your chains.

Yeah, screaming "commies support immigration restriction" does not make an argument.

----------


## erowe1

> You don't want a country at all.


Can you quote where I said that?

You keep conflating the federal government with the country. You can't even conceive of the one without the other.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> No, I know some of you don't.  And in my opinion, that puts you in the same bucket as the globalist traitors who are doing everything in their power to bring the country down.


Eeeeeeeeeyep. I've concluded that there are times when "libertarians" demonstrate themselves to be equally as tyrannical as the government tyrants themselves.

----------


## erowe1

> So you want freedom, but not the burden of protecting it?


Protecting it is what I'm doing when I explain to you why you should change your views and start supporting freedom.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You lie on so many fronts.  Number one, I never said I was for "closed" borders.  I want legal immigration and plenty of travel.  
> 
> Both Ron and Rand have stated numerous times that they are not for open borders in any way while the welfare state exists.  Lew has said same.  Ron Paul has also stressed his belief in national sovereignty; something you hate.  
> 
> So, go spread your lies elsewhere, erowe.  I've had your number for a very long time.


Hey lets not go nuts on legal immigration.

----------


## Cabal

> You can't even conceive of the one without the other.


She might hurt herself in the process. Brain probably isn't used to such exercise.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So don't import them. Just leave people alone to be able to come here on their own without being imported.



The left allows them to immigrate. How about we do not allow them to come as we are all better off for it.

----------


## Brett85

A better question would be, "can you be a libertarian and support open borders?"

http://www.fairus.org/publications/t...ates-taxpayers

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Oh good. Then you're for open borders. Open and closed are the only options.
> 
> Now which one of those two were you saying Ron Paul supported again?
> 
> Just to be clear, when you bring up Ron Paul's policy prescriptions; he is against regulating who people can and cannot hire and rent out or sell property to. He is against deporting people. He is against Social Security Cards and other national ID. He is against E-Verify. He is against a wall at the border. He is against every possible means of effectively restricting immigration. I agree with him in all of those points. Do you? Yes or no?


So not secure? Just closed, nothing in between? People wonder why Libertarians are accused of having autism. How did we get national IDs again? How? Like What caused just an idea to become law again? What was it, and who caused it and how did they come into the nation again?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know wtf you're trying to say here.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're not a fan of the idea that other people can rule over and impose on you via the State through voting? Me neither.
> ...


Not a fan, but if I have to I will rule over others as to prevent them from ruling over me.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> A better question would be, "can you be a libertarian and support open borders?"
> 
> http://www.fairus.org/publications/t...ates-taxpayers


Oh NO! FACTS!, RUN FOR YOUR FALLACIES, ALL HOPE IS LOST!

----------


## otherone

> A better question would be, "can you be a libertarian and support open borders?"
> 
> http://www.fairus.org/publications/t...ates-taxpayers





> Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
>     The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
>     Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
>     At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
>     Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.


Anti-federalism ftw.
Education is not a Right.  Let the states decide if they want to be bled dry.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Protecting it is what I'm doing when I explain to you why you should change your views and start supporting freedom.



Allowing in people that will vote against, and will vote away your rights and wealth, destroying your culture and reducing you to a cuckolded minority is not freedom, that is suicide if you want to commit that, please shoot yourself but the moment you try and take other with you, that becomes murder and you will be dealt with...Harshly,

----------


## Cabal

> How about we do not allow them to come as we are all better off for it.


How about you do not impose your views by way of violence on anyone else.

----------


## otherone

> Allowing in people that will vote against, and will vote away your rights and wealth, destroying your culture and reducing you to a cuckolded minority is not freedom, that is suicide if you want to commit that, please shoot yourself but the moment you try and take other with you, that becomes murder and you will be dealt with...Harshly,


Why must they be allowed to vote?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Anti-federalism ftw.
> Education is not a Right.  Let the states decide if they want to be bled dry.


Well tell that to courts/feds as they do what ever they want and we have no power to stop them, that might change but it will not if we are outvoted by 3rd world welfare hordes who get "free" stuff.

Now you understand how mass immigration harms us.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Why must they be allowed to vote?


Because the left needs uneducated, Low IQed, No info voters that will sell out the nation for "free" stuff. They will do anything for more voters.

Also that mistake called the 14th Amendment.

----------


## Cabal

> I will rule over others as to prevent them from ruling over me.


You have no right to rule over anyone.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> How about you do not impose your views by way of violence on anyone else.


If we do not impose ours on their they will do the same to us, Trust me its better this way.

Do not come here, if you do you will be at best deported, no trial, no judge, nothing on the plane you go, and at worse you might die.

You would rather fall on your sword then defend yourself with it, that is why people like you do not matter in the long run.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You have no right to rule over anyone.


Tell that to them. The idea that "if I do not do A the opposition will also not do A" is very misguided and pointless.

----------


## Cabal

> Trust me its better this way.


No. I don't and won't trust you. You haven't even managed to qualify as someone who is not a flagrantly dangerous imbecile, let alone someone I would ever trust. And I sure as $#@! don't trust you to determine what is or is not better where I, or my family is concerned.




> Do not come here, if you do you will be at best deported, no trial, no judge, nothing on the plane you go, and at worse you might die.


Where is "here?" What right do you have to determine the rules of access to property that is not your own? I'll make it easy for you, the answer is: NONE.




> You would rather fall on your sword then defend yourself with it, that is why people like you do not matter in the long run.


Because I find it morally atrocious to support State violence against peaceful people, I am "falling on my sword?"

What the actual $#@! are you even talking about?

----------


## otherone

> Because the left needs uneducated, Low IQed, No info voters that will sell out the nation for "free" stuff. They will do anything for more voters.
> 
> Also that mistake called the 14th Amendment.


Excellent.
Now we are making headway.
Voting is not a Right, nor is citizenship, education, or welfare.
How these privileges are determined are through the legislative process.
As I've said, the states should have the power to decide their own policies in regards to privileges, as determined by their people.
Repeal the 14th.  Repeal the 17th.  It's cheaper than putting us all in a cage.

----------


## Cabal

> Tell that to them.


"They're" not the ones arguing that they have a right to rule over anyone. You are. And stop pretending like you're talking about a group of violent criminals breaking into your home and assaulting you. You're the only aggressively violent one in this equation, so far as I can tell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "They're" not the ones arguing that they have a right to rule over anyone. You are. And stop pretending like you're talking about a group of violent criminals breaking into your home and assaulting you. You're the only aggressively violent one in this equation, so far as I can tell.


Like all crusading statists, he must have enemies in which to wage a war against.  But he doesn't understand that war is the health of the state.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Allowing in people that will vote against, and will vote away your rights and wealth


It's a good thing our rights and wealth are so well protected while we whites are still the majority. Sieg Heil!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's a good thing our rights and wealth are so well protected while we whites are still the majority. Sieg Heil!


Yeah.  We whites are good at rejecting redistribution.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No. I don't and won't trust you. You haven't even managed to qualify as someone who is not a flagrantly dangerous imbecile, let alone someone I would ever trust. And I sure as $#@! don't trust you to determine what is or is not better where I, or my family is concerned.
> 
> Do you trust anyone else, What about those that will vote against you and vote to limit your rights? Do you trust me?








> Where is "here?" What right do you have to determine the rules of access to property that is not your own? I'll make it easy for you, the answer is: NONE.


I pay taxes.




> Because I find it morally atrocious to support State violence against peaceful people, I am "falling on my sword?"


Do you find people who violate the sovereignty of the nation, laws of states and cites, people who harm and burden the tax payers of this nation, who skew elections and house seat appropriation, and reduce the liberty of the American people "peaceful"?

If you think it wrong to use force against these threats/criminals I have no idea what to tell you other then take your door off of your home and allow everyone to flood in and rob you.

You think your "moral superiority will protect you from having your rights voted away? It wont.  







> Excellent.
> Now we are making headway.
> Voting is not a Right, nor is citizenship, education, or welfare.
> How these privileges are determined are through the legislative process.
> As I've said, the states should have the power to decide their own policies in regards to privileges, as determined by their people.
> Repeal the 14th.  Repeal the 17th.  It's cheaper than putting us all in a cage.


No, its cheaper to build a wall, do you really think we could repeal such things with as many takers we have imported? LOL





> "They're" not the ones arguing that they have a right to rule over anyone. You are. And stop pretending like you're talking about a group of violent criminals breaking into your home and assaulting you. You're the only aggressively violent one in this equation, so far as I can tell.


No, they do as they vote for the hardest left candidate. If you vote for leftist, you vote to rule over others (usually after you disarm them)

They violate our laws, break into our nation, burden our taxpayers and victimize our citizens, skewing our elections/house seat placement and you think people like me who want the laws enforced are aggressive one? 




> Like all crusading statists, he must have enemies in which to wage a war against.  But he doesn't understand that war is the health of the state.


You do not understand Immigration is the Viagra of the state.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It's a good thing our rights and wealth are so well protected while we whites are still the majority. Sieg Heil!


If you think it is bad now, can you think how bad it will should we not longer be the majority? Do you want to live like Whites in South Africa?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If you think it is bad now, can you think how bad it will should we not longer be the majority? Do you want to live like Whites in South Africa?


Do you think millions of armed folks are going to submit to living like whites in South Africa?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you think it is bad now, can you think how bad it will should we not longer be the majority? Do you want to live like Whites in South Africa?


White people are only pure anarchists.  Black people are all Communists.

----------


## CocaCola

> White people are only pure anarchists.  Black people are all Communists.


That's a very collectivist statement to make.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Do you think millions of armed folks are going to submit to living like whites in South Africa?


No, that is a saving grace, that and the collapse will happen before whites are outnumbered, the welfare system will crash, and die off might happen. This all assumes a pandemic does not happen thanks to antibiotic resistant strain growing rapidly.

You had best hope we are not out numbered...Truly the 2nd Amendment will be of even greatest value then.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That's a very collectivist statement to make.



Find me a black anarchists/black nationalists that supports capitalism.

----------


## CocaCola

> Find me a black anarchists/black nationalists that supports capitalism.


jmdrake?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Find me a black anarchists/black nationalists that supports capitalism.


It's impossible.   If you have any other color skin than white, you can't believe in the free market.

----------


## CocaCola

> It's impossible.   If you have any other color skin than white, you can't believe in the free market.


You're a racist. 

Thomas Sowell would definitely disagree with you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're a racist. 
> 
> Thomas Sowell would definitely disagree with you.


You can't sense the sarcasm in my posts?

----------


## Cabal

> I pay taxes.


So? You're forced to, just like the rest of us. Paying taxes doesn't give you, nor anyone else any additional rights beyond those already possessed by virtue of being human. That you pay taxes means approximately $#@! all in this conversation.




> Do you find people who violate the sovereignty of the nation, laws of states and cites, people who harm and burden the tax payers of this nation, who skew elections and house seat appropriation, and reduce the liberty of the American people "peaceful"?


$#@!s I give about national sovereignty? Zero. Let me make this clear. I hate the State. I find it to be an abomination. It is the single greatest enemy to liberty to ever exist, and moreover it has no right to exist. It is entirely and absolutely illegitimate.

Immigrants do not "harm taxpayers." The State forces people to pay taxes through institutionalized violence. The State has established the system of representative democracy that allows others to vote to rationalize State-imposed violence on others. That you want to blame the State's processes and actions on immigrants whom you can't help be collectivize is to reject the reality of the situation and to engage in intellectual bankruptcy.




> If you think it wrong to use force against these threats/criminals I have no idea what to tell you other then take your door off of your home and allow everyone to flood in and rob you.


The State is robbing me, not immigrants. If the State redistributes the money it takes from me to immigrants, I still blame the State. That you do not is just evidence of your own absurdity.




> You think your "moral superiority will protect you from having your rights voted away? It wont.


