# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Some Thoughts on Immigration

## helmuth_hubener

> However, outside of concerns about the effect of illegal immigration on the welfare apparatus there is no convincing reason to oppose immigration.


 Here is another (potentially) convincing reason: The quality of a society is ultimately determined by the quality of the individuals in that society.  Without good, quality people you cannot have a good, quality society, no matter how good (meaning libertarian) your institutions and laws may be.

If you have built a society with an average IQ of 98, and then decide to let in a flood of people with an average IQ of 87 (Mexico) or 79 (Guatemala), then the intelligence level of your society will be drastically altered.  Regardless of how libertarian your laws are, you will now be surrounded by significantly stupider people.  Perhaps that will be good for you personally, it could make you feel smarter by comparison, but perhaps it could be annoying to you to have to deal with unintelligent people on an everyday basis.  To me, for my own personal preferences, I want to live around smart people.  I think a more intelligent society is a better society.

That's just one metric.  If you have a neighborhood that places a high value on work ethic, full of very hard-working, diligent people, that seems like a good thing to me.  Hard work can be _encouraged_ by being libertarian, by allowing men to keep all the fruits of their hard labor, but the character trait cannot be _created_.  If you invite in a flood of people with a more lazy character, a "siesta" culture let's say, the nature of your neighborhood is going to change.  It just is.  It's going to be full of lazy people.  Why?  Because you just had a bunch of lazy people move in.  It's simple physics.

Perhaps you value living in a city full of people with high skill and usefulness, pride in what they do, high competence.  I certainly do.  If you allow hundreds of thousands of low-skill people to move into your city, what will you have?  A city full of low-skill people!

So, this simple fact of reality that the quality of a society rests upon the quality of its individuals -- a highly individualist insight that we as libertarians can readily understand and agree with -- leads us to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to have quality controls upon who can come into one's society.  Not all individuals are of the same quality.  Rational people who are interested in living in a high-quality society will invite people into their society that have something to contribute, that will raise the average and make the society a better place.  They will not invite those who will lower the average and thus deteriorate the society they've worked so hard, for many generations possibly, to build.

----------


## erowe1

> Here is another (potentially) convincing reason: The quality of a society is ultimately determined by the quality of the individuals in that society.  Without good, quality people you cannot have a good, quality society, no matter how good (meaning libertarian) your institutions and laws may be.
> 
> If you have built a society with an average IQ of 98, and then decide to let in a flood of people with an average IQ of 87 (Mexico) or 79 (Guatemala), then the intelligence level of your society will be drastically altered.  Regardless of how libertarian your laws are, you will now be surrounded by significantly stupider people.  Perhaps that will be good for you personally, it could make you feel smarter by comparison, but perhaps it could be annoying to you to have to deal with unintelligent people on an everyday basis.  To me, for my own personal preferences, I want to live around smart people.  I think a more intelligent society is a better society.
> 
> That's just one metric.  If you have a neighborhood that places a high value on work ethic, full of very hard-working, diligent people, that seems like a good thing to me.  Hard work can be _encouraged_ by being libertarian, by allowing men to keep all the fruits of their hard labor, but the character trait cannot be _created_.  If you invite in a flood of people with a more lazy character, a "siesta" culture let's say, the nature of your neighborhood is going to change.  It just is.  It's going to be full of lazy people.  Why?  Because you just had a bunch of lazy people move in.  It's simple physics.
> 
> Perhaps you value living in a city full of people with high skill and usefulness, pride in what they do, high competence.  I certainly do.  If you allow hundreds of thousands of low-skill people to move into your city, what will you have?  A city full of low-skill people!
> 
> So, this simple fact of reality that the quality of a society rests upon the quality of its individuals -- a highly individualist insight that we as libertarians can readily understand and agree with -- leads us to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to have quality controls upon who can come into one's society.  Not all individuals are of the same quality.  Rational people who are interested in living in a high-quality society will invite people into their society that have something to contribute, that will raise the average and make the society a better place.  They will not invite those who will lower the average and thus deteriorate the society they've worked so hard, for many generations possibly, to build.


Those individuals whom you consider lower quality on account of the lower IQs their brown skin gives them would still be of equally low quality no matter where on the globe they are. And I, as what you would consider a high-quality individual with the high IQ that my lighter skin gives me, would still be of equally high quality regardless where on the globe those lower quality people live. Having them on one-side of the US-Mexico border versus the other won't detract from my own quality as an individual.

You are inclined to make people-groups in your mind by bundling together a whole bunch of individuals and calling that bundle a society, and evaluate the quality of those people groups based on the qualities of the individuals in them. But all you're doing is moving around the boundaries that you use to group people together. When you move those boundaries and shift from grouping people together into one arrangement of societies to some other one, sure you end up with different levels of quality in the societies. But you haven't changed the individuals or the total global society of all the world's individuals.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Geographical arrangement matters, erowe.

----------


## fisharmor

> ...society...society...society...institutions...so  ciety...society...society...society...neighborhood  ...culture...neighborhood...city...city...city...s  ociety ...society...society ...society...society...society


Or, how about _$#@! your society._

As soon as you position yourself to make judgments about how society needs to run and look, you become my enemy.
I don't care how multilateral or reasonable your judgment is.
The ring is evil, Frodo.  Your desire to do good does not cancel out 8000 years of human history we have to examine.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, fisharmor, same as you.  I do not arrogate myself to make decisions for others, for "society," nor do I accept the right of anyone else to do so.  OK?  

OK.

The people who would be making the decisions about who to invite into their society are the *owners* of that society!  The legitimate, bonafide owners.  If the owner or owners of a neighborhood is/are opposed to allowing someone to live in that neighborhood, they can't move in.  Sorry!  

That's property rights.  

That's freedom.  

That's liberty.  

The "liberty" to go trample on someone else's grass is not liberty at all.

----------


## William R

The norm used to be immigrants had to prove they wouldn't become a burden on the taxpayers.  

We need to stop the illegal flow and enforce the laws on the books.  Then return to a more normal flow of 200-250 thousand skilled self sufficient immigrants a year.  And of course country of origin should play a major role.  Admitting people from Muslim lands should all but be stopped.  Ron Paul was the first to suggest it after 9/11.  Not saying all Muslim are terrorists, but the facts are most terrorists today are Muslims

----------


## thoughtomator

Immigration proponents are thieves whose goal it is to steal from their neighbors to subsidize their labor costs.

If it were not so, they'd be clamoring to shut down the welfare pipeline a lot louder than they are clamoring to keep the labor dumping spigot on full blast.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If it were not so, they'd be clamoring to shut down the welfare pipeline a lot louder than they are clamoring to keep the labor dumping spigot on full blast.


 Well, _libertarian_ immigration proponents _are_ clamoring much louder to turn off welfare than to keep immigration unrestricted.

This is just an example of an honest, thoughtful disagreement, on an actually very interesting issue that warrants deep thinking.

----------


## tod evans

I'd like to propose a trade.

Doesn't matter where an immigrant comes from or how many there are, a federal employee must be expatriated to their country.

Start with the highest paid fed and work down from there.

----------


## thoughtomator

In Europe, mass immigration is now leading to the closing of borders for European citizens and the death of the passport-less Schengen Area.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-police.html

Thanks to immigration proponents like those here, Europeans will soon be less free to travel than they have been in generations.

----------


## thoughtomator

> Or, how about _$#@! your society._
> 
> As soon as you position yourself to make judgments about how society needs to run and look, you become my enemy.
> I don't care how multilateral or reasonable your judgment is.
> The ring is evil, Frodo.  Your desire to do good does not cancel out 8000 years of human history we have to examine.


If you actually understood 8000 years of human history you would understand that the threat of barbarians at the gates is no phantom, and that your rabid desire to throw the gates open for them makes you, with respect to your fellow countrymen, either a traitor (strictly, not loosely, construed) or a dangerous madman who will get everybody killed.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I'd like to propose a trade.
> 
> Doesn't matter where an immigrant comes from or how many there are, a federal employee must be expatriated to their country.
> 
> Start with the highest paid fed and work down from there.


An exchange program is very appealing.




> Now you're talking. How about a citizenship exchange program? A mutually agreed to citizenship exchange between people from different nations. And if money is exchanged in the process between the individuals involved, good for them. Of course the second you propose such, Goldman Sachs will want to get in on the action, and somehow dominate or monopolize the process.