Of course not. The State is the one that infringes on rights, not "immigrants." Moral superiority doesn't protect my rights, but it does help me identify who or what is actually violating them. Perhaps you should try integrating some morality into your own perspective, rather than promoting aggressive, institutionalized violence against innocents.





> No, they do as they vote for the hardest left candidate. If you vote for leftist, you vote to rule over others (usually after you disarm them)


You can't celebrate your statist system and then turn around and cry foul when other interests use the very same processes you celebrate, gleefully participate in, and wish to preserve in ways that you don't agree with. And so the hilarity ensues--your argument has now basically devolved into "they don't vote in a way I approve of!"

Now perhaps you see the absurdity of the State's system of "voting?"

And why should they vote _with_ you, anyway? You're here promoting aggressive violence against them for simply existing in a particular region like some blithering maniac. 





> They violate our laws, break into our nation, burden our taxpayers and victimize our citizens, skewing our elections/house seat placement


Collectivize more. Also, "we" do all of that to each other. What the $#@! is your point?




> you think people like me who want the laws enforced are aggressive one?


Yes. You are the aggressive ones. Your promote aggressive, institutionalized violence by proxy. 

Yours is the same sort that thought runaway slaves were in the wrong, because they broke the law. Yours is the same sort that thinks people who refuse to pay taxes are in the wrong, because they break the law. Yours is the same sort that thinks people who possess a certain type of vegetation should be locked in a cage, because they broke the law. And so on, and so forth.

Yours is the sort that is among the enemies of liberty.

----------


## CocaCola

> You can't sense the sarcasm in my posts?


You don't sense it in mine?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't sense it in mine?


Two ships just passed in the night.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by thoughtomator
> 
> 
> [Liberty] requires a monopoly on the lawful use of violence within a defined territory (which is the definition of sovereignty). This is the "necessary evil" part of the libertarian description of government. 
> 
> What makes it necessary is that this arrangement provides for maximum human liberty, far more than the every-man-for-himself anarchist approach, where the only liberty you really have is your natural right to violence. Which will make for a bloody affair, by the way, as everyone else will also have theirs as well, and if you understand human beings at all you know they will use it liberally and without conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> If you intentionally misconstrue the argument, it is no wonder that you can't take it seriously.
> 
> Why not try getting the argument correct and considering that idea, instead?
> 
> There is no proposal to "place sole and exclusive authority to employ violence". It is very specifically "placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence" *for the well-defined and sharply limited set of responsibilities for which there is no better alternative than to have a state*.
> 
> When you leave out that last part it completely changes the character of the argument, and of course becomes advocacy of open-ended use of the monopoly on violence for any purpose - an advocacy completely at odds with libertarianism.
> 
> It's not an optional part of the argument - it is _absolutely essential to the nature of what libertarianism is_, and the very thing that differentiates libertarianism from other philosophies of government.


I have not misconstrued your argument, intentionally or otherwise.

You complain that my statement regarding the placement of an ostensible "sole and exclusive authority to employ violence" omits a necessary qualification to the effect that said authority is to be "for the well-defined and sharply limited set of responsibilities for which there is no better alternative than to have a state." You insist that such a proviso is not optional and is absolutely essential. Very well, then. But this does nothing whatsoever to address my point. It does not in any way militate against or eliminate the absurdity of the argument. To the contrary, it only serves to more boldly highlight the grotesqueness of that absurdity (see below).

Furthermore, it is you and not I who has elided the most salient factor in the satement - namely, that any "sole and exclusive authority to employ violence" (however you might care to hypothetically qualify that authority) must necessarily be placed _in the hands of people whose "human nature" you say is to be ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish_. And given that this depraved "human nature" is _the very point upon which your assertion of the necessity of the state rests in the first place_, your elision of that factor is bizarrely inconsistent. (Hence the fact that I cannot take your argument seriously, as you clearly do not take it seriously yourself.)

Here is my original statement:

If what you are pleased to call (and to so contemptuously regard as) "human nature" is as ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish as you need it to be in order to prop up your thesis, then it is grotesquely absurd to declare that this can be mitigated by placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence in the hands of some few of those miserable wretches whose nature you say is so ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish.
Here is a recasting of my statement, with your proviso underlined and your elision bolded:

If what you are pleased to call (and to so contemptuously regard as) "human nature" is as ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish as you need it to be in order to prop up your thesis, then it is grotesquely absurd to declare that this can be mitigated by placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence for the well-defined and sharply limited set of responsibilities for which there is no better alternative than to have a state *in the hands of some few of those miserable wretches whose nature you say is so ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish*.
If the grotesque absurdity of this is still not plain to see, then consider the following questions:

By whom are the "responsibilities" of the state to be "well-defined," if not by people whose "human nature" you say is to be ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish?

By whom are the "responsibilities" of the state to be "sharply limited," if not by people whose "human nature" you say is to be ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish?

And even having (theoretically) defined so well and limited so sharply the state's "responsibilities," by whom are those definitions and limitations then to be maintained and enforced, if not by people whose "human nature" you say is to be ugly, vicious, conscienceless and "every man for himself"-ish?
Either "human nature" is as depraved as you say it is, or it is not. If it is not, then the entire basis for your assertion of the necessity of the state is destroyed. But if it is, then your assertion that the state is necessary in order to mitigate the depravity of "human nature" is absurd, given that any state must necessarily be composed of people whose nature is as depraved as you say it is. In other words, if people are wicked and bad by nature, then the nature of any states they may form (which will be composed only of people) cannot be otherwise. You don't get to have it both ways.

Even if "human nature" is every bit as depraved as you say it is - indeed, especially if it is as depraved as you say it is - then any state will be a grossly counterproductive means of dealing with the consequences of that depravity. By definition, any state will monopolistically concentrate coercive power in the hands of people who, _by your own assertion of the depravity of "human nature,"_ cannot be trusted to wield such power and should not be tolerated to do so.

To the extent that "human nature" is as depraved as you claim, the existence of the state - that is, of the "sole and exclusive authority to employ violence" (however hypothetically qualified) - can serve only to amplify the scope and scale of that depravity by many more orders of magnitude than otherwise could have been the case. That was the point to which I was alluding in my earlier citation of Robert Higgs, which I repeat here with emphasis:



> The debate between statists and anti-statists is in my judgement not evenly matched. Defending the continued existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement in extortion, robbery, willful destruction of wealth, assault, kidnapping, murder, and countless other crimes, requires﻿ that one imagine *non-state chaos, disorder, and death on a scale that non-state actors seem completely incapable of causing*.

----------


## presence



----------


## PierzStyx

> You, and several others in this thread, seem to believe that "libertarian" is a direct synonym for "anarcho-capitalist." It should be petty obvious that this is simply not so.


Not quite. Though I do believe that a libertarian cannot support the state, because a libertarian holds to the NAP and the whole purpose of the state is to initiate violence. The difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is that a libertarian finds some degree of voluntary government desirable and/or necessary while an anaracho-capitalist finds no government structure, voluntary or otherwise, necessary, and in facts see it as inherently dangerous.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Ask the Cherokee or Apache people what they think of "open borders".


Closed border or open is irrelevant when you're being invaded. And let us be clear, the largest groups of Europeans were not immigrants. They were militarized colonizers. Your closed border would have failed the natives just as much as any open borders. That is the point. Closed borders demand a limitation on liberty and return nothing but tyranny never actually doing what they are supposed to be able to do, "keep people out." So why have them at all? All you're doing is hastening the end of liberty.

----------


## PierzStyx

> I'm not confusing libertarian for minarchist. You and others who are not comprehending what I am saying are confusing libertarian for something other than minarchist. A libertarian would be a subset of minarchist, should any other types of minarchist (not motivated by preservation of liberty) actually exist.
> 
> Let's make this simple.
> 
> 
> *If you are a libertarian you are a minarchist.
> 
> If you are an anarchist you are not a libertarian.
> 
> ...


Response in bold underlined. Libertarians accept the NAP- that it is wrong to initiate violence against someone else. They also recognize the inalienable rights of the individual. This is why many libertarians are also voluntaryists. This is not the same as being an anarchist. Anarchism rejects any need for any form of politicized or social government and believes in the power of private means to organize and order to be superior. Minarchist, libertarian, anarchist, they all exist on different parts of the liberty-minded spectrum, but are not the same. All libertarians are not minarchists, all minarchists are not libertarians.

----------


## PierzStyx

> They want YOU to not understand the difference so as to attempt to convert libertarians to the anarchist cause. Sadly, the defense of liberty also requires wariness of ideologies which may have a lot of surface appeal, before you consider how exactly they may play out in the real world.
> 
> Personally I think most anarchists are just staggeringly naive about human nature. They think their anarchic world will mean liberty for them, rather than being the express superhighway to another form of tyranny. It should be self-evident... after all, look at the tyrannies people are crying out for in the absence of lawful government. A deliberate absence thereof would be nothing but a very brief interregnum, all it really represents is a random roll of the dice. Given that human nature leads most probably to pretty nasty outcomes and that the concept of liberty itself is a grand achievement of humanity that took nearly our entire existence to express in clear terms, the outcome of anarchy is astronomically unlikely to result in liberty.
> 
> Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.









The only naivete on display is that which you display about anarchists. Anarchists realize the nature of people, when they are given even a little bit of it, is to abuse it. Government will always lead to tyranny. Absolutely not everything will be a utopia in an anarchist society. But here is the difference, give one person a gun and he will kill a hundred people. Give the government guns, and they will slaughter millions and oppress hundreds of millions. Every potential problem in an anarchist society is already existent in our current statist society, and a billion times worse than it could be in an anarchist one. The only naive ones are the ones who think statism will ever lead to anything other than tyranny.

----------


## PierzStyx

> 


*wreckt*

To have come out of a situation, conversation, altercation or competition for the worse by a considerable measure. Generally used in such a way as to rub said loss in.


Example: "Did you see how American Spartan and thoughtomator lost that argument? Man, they got absolutely wreckt by Occam's Banana."

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> They want YOU to not understand the difference so as to attempt to convert libertarians to the anarchist cause. Sadly, the defense of liberty also requires wariness of ideologies which may have a lot of surface appeal, before you consider how exactly they may play out in the real world.
> 
> Personally I think most anarchists are just staggeringly naive about human nature. They think their anarchic world will mean liberty for them, rather than being the express superhighway to another form of tyranny. It should be self-evident... after all, look at the tyrannies people are crying out for in the absence of lawful government. A deliberate absence thereof would be nothing but a very brief interregnum, all it really represents is a random roll of the dice. Given that human nature leads most probably to pretty nasty outcomes and that the concept of liberty itself is a grand achievement of humanity that took nearly our entire existence to express in clear terms, the outcome of anarchy is astronomically unlikely to result in liberty.
> 
> Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.


Very well said

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> *wreckt*
> 
> To have come out of a situation, conversation, altercation or competition for the worse by a considerable measure. Generally used in such a way as to rub said loss in.
> 
> 
> Example: "Did you see how American Spartan and thoughtomator lost that argument? Man, they got absolutely wreckt by Occam's Banana."



If anything you open borders/mass immigrationists are losing the debate, losing in the polls, and losing the debate. If you want open borders, take the doors off of your home. I mean if its sooo good for a nation, why would it not be great for you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It's impossible.   If you have any other color skin than white, you can't believe in the free market.


I guess you love putting words into the mouths of others.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> They want YOU to not understand the difference so as to attempt to convert libertarians to the anarchist cause. Sadly, the defense of liberty also requires wariness of ideologies which may have a lot of surface appeal, before you consider how exactly they may play out in the real world.
> 
> Personally I think most anarchists are just staggeringly naive about human nature. They think their anarchic world will mean liberty for them, rather than being the express superhighway to another form of tyranny. It should be self-evident... after all, look at the tyrannies people are crying out for in the absence of lawful government. A deliberate absence thereof would be nothing but a very brief interregnum, all it really represents is a random roll of the dice. Given that human nature leads most probably to pretty nasty outcomes and that the concept of liberty itself is a grand achievement of humanity that took nearly our entire existence to express in clear terms, the outcome of anarchy is astronomically unlikely to result in liberty.
> 
> Anarchists don't understand this, and view themselves as more liberty-oriented than minarchists, when they are really simply not well-versed in just how ugly human behavior is in our natural state and how forbidding to liberty such a situation would genuinely be.


They never do understand human nature, but then always attack those that do, they want to force open the gates and allow us to be over run by the hordes of the 3rd world, claim our actions to protect ourselves are "unjust" while others "have the right to trespass and destroy".

----------


## Cabal



----------


## cajuncocoa

> I guess you love putting words into the mouths of others.


Like you just did to me in the other thread?

----------


## Dr.3D

> 


Notice that tongue again?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Like you just did to me in the other thread?



How so?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> How so?


Right here:

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Right here:


You assume I value your opinion...I dont.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You assume I value your opinion...I dont.


I don't care if you do or don't. That wasn't the point.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You assume I value your opinion...I dont.


That's one way to try and deflect attention from a demonstration of hypocrisy.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You don't post about liberty here.  You don't post about freedom.
> All you ever post about is how the country is being brought down.
> You don't fear the county that would come in after.  You fear losing the county you have.
> If you concentrated on liberty, and not the flag, then we might have hope of getting liberty after a collapse.
> But you're double barring the door of your cage, and the only reason you do this is because it's _your_ cage.


Because the nation is being brought down, how you can not see it is beyond us. Why should we not fearing having this nation stolen from us, the idea anything better will come after it is ignoring human nature and the nature of goverment.

Please keep spewing your nihilism/declinism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because the nation is being brought down, how you can not see it is beyond us. Why should we not fearing having this nation stolen from us, the idea anything better will come after it is ignoring human nature and the nature of goverment.
> 
> Please keep spewing your nihilism/declinism.


White power!

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That's one way to try and deflect attention from a demonstration of hypocrisy.


Find me a person who has never commit hypocrisy?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> White power!



Hope you love losing everyone by default as the left stacks the deck with voters that will vote against you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Because the nation is being brought down, how you can not see it is beyond us. Why should we not fearing having this nation stolen from us, the idea anything better will come after it is ignoring human nature and the nature of goverment.
> 
> Please keep spewing your nihilism/declinism.


For all of this "culture" bull$#@! you keep spouting off about, I have to wonder if English is your primary language. Your vocabulary is atrocious.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Hope you love losing everyone by default as the left stacks the deck with voters that will vote against you.


Anglo power!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> For all of this "culture" bull$#@! you keep spouting off about, I have to wonder if English is your primary language. Your vocabulary is atrocious.


Racism usually appeals to extremely dull and cowardly people.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> For all of this "culture" bull$#@! you keep spouting off about, I have to wonder if English is your primary language. Your vocabulary is atrocious.





> Racism usually appeals to extremely dull and cowardly people.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


That didn't answer my question. Is English your primary language?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That didn't answer my question. Is English your primary language?


Yes but I currently working a few AR lower designs in CAD and I have to use voice to text software.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> White power!

----------


## AmericanSpartan

So you can not make a point, and do not care about how immigration will reduce your liberty, wealth, and future...Great to know.

----------


## erowe1

> So you can not make a point, and do not care about how immigration will reduce your liberty, wealth, and future...Great to know.


If violating your rights will increase my wealth and liberty, that doesn't make it OK for me to do it. Morally, I have no choice. My rights extend out from me forever until they bump into yours. I just have to accept that, and so should you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you can not make a point, and do not care about how immigration will reduce your liberty, wealth, and future...Great to know.


It's not immigration that's responsible for that. It's federal governmental economic policy. If you propose ending welfare, free education, food stamp programs, etc., I'm right there with you, because that drains our wealth, whether those goodies are taken by immigrants or the lazy ass 26-year old kid of your "White" next-door-neighbor who was born right here in the U.S.A. and refuses to get a job and/or marketable skills.

Let me put this relevant link here, just for kicks.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ING-LIFESKILLS

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If violating your rights will increase my wealth and liberty, that doesn't make it OK for me to do it. Morally, I have no choice. My rights extend out from me forever until they bump into yours. I just have to accept that, and so should you.


I'm sure he does.  But, he also believes in national sovereignty.  Something you don't believe in.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's not immigration that's responsible for that. It's federal governmental economic policy. If you propose ending welfare, free education, food stamp programs, etc., I'm right there with you, because that drains our wealth, whether those goodies are taken by immigrants or the lazy ass 26-year old kid of your "White" next-door-neighbor who was born right here in the U.S.A. and refuses to get a job and/or marketable skills.


So, until that is done, you're fine with our country getting overrun by illegal aliens.  Gotcha.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So, until that is done, you're fine with our country getting overrun by illegal aliens.  Gotcha.


You will not find that in any of my posts. What I'm fighting against with this moron is the notion of wanting to keep the U.S. ethnically pure. I'm not sure he would support even * legal* immigration of non-white people.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Racism usually appeals to extremely dull and cowardly people.





> Anglo power!


lol.  You've lost the argument and you know it, Sola.  That's why you're sounding like you are applying for employment with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You will not find that in any of my posts. What I'm fighting against with this moron is the notion of wanting to keep the U.S. ethnically pure.


You just said it here...



> It's not immigration that's responsible for that. It's federal governmental economic policy. If you propose ending welfare, free education, food stamp programs, etc., I'm right there with you, because that drains our wealth, whether those goodies are taken by immigrants or the lazy ass 26-year old kid of your "White" next-door-neighbor who was born right here in the U.S.A. and refuses to get a job and/or marketable skills.

----------


## erowe1

> So, until that is done, you're fine with our country getting overrun by illegal aliens.  Gotcha.


You keep using the qualification "illegal." But that's disingenuous, because when asked if you would be fine with their coming here legally, you confess that you wouldn't.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm sure he does.  But, he also believes in national sovereignty.  Something you don't believe in.


I'm not even sure what you mean by that term.

I do believe in individual sovereignty. Do you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You keep using the qualification "illegal." But that's disingenuous, because when asked if you would be fine with their coming here legally, you confess that you wouldn't.


I didn't confess $#@!, erowe.  What I told you was that I wanted our immigration laws followed.  They are not being followed.  End of story.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not even sure what you mean by that term.


Yeah, you do.  




> I do believe in individual sovereignty. Do you?


Go to hell, erowe.  I don't talk to people whose rhetoric has exposed them to be traitors.  You want the U.S. to crumble.  I don't know why in the hell you are even on this forum.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You just said it here...


Where did I say I support illegal immigration in that post? You're seeing what you want to see. All I said there is that it's our government's economic policy that is the main problem. 

Ron Paul seems to agree.

Illegal immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for our economic crisis. But with free markets and private property, the need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Most immigrants, regardless of the color of their skin, are open to the ideals of liberty: private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and a foreign policy designed for peace
*Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:*

*Abolish the welfare state.* The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.*Establish a generous visitor work program.* Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.*Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards.*Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.*Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.* _[Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]_*End all federal mandates on the states* to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants.


http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

----------


## LibertyEagle

> For all of this "culture" bull$#@! you keep spouting off about, I have to wonder if English is your primary language. Your vocabulary is atrocious.


It's the globalists who have been pushing muilticulturalism and they've been doing it, among other things, to bring down the U.S.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Where did I say I support illegal immigration in that post? You're seeing what you want to see. All I said there is that it's our government's economic policy that is the main problem. 
> 
> Ron Paul seems to agree.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for our economic crisis. But with free markets and private property, the need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Most immigrants, regardless of the color of their skin, are open to the ideals of liberty: private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and a foreign policy designed for peace.
> *Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:*
> 
> *Abolish the welfare state.* The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.*Establish a generous visitor work program.* Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.*Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards.*Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.*Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.* _[Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]_*End all federal mandates on the states* to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants.
> 
> http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/


Ron Paul is also not FOR illegal immigration.  Something you conveniently have avoided quoting.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron Paul is also not FOR illegal immigration.  Something you conveniently have avoided quoting.


I didn't say I am either. What YOU fail to recognize is, this issue is a magnet for racists and xenophobes. That may not be why you're against illegal immigration, but to deny this is sticking your head up your ass.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron Paul is also not FOR illegal immigration.  *Something you conveniently have avoided quoting*.


I know you always have reading comprehension problems....did you notice the part you quoted where I posted from his article "Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards"?  

Yeah, I guess I "conveniently...avoided quoting" Ron's position on illegal immigration. You're right. /sarcasm.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You will not find that in any of my posts. What I'm fighting against with this moron is the notion of wanting to keep the U.S. ethnically pure. I'm not sure he would support even * legal* immigration of non-white people.


I support a 10 ban on all immigration, to assimilate the people we have now. And their is nothing wrong with wanting to keep the Nations Founding Stock in the majority, a nation Absent a founding group or majority, it would be no nation at all, but a random gathering of people of assorted races, religions, and nationalities, united only by their presence in the same land. With no native culture to provide national unity, the population would tend to fragment on racial and ethnic lines, ensuring division and strife as groups pursue their interests at each other’s expense. That may be our multicultural future. 


I would have an immigration with strict controls, a set limit of 200,o00 persons, skill/merit oriented no family reunification scams, no "diversity" lottery scams, and I would favor Native Born, Liberty minded Western as for them to make at a min 70% of the allotment.

----------


## erowe1

> You want the U.S. to crumble


You mean the federal government? Yeah. If you don't, then that's your problem.




> I don't know why in the hell you are even on this forum.


Because it's the Ron Paul forums. I share his political views. But it's not the David Duke forums. So what's your excuse?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Where did I say I support illegal immigration in that post? You're seeing what you want to see. All I said there is that it's our government's economic policy that is the main problem. 
> 
> Ron Paul seems to agree.
> 
> Illegal immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for our economic crisis. But with free markets and private property, the need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Most immigrants, regardless of the color of their skin, are open to the ideals of liberty: private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and a foreign policy designed for peace
> *Ron Paul proposed the following action steps for dealing with illegal immigration:*
> 
> *Abolish the welfare state.* The incentive to take a job at whatever wage available must prevail.*Establish a generous visitor work program.* Once we solve the economic crisis by introducing sound money, demand for domestic and immigrant labor will rise.*Enforce the laws on the books with more border guards.*Allow states and landowners to enforce the law and provide security assistance.*Abolish birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.* _[Current U.S. citizens will not be affected. Instead, babies born to illegals after a future cutoff date will no longer gain automatic U.S. citizenship. They will still have citizenship in their parents’ home countries.]_*End all federal mandates on the states* to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants.
> 
> ...



And if we do not reduce legal immigration more immigrants will come in, then vote to recreate the current welfare system and all the work we have done will be for nothing.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I didn't say I am either. What YOU fail to recognize is, this issue is a magnet for racists and xenophobes. That may not be why you're against illegal immigration, but to deny this is sticking your head up your ass.


No, its  magnet for people that care about their race, culture, nation, Liberty and future and refuse to repeat history as to avoid being called names by people who can not make an argument.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And if we do not reduce legal immigration more immigrants will come in, then vote to recreate the current welfare system and all the work we have done will be for nothing.


They don't care.  They hate the country and want to see it fall.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You mean the federal government? Yeah. If you don't, then that's your problem.
> 
> Because it's the Ron Paul forums. I share his political views. But it's not the David Duke forums. So what's your excuse?


I joined this forum because I have supported Ron Paul for decades.  

Since you don't back him on much of anything, perhaps a Karl Marx forum would be more to your liking.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They don't care.  They hate the country and want to see it fall.


So, you want to reduce *legal* immigration too. I see.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You mean the federal government? Yeah. If you don't, then that's your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's the Ron Paul forums. I share his political views. But it's not the David Duke forums. So what's your excuse?


And when it does, do you think it would be a wise think to have tens of millions of imported welfare addicts that will blindly support what ever tyrants replace them?