> Perhaps what we need is a citizenship exchange program. A willing US citizen could exchange their citizenship with a willing Chinese citizen. And if either party wants to throw in something to sweeten the deal, that should be perfectly acceptable.

----------


## erowe1

> Geographical arrangement matters, erowe.


How?

----------


## erowe1

> If you actually understood 8000 years of human history you would understand that the threat of barbarians at the gates is no phantom, and that your rabid desire to throw the gates open for them makes you, with respect to your fellow countrymen, either a traitor (strictly, not loosely, construed) or a dangerous madman who will get everybody killed.


You say that as if you know anything about human history. Obviously you don't.

----------


## erowe1

> In Europe, mass immigration is now leading to the closing of borders for European citizens and the death of the passport-less Schengen Area.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-police.html
> 
> Thanks to immigration proponents like those here, Europeans will soon be less free to travel than they have been in generations.


Is there a way to bookmark posts for future reference?

I want to be able to come back to this one as an example of, "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength," type propaganda.

----------


## erowe1

> The "liberty" to go trample on someone else's grass is not liberty at all.


You imposing laws on me that tell me I can't invite certain other people onto my property is the same as you trampling on my grass.

The "society" you own stops at your property line.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You imposing laws on me that tell me I can't invite certain other people onto my property is the same as you trampling on my grass.


Ahh, it certainly would be.  And I didn't ever disagree with that, did I?

Sometimes people don't fit neatly into the boxes you want to put them in.  

Perhaps you should try to *understand*, rather than jump to emotional conclusions.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> How?


 Well even in today's modern world, E., we humans still live in *Locations*.  Yes, it may be quaint and outdated, yes perhaps someday the Singularity will erase all that and we can all upload our consciousnesses live in the Cloud.  But that day is not today.  Even with all our technology, a good portion of my quality of life and the nature of my life is directly related to my immediate surroundings.  My street.  My neighborhood.  My city.  My region.*  People in Cabot, Vermont have a very different lifestyle, a very different set of opportunities, a very different society, a very different _life_ than people in Calcutta, Bengal.  Who your neighbors are matters.  Proximity matters.  Skype is no substitute for in-person interaction.  You can't live your life on Skype.  At least I can't.  I live in the real world.  And so, as great as virtual communities are, I want my real community to be awesome.

That's the whole point of what we're trying to do here on RPF, right?  Make our country awesome!  Well our country is going to be awesome if it's full of good people and it's not going to be awesome if it's full of not-so-good people.  Not all people are of equal quality, E. Rowe, wouldn't you agree with that?

* ("My" is not to be taken literally here -- I do not own all these things.  Yet.)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

My point in my OP is such a simple, logical point, it would seem everyone would agree with it.  Everyone wants to be around good people (well, good people do).  That would be one reason to prevent poorer-quality people from being able to come live around you.  

Mr. Rowe responds to this simple, logical point in such a surprising, baffling way, I am mildly beside myself.




> Those individuals whom you consider lower quality on account of the lower IQs their brown skin gives them would still be of equally low quality no matter where on the globe they are....Having them on one-side of the US-Mexico border versus the other won't [cause any problem / matter].


 Well, the lower-quality people, if there are lower-quality people, will affect my life a good deal less (understatement) if they are two thousand miles away in a different sovereign nation than if they are my next-door neighbor, or checking my groceries, or robbing me.  Surely you agree with this.  Surely you cannot seriously expect to be able to hold and defend the position that it doesn't matter where anyone lives.




> When you move those boundaries and shift from grouping people together into one arrangement of societies to some other one, sure you end up with different levels of quality in the societies. But you haven't changed the individuals or the total global society of all the world's individuals.


 Alas!  It appears that actually is the position you propose to hold.  You are in all soberness and seriousness saying, "It doesn't matter where people live, how they move themselves around, because the total sum and aggregate quality of humanity remains the same."

Does this seem strange to anyone else?

Surely no one could seriously have this view!

But I try to understand.  Really I do.  I make the effort.  Could you be coming at this from just a pure altruistic / save-the-world point of view?  Could it be your only interest in politics, in philosophy, in life, is to improve all of humanity in aggregate?  You're not concerned with whether Maine gets better, could care less whether the quality of your own life gets better, you are such a big-hearted, Universal Man you've risen above such selfish ugliness and care only about humanity as a whole.  Is that basically it?




> You are inclined to make people-groups in your mind by bundling together a whole bunch of individuals and calling that bundle a society, and evaluate the quality of those people groups based on the qualities of the individuals in them.


 Umm, I'm just stating the obvious, actually, which I'm sure you'd agree with: that a society is a group of individuals.  The whole is made up of its parts.  Incontestable.  Not rocket science.




> But all you're doing is moving around the boundaries that you use to group people together.


 You're saying I'm playing with abstractions in my mind, just meaningless games of changing definitions of entities ("societies") that don't actually exist.  Actually, I am firmly grounded in actual, physical reality.  My point is simple, logical, and easy to understand, not abstract at all.  It is physical.  People live in different places.  When someone physically moves their body to be in my neighborhood, it is not that I've played some airy-headed abstract game with myself redefining him as now part of my society.  He moved himself.  Physically!  He's there!  This has actual, real life consequences in the actual, physical world!

Please, come out of the cloud and join us, E. Rowe.  Logic!

----------


## thoughtomator

> Ahh, it certainly would be.  And I didn't ever disagree with that, did I?
> 
> Sometimes people don't fit neatly into the boxes you want to put them in.  
> 
> Perhaps you should try to *understand*, rather than jump to emotional conclusions.


All he understands is that someone wants him to stop stealing. And that makes him mad.

----------


## staerker

What is your metric for a "quality" person, what authority do you have to conclude such, and why are you proselytizing your fantasies of a centrally planned society if you claim you would never support such?

----------


## thoughtomator

> What is your metric for a "quality" person, what authority do you have to conclude such, and why are you proselytizing your fantasies of a centrally planned society if you claim you would never support such?


ooh! let me start

"understands that 12-year-old girls (and boys) are not appropriate targets for sexual advances"

----------


## Dianne

It concerns me, when you see headlines like this on drudgereport right now:

More than half if immigrants on welfare

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/71517072/

and:

Out of every 1,000 resettled U.N. refugees, more than 700 come to America

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/loca...=email-premium

----------


## staerker

> ooh! let me start
> 
> "understands that 12-year-old girls (and boys) are not appropriate targets for sexual advances"


Is that your single metric, and, on what authority can you claim that to be true?

----------


## staerker

And, if there are any others, by whose authority do you make those assertions?

----------


## thoughtomator

> Is that your single metric, and, on what authority can you claim that to be true?


Nope, just the start of a list which I expect others to contribute to. I'm not even taking the easy stuff like "won't be a permanent dependent of the welfare system" - oh oops. Well there's two. Chime on in, folks!

----------


## thoughtomator

> And, if there are any others, by whose authority do you make those assertions?


I'm doing it on my own damn authority. We the people are sovereign here, and therefore I have as much a right to make these decisions as anyone else.

Respec mah autori-tah!

----------


## staerker

Okay. So you have no objective moral reasoning behind your statements then, at least none you are willing to discuss.

----------


## phill4paul

Is IQ the ultimate determining factor for YOUR community, helmuth? Because I would rather moral compass. There are many that I know that would never be admitted to Mensa  but are the kindest, gentlest and most loving people I have ever met. And what if, in YOUR community, I as a landowner decided these were the _exact_ kind of people that I wanted to move in?

----------


## thoughtomator

> Okay. So you have no objective moral reasoning behind your statements then, at least none you are willing to discuss.


I've laid out my objective moral reasoning in great detail, feel free to scan the archive of my posts for it. More detail than you can process, most likely.

----------


## jj-

> And what if, in YOUR community, I as a landowner decided these were the _exact_ kind of people that I wanted to move in?


He would move somewhere else, that's what property rights are all about. If it's very important, one can live in a gated neighborhood where everybody agrees about who will be allowed.

----------


## staerker

> I've laid out my objective moral reasoning in great detail, feel free to scan the archive of my posts for it. More detail than you can process, most likely.


Not in the confines of this thread, and not in the context of the OP, to whom I directed my original comment. Don't expect anyone to sift through 9k posts for you, after injecting yourself into a conversation.

----------


## William R

Abstract Immigrants


But the welfare state is already here— and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.

Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.

Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.

Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?

http://www.creators.com/conservative...mmigrants.html

----------


## Dianne

> Abstract Immigrants
> 
> 
> But the welfare state is already here— and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.
> 
> Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.
> 
> Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.
> 
> ...