Yeah the "Your a Nazi if you do not agree with me" card is a leftist tactic and it does not work anymore.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So, you want to reduce *legal* immigration too. I see.


If you're talking about Rand's suggestion to stop immigration from countries who hate us, yeah, I agree.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> They don't care.  They hate the country and want to see it fall.



They should move to Mexico or Somalia.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So, you want to reduce *legal* immigration too. I see.


Make the case against it.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> If you're talking about Rand's suggestion to stop immigration from countries who hate us, yeah, I agree.


 Latin nations- "Hey can we dump millions of people on you who are going to take out more then put in, will change the make up of your nation, cause massive spikes in crime, and will vote away your rights, wealth, and future?"

Islamic terrorist-"Can we come in, demand welfare, rape you women, and kill innocent people who do not worship a pedophile desert pirate?"

Open border supports/cultural relativists/multiculturalism/anti whites-"Sure!, I mean all people have the right to move anywhere they want, and all people, cultures and values are conducive to Liberty and if a few bad things happen like our rights are voted away, or we are bred out of existence, our culture destroyed and our history who cares?" 

We did not allow in mass immigration from East Europe after the Communist took over Russia via the 1924 Immigration Act, we shut down immigration from enemy nations during the World Wars, we did not allow in know communists supports during the Cold War, we did not allow in Iranians during or really since the hostage event, why the hell should we take in people that we are at war with, will harm us or vote away our Liberty/replace us in our nation?

They can not make a point so they have to resort to name call, they are afraid as we are not longer caring what they say or think as continued mass immigration will result in more Liberty, Rights, Wealth and control over our future is stolen from us.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> No, its  magnet for people that care about their race, culture, nation, Liberty and future and refuse to repeat history as to avoid being called names by people who can not make an argument.


Racist.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Racist.


LOL, I see what you did there.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, its  magnet for people that care about their race, culture, nation, Liberty and future and refuse to repeat history as to avoid being called names by people who can not make an argument.


Have you told jmdrake and Theocrat that they can't belive in liberty because they are black?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Have you told jmdrake and Theocrat that they can't belive in liberty because they are black?


No, because I did not say nor believe that. You can be non white and understand Liberty.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, because I did not say nor believe that. You can be non white and understand Liberty.


Then why did you say it was the Anglo race alone that must protect its culture for liberty?

----------


## Sola_Fide

By the way, AmericanRacist,  I would love to see you get a severe toungue lashing from the black libertarians I go to church with and who I love very much as my brothers in Christ.

----------


## Cabal

> They should move to Mexico or *Somalia*.


Way to reaffirm what anyone with eyes already knew about you by mentioning this as if it were any semblance of an informed rebuttal, or response. Those who invoke Somalia in this context invariably showcase their patent ignorance.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> They should move to Mexico or Somalia.


FTFY.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Then why did you say it was the Anglo race alone that must protect its culture for liberty?


Why should we Anglos not protect what we built? Make the case on why we should not maintain a majority in the nation we founded, built and defended for our posterity.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> By the way, AmericanRacist,  I would love to see you get a severe toungue lashing from the black libertarians I go to church with and who I love very much as my brothers in Christ.


Are they open borders/mass immigration supports/Think IQ and race are not connected?

Yes or no?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Way to reaffirm what anyone with eyes already knew about you by mentioning this as if it were any semblance of an informed rebuttal, or response. Those who invoke Somalia in this context invariably showcase their patent ignorance.


You are right, they have an Islamic goverment that is very pro border control, that was a failure on my part...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why should we Anglos not protect what we built? Make the case on why we should not maintain a majority in the nation we founded, built and defended for our posterity.


I have Irish ancestry.  Does that mean I'm a statist and I just don't know it yet?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are they open borders/mass immigration supports/*Think IQ and race are not connected*?
> 
> Yes or no?


Seeing that the person I have in mind has 2 doctorate degrees...and you can't even spell...I think you would be embarrassed.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I have Irish ancestry.  Does that mean I'm a statist and I just don't know it yet?


Grasping at straws are we? If you think all peoples/cultures/values are conducive to Liberty.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Seeing that the person I have in mind has 2 doctorate degrees...and you can't even spell...I think you would be embarrassed.


Anecdotal evidence, I mean meta data, on the scale of millions of people. Do you accept that IQ and Genetics is related?



*Race and IQ*
Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16...mp201185a.html
Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60289608000305
Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_coll...ions-test.html
Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...ianfiction.pdf
Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001
The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886912003741
The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson...mainstream.pdf
The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_coll...ions-test.html
Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636
Intelligence has a 40-50% genetic basis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug...gence-20110809
IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf
IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

How can you deny these facts?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Anecdotal evidence, I mean meta data, on the scale of millions of people. Do you accept that IQ and Genetics is related?
> 
> 
> 
> *Race and IQ*
> Human intelligence is highly heritable.
> http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16...mp201185a.html
> Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...60289608000305
> ...


If race has to do with intelligence,  why are you dumber than my black friend?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Asians have higher IQs. Ban whites and import more of them. (and the are now the #1 source of immigration to the US anyways). 

Note that whites have voted for the government we have today.  If you don't like it, blame them, not immigrants who cannot even vote.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Jmdrake is a lawyer. Somebody better tell him that he is dumb and he just doesn't know it yet.

----------


## otherone

> Why should we Anglos not protect what we built?


What the $#@! did YOU build?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

AmericanSpartan is seemingly incapable of thinking about people as individuals rather than members of groups.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> If race has to do with intelligence,  why are you dumber than my black friend?


So you are saying that data is wrong?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> AmericanSpartan is seemingly incapable of thinking about people as individuals rather than members of groups.


So trends and genetics are wrong? Everyone has the same ability and intelligence?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What the $#@! did YOU build?


Well Anglos did Settle, Found, Built and Defend America, and the culture foundations that lead to is creation.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So trends and genetics are wrong? Everyone has the same ability and intelligence?


I never said that.

In any group of people there are bound to be some idiots and some geniuses, some criminals and some upstanding citizens.  That's why you judge people as individuals, not as members of groups.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Asians have higher IQs. Ban whites and import more of them. (and the are now the #1 source of immigration to the US anyways).


True, but their culture has for the most part worked against individualism with negates higher IQs/Innovation.

No, that would still change America and not for the better. PS have you seen how they vote?




> Note that whites have voted for the government we have today.  If you don't like it, blame them, not immigrants who cannot even vote.


Yes they do vote when they become citizens and their kids do via the mistake know as Birthright ciztenship. They also effect the placement of House Seats, you have been told this time and time again and you are not capable of understand this because you are an open border ideologue.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I never said that.
> 
> In any group of people there are bound to be some idiots and some geniuses, some criminals and some upstanding citizens.  That's why you judge people as individuals, not as members of groups.


So if that is possible within one group of people why not among the races of men?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Well Anglos did Settle, Found, Built and Defend America, and the culture foundations that lead to is creation.


We don't deal in collectivism here, but individualism.  He didn't ask what _others_ built, he asked what YOU built.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So if that is possible within one group of people why not among the races of men?


Because I don't believe humanity can realistically be divided into three or more distinct races.

----------


## otherone

> We don't deal in collectivism here, but individualism.  He didn't ask what _others_ built, he asked what YOU built.


Why someone believes that he is due props for what someone else did 200 years ago baffles me.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Well Anglos did Settle, Found, Built and Defend America, and the culture foundations that lead to is creation.


And the ones who did so were immigrants. They took over the land and culture from those who were already here. But it is OK because they were white Europeans.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> We don't deal in collectivism here, but individualism.  He didn't ask what _others_ built, he asked what YOU built.


"They had lower than average skin pigment, and I have lower than average skin pigment!  Therefore *I'm* responsible for everything good they did.  Everything bad they did, however, is of course the fault of people with higher than average skin pigment."

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> We don't deal in collectivism here, but individualism.  He didn't ask what _others_ built, he asked what YOU built.


So groups of individualists can not archive great things?

I am building a few business.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So groups of individualists can not archive great things?
> 
> I am building a few business.


A few?  I barely have time for one.  How do you do it?

----------


## jmdrake

> Find me a black anarchists/black nationalists that supports capitalism.


I take it you've never heard of Malcom X, Marcus Garvey or Booker T. Washington?




http://africanholocaust.net/news_ah/garvey.html

In fact under Booker T. Washington, Tuskegee Institute supplied all of the bricks for the Alabama county it was located in.  That's right.  White folks bought the black man's bricks.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are they open borders/mass immigration supports/Think IQ and race are not connected?
> 
> Yes or no?


So do you blame your stupidity on your yet to be disclosed African heritage?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So groups of individualists can not archive great things?
> 
> I am building a few business.


You cannot disguise your inherent collectivism by pretending that you are talking about a collective of individualists.  Even if you *were* talking about a collective of individualists (which you are obviously not, or you would include Black individualists and you do not) you still cannot make individual judgements based on the characteristics collective.  That is a division fallacy.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Because I don't believe humanity can realistically be divided into three or more distinct races.


Their are more then 3 races, that is not even a debate.


Their are also sub groups and then the role of culture/politics.




> And the ones who did so were immigrants. They took over the land and culture from those who were already here. But it is OK because they were white Europeans.


Settlers, not immigrants, Settlers move to an area and create something that did not exist, immigrants move to an nation that already exists.

Also Native Americans arrived AFTER Solutreans did, then solutreans died out during the Younger Dryis event.

More over in the end the Natives Americans proved what is your is yours so long as you can protect it.

Maybe you should learn form them and understand the hordes coming here do not want our culture, values, Liberty, they want to take what is ours, nothing more. 

For what ever reason you can not understand this, this is is not the problem of Immigration Patriots, you do not have to learn only lose and you immigrationists are losing badly in the polls, in the culture, and in politics.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> A few?  I barely have time for one.  How do you do it?


Drop shipping/market place creation.

Its easier to create a place of others to sell their products and take a percentage of their income, they do all the work and you sit back and take a percentage of the action.'

After that it will be Social networking site as Facebook as gone fuller retard as is Twitter. Will have to hire tech workers and yes they will be American.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Their are more then 3 races, that is not even a debate.


How many races are there?  What are they?  Are Germans and Italians the same race?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I take it you've never heard of Malcom X, Marcus Garvey or Booker T. Washington?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://africanholocaust.net/news_ah/garvey.html
> 
> In fact under Booker T. Washington, Tuskegee Institute supplied all of the bricks for the Alabama county it was located in.  That's right.  White folks bought the black man's bricks.



Now find me how many that support Collectivism.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So do you blame your stupidity on your yet to be disclosed African heritage?


So change the subject, run, and name call, you people are total leftists.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Settlers, not immigrants, Settlers move to an area and create something that did not exist, immigrants move to an nation that already exists.


North America did not exist?

Basically "white Europeans stole North America and now don't want to share it with anybody else- if you aren't a white European you can't come over and play".  Sounds like a spoiled child.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Drop shipping/market place creation.
> 
> Its easier to create a place of others to sell their products and take a percentage of their income, they do all the work and you sit back and take a percentage of the action.'


Oh, you are one of THOSE.  You want to make money without actually earning it.  Kinda like all those welfare queens you hate so much.




> After that it will be Social networking site as Facebook as gone fuller retard as is Twitter. Will have to hire tech workers and yes they will be American.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So change the subject, run, and name call, you people are total leftists.


People are not auto-magically leftists because they reject racism.  You, however, display quite a lot of magical thinking.