We really have no control, other than the United Nations.    The UN, people we don't elect, are controlling the U.S. at the moment ... Not just us, but the EU as well.   They call the shots on immigration, and steal from the middle class to give to the refugees.    They won't steal from the rich, because this deal will be shot down in a heartbeat, once the rich feel they are going to miss out on one steak dinner this month.

More than 50% of immigrants are on welfare:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/71517072/

----------


## phill4paul

> He would move somewhere else, that's what property rights are all about. If it's very important, one can live in a gated neighborhood where everybody agrees about who will be allowed.


  If you don't love it...leave it.

----------


## ga anderson

> I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, fisharmor, same as you.  I do not arrogate myself to make decisions for others, for "society," nor do I accept the right of anyone else to do so.  OK?    OK.  The people who would be making the decisions about who to invite into their society are the *owners* of that society!  The legitimate, bonafide owners.  If the owner or owners of a neighborhood is/are opposed to allowing someone to live in that neighborhood, they can't move in.  Sorry!    That's property rights.    That's freedom.    That's liberty.    The "liberty" to go trample on someone else's grass is not liberty at all.


  Damn! And here I was going to jump all over your OP as an elitist rant... Now, as you restated it - boiled down to the basics, I agree wholeheartedly - as long as the "society" you speak of isn't hoarding a liberty that should rightly belong to all.  GA

----------


## ga anderson

> Abstract Immigrants
> 
> 
> ... We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.
> 
> ...


That just seems so obviously wrong that I must be misinterpreting your meaning. 

Although they do overlap, the two are completely different problems with completely different solutions - at least that is the way I see it.

So perhaps you might explain why you think they are so intertwined that one cannot be addressed without addressing the other.

I also do not think the "welfare state" is an inescapable fact of life. There are solutions, but there just doesn't seem to be leaders willing to even voice them, much less advocate them.


GA

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Immigration proponents are thieves whose goal it is to steal from their neighbors to subsidize their labor costs.
> 
> If it were not so, they'd be clamoring to shut down the welfare pipeline a lot louder than they are clamoring to keep the labor dumping spigot on full blast.


That's a pretty interesting view on the matter.

So the people, such as myself and a few others here, who are for legitimate contracts and a free market, are the thieves rather than those who openly advocate stealing from all to pay for a fence, or more browncoats, or what have you?

Excellent logic.

----------


## dannno



----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Is IQ the ultimate determining factor for YOUR community, helmuth? Because I would rather moral compass. There are many that I know that would never be admitted to Mensa  but are the kindest, gentlest and most loving people I have ever met. *And what if, in YOUR community, I as a landowner decided these were the exact kind of people that I wanted to move in?*


The people would vote. 

Well, some people would vote.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What is your metric for a "quality" person, what authority do you have to conclude such, and why are you proselytizing your fantasies of a centrally planned society if you claim you would never support such?


Well, first of all let's determine: is there such a thing as a high-quality person, and is there such a thing as a low-quality person?  Because that seems to be the assertion you ultimately want to challenge, yes?

So let's just be clear and upfront.  If you feel that there is no such thing as high-quality and low-quality people, the alternative is that all people are of uniformly equal quality.  That is the _only_ logical alternative (besides some marginal possibilities such as you could believe there's no such thing as people).  Is that your belief?  Or do you agree with me that different individuals possess different levels of quality?

----------


## staerker

> Well, first of all let's determine: is there such a thing as a high-quality person, and is there such a thing as a low-quality person?  Because that seems to be the assertion you ultimately want to challenge, yes?
> 
> So let's just be clear and upfront.  If you feel that there is no such thing as high-quality and low-quality people, the alternative is that all people are of uniformly equal quality.  That is the _only_ logical alternative (besides some marginal possibilities such as you could believe there's no such thing as people).  Is that your belief?  Or do you agree with me that different individuals possess different levels of quality?


I believe there are specific qualities that make one more suited for specific tasks. Said qualities and tasks being so numerous and varied (and, not defined by a central authority,) I think it is the height of foolishness to claim knowledge of an overarching "quality" for the task of "participating in society."

----------


## erowe1

> He would move somewhere else, that's what property rights are all about. If it's very important, one can live in a gated neighborhood where everybody agrees about who will be allowed.


You are so right. It's funny how none of the anti-immigration people see America this way.

----------


## erowe1

> Abstract Immigrants
> 
> 
> But the welfare state is already here— and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders.


Exactly. And we never will, because those are two separate issues, each with its own choice.

The choices for the welfare state are yes vs. no, or viewed incrementally, more vs. less.

The choices for immigration restriction are yes vs. no, or viewed incrementally, more vs. less.

The only conceivably defendable correct answer for both of those questions is no, or less. And that remains the correct answer for each item irrespective of what situation prevails with the other item.

We cannot allow a situation where we concede to further empowerment of the state in one respect in order to ameliorate the damages done by previous empowerments of the state in some other respect. This is what got us here. Every big-government solution to an existing big-government problem creates more big-government problems requiring more big-government solutions. No matter where we are in that cycle, our demand always has to be that we get out of it, not that we take just one more step toward tyranny first.

----------


## Traditionalist

Helmuth pretty much hit the nail on the head in the first post so there's really little else to say without being superfluous. But consider a modern democratic-republican state like our own, how does one achieve a "libertarian" society when you have, let's face it, a rather unintelligent hoard of third-worlders pouring in and voting straight for the Democratic Party? Imagine if we truly opened the borders and a billion people migrated here, with the current system in place. Does anyone seriously expect the Republican Party to have a chance? The old "Conservative" GOP we have now would disappear in a heartbeat, there would need to be serious reformations. And any "libertarian" small government candidate would be permanently excluded and marginalized into the fringe in the political landscape. I've never seen any open-borders libertarian answer these questions, it's just "Oh well let them in, we'll have less government on the border."

----------


## erowe1

> But consider a modern democratic-republican state like our own, how does one achieve a "libertarian" society when you have, let's face it, a rather unintelligent hoard of third-worlders pouring in and voting straight for the Democratic Party?


Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the USA were a democratic-republican state, as you claim, consider, how does one achieve a "libertarian" society when you have, let's face it, a rather arrogant hoard of educated white elites who were born here voting for either the Democrat or the Republican party?

To me, I offer no prescription for achieving a libertarian society this side of the return of Jesus. But that's not the point. Moral laws exist and we ought to observe them. I don't say that just because I don't believe we can achieve a world with zero theft, that I am obliged to not to oppose theft.

Before we even begin to look at the pragmatic effects of free markets (which I am convinced will ultimately prove to be on the whole good in ways that no one can predict), we have to face the moral question of whether you are doing right or wrong when you use violence to compel me to verify that a person I wish to hire has paperwork indicating that you have given them permission to work for me. It is wrong. And that settles the matter. Further discussion about the effects that will result when we do right, rather than wrong, can have no bearing on the decision.

----------


## William R

> That just seems so obviously wrong that I must be misinterpreting your meaning. 
> 
> Although they do overlap, the two are completely different problems with completely different solutions - at least that is the way I see it.
> 
> So perhaps you might explain why you think they are so intertwined that one cannot be addressed without addressing the other.
> 
> I also do not think the "welfare state" is an inescapable fact of life. There are solutions, but there just doesn't seem to be leaders willing to even voice them, much less advocate them.
> 
> 
> GA


as long as we keep importing poor people that use government services the welfare state will continue to be a fact of life.   This isn't rocket science.

----------


## William R

> Exactly. And we never will, because those are two separate issues, each with its own choice.
> 
> The choices for the welfare state are yes vs. no, or viewed incrementally, more vs. less.
> 
> The choices for immigration restriction are yes vs. no, or viewed incrementally, more vs. less.
> 
> The only conceivably defendable correct answer for both of those questions is no, or less. And that remains the correct answer for each item irrespective of what situation prevails with the other item.
> 
> We cannot allow a situation where we concede to further empowerment of the state in one respect in order to ameliorate the damages done by previous empowerments of the state in some other respect. This is what got us here. Every big-government solution to an existing big-government problem creates more big-government problems requiring more big-government solutions. No matter where we are in that cycle, our demand always has to be that we get out of it, not that we take just one more step toward tyranny first.


Protecting the border is one of the few things the state is supposed to do.  We'll the state has failed and the American people are suffering.

----------


## erowe1

> Protecting the border is one of the few things the state is supposed to do.  We'll the state has failed and the American people are suffering.


You guys always use these vague meaningless platitudes like, "protecting the border." What specifically does that involve? If the specific actions it involves would wrong for you or me as an individual to do, then no, these are not things the state is supposed to do.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Is IQ the ultimate determining factor for YOUR community, helmuth? Because I would rather moral compass. There are many that I know that would never be admitted to Mensa  but are the kindest, gentlest and most loving people I have ever met.


Actually low crime is very important to me.  And honesty and integrity are very important to me.  I hate being stolen from or otherwise victimized by crime, and I hate dishonest people.  I personally would love to live, work, and shop in a county populated only by honest people.

Unfortunately, that may be a pipe dream that's unachievable in America.  Currently about 90% of Americans lie regularly.  Americans cheat on their spouses, steal from their employers, and on and on and on.  The problem is way too universal and pervasive to have any chance of improvement, at least in this country.  Maybe after a few hundred years of selective breeding.

So honesty is out as a societal goal.  Totally unrealistic.  I have to content myself with being totally honest myself and not being friends with, working with, or closely associating with dishonest people.  Creating my own little bubble of honesty.

Low crime, on the other hand, is very achievable.  Unfortunately, the solution is politically incorrect.  As in VERY politically incorrect.  As in YOU DO NOT SAY THIS IN PUBLIC politically incorrect.  But hey, why not, I'll say it.  If you want low crime, live around white people.  Blacks commit murder at a rate 8 times that of whites.  Hispanics more than double.



More interesting reading: http://web.archive.org/web/201111041...race-and-crime

White homicide rates in big cities have now dropped to extraordinarily low levels.  The white population has basically been pacified.

Now as for IQ, there _is_ a correlation between IQ and crime rate also, phill.  I do not know whether it's a stronger correlation than the correlation with race.  But it's a strong correlation, so if you formed a high-IQ-only community, it would also be a very-low-crime community.

Anyway, there's a lot of factors that go into making a good person, and into making a good society.  It can't be reduced down to just one factor, though there are strong cross-correlations among many of the factors.




> And what if, in YOUR community, I as a landowner decided these were the _exact_ kind of people that I wanted to move in?


  This is a very important question.  In a community where everyone is a full-deed unrestricted landowner, each land-owner can of course do whatever he wants (theoretically at least, but there may be strong social pressure).  But in a neighborhood with deed restrictions, with covenants, everyone would be bound by the covenants.  All the neighbors can agree -- and it must be unanimous -- to bind themselves to not sell or rent to anyone not meeting whatever standards they want to set.  Maybe no violent criminal record, maybe a certificate of good character from their church, maybe take an IQ test, maybe meet with the neighbors and convince them he'd be a good addition -- the neighborhood could make whatever entry requirements they want.

Or no requirements at all.

Generally I think that over time neighborhoods, and then towns, and then cities, with entry requirements will out-compete ones without and become wildly popular due to being incredibly superior places to live.  But if not, that's fine, too.  So long as there's a free market, I'm happy, and whatever mix the market results in will be basically the best possible practical result.

----------


## William R

> You guys always use these vague meaningless platitudes like, "protecting the border." What specifically does that involve? If the specific actions it involves would wrong for you or me as an individual to do, then no, these are not things the state is supposed to do.


Kid, you're not dumb.  The United States is a country and a country that won't protect it's borders won't survive.   



Illegal Alien Invasion Bordering on Madness


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/ille...#axzz3kgM2iKRb

----------


## erowe1

> Kid, you're not dumb.  The United States is a country and a country that won't protect it's borders won't survive.


There you go again. It's as if you didn't even read the post your replied to. What specific actions does "protect its borders" involve?

The rightness or wrongness of those actions depends on what they are, regardless of the excuse you use for justifying them. You can't take something that's wrong, and anoint it with the magic phrase, "protect our borders," and make it become right.

----------


## tod evans

> Generally I think that over time neighborhoods, and then towns, and then cities, with entry requirements will out-compete ones without and become wildly popular due to being incredibly superior places to live.  But if not, that's fine, too.  So long as there's a free market, I'm happy, and whatever mix the market results in will be basically the best possible practical result.


Get the feds out of it.

Counties do a pretty fair job now and they'd do better without federal interference.

----------


## phill4paul

> Now as for IQ, there _is_ a correlation between IQ and crime rate also, phill.  I do not know whether it's a stronger correlation than the correlation with race.  But it's a strong correlation, so if you formed a high-IQ-only community, it would also be a very-low-crime community.
> 
> Anyway, there's a lot of factors that go into making a good person, and into making a good society.  It can't be reduced down to just one factor, though there are strong cross-correlations among many of the factors.





> 32 serial killers with high IQs
> 
> 1) Ted Kaczynski (A.K.A. The Unabomber) - Ted Kaczynski is hard to top. Labeled not merely a serial killer, but a 'domestic terrorist' by the FBI, Kaczynski skipped the 5th grade after testing 167 on an IQ test....
> 
> 2) Edmund Kemper - Born in 1948, Edmund Kemper began his career in murder quite early. He exhibited early signs of sociopathy, stabbing his cat to death by the age of 13. At the tender of age 15, he killed both of his grandparents. Uncertain of what to do, he called his mother, who advised him to call the police. Kemper contacted the authorities and he was sent to Atascadero State Hospital, where psychological tests recorded an IQ score of 136. In a later IQ test, he tested at 145(Russell, 2002).
> 
> 3) Ted Bundy - Born in 1946, Ted Bundy was a serial killer who confessed to over 30 murders, and may have been guilty of many more. Experts estimate that the number of his victims may be over 100. He became a media sensation not simply for his prolific murder career, but for his deadly combination of physical attractiveness, intelligence and charm, possessing a reported IQ score of 136.
> 
> 4) Andrew Cunanan - born in 1969, Cunanan engaged in a killing spree resulting in 5 victims. He is perhaps most well-known for having killed Gianna Versace, the famous fashion designer. Andrew Cunanan's murder spree came to a violent end in Miami, where he committed suicide by gunshot.
> ...


http://www.examiner.com/article/22-s...-with-high-iqs

----------


## William R

On The Immigration Vexation


I do want you to read “Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch,” an eminently reasonable column by another intrepid freedom lover, Vin Suprynowicz. Other than Vin, myself and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I have not come across a libertarian who was willing—and able—to offer a sane, reality-based, countervailing analysis of current libertarian “thinking” on immigration:

“A recent column on the euphemisms used by proponents of illegal-immigrant amnesty brought some irate buzzing from all seven members of the Young Anarchists’ League.

As near as I can figure, I’m “not allowed” to call for the enforcement of current immigration laws — or possibly of any laws, even those few (like the immigration laws) enacted within the powers delegated to Congress under the Constitution — because any such enforcement of the law amounts to some kind of “collectivist police state fascism” against people who have “not initiated force or fraud.”

I’m not sure how you cut through a border fence without “initiating force,” or how you rent an apartment, register a car and go to work every day using someone else’s Social Security number without “initiating fraud.”


http://barelyablog.com/vin-suprynowi...tion-vexation/


Enforce the laws.

----------


## erowe1

> As near as I can figure, I’m “not allowed” to call for the enforcement of current immigration laws — or possibly of any laws, even those few (like the immigration laws) enacted within the powers delegated to Congress under the Constitution — because any such enforcement of the law amounts to some kind of “collectivist police state fascism” against people who have “not initiated force or fraud.”


You're still doing it.

How in the world could you believe that the current immigration laws are delegated by the Constitution? Is it just because you sweep them together under the rubric "immigration laws," and anything the government might ever want to do to us, so long as they can subsume it under that rubric becomes constitutional?

Where in the Constitution does the federal government get the authority to give us all Social Security Numbers? Where does the Constitution delegate to it the authority to withhold taxes from our paychecks, or to collect any information at all from employers about whom they employ, whether that be through W-2s, I-9s, or any other paperwork or electronic data sharing? These things make the foundation on which the current immigration laws that you want enforced are built.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think it is the height of foolishness to claim knowledge of an overarching "quality" for the task of "participating in society."


You're a true egalitarian.  OK, well that's how you feel.  I am not going to change that.  I, and most people, feel otherwise.  I think that some people are better than others.  On what authority do I make that judgment?  My own.  That's what everyone trying to live and accomplish things out in the real world does.  It's fine and good in an ivory tower to say abstract feel-good things like "we're all humans; we're all equal; no one can objectively say any one human is better than any other human," but not in the real world.  I say it's fine and good, but actually it's not.  It's false and evil.