Racism is collectivism.  Collectivism is leftist.  Therefore racists are leftists.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> How many races are there?  What are they?  Are Germans and Italians the same race?


http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-tech...-genetic-82475




> *Why Your Race Isn't Genetic*
> 
> _DNA doesn't determine race. Society does._
> 
> If you glanced around the room at a conference of geneticists, it would be easy to guess where in the world all the attendees' ancestors came from. Using skin color, hair, facial features, and other physical traits, you could distinguish the East Asians from the South Asians and the Africans from the Europeans. Our broad racial categories appear to be founded on genuine biological differences between people from different geographical regions. And these differences seem to define a set of natural human groups, the product of the last 70,000 years or so when modern humans emerged from Africa to colonize the other continents, acquiring distinct physical traits as they adapted to new environments.
> 
> The concept of human races appears to be solidly grounded in present-day biology and our evolutionary history. But if you asked that conference of geneticists to give you a genetic definition of race, they wouldn’t be able to do it. *Human races are not natural genetic groups;* they are socially constructed categories.
> 
> Without natural genetic boundaries to guide us, human racial categories remain a product of our choices.
> ...


Human genetic differences are quite small- and those within "racial groups" are greater than differences between such groups.  We are more alike than we are different.  Experts looking at your DNA could not say for certain which "race" you belonged to.  While I don't expect you would do it, I might suggest you submit your DNA to one of the "ancestry" testing sites.  You may be surprised by the results.  I though my own heritage came from Germany but it showed more Scottish/ English with a dash of Asian thrown in. You may not be who you think you are. Or as "pure".

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Settlers, not immigrants, Settlers move to an area and create something that did not exist, immigrants move to an nation that already exists.


The indigenous peoples of North America had a full government with laws and a Constitution.  A Constitution upon which the US Constitution was largely based.




> More over in the end the Natives Americans proved what is your is yours so long as you can protect it.


Condoning theft so long as you can get away with is is not compatible with liberty or conservative values in any way shape or form.




> For what ever reason you can not understand this, this is is not the problem of Immigration Patriots, you do not have to learn only lose and you immigrationists are losing badly in the polls, in the culture, and in politics.


You don't have to be a racist to support stronger controls on immigration.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Now find me how many that support Collectivism.


Whites have a worse track record.

----------


## Cabal

> Now find me how many that support Collectivism.


Says the collectivist.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Human genetic differences are quite small- and those within "racial groups" are greater than differences between such groups.  We are more alike than we are different.  Experts looking at your DNA could not say for certain which "race" you belonged to.


That makes a lot of sense.  Most people get along just fine with people who have different skin color than them.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> How many races are there?  What are they?  Are Germans and Italians the same race?







http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity....ace_Plates.htm








Why not learn for yourself? Why not seek knowledge free of the bias of others, free from what the cultural marxists want you to think, who use fear of being called a word to scare people into ignoring basic facts, stats, science and reality? 

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." - Thomas Jefferson 


"If ever you find yourself environed with difficulties and perplexing circumstances, out of which you are at a loss how to extricate yourself, do what is right, and be assured that that will extricate you the best out of the worst situations. Tho’ you cannot see when you fetch one step, what will be the next, yet follow truth, justice, and plain-dealing, and never fear their leading you out of the labyrinth in the easiest manner possible." - Jefferson to Peter Carr, August 19, 17851

"they [common-place books] were written at a time of life when I was bold in the pursuit of knolege, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, & bearding every authority which stood in their way."
- Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 18142

"their minds were to be informed, by education, what is right & what wrong, to be encoraged in habits of virtue, & deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible; in all cases to follow truth as the only safe guide, & to eschew error , Start insertion,which, End, bewilder us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. these are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order & good government, but this would have been an operation of a generation or two at least, within which period would have succeeded many Neros and Commoduses, who could have quashed the whole process." - Jefferson to John Adams, December 10, 18193

"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
- Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, December 27, 1820

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Now find me how many that support Collectivism.


You support collectivism.

Vote for this or that, you're okay with it. Nevermind the rights of individuals.

How can you not see this?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That makes a lot of sense.  Most people get along just fine with people who have different skin color than them.


Yeah, history proves other wise. Introduce redistribution politics and you have perfect powder keg.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Whites have a worse track record.



No group is perfect, but I will counter attack with Frank Marshall Davis, Al Sharpton, Nelson Mandala, and Barrack Obama.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Yeah, history proves other wise. Introduce redistribution politics and you have perfect powder keg.


I meant most people in America do because racism is taught to the younger generation by their parents.  Most American parents are not racist though.




> No group is perfect, but I will counter attack with Frank Marshall Davis, Al Sharpton, Nelson Mandala, and Barrack Obama.


They have nothing on the people in those pictures.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Why not learn for yourself? Why not seek knowledge free of the bias of others, free from what the cultural marxists want you to think, who use fear of being called a word to scare people into ignoring basic facts, stats, science and reality? 
> 
> http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/


So, I'm assuming you think that the Germans and Italians are different races.  That's what the maps suggest.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> North America did not exist?
> 
> Basically "white Europeans stole North America and now don't want to share it with anybody else- if you aren't a white European you can't come over and play".  Sounds like a spoiled child.



You do understand A Continent is a different thing then a nation, right? America did not exist nor did the colonies before the arrival of Whites, Whites Settled the land, and created such nation states.

No we arrived first, then go wiped out thanks to a asteroid /comet impact, then the "natives" showed up, then we came over, took everything via treaties, and then did what every nation, culture, and race does, protect their hard won gains and do not feel like giving up what is rightfully ours.

That is not what "spoiled children" do that is what adults, who value their nation, culture, people, and the hard won gains of their forefathers do.

If you want to give away your inheritance, fine, the moment you try and give away what is not your you become a theft and just a friendly reminder we Westerns do not take very kindly to thieves and traitors.





> The indigenous peoples of North America had a full government with laws and a Constitution.  A Constitution upon which the US Constitution was largely based.


This has been disproved time and time again.






> Condoning theft so long as you can get away with is is not compatible with liberty or conservative values in any way shape or form.


To the victor goes the spoils of war. You of all people should know that Gunny. Blackfoot takes the Black Mountains from Soiux no one cares, Whites take it away form the Blackfoot, everyone cares. How odd.




> You don't have to be a racist to support stronger controls on immigration.



That is Great! I am not a racists and I support very strong controls on immigration!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You do understand A Continent is a different thing then a nation, right? America did not exist nor did the colonies before the arrival of Whites, Whites Settled the land, *and created such nation states.
> *
> No we arrived first, then go wiped out thanks to a asteroid /comet impact, then the "natives" showed up, then we came over,* took everything via treaties,* and then did what every nation, culture, and race does, protect their hard won gains and do not feel like giving up *what is rightfully ours.*
> 
> That is not what "spoiled children" do that is what adults, who value their nation, culture, people, and the hard won gains of their forefathers do.


So the Indian Nations did not exist.  It was OK to steal from them yet are worried that others may steal from you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I meant most people in America do because racism is taught to the younger generation by their parents.  Most American parents are not racist though.
> 
> 
> 
> They have nothing on the people in those pictures.


Sure "racism", its never self interests for your groups, nation, culture, and people...Right?

Mandela destroyed a 1st world nation and has created a state that is commit White Genocide. Not different then the Gulags of the USSR.

----------


## Zippyjuan

South Africa was only First World for its minority white residents.  It was Third World for its native black residents.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Sure "racism", its never self interests for your groups, nation, culture, and people...Right?
> 
> Mandela destroyed a 1st world nation and has created a state that is commit White Genocide. Not different then the Gulags of the USSR.


South Africa is not a great country, but whites in SA are not being sent to the gulag.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So the Indian Nations did not exist.  It was OK to steal from them yet are worried that others may steal from you.


They still exist, they are not nation states, only largely nomadic ethno confederations. 

It was war. We won, nothing can change that . Now we want to keep our hard won gains. What person wants to have their inheritance stolen from them?

This nation was found for a select reason, to secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and *Our Posterity..

*Its very clear and logical that this nation was intended for us, and for us alone, and no one else and any claim to it but us.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If race has to do with intelligence,  why are you dumber than my black friend?


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

----------


## Zippyjuan

> They still exist, they are not nation states, only largely nomadic ethno confederations. 
> 
> It was war. We won, nothing can change that . Now we want to keep our hard won gains. What person wants to have their inheritance stolen from them?
> 
> This nation was found for a select reason, to secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and [COLOR=#ff0000][U][B]Our Posterity..


We have had immigration for over 200 years.  Yet the nation has continued to grow.  Because of it.  Not in spite of it.  The blessing of what was stolen has been preserved.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> This nation was found for a select reason, to secure the Blessings of Liberty for Ourselves and *Our Posterity..
> 
> **Its very clear and logical that this nation was intended for us, and for us alone,* and no one else and any claim to it but us.


By that logic anyone who came to America after 1787 has no claim to it either.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> We have had immigration for over 200 years.  Yet the nation has continued to grow.  Because of it.  Not in spite of it.  The blessing of what was stolen has been preserved.


No, it is being degenerated by an influx of people that voted against, you can not support liberty if you support socialism, gun control, larger goverment, ect. Its being stolen and giving to the import 3rd world hordes who will blindly vote for marxist same as they did back home, just for a welfare check.

Thanks for prove you open border/mass immigration zealots can not be reasons with, must be and will be stopped.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> By that logic anyone who came to America after 1787 has no claim to it either.


Well to a degree you are right and that is not a bad thing. If a nation belongs to everyone then it belongs to no one.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Well to a degree you are right and that is not a bad thing. If a nation belongs to everyone then it belongs to no one.


Were your ancestors here in 1787?  If not then you aren't part of the posterity.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Were your ancestors here in 1787?  If not then you aren't part of the posterity.


and the son of an immigrant.  But immigrants and their descendants are bad.  They want to destroy the country.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So groups of individualists can not archive great things?
> 
> I am building a few business.


You must be pretty brilliant to build a few "business" when you barely speak English. Your hatred of foreigners leads me to believe you don't speak any other languages either, so it's a wonder how you communicate in the business world. Must be the white skin you were born with that made you so intellectually superior.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Were your ancestors here in 1787?  If not then you aren't part of the posterity.


Yes.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> and the son of an immigrant.  But immigrants and their descendants are bad.  They want to destroy the country.


Considering that he probably is a descendant of immigrants after 1787, we can assume that he isn't really opposed to immigration in general, just non-white immigration.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Yes.


All of them?

----------


## Zippyjuan

I believe that is a fair assessment of the situation.  It is touching that he is worried they might be "uncomfortable" going to a different place and trying to build a better life (which takes ambition and daring- not laziness and stupidity) while I think he is actually the one who is made "uncomfortable".

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You must be pretty brilliant to build a few "business" when you barely speak English. Your hatred of foreigners leads me to believe you don't speak any other languages either, so it's a wonder how you communicate in the business world. Must be the white skin you were born with that made you so intellectually superior.


If you would bother to read my posts you would know I use voice to text software as I am business doing other things, more over I do not value your views on my wordsmenship.

No, it was having two parents with great genes.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Considering that he probably is a descendant of immigrants after 1787, we can assume that he isn't really opposed to immigration in general, just non-white immigration.


No I am against immigration of whites that share collectivist values. If you are white and you support gun control, higher taxes/regulations, forced association,Fiat Currency, Globalism, etc I do not want you in this nation.

I was against the great ways of Europeans coming just as I am now against the 3rd world hordes.

I would not mind it if 80% of immigrates were white and the remainder was highly skilled, wealthy, and had compatible political views.




> All of them?


A handful that I can track down. Then again the classic "what if the laws you want were enforced at the time" non sense does not matter.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If you would bother to read my posts you would know I use voice to text software as I am business doing other things, more over I do not value your views on my wordsmenship.
> 
> No, it was having two parents with great genes.


Why would I bother to read your posts? I would have more productive conversation about immigration with my dog. When she chases cats or squirrels out of the yard, she doesn't claim racial superiority. She just wants to eat them. And yes, that makes her smarter than you.

----------


## otherone

> No, it was having two parents with great genes.


and defective condoms.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> No I am against immigration of whites that share collectivist values. If you are white and you support gun control, higher taxes/regulations, forced association,Fiat Currency, Globalism, etc I do not want you in this nation.


What are you going to do, deport me to the United Kingdom?