You cannot tell the difference between good people and bad people, between better people and worse people.  Fine.  Everyone else _can_.  I can.  We all can.  You're the odd man out.  And you don't care whether you spend your days and raise your children among good people or among bad people.  Fine.  Everyone else _does_.  I do.  We all do.

We want to live the best lives we can.  We want to be surrounded by and associate with the best people we can.  And because we are realistic, we don't propose to do that by increasing the aggregate goodness level of the whole Planet Earth, reforming all human nature and remaking the world as we wish it to be, as erowe1 does.

*I don't have all the answers.  In my opening post I am just making a simple point: it is reasonable to want to live among high-quality people and to keep lower-quality people at a distance.  It is reasonable.  It is rational.  It is human.  In fact, it is a nearly universal desire.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> http://www.examiner.com/article/22-s...-with-high-iqs


Touche!

Yes, but there is still a correlation between criminality and IQ.  Smart people are criminals far more rarely than dull people.  These mass murderers are the exceptions, the outliers.  But it sure is interesting!  High IQ may be over-represented among serial killers.  Did their intelligence allow them to be mass-murderers because they were able to elude capture longer, while stupid would-be mass-murderers get caught and thus do not achieve mass-murderer status?  Interesting.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You are so right. It's funny how none of the anti-immigration people see America this way.


I do.  I agree with jj.  He answered for me perfectly.

Again, try _listening_ (in this case reading) and seeking _understanding_.  Even we despicable racists might have something we could teach you.

----------


## William R

> You're still doing it.
> 
> How in the world could you believe that the current immigration laws are delegated by the Constitution? Is it just because you sweep them together under the rubric "immigration laws," and anything the government might ever want to do to us, so long as they can subsume it under that rubric becomes constitutional?
> 
> Where in the Constitution does the federal government get the authority to give us all Social Security Numbers? Where does the Constitution delegate to it the authority to withhold taxes from our paychecks, or to collect any information at all from employers about whom they employ, whether that be through W-2s, I-9s, or any other paperwork or electronic data sharing? These things make the foundation on which the current immigration laws that you want enforced are built.



Kid, I'm not going to get into a debate about libertarians theory.   


Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to provide for the common defense and Article IV requires that they protect each of them (the states) against invasion.  With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job.  Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue. Fortunately, Arizonians understand.  Arizona did not make illegal immigration illegal, the federal government did.

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2010...-constitution/

----------


## staerker

> You're a true egalitarian.  OK, well that's how you feel.  I am not going to change that.  I, and most people, feel otherwise.  I think that some people are better than others.  On what authority do I make that judgment?  My own.  That's what everyone trying to live and accomplish things out in the real world does.  It's fine and good in an ivory tower to say abstract feel-good things like "we're all humans; we're all equal; no one can objectively say any one human is better than any other human," but not in the real world.  I say it's fine and good, but actually it's not.  It's false and evil.
> 
> You cannot tell the difference between good people and bad people, between better people and worse people.  Fine.  Everyone else _can_.  I can.  We all can.  You're the odd man out.  And you don't care whether you spend your days and raise your children among good people or among bad people.  Fine.  Everyone else _does_.  I do.  We all do.
> 
> We want to live the best lives we can.  We want to be surrounded by and associate with the best people we can.  And because we are realistic, we don't propose to do that by increasing the aggregate goodness level of the whole Planet Earth, reforming all human nature and remaking the world as we wish it to be, as erowe1 does.
> 
> *I don't have all the answers.  In my opening post I am just making a simple point: it is reasonable to want to live among high-quality people and to keep lower-quality people at a distance.  It is reasonable.  It is rational.  It is human.  In fact, it is a nearly universal desire.*


You are putting a lot of words in my mouth, but okay. So what are your metrics?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> To me, I offer no prescription for achieving a libertarian society this side of the return of Jesus. But that's not the point.


 But for me, it is the point.  For pretty much all of us, it is the point.  We want a freer life and a better life.  This isn't just abstract mental games for us.  We're not just competing as to who can come up with the most elegant solution to the moral equation in his own head.  Maybe you are.  You seem to be saying that.  But I have to believe that you're human, and I have to believe because of that you have at least some desire to improve your own life.  To see your ideas become reality.  To make a dent in the _actual_ Universe, not just the imaginary one in your mind.

And so maybe you can at least sympathize with us uncouth _practical_ (eww, practical, yucky) people a little bit.  Just a little.





> Before we even begin to look at the pragmatic effects of free markets (which I am convinced will ultimately prove to be on the whole good in ways that no one can predict), we have to face the moral question of whether you are doing right or wrong when you use violence to compel me to verify that a person I wish to hire has paperwork indicating that you have given them permission to work for me. It is wrong. And that settles the matter.


 You are absolutely right, that is indisputable.

Have you read Hoppe's articles on immigration, though?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You are putting a lot of words in my mouth, but okay. So what are your metrics?


Oh, I've talked about a lot of them in this thread.  Let's not play dumb, staerker!  But here are some, including a couple new ones, in a convenient format:

Courage
Creativity
Family: Values, Strength of, Intactness of
High IQ
Honesty
Independence
Innovation
Integrity
Low propensity to other crime
Low propensity to violence
Self-sufficiency
Work Ethic

Let me just reply for you to save you time: But these are all subjective!  How dare you presume to judge these things?  Who are you to judge?

And I'll reply: I just do.  So grouse.

What's more, you do, too.  You just don't want to admit it.  We all judge each other.  And we are right to do so.  While our judgments may not always be right, we are right to make the attempt.

----------


## erowe1

> But for me, it is the point.  For pretty much all of us, it is the point.  We want a freer life and a better life.  This isn't just abstract mental games for us.


Choosing to do good rather than evil is not an abstract mental game. It is imminently relevant at all times. And doing wrong is not justifiable just because the person doing  thinks it can bring about results that they find favorable.

If someone were to ask for my advice on whether or not they should commit a robbery that they have every reason to believe they can get away with, netting a great gain to themselves, my advice, which is very practical in this world and not just abstract, is don't do it.

It's the same with committing evils in the name of "securing the border."

All that said, in the case of immigration, just like everything else, freedom won't have a net result of more hardship for America, but more gain. I take comfort in knowing this. But my obligations to my fellow man aren't changed by it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Unfortunately, that may be a pipe dream that's unachievable in America.  Currently about 90% of Americans lie regularly.  Americans cheat on their spouses, steal from their employers, and on and on and on.  The problem is way too universal and pervasive to have any chance of improvement, at least in this country.  Maybe after a few hundred years of selective breeding.


More about the dishonesty:

http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/104940/

----------


## staerker

> Oh, I've talked about a lot of them in this thread.  Let's not play dumb, staerker!  But here are some, including a couple new ones, in a convenient format:
> 
> Courage
> Creativity
> Family: Values, Strength of, Intactness of
> High IQ
> Honesty
> Independence
> Innovation
> ...


I was offering you the chance to explicitly answer my question, whereas you make a habit at presupposing others' thoughts.

Of that list, "IQ" is the only metric.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Choosing to do good rather than evil is not an abstract mental game. It is imminently relevant at all times. And doing wrong is not justifiable just because the person doing  thinks it can bring about results that they find favorable.
> 
> If someone were to ask for my advice on whether or not they should commit a robbery that they have every reason to believe they can get away with, netting a great gain to themselves, my advice, which is very practical in this world, and not just abstract, is don't do it.
> 
> It's the same with committing evils in the name of "securing the border."
> 
> All that said, in the case of immigration, just like everything else, freedom won't have a net result of more hardship for America, but more gain. I take comfort in knowing this. But my obligations to my fellow man aren't changed by it.


I agree with all of this!  And it's a wonderful attitude, precisely the right attitude!  You do the right thing, period, consequences or no consequences.

You are like our Mr. Spock here on RPF.  You are always trying very carefully to be purely logical.  And I love that!  You are the little voice of logic sitting on our right shoulder.

That is why you, of all people, should be able to readily understand and agree with my simple, eminently logical post with which I started this thread.  Instead, you issued a rebuttal that really was, well, as I said before, baffling.  Do you really want to stand by that, that it doesn't matter who moves next to you, because "world aggregate quality"?  Or would you admit that you agree with my opening post?

If you do not agree with it, why don't you tell us all exactly where I logically went wrong?  Because that would be very convincing.  You're not convincing anyone with what you're doing right now.

Let's get at the truth, E.  

Logic!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I was offering you the chance to explicitly answer my question


 Ummmm... didn't I succeed in taking that chance?

Why the hostility, staerker?




> whereas you make a habit at presupposing others' thoughts.


 Correctly!  Yes?




> Of that list, "IQ" is the only metric.


 Oh, I don't know.  Illegitimacy rates can be measured.  Creativity can be tested, though certainly not nearly as effectively as IQ, but there are tests.  Also other metrics, like patents issued.  A clever person could devise a way to test for honesty and integrity.  Propensity to crime can certainly be measured demographically quite accurately, though not individually (for an individual, you can look at his actual criminal record).  But demographic is still very useful and effective.  You can refuse to invite in people from high-crime countries, high-crime-committing races, or other high crime-committing demographics.  For instance, you could not issue invitations to any young men.  Because, news flash, young men commit all the crime!  If you say "no moving here until you're at least 30" then your new-move-ins are going to be awfully peaceful.  Also obviously you'd want to have minimum income or wealth requirements, as poverty and crime go together.

That's one I forgot: high productivity.  Which can be measured by high income.  Then again, I put Work Ethic, which is basically the same, or at least similar.  

Here another one: high time preference.  This can be proxied by high net worth.

Look, maybe I misunderstood what you were asking.  Are you asking me to design a battery of admittance requirements for a model neighborhood?

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> Those individuals whom you consider lower quality on account of the lower IQs their brown skin gives them would still be of equally low quality no matter where on the globe they are. And I, as what you would consider a high-quality individual with the high IQ that my lighter skin gives me, would still be of equally high quality regardless where on the globe those lower quality people live. Having them on one-side of the US-Mexico border versus the other won't detract from my own quality as an individual.
> 
> You are inclined to make people-groups in your mind by bundling together a whole bunch of individuals and calling that bundle a society, and evaluate the quality of those people groups based on the qualities of the individuals in them. But all you're doing is moving around the boundaries that you use to group people together. When you move those boundaries and shift from grouping people together into one arrangement of societies to some other one, sure you end up with different levels of quality in the societies. But you haven't changed the individuals or the total global society of all the world's individuals.


The only reason you aren't dead right now is because you aren't within easy reach of a murderer. The reason you're safe to walk the streets is because you aren't surrounded by aggressive, violent people. Part of a good strategy to stay alive is NOT to live in the inner city. Or NOT to go walk around a Liberian ghetto in a million dollar tailored suit.

Furthermore, communities are more than just a collection of individuals, it's a breeding group. Letting low quality individuals into your dating pool is going to reduce the quality of the next generation. So for example if you let in a bunch of African Blacks (avg. IQ below 70) and they start breeding with the people in your community of East Asians (avg. IQ above 105), you're going to get a much different community in the next generation. Your entire society would shift.

This is the general trend we're seeing. 3rd world nations are all breeding out of control, and are now surging northwards, utterly swamping the low birthrate whites in Europe and America. Whites are less than 10% of the global population, a number that's dropping fast due to out of control birthrates in places like Africa. If unrestrained immigration was allowed and all borders were erased, all these people would surge north in search of a better life. Not only would this bring tremendous crime and dysfunction (turning their new communities into the places they ran from), but the white genome would be absorbed like a drop in a bucket. I for one like diversity, I don't think all populations should merge and blend together until everyone looks the same. 

Putting up a border is essentially turning the entire country into a gated community. There's nothing wrong philosophically with the concept.

----------


## erowe1

> The only reason you aren't dead right now is because you aren't within easy reach of a murderer.


I am within easy reach of multiple murderers, and so are you, and we're still not dead.




> Furthermore, communities are more than just a collection of individuals, it's a breeding group


If you only want to breed with a white person, or whatever the case may be, allowing more brown people to live on this side of the US-Mexico border will do absolutely nothing to make it the slightest bit more difficult for you to follow through on that self-imposed limitation.




> Putting up a border is essentially turning the entire country into a gated community. There's nothing wrong philosophically with the concept.


What does "putting up a border" even mean?

Yes, there is something wrong philosophically with that, because you don't have a right to take a bunch of people who aren't in a gated community, and who don't want to be in a gated community, and force them to live in a gated community.

You want to live in a gated community? Go right ahead, and join up with others who agree with you. Leave the rest of us alone.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> I am within easy reach of multiple murderers, and so are you, and we're still not dead.


No you aren't, because you're still alive. Right now there is a person in the world in a murderous rage, maybe he just committed murder. Maybe he's a member of a genocidal African warband. The only reason I'm not dead right now is because I'm not within easy reach of him. 




> You want to live in a gated community? Go right ahead, and join up with others who agree with you. Leave the rest of us alone.


If a child is born into a gated community, they have the right to leave as they grow older. No one forces them to stay. Similarly, no one is forced to stay in the United States, you are entirely free to leave if you should so choose.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If you only want to breed with a white person, or whatever the case may be, allowing more brown people to live on this side of the US-Mexico border will do absolutely nothing to make it the slightest bit more difficult for you to follow through on that self-imposed limitation.


 Sure it would!  The lower percentage of people living around you, associating with you and you with them, who meet your criteria as a potential bride, the more difficult it will be for you or your father to find a bride.

It would be very difficult for a Parsi to find a bride in Kenya.  It would be very difficult for a Mormon to find a bride living in Israel.  It would be very difficult for a Jew to find a bride living in Germany.

If 1% of the females around you meet your standards, that's a hard task in front of you.  If 90% of them do, then your task is easier.  You could even raise your standards even further and still find a bride.

Come on, erowe!  Logic!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Putting up a border is essentially turning the entire country into a gated community. There's nothing wrong philosophically with the concept.


Well, actually, philosophically the problem is that the politicians in D.C. don't own the country.  So they don't really have the right to make rules about it.  It's not theirs, see?

----------


## erowe1

> I agree with all of this!  And it's a wonderful attitude, precisely the right attitude!  You do the right thing, period, consequences or no consequences.
> 
> You are like our Mr. Spock here on RPF.  You are always trying very carefully to be purely logical.  And I love that!  You are the little voice of logic sitting on our right shoulder.
> 
> That is why you, of all people, should be able to readily understand and agree with my simple, eminently logical post with which I started this thread.  Instead, you issued a rebuttal that really was, well, as I said before, baffling.  Do you really want to stand by that, that it doesn't matter who moves next to you, because "world aggregate quality"?  Or would you admit that you agree with my opening post?
> 
> If you do not agree with it, why don't you tell us all exactly where I logically went wrong?  Because that would be very convincing.  You're not convincing anyone with what you're doing right now.
> 
> Let's get at the truth, E.  
> ...


I don't see my rebuttal as baffling.

If open immigration were not to detract from your own well-being as an individual, but only from the total well-being of some defined society viewed globally, and then only because the immigration will have caused you to redefine who is in that society, then the supposed detraction of well-being you warn against is just imaginary. And you can imagine up a solution just as well as you imagined up the problem.

Feel free to define your society however you want, and include and exclude people, no matter where they live, according to whatever formula you think will result in you having the highest quality society. If you want to identify yourself as belonging to some high-quality society, so defined, then you don't need use national borders in doing that, and you don't need to impede anyone's abilities to cross those borders, or to invite others from one side of those border's onto one's own property on the other side.

----------


## erowe1

> Sure it would!  The lower percentage of people living around you, associating with you and you with them, who meet your criteria as a potential bride, the more difficult it will be for you or your father to find a bride.


That is not true, and despite your closing line, not logical. The percentage of people around you being potential brides would go down, but the total number of potential brides would go up. Meanwhile, the total number of potential suitors competing for those potential brides would go up, but (assuming that the male population and female population both increase at the same rate), all the other men would have their own criteria, which would exclude from some of their interests the same women you would include in yours. The net effect would not be any decrease in your marriage options.

As is already and always the case, within any geographical area in which you want to find a bride, you have plenty of ways to segregate and limit your exposure to some parts of the population while focusing on others, such as in a church or numerous other such places, which, practically speaking often serve an important role in match-making, and would do so no less in a more populous and more diverse region.

Furthermore, the qualification "living around you" is completely subjective. For your own conception of whatever that means as it pertains to finding a bride to happen to match up with the locations of national borders (especially borders of a nation the size of the USA) is of negligible likelihood, and even if it happened to be the case would be a pure coincidence that ought really have nothing to do with immigration policy.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't see my rebuttal as baffling.