> A handful that I can track down. Then again the classic "what if the laws you want were enforced at the time" non sense does not matter.


Why does it not matter?

----------


## Zippyjuan

I can trace ancestry back to the Revolutionary War.  He was a Brit who was captured.

----------


## Cabal

> No I am against immigration of whites that share collectivist values.


Says the collectivist.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Why would I bother to read your posts? I would have more productive conversation about immigration with my dog. When she chases cats or squirrels out of the yard, she doesn't claim racial superiority. She just wants to eat them. And yes, that makes her smarter than you.


You do know reading is a great way to find information, right?

Socrates — 'When the debate is *lost*, *slander* becomes the tool of the loser.'

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What are you going to do, deport me to the United Kingdom?


No, but once again why do we need to import people who subvert Liberty?




> Why does it not matter?



Because it is naval gazing, a waste of time when time is not to be wasted. More over its just mental masturbation.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

I'm not sure if your list of linked studies is in this thread or another, but a while back r3v linked to a study that said blacks adopted into white families had statistically insignificant differences in IQs from whites.  I can't open the link to the study you provided that says the opposite.  Looking at the link makes me think that's from 1977.  Can I ask how you found these studies and why you chose these studies over others that may say the same or different?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I'm not sure if your list of linked studies is in this thread or another, but a while back r3v linked to a study that said blacks adopted into white families had statistically insignificant differences in IQs from whites.  I can't open the link to the study you provided that says the opposite.  Looking at the link makes me think that's from 1977.  Can I ask how you found these studies and why you chose these studies over others that may say the same or different?


Had an old list of such links, do you studies that say otherwise?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I can trace ancestry back to the Revolutionary War.  He was a Brit who was captured.



Juan, at least we were here, keep that in mind at all times.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I don't mind sharing with others who come here and contribute.  I don't fear "others" simply because they are not like me. Why do people want to come here?  Because it is a great place.  The only way to make people not want to come here is to make it a terrible place.  Your suggestions are a step in that direction.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I don't mind sharing with others who come here and contribute.  I don't fear "others" simply because they are not like me. Why do people want to come here?  Because it is a great place.  The only way to make people not want to come here is to make it a terrible place.  Your suggestions are a step in that direction.


Robert Bradley came to the New World in 1692 by order of the King of England, and my direct-lineage fathers have fought in every war America has fought until my father was in the Navy during Vietnam but didn't fight in Vietnam, and I was in the Marines in between the two Sandboxes.  I actually agree with you in regards to AS's suggestions.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Grandfather WWII (Asian Pacific)
Uncle- Korea
Different Uncle- Vietnam
Father- was in but didn't get deployed
Brother- US Army in Europe (was recently a translator at the D-Day anniversary celebration)
Nephew- US Army possibly going to Afghanistan. 
Most were fortunate to avoid action but did serve.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Several of my relatives were in the air force during the Cold War but none saw combat.  One of my ancestors was drafted in WWI but I think the war was over by the time he got there.  Several of my ancestors fought in the Union Army, I think that was the last time one of my relatives fought in a war.

----------


## jmdrake

> Now find me how many that support Collectivism.


Well you openly support collectivism and you could be part black.

----------


## jmdrake

> So change the subject, run, and name call, you people are total leftists.


LOL.  I haven't "run" anywhere dufus.  Some of us actually have a life.  We do things like help our sons with their algebra homework, talk to clients about the web businesses we're building, write and debug code, and work in time to talk to pretty ladies on the phone when they finally get off of their jobs.  As for changing the subject....um...you kinda did that already with your whole race/IQ tirade.  I was just going along with your silly discussion.  As most white people have no clue of how much black they may or may not have in them the entire argument is silly.

Edit: And it's funny how you think my suggesting that you might be part black is somehow "name calling" yet you want to pretend you're not racist.

----------


## jmdrake

> Several of my relatives were in the air force during the Cold War but none saw combat.  One of my ancestors was drafted in WWI but I think the war was over by the time he got there.  Several of my ancestors fought in the Union Army, I think that was the last time one of my relatives fought in a war.


My grandfather was a hellfigher in WW I.  (Black soldier that fought under French command because America wouldn't let blacks be in combat roles.)  We even found his military records.  Had a great great grandfather that fought for the Union.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> LOL.  I haven't "run" anywhere dufus.  Some of us actually have a life.  We do things like help our sons with their algebra homework, talk to clients about the web businesses we're building, write and debug code, and work in time to talk to pretty ladies on the phone when they finally get off of their jobs.  As for changing the subject....um...you kinda did that already with your whole race/IQ tirade.  I was just going along with your silly discussion.  As most white people have no clue of how much black they may or may not have in them the entire argument is silly.
> 
> Edit: And it's funny how you think my suggesting that you might be part black is somehow "name calling" yet you want to pretend you're not racist.



Its not a tirade its basic science.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I don't mind sharing with others who come here and contribute.  I don't fear "others" simply because they are not like me. Why do people want to come here?  Because it is a great place.  The only way to make people not want to come here is to make it a terrible place.  Your suggestions are a step in that direction.


Sure, that is the 9/11 Hijackers came, or the 92 world trade center bombers came, or the countless criminals, welfare users, and dregs come. Great see what pill you have taken.




> Well you openly support collectivism and you could be part black.



Yeah when it comes to national secure/defense of Liberty, how can you protect a nation without some kind of armed forces/border? I really want to know.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> [...] the 92 world trade center bombers came [...]


LOL. The FBI were the "world trade center bombers" (and it was in '93, not '92).

The Blind Sheikh and his merry band of hapless $#@!s were just useful patsies.




> Yeah when it comes to national secure/defense of Liberty, how can you protect a nation without some kind of armed forces/border? I really want to know.


The State does not give a $#@! about your security, your defense or your liberty.

The State does not give a $#@! about protecting you or your freedom.

The State certainly does not give a $#@! about your race, your culture or your "Whiteness."

The State gives a $#@! about its own power. That is all. Nothing else.

The State cares about other things only insofar as they contribute to (or endanger) the maintenance and expansion of its own power.

And if you think otherwise, then that just makes you one of their useful patsies, too ...

----------


## jmdrake

> Its not a tirade its basic science.


If you believed in basic science you would go and do genetic test to see how much black you have in you.  But you're not going to do that because you're basically a scientific coward.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure, that is the 9/11 Hijackers came, or the 92 world trade center bombers came, or the countless criminals, welfare users, and dregs come. Great see what pill you have taken.


The WTC was bombed in 1993, not 1992.  I see history isn't your strong point either.  And the bomb was made by an FBI informant.  He suggested to his handlers that he use harmless powder instead of explosives but the FBI insisted on explosives.  Look it up moron.  Oh and the FBI handlers that insisted on real explosives?  They were white.  And the Oklahoma City bombing that killed far more people than the 1993 WTC bombing?  Done by a couple of good ole boy white dudes.  Same with most of the mass shootings of random strangers.  (Black gangbangers mostly kill other black gangbangers.)  In fact when it comes to mass shootings of strangers, whites and Asians make up a disproportionately high number.  Not sure why that is but it's a fact.  Some more of that "science" that you claim to love so much.




> Yeah when it comes to national secure/defense of Liberty, how can you protect a nation without some kind of armed forces/border? I really want to know.


Ummm.....you know there are a lot of blacks and latinos in the armed forces right?  Talk about trying to change the subject.   And for years now there's been a policy that immigrants willing to join the armed forces get on a fast track to citizenship.  One of the best fighting forces in the world, the French *Foreign* Legion, is an entirely immigrant based force.  You're not really making a great case for white IQ in this thread by the way.  Maybe you should do that genetic test to see if some of your black ancestors are holding you back.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> My grandfather was a hellfigher in WW I.  (Black soldier that fought under French command because *America wouldn't let blacks be in combat roles.)*  We even found his military records.  Had a great great grandfather that fought for the Union.


Sounds like something Woodrow Wilson would do.




> If you believed in basic science you would go and do genetic test to see how much black you have in you.  But you're not going to do that because you're basically a scientific coward.


I think he should do that.  I recently learned that I had Native American DNA when one of my relatives took that test.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think he should do that.  I recently learned that I had Native American DNA when one of my relatives took that test.


Someone like AS would probably be horrified to learn that he has non-white ancestors, and so would be too cowardly to be tested as jmdrake said. For most of us, learning we might have a diverse ancestry wouldn't be a big deal because we're not bigoted that way.

----------


## navy-vet

> If you believed in basic science you would go and do genetic test to see how much black you have in you.  But you're not going to do that because you're basically a scientific coward.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...aningless.html
It's one of the biggest scams of the new century...

----------


## Cabal

> LOL. The FBI were the "world trade center bombers" (and it was in '93, not '92).
> 
> The Blind Sheikh and his merry band of hapless $#@!s were just useful patsies.
> 
> 
> 
> The State does not give a $#@! about your security, your defense or your liberty.
> 
> The State does not give a $#@! about protecting you or your freedom.
> ...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Someone like AS would probably be horrified to learn that he has non-white ancestors, and so would be too cowardly to be tested as jmdrake said. For most of us, learning we might have a diverse ancestry wouldn't be a big deal because we're not bigoted that way.


There is a strong possibility that he does have non-white ancestors.  I'm very white and even I have some.  

(To be fair I might not be considered white on Stormfront due to my Jewish ancestry.)

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> If you believed in basic science you would go and do genetic test to see how much black you have in you.  But you're not going to do that because you're basically a scientific coward.



I can clearly see I have non thanks to Ancestry.com

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> LOL. The FBI were the "world trade center bombers" (and it was in '93, not '92).
> 
> The Blind Sheikh and his merry band of hapless $#@!s were just useful patsies.
> 
> 
> 
> The State does not give a $#@! about your security, your defense or your liberty.
> 
> The State does not give a $#@! about protecting you or your freedom.
> ...



So why should we allow the immigration of tens of millions of people that can not understand this or even worse support the state giving them "free" stuff at the expense of our rights and wealth?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I can clearly see I have non thanks to Ancestry.com


According to Ancestry.com my family does not either, but that's because there is missing information.  The DNA test deals with genetics, and it goes further back than most people can on Ancestry.com.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I have a Cherokee Princess in my direct lineage on the Ferguson side. Her photo is (was) on the family tree wall in my grandmother's house before she passed.  Neither the Mormons nor Ancestry listed her, and she is pretty close, either great great grandmother or great great great grandmother.  Probably the former IIRC.

----------


## navy-vet

I think that an individuals genetics are absolutely worthless in assessing their worth or value. An $#@! is an $#@! and a prince is a prince, regardless of who their ancestors were or weren't.

----------


## navy-vet

The meekest, most seemingly unworthy among us, could be a King.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I think that an individuals genetics are absolutely worthless in assessing their worth or value. An $#@! is an $#@! and a prince is a prince, regardless of who their ancestors were or weren't.


What if the prince is an $#@!?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The meekest, most seemingly unworthy among us, could be a King.


Its import to remember that the meek inherits nothing.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
> 
> 
> LOL. The FBI were the "world trade center bombers" (and it was in '93, not '92).
> 
> The Blind Sheikh and his merry band of hapless $#@!s were just useful patsies.
> 
> The State does not give a $#@! about your security, your defense or your liberty.
> 
> ...


(Asking that question seems to be your favorite "go to" dodge ...)

I didn't say anything one way or the other about why "we" should (or should not) "allow the immigration of tens of millions of people that can not understand this."

And anyway, never mind "them" - YOU don't even seem to "understand this."

If you did, you wouldn't be under the mistaken impression that you (or "we") have been given any say in the matter - you (or "we") have not.

Given this, what makes you think that YOU are any better than "them" (and not just a different kind of useful patsy to the State than "they" are)?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I can clearly see I have non thanks to Ancestry.com


In the animal kingdom, pure breeds tend to be the weakest animals. The most subject to diseases and genetic defects. Cross breeds are stronger and healthier.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> In the animal kingdom, pure breeds tend to be the weakest animals. The most subject to diseases and genetic defects. Cross breeds are stronger and healthier.