 But I admittedly do, so thanks for being willing to explain it further! 




> If open immigration were not to detract from your own well-being as an individual


 Where does this "If" scenario come from?  Did it seem like that was what I was saying?  If so allow me to clarify: I wasn't!  The whole point is that open immigration _does_ detract from very real well-beings of very real individuals in very real ways.  And yes, including my well-being.

Does that clear things up?

People physically moving themselves to live physically closer to me has real, actual consequences.  If the people are good, then they're good consequences.  If they're not-so-good?  The consequences likewise.





> Feel free to define your society however you want, and include and exclude people, no matter where they live, according to whatever formula you think will result in you having the highest quality society. If you want to identify yourself as belonging to some high-quality society, so defined, then you don't need use national borders in doing that, and you don't need to impede anyone's abilities to cross those borders, or to invite others from one side of those border's onto one's own property on the other side.


 Right, yes, we can all belong to pan-national secret societies that fit our preferences exactly.  I can declare that I belong to The Society of Super-Perfect Awesome People.  Great.  But how does that raise my quality of life?  OK, it might raise it.  Maybe I get an awesome newsletter for joining.  But, as I said, our actual physical surroundings still play a large, large role in the quality of, and in the nature of, and in every aspect of our lives.  Your surroundings matter.

It's very easy, for instance, for you to look down sanctimoniously on us all from up there in Maine, as a pure, perfect anti-racist, and an open-hearted immigrant-lover.  You see, you don't have any black people up there in Maine.  You locked them all up.  And you also don't have any immigrants coming to Maine, and will not any time soon.  You're safe.  So it's very, very easy for you to sit up there in your snow and your pine forests surrounded by well-behaved white people and mete out condemnation on anyone who might dare to think (the obvious, the truth) that different races have different natures and abilities.  Or that many people from other countries are inferior in many ways to Americans and so the quality of life for Americans would be better if they stayed away.  It's very easy, but it's not logical.

Logic, erowe!  Logic!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That is not true, and despite your closing line, not logical. The percentage of people around you being potential brides would go down, but the total number of potential brides would go up. Meanwhile, the total number of potential suitors competing for those potential brides would go up, but (assuming that the male population and female population both increase at the same rate), all the other men would have their own criteria, which would exclude from some of their interests the same women you would include in yours. The net effect would not be any decrease in your marriage options.


 Do you know what this symbol means: %

Signal-to-noise ratio, E.!




> you have plenty of ways


 Sure! But it makes it more *difficult!*  That was the word I used, wasn't it?  Yep, sure enough.

Parsis, Mormons, and Jews still manage to find suitable partners, even in places with 1%, .01%, whatever, eligible companions.  Because they're determined.  But it's more difficult!  It's a whole lot easier in Gujarat, Provo, and New York, respectively.

It's a lot easier to find a white person to marry in Norway than in Somalia.  It just is!  It can be done either place.  But one is more difficult.

It's a lot easier to find a white person to marry in an 80% white America than in a 40% white America.




> Furthermore, the qualification "living around you" is completely subjective.


 It is not subjective, erowe!  *Miles exist!  Physical locations exist!*  We can't all just upload ourselves into the Cloud like you seem to want us to.  We can't be everywhere and nowhere.  We each are *somewhere*.  People in my town affect me a lot more than people 3,000 miles away.

Come on, you cannot deny the truth and logic of any of the statements in this post.

----------


## staerker

> Ummmm... didn't I succeed in taking that chance?
> 
> Why the hostility, staerker?
> 
>  Correctly!  Yes?
> 
>  Oh, I don't know.  Illegitimacy rates can be measured.  Creativity can be tested, though certainly not nearly as effectively as IQ, but there are tests.  Also other metrics, like patents issued.  A clever person could devise a way to test for honesty and integrity.  Propensity to crime can certainly be measured demographically quite accurately, though not individually (for an individual, you can look at his actual criminal record).  But demographic is still very useful and effective.  You can refuse to invite in people from high-crime countries, high-crime-committing races, or other high crime-committing demographics.  For instance, you could not issue invitations to any young men.  Because, news flash, young men commit all the crime!  If you say "no moving here until you're at least 30" then your new-move-ins are going to be awfully peaceful.  Also obviously you'd want to have minimum income or wealth requirements, as poverty and crime go together.
> 
> That's one I forgot: high productivity.  Which can be measured by high income.  Then again, I put Work Ethic, which is basically the same, or at least similar.  
> ...


You're mistaking formality for hostility.

Excluding three of your examples (IQ, individual crime record, patents issued) every "metric" listed applies to a collective, not an individual.

So, you've identified for yourself a way to detect a quality society, but not a quality person. ?

Maybe there is no such thing as a quality person after all? Unless we can safely assume that a quality person is defined by: IQ, clean criminal record, and # of patents issued.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You're mistaking formality for hostility.


 Fair enough!




> Maybe there is no such thing as a quality person after all?


 Well that's what I _told_ you that you were getting at all along, yet you got so formally bent out of shape about me telling it.

Yes, we're all totally equal, great.  All join hands in égalité!  Nothing I could possibly say will dissuade you from that, or even make you question it for the smallest moment.  It's a deep-set psychological conclusion that's part of your chosen person, part of the circles you move in, the people you want to be respected by.  That's not going to change.  But neither is the fact that 90% of people do not agree with you, that they think there _is_ such a thing as a quality person.  They've seen them with their own eyes.  They've shaken their hands.  You can't convince them to ignore the reality of their experience any more than they can convince you to abandon the ramifications of your ideology.  And here on RPF, it's more like 99%.

Fair enough?  Do we now understand each other?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Excluding three of your examples


 Plus: count again.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> one can live in a gated neighborhood where everybody agrees about who will be allowed.


Is the gated neighborhood allowed to have a governing body?  Or would that be too statist?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Is the gated neighborhood allowed to have a governing body?  Or would that be too statist?


Of course it can!  Governance is not statist!

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

You're forgetting that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to define and punish offenses against the Laws of Nations.  That includes defining what migration is lawful and punishing those who would break that law.  

(Every state and colony had and exercised its power to regulate migration because everyone understood that every nation-state has that power.)




> Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to provide for the common defense and Article IV requires that they protect each of them (the states) against invasion.  With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job.  Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> This isn't just abstract mental games for us.  We're not just competing as to who can come up with the most elegant solution to the moral equation in his own head.  Maybe you are.  You seem to be saying that.  But I have to believe that you're human, and I have to believe because of that you have at least some desire to improve your own life.  To see your ideas become reality.  To make a dent in the _actual_ Universe, not just the imaginary one in your mind.


Never underestimate the ability of a self-described "libertarian" to live exclusively in his own $#@!.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Of course it can!  Governance is not statist!


For how many generations?  At what point does it become a state in its own right, a state that would be super-racist for daring to select who to let move in? 

 If the seasteaders are successful in setting up Sealand, and a billion people want to move in, are they statist and racist if they do something to stop it?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> For how many generations?  At what point does it become a state in its own right, a state that would be super-racist for daring to select who to let move in?


 I would say never.  A homeowner's association is a contractual entity.  So long as it remains a contractual entity, it is not a state.

A state claims and enforces a monopoly on the ultimate resolution of all disputes within its boundaries, including disputes involving itself.  It also claims and enforces the privilege of unilaterally deciding how much to money to take from people within its boundaries.  If a homeowner's association started arrogating to itself such power, it would transform into a state (if it did it successfully, which is unlikely).  But so long as it is a contractual entity, not a forcibly-maintained monopolist in dispute resolution and taxation, it is not a state and furthermore is legitimate and not deleterious to liberty.

Basically the state is not subject to any contract -- it sets the terms of all contracts, and can change them at any time, and so effectively there can be no real contract with a state.  A homeowner's association (or any other system of governance people might, and surely do, want to set up) is bound by its contract, which it does not have authority to unilaterally interpret.  No one (in their right mind) would sign a contract with another person or entity stating that that person or entity had the right to change the contract however they wished to impose whatever requirements on you they desired, and the right to decide themselves, unilaterally, whether or not they were in violation of the contract!

The state is... kind of a crazy thing.




> If the seasteaders are successful in setting up Sealand, and a billion people want to move in, are they statist and racist if they do something to stop it?


 Of course not!