That's the same reason as why incest is bad for humans.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Its import to remember that the meek inherits nothing.


That's not true. Jesus said the meek inherit the earth.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> In the animal kingdom, pure breeds tend to be the weakest animals. The most subject to diseases and genetic defects. Cross breeds are stronger and healthier.


Humans are have what they do not, A brain and self awareness.




> That's the same reason as why incest is bad for humans.


Incest and breeding within your culture/race are not the same, the difference in Genetic similar is very huge.





> That's not true. Jesus said the meek inherit the earth.


After the battle of Armageddon and the Forces of Evil are destroyed, funny how you leave that part out. What has the meek gotten so far? Either a mass grave or a gulag.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Incest and breeding within your culture/race are not the same, the difference in Genetic similar is very huge.


I didn't say they were the same.  But genetic diversity is a strength, and what is the exact opposite of incest?  Breeding with people who you know have less genes in common with you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I didn't say they were the same.  But genetic diversity is a strength, and what is the exact opposite of incest?  Breeding with people who you know have less genes in common with you.



So how is breeding away all of that diversity into a world where every one has the same hair, eye, skin color/genes genetic diversity?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So how is breeding away all of that diversity into a world where every one has the same hair, eye, skin color/genes genetic diversity?


That won't happen.  But just wondering, do you think that Germans and Italians shouldn't breed?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That won't happen.  But just wondering, do you think that Germans and Italians shouldn't breed?



Yes it will if trends are not halted. How can you believe that it "just wont happen"? 

As entire groups or as individuals? Because if they breed too much together they will both cease to exist both as individuals and and cultures.

Why do you pick those two groups?

----------


## jmdrake

> I can clearly see I have non thanks to Ancestry.com


 If you think ancestory.com is equivilant to genetic testing then your IQ is lower than I was previously suspecting.  Is ancestry.com where you found out the 1993 WTC bombing happened in 1992?  Maybe you found out that the war of 1812 happened in 1914 as well?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> If you think ancestory.com is equivilant to genetic testing then your IQ is lower than I was previously suspecting.  Is ancestry.com where you found out the 1993 WTC bombing happened in 1992?  Maybe you found out that the war of 1812 happened in 1914 as well?


 So you have to use a typo as a reason to create a to post? Reaching that deep this soon? Not a good sign.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> As entire groups or as individuals? Because if they breed too much together they will both cease to exist both as individuals and and cultures.
> 
> Why do you pick those two groups?


It's good to introduce new genes into a population from time to time.  Or do you disagree with that?




> If you think ancestory.com is equivilant to genetic testing then your IQ is lower than I was previously suspecting.  Is ancestry.com where you found out the 1993 WTC bombing happened in 1992?  Maybe you found out that the war of 1812 happened in 1914 as well?


Hey, if it's on the internet it must be true!

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It's good to introduce new genes into a population from time to time.  Or do you disagree with that?


So New=Better?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So New=Better?


Not necessarily, but genetic diversity is good for society.

----------


## timosman

> Not necessarily, but genetic diversity is good for society.


Now you are making $#@! up. Are you suggesting we are not diverse enough already?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Now you are making $#@! up. Are you suggesting we are not diverse enough already?


America as a whole is a genetically diverse country, and that is good for our country.  Certain parts of America, like Hildale, Utah, are not genetically diverse enough.

----------


## timosman

> America as a whole is a genetically diverse country, and that is good for our country.  Certain parts of America, like Hildale, Utah, are not genetically diverse enough.


Do you realize you are really a pain the ass micromanager?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Not necessarily, but genetic diversity is good for society.


S

So how is everyone breeding away into the same genetic make up "diversity"? How is making everything the same "diversity"?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Do you realize you are really a pain the ass micromanager?


How?  I was just making a point about genetic diversity.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> America as a whole is a genetically diverse country, and that is good for our country.  Certain parts of America, like Hildale, Utah, are not genetically diverse enough.


How is it good? Why do we need to import Low IQed people in from the 3rd world?

No, Hildale, Utah like all White Majority areas do not need any diversity they just fine the way they are. Funny how its only White areas that need "diversty", isnt?


*White Americans have Remained “Shockingly European” Despite Decades of Pro-Racial Mixing Propaganda, New DNA Study Reveals*

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> S
> 
> So how is everyone breeding away into the same genetic make up "diversity"? How is making everything the same "diversity"?


Not everyone will do that.  But places like Hildale Utah show why not bringing in any new genes is harmful.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Now you are making $#@! up. Are you suggesting we are not diverse enough already?


To the left/anti whites "diverse enough" means no Whites.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Not everyone will do that.  But places like Hildale Utah show why not bringing in any new genes is harmful.


Why do you hate the idea of a bunch of whites being the majority? Notice you do not bring up entire counties along the border that pure mestizo? Low IQed, High time preference, marxist supporting people but some how we need more of them? No we do not. 

Why the anti white mindset?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

If you are going to post comments in the rep area, why not repost them for all to see?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Not necessarily, but genetic diversity is good for society.



Proof?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> How is it good? Why do we need to import Low IQed people in from the 3rd world?
> 
> No, Hildale, Utah like all White Majority areas do not need any diversity they just fine the way they are. Funny how its only White areas that need "diversty", isnt?


Hildale doesn't necessarily need non-white genes.  What they need are genes that aren't from Hildale, Utah.




> *White Americans have Remained Shockingly European Despite Decades of Pro-Racial Mixing Propaganda, New DNA Study Reveals*


"Decades of Pro-Racial Mixing Propaganda" 

Interracial marriage became legal nationwide in 1967 in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, _Loving v Virginia_.  The _Star Trek TOS_ episode _Plato's Stepchildren_ is widely regarded to to have the first interracial kiss on US television (it's a really good episode).  That episode aired after the SCOTUS decision (and keep in mind that it was already legal in most states).  Interracial relationships are not common in older movies but are more common in recent movies.  This is to reflect societal changes rather than to promote interracial relationships/marriage.




> Why do you hate the idea of a bunch of whites being the majority? Notice you do not bring up entire counties along the border that pure mestizo? Low IQed, High time preference, marxist supporting people but some how we need more of them? No we do not. 
> 
> Why the anti white mindset?


I have no problem with whites remaining the majority, where are you getting this idea?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Hildale doesn't necessarily need non-white genes.  What they need are genes that aren't from Hildale, Utah.


Why did you pick that area?






> "Decades of Pro-Racial Mixing Propaganda"


So you can not disprove it? 

Facts disproving the narrative?

America not 'diverse" enough for you?





> Interracial marriage became legal nationwide in 1967 in a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, _Loving v Virginia_.  The _Star Trek TOS_ episode _Plato's Stepchildren_ is widely regarded to to have the first interracial kiss on US television (it's a really good episode).  That episode aired after the SCOTUS decision (and keep in mind that it was already legal in most states).


Not the issue.




> Interracial relationships are not common in older movies but are more common in recent movies.  This is to reflect societal changes rather than to promote interracial relationships/marriage.


They are only common because they are being pushed as to promote them, they are actually not that common and fail at very high rates.

Its ok if you want to believe lies, but not be offend when they are called what they are.





> I have no problem with whites remaining the majority, where are you getting this idea?



Great! So you do not mind if we limit immigration in ways that are conducive to that outcome?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Proof?


Scientists have done studies that show how genetic diversity helps a species survive.  I'm not a scientist, I just have an occasional interest in scientific topics.  So, I recommend you talk to a scientist if you want the details.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Scientists have done studies that show how genetic diversity helps a species survive.  I'm not a scientist, I just have an occasional interest in scientific topics.  So, I recommend you talk to a scientist if you want the details.


Link? How and why does that automatically translate to humans?

----------


## pcosmar

*Must Libertarians Believe in* ********** ?
I hate these  questions,,


How much authoritarianism are you willing to impose? 

If you are advocating, supporting, or imposing authoritarianism,  you simply are not interested in liberty.

Period.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> *Must Libertarians Believe in* ********** ?
> I hate these  questions,,
> 
> 
> How much authoritarianism are you willing to impose? 
> 
> If you are advocating, supporting, or imposing authoritarianism,  you simply are not interested in liberty.
> 
> Period.


Is self defense authoritarianism?

What has anarchy produced?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Why did you pick that area?


Because a large number of its inhabitants suffer from a rare genetic disease.




> So you can not disprove it? 
> 
> Facts disproving the narrative?
> 
> America not 'diverse" enough for you?


America is diverse enough, I already said that.  




> Not the issue.


 I was just pointing out that the media wasn't putting interracial couples everywhere after it became legal.




> They are only common because they are being pushed as to promote them, they are actually not that common and fail at very high rates.
> 
> Its ok if you want to believe lies, but not be offend when they are called what they are.


Interracial marriage is not something new that only exists because of media promotion.  There were many people in history who married outside of their own race.  Moses and Zepporah, Cortes and Dona Marina, Pocahontas and John Rolfe, etc.  




> Great! So you do not mind if we limit immigration in ways that are conducive to that outcome?


If America stays a white-majority nation, that's okay.  If whites are eventually not the majority, that's okay.  Government has no place in the matter.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is self defense authoritarianism?


When you define "self" as "government", yes it is.  You are a racial collectivist.   Stormfront.org would love to have you.




> What has anarchy produced?


Everything the free market has produced,  everything that voluntary associations have produced, every way that free people have acted, etc. is "anarchism" on a small scale.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Because a large number of its inhabitants suffer from a rare genetic disease.


So more people will only enable the disease to spread, maybe even change and become deadlier.




> America is diverse enough, I already said that.


O.K.




> I was just pointing out that the media wasn't putting interracial couples everywhere after it became legal.


So no one is trying to push it? No one at all?




> Interracial marriage is not something new that only exists because of media promotion.  There were many people in history who married outside of their own race.  Moses and Zepporah, Cortes and Dona Marina, Pocahontas and John Rolfe, etc.


Oh, I know, its been around, but not many do so...Its almost like they know something.




> If America stays a white-majority nation, that's okay.  If whites are eventually not the majority, that's okay.  Government has no place in the matter.


Really? Do you think your rights, wealth, property will be secure when you are not in the majority? 

When has that ever been the case? Do you want to live like the Whites of S.A do?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Link? How and why does that automatically translate to humans?


I'm not going to try to find the study on the internet, because I'm pretty sure I read it in a science book.  Just ask your science teacher.




> So more people will only enable the disease to spread, maybe even change and become deadlier.


The point is that inbreeding causes horrible genetic diseases.  It could have been prevented had people in Hildale had more options for marriage than their cousins.




> So no one is trying to push it? No one at all?


No, I don't think anyone is "pushing" interracial marriage.




> Oh, I know, its been around, but not many do so...Its almost like they know something.


The reason that it wasn't as common in the past is because it was either illegal, there was societal pressure against it, or because for most of history people generally lived in the same town that their entire lives and the other townspeople were generally part of the same tribe or nation.




> Really? Do you think your rights, wealth, property will be secure when you are not in the majority? 
> 
> When has that ever been the case? Do you want to live like the Whites of S.A do?


In South Africa whites have more money on average and many politicians are white.  I think I'll be fine.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

[QUOTE]


> The point is that inbreeding causes horrible genetic diseases.  It could have been prevented had people in Hildale had more options for marriage than their cousins.


''

Yeah, or they could be more selective, or their are bigger issues to worry about.







> No, I don't think anyone is "pushing" interracial marriage.


And your reasoning for thinking this?






> The reason that it wasn't as common in the past is because it was either illegal, there was societal pressure against it, or because for most of history people generally lived in the same town that their entire lives and the other townspeople were generally part of the same tribe or nation.


So it has nothing to do with health problems associated with it, right?

White-Asian children are twice as likely as Asians to have mental illness.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-baa081108.php
Black-white children are more likely than both black and whites to make poor decisions.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14192
Racial bias against miscegenation is likely biological in origin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422626
Interracial marriages have a 23.5% chance of divorce, compared to 13% for same-race couples.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4145377
Mixed race kids suffer from low self-esteem, social isolation, and poor family dynamics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/
Mixed race children are more likely to have health problems, high stress, smoke, and drink.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/




> In South Africa whites have more money on average and many politicians are white.  I think I'll be fine.


And if you are not rich? What if your kids have their money stolen by the goverment? 

Have you thought about the poor whites of such a culture/nation?

Have you not seen the crime rates? The way whites are being murder in mass?

How can you not understand that being a minority in a democracy means everything you have will be voted away from you.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Yeah, or they could be more selective, or their are bigger issues to worry about.


You have to admit that the lack of genetic diversity is a problem in Hildale.




> And your reasoning for thinking this?


Because you did not back up your position with evidence.




> So it has nothing to do with health problems associated with it, right?
> 
> White-Asian children are twice as likely as Asians to have mental illness.
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-baa081108.php
> Black-white children are more likely than both black and whites to make poor decisions.
> http://www.nber.org/papers/w14192
> Racial bias against miscegenation is likely biological in origin.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422626
> Interracial marriages have a 23.5% chance of divorce, compared to 13% for same-race couples.
> ...


That divorce statistic is obviously false unless it's from a different country.  the overall divorce rate in America is way higher than 23.5%.




> And if you are not rich? What if your kids have their money stolen by the goverment? 
> 
> Have you thought about the poor whites of such a culture/nation?
> 
> Have you not seen the crime rates? The way whites are being murder in mass?
> 
> How can you not understand that being a minority in a democracy means everything you have will be voted away from you.


everyone in South Africa is being negatively affected by the government's socialist policies.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

[ 


> When you define "self" as "government", yes it is.  You are a racial collectivist.   Stormfront.org would love to have you.


No, self as is a group of like minded, Liberty minded countrymen. You have nothing but insults "Stormfront" and "racist" no longer work. You

can not make a point nor can you defend the action of  allowing people that will vote against you to flood into the nation.





> Everything the free market has produced,  everything that voluntary associations have produced, every way that free people have acted, etc. is "anarchism" on a small scale.


No, you are just changing words around as anarchy produces nothing but chaos.




> You have to admit that the lack of genetic diversity is a problem in Hildale.


No its a population problem.




> Because you did not back up your position with evidence.


google it and report back.




> That divorce statistic is obviously false unless it's from a different country.  the overall divorce rate in America is way higher than 23.5%.


And the rest of the stats?






> everyone in South Africa is being negatively affected by the government's socialist policies.


You did not answer the questions, I wonder why.

Do you want to live in under the threat of goverment sanctioned voice against your entire race?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> No its a population problem.


The population wasn't genetically diverse enough.




> google it and report back.


google what?




> And the rest of the stats?


I don't know.  Statistics are not always accurate.  I'm not going to look at every single one of them and check how people were selected, the sample size, and margin of error to make sure that these statistics are accurate.




> You did not answer the questions, I wonder why.


Because the questions were stupid.




> Do you want to live in under the threat of goverment sanctioned voice against your entire race?


No, but does is that happening to minorities in America?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The population wasn't genetically diverse enough.


Its also small.








> I don't know.  Statistics are not always accurate.  I'm not going to look at every single one of them and check how people were selected, the sample size, and margin of error to make sure that these statistics are accurate.


Why not?




> Because the questions were stupid.


Why?





> No, but does is that happening to minorities in America?


Only because of white guilt, leftist judges, and the Constitution, if you give them majority status they will not show us any kind of mercy, look at the state of CA, it a non white majority state, how secure are your property rights? Wealth? Rights? They allow illegals to vote in state elections for $#@! sake.

Do you think they give a damn about whites, no they only care about themselves as they should but the min we do the same we are "racist" well white is done playing games.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Its also small.


I grew up in an even smaller town which didn't have those problems.




> Why not?


Because I don't have time.  I have a life outside of RPF.




> Why?


Because the answers were obvious.




> Only because of white guilt, leftist judges, and the Constitution, if you give them majority status they will not show us any kind of mercy, look at the state of CA, it a non white majority state, how secure are your property rights? Wealth? Rights? They allow illegals to vote in state elections for $#@! sake.


Those things harm minorities as well.




> Do you think they give a damn about whites, no they only care about themselves as they should but the min we do the same we are "racist" well white is done playing games.


Just like how most whites do not hate minorities, most minorities do not hate white people.

----------


## otherone

> if you give them majority status they will not show us any kind of mercy, look at the state of CA, it a non white majority state, how secure are your property rights?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Those things harm minorities as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like how most whites do not hate minorities, most minorities do not hate white people.


They do not care as long as they get "free stuff" they will gladly trade the rights of "evil racist whites" away for a handout.

Yeah, their voting and migratory actions say other wise.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> They do not care as long as they get "free stuff" they will gladly trade the rights of "evil racist whites" away for a handout.
> 
> Yeah, their voting and migratory actions say other wise.


Black voters used to vote for Republican candidates, including Calvin Coolidge, but the Republicans ignored them and started appealing to the "lily white" faction of their party that sacrificed principles for politics in order to win more votes in the South.  This started in the 19th century and was finalized in the '60s.  I don't know much about Hispanic voters but I imagine that they don't have a "big government gene" like you think.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> 


Why do you joke in the face of history?

When has becoming a minority ever benefited a people?

----------


## otherone

> Why do you joke in the face of history?
> 
> When has becoming a minority ever benefited a people?


EVERYONE is a "minority".

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Black voters used to vote for Republican candidates, including Calvin Coolidge, but the Republicans ignored them and started appealing to the "lily white" faction of their party that sacrificed principles for politics in order to win more votes in the South.  This started in the 19th century and was finalized in the '60s.  I don't know much about Hispanic voters but I imagine that they don't have a "big government gene" like you think.


Bull$#@! they will vote for anyone that gives them more "free" stuff and you will pay for it ever, single time.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> EVERYONE is a "minority".


W


White make up less then 8% of the population of the world`s people. So the whole "minority" line is total crap.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Bull$#@! they will vote for anyone that gives them more "free" stuff and you will pay for it ever, single time.


Calvin Coolidge didn't give out free stuff.




> W
> 
> 
> White make up less then 8% of the population of the world`s people. So the whole "minority" line is total crap.


Not a single "race" makes up a majority of the world's population.

----------


## otherone

> W
> 
> 
> White make up less then 8% of the population of the world`s people. So the whole "minority" line is total crap.


You don't understand what "minority" means politically if you associate the term only with race.   For instance,  the "Alt Right" agenda is a minority agenda, as only a minority believe it, or have heard of it.
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual... white, black, Lutheran, Pentacostal.  Everyone is a minority.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Calvin Coolidge didn't give out free stuff.


But now they do...




> Not a single "race" makes up a majority of the world's population.


Your point? That does not justify the receding population of Whites.




> You don't understand what "minority" means politically if you associate the term only with race.   For instance,  the "Alt Right" agenda is a minority agenda, as only a minority believe it, or have heard of it.
> The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual... white, black, Lutheran, Pentacostal.  Everyone is a minority.


You for get that you do not need to a majority to cause change. You may want to look up the Founding Fathers.

And some groups are flooding into this nation and if given the change will vote away our rights, since they will do this that must be stopped.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> W
> 
> 
> White make up less then 8% of the population of the world`s people. So the whole "minority" line is total crap.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> But now they do...
> 
> 
> 
> Your point? That does not justify the receding population of Whites.


What is there to "justify?"  Whites  just are not having as many children.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> 


So the classic "you are a klansmen" leftist tactic..

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What is there to "justify?"  Whites  just are not having as many children.



Why? Because we are force to pay and deal with the problems of mass immigration of the 3rd world. More over the rate of immigration is too high it does not matter how many kids we have it is never enough due to mass immigration.

How can you not understand this?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So the classic "you are a klansmen" leftist tactic..


Here is the Knight Party Manifesto.  What do you disagree with in this?




> *The Knights Party Platform*
> 
> *The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.*
> 
> As James Madison, known as the Chief Architect of the Constitution stated;  We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.
> 
> *The recognition that America was founded as a White nation.*
> 
> America was born as an extension of White European heritage. Those who formed the very ideals that we cherish such as freedom of speech, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, free enterprise, etc. were of White European heritage. All of the early laws of the United States from its very inception restricted citizenship to White people and all of the early charters, laws, compacts, etc were signed into effect by White people.
> ...


Anything?

----------


## otherone

> Here is the Knight Party Manifesto.  What do you disagree with in this?
> Anything?


Wow.
What an illogical mess.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Why? Because we are force to pay and deal with the problems of mass immigration of the 3rd world. More over the rate of immigration is too high it does not matter how many kids we have it is never enough due to mass immigration.
> 
> How can you not understand this?


If immigration stopped tomorrow whites would still shrink as a percentage of the population due to lower birth rates.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Wow.
> What an illogical mess.


Today I learned that the Klan is environmentally friendly!

----------


## otherone

> Today I learned that the Klan is environmentally friendly!


....and that their entire platform can be nullified by the states.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Here is the Knight Party Manifesto.  What do you disagree with in this?
> 
> Anything?


Well, if he wasn't before he will be now.  lol

----------


## Miss Annie

> Yes, the vacuum of anarchy just sucks in another form of government.  One can learn from history that anarchy doesn't last very long.  Even an anarchist who wishes to maintain anarchy and fights to keep it, would become the government they despise.


dang....... can't rep you again. 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr.3D again.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you have to use a typo as a reason to create a to post? Reaching that deep this soon? Not a good sign.


So your thinking that looking something up at ancestry.com is equivalent to genetic testing was just a typo?

----------


## navy-vet

> dang....... can't rep you again. 
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr.3D again.


me either

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> ....and that their entire platform can be nullified by the states.


Something tells me that they'd abandon that if they ever got into power.




> Well, if he wasn't before he will be now.  lol


He's been offline for a while, maybe he's trying to find his local Knights Part chapter.

----------


## pcosmar

> Is self defense authoritarianism?
> 
> What has anarchy produced?


No, self defense,,is not (other than exercising personal authority)

and I have never advocated anarchy. I do not believe it can exist beyond momentarily.

----------


## pcosmar

> So the classic "you are a klansmen" leftist tactic..


What is a "leftist" ?

Dude (or punk , @whatever) yer damn heroes are freakin' socialists

more of this Aryan bull$#@!.  I tired of it decades ago.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> dang....... can't rep you again. 
> 
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr.3D again.


Covered it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What is a "leftist" ?
> 
> Dude (or punk , @whatever) yer damn heroes are freakin' socialists
> 
> more of this Aryan bull$#@!.  I tired of it decades ago.


You ever notice how most people who whine about leftys usually hold more leftist positions than they people they whine about?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Here is the Knight Party Manifesto.  What do you disagree with in this?
> 
> 
> 
> Anything?


Many sound points. Why do you support the Federal reverse? Why should we not support veterans? Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment?

If they said "we should not rape women" would you oppose such a stance just because of who they are? Would be pro rape then?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> If immigration stopped tomorrow whites would still shrink as a percentage of the population due to lower birth rates.


No, the freeing up of jobs, reduction of the tad burden and competition for education would result in a population boom for Whites.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> No, the freeing up of jobs, reduction of the tad burden and competition for education would result in a population boom for Whites.


You're delusional.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> You're delusional.


You are being extraordinarily kind.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You're delusional.


 After the deportations of the mid 50s the white population in the border states increase afterwords, after the Immigration Act of 1924 the Birthrates of Native Born Americans increase until the Great Depression put the kibosh on the Roaring 20s.

*Prosperity*  always results in a population increase

Economic down turns results in few births.

Notice how you not given and sources for your data, and no data to speak of.

----------