----------


## phill4paul

> Touche!
> 
> Yes, but there is still a correlation between criminality and IQ.  Smart people are criminals far more rarely than dull people.  These mass murderers are the exceptions, the outliers.  But it sure is interesting!  High IQ may be over-represented among serial killers.  Did their intelligence allow them to be mass-murderers because they were able to elude capture longer, while stupid would-be mass-murderers get caught and thus do not achieve mass-murderer status?  Interesting.


   Well, I would think, that low IQ criminals would be the petty crimes sort for the most part. The high IQ criminals I would think tend to stick to white collar crimes. As far as serial killers are concerned I could see that a sense of self importance, because of their IQ, might lead them to believe that other humans a merely stupid chattel to be used however they wish. I'm not sure of the percentages. I'm sure there are studies out there. I for one would rather deal with a low IQ criminal if I were the victim. Interesting indeed. I might look into it this winter when things slow down and check out some of the studies that have been done.

----------


## DFF

Lets make America great again, by deporting phill4paul, TheCount, kchief, JK/Sea, and all the other SJW losers that have infested ronpaulforums in recent years.

We'll let Zippy stay though, like the Irish in _Blazing Saddles_.

----------


## phill4paul

> Lets make America great again, by deporting phill4paul, TheCount, kchief, JK/Sea, and all the other SJW losers that have infested ronpaulforums in recent years.


  Lol. Molon Labe. You. Personally. Not your government goons. If you're man enough. 

  ETA: 


> all the other SJW losers that have infested ronpaulforums _in recent years_.


  I pre-date your miserable sleeper account. Lol. Dumb-ass.

----------


## ga anderson

> as long as we keep importing poor people that use government services the welfare state will continue to be a fact of life.   This isn't rocket science.


Hmm... I would say we now have a welfare state without regards to whether there are any imported poor people or not. There are so many examples, but a cute one is Pelosi advocating Pampers as a necessity that should be part of our welfare safety net programs.

Hmm.. I would ask why you think those imported poor people should have access to our citizen's welfare safety net programs.

You are right, it isn't rocket science. And it didn't take a rocket scientist to to see a lack of connection between your assumption that imported poor folks have to participate in welfare programs intended for citizens, or that those same programs designed for our citizens have to be available to your imported poor people.

It isn't required that they use our welfare services. It is illegal, (in the case of illegals), for them to participate. 

However I do acknowledge that they _do_ participate, whether by hook-or-crook of their own doing, or of an advocate looking to gain from them. But... eligibility abuse/fraud is a welfare program enforcement issue - not an immigration control issue.

They are two separate problems with separate solutions. You can enforce/reform welfare programs regardless of any action, (or non-action), taken on the immigration problem issue.

GA

----------


## ga anderson

> There you go again. It's as if you didn't even read the post your replied to. What specific actions does "protect its borders" involve?
> 
> The rightness or wrongness of those actions depends on what they are, regardless of the excuse you use for justifying them. You can't take something that's wrong, and anoint it with the magic phrase, "protect our borders," and make it become right.



I hope you won't mind me chiming in, but...

I am new here, and don't know your perspectives, so it is hard to tell if you think any government action taken to ensure secure borders is wrong, or if there have been previous mention of specific actions suggested/taken that you deem wrong.

_I_ think our current laws regarding border security are not wrong. But I also think some of the mandated actions included in those laws, ie. armed border patrol agents with arrest/detainment authority, would be wrong for an individual citizen to do. It appears that to you that would mean those actions/laws/authorities are wrong for the government's agents to do too.

Did  I misread your inference?

GA

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I for one would rather deal with a low IQ criminal if I were the victim.


 Good point!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Lets make America great again, by deporting phill4paul, TheCount, kchief, JK/Sea, and all the other SJW losers that have infested ronpaulforums in recent years.
> 
> We'll let Zippy stay though, like the Irish in _Blazing Saddles_.


You'd be nothing but a paper pusher.

Probably not even that. Simply another anonymous vote, right?

Or are you out on patrol sending illegals back as it is? 

Lol. Of course you aren't.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Time for some more thoughts.

For everyone's information (since, surprisingly, no one has pointed it out -- short memories?) until recently, I have been a strong proponent of free and open immigration.  My entire tenure at RPF, until ~ this month, I have posted solidly in favor of free trade and free immigration, much to the chagrin of people like Brian4Liberty.

I am still for free trade, of course.  But on immigration, Hoppe finally convinced me.  I have been aware of his arguments for years, of course, but I finally came around after I made the mental effort to _understand_, actually really understand, what he's trying to say.

Reading his new book _A Short History of Man_ is what convinced me.  If you're like me, this article may not be convincing until _after_ you read _A Short History of Man_.  But check it out anyway:

*On Free Immigration and Forced Integration*

_By Hans-Hermann Hoppe_

The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows: Other things being equal, businesses go to low-wage areas, and labor moves to high-wage areas, thus affecting a tendency toward the equalization of wage rates (for the same kind of labor) as well as the optimal localization of capital. An influx of migrants into a given-sized high-wage area will lower nominal wage rates. However, it will not lower real wage rates if the population is below its optimum size. To the contrary, if this is the case, the produced output will increase over-proportionally, and real incomes will actually rise. Thus, restrictions on immigration will harm the protected domestic workers qua consumers more than they gain qua producers. Moreover, immigration restrictions will increase the “flight” of capital abroad (the export of capital which otherwise might have stayed), still causing an equalization of wage rates (although somewhat more slowly), but leading to a less than optimal allocation of capital, thereby harming world living standards all-around.

In addition, traditionally labor unions, and nowadays environmentalists, are opposed to free immigration, and this should prima facie count as another argument in favor of a policy of free immigration.

II

*As it is stated, the above argument in favor of free immigration is irrefutable and correct. It would be foolish to attack it, just as it would be foolish to deny that free trade leads to higher living standards than does protectionism.* [Are you reading this, erowe?]

It would also be wrongheaded to attack the above case for free immigration by pointing out that because of the existence of a welfare state, immigration has become to a significant extent the immigration of welfare-bums, who, even if the United States, for instance, is below her optimal population point, do not increase but rather decrease average living standards. For this is not an argument against immigration but against the welfare state. To be sure, the welfare state should be destroyed, root and branch. However, in any case the problems of immigration and welfare are analytically distinct problems, and they must be treated accordingly.

The problem with the above argument is that it suffers from two interrelated shortcomings which invalidate its unconditional pro-immigration conclusion and/or which render the argument applicable only to a highly unrealistic – long bygone – situation in human history.

The first shortcoming will only be touched upon. To libertarians of the Austrian school, it should be clear that what constitutes “wealth” and “well-being” is subjective. Material wealth is not the only thing that counts. Thus, even if real incomes rise due to immigration, it does not follow that immigration must be considered “good,” for one might prefer lower living standards and a greater distance to other people over higher living standards and a smaller distance to others.

Instead, a second, related shortcoming will be the focus here. With regard to a given territory into which people immigrate, it is left unanalyzed who, if anyone, owns (controls) this territory. In fact, in order to render the above argument applicable, it is – implicitly – assumed that the territory in question is unowned, and that the immigrants enter virgin territory (open frontier). Obviously, this can no longer be assumed. If this assumption is dropped, however, the problem of immigration takes on an entirely new meaning and requires fundamental rethinking.

III

For the purpose of illustration, let us first assume an anarcho-capitalist society. Though convinced that such a society is the only social order that can be defended as just, I do not want to explain here why this is the case. Instead, I will employ it as a conceptual benchmark, because this will help clear up the fundamental misconception of most contemporary free immigration advocates.

All land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted; that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property owned by others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less severely restricted. As is currently the case in some housing developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example.

Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. In any case, however, admission to the property of the admitting person does not imply a “freedom to move around,” unless other property owners consent to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow.

Note that none of this, not even the most exclusive form of segregationism, has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood of Blacks, Turks, Catholics or Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance. To the contrary, it is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation – the absence of any form of forced integration – that makes peaceful relationships – free trade – between culturally, racially, ethnically, or religiously distinct people possible.

IV

In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation). The territory over which a government’s taxing power extends becomes “inland,” and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), are an “unnatural” (coercive) institution. Indeed, their existence (and that of a domestic government) implies a two-fold distortion with respect to peoples’ natural inclination to associate with others. First, inlanders cannot exclude the government (the taxman) from their own property, but are subject to what one might call “forced integration” by government agents. Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects’ private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source. Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade – a lowering of transaction costs – as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities).

Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties. Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism).

V

It is now time to enrich the analysis through the introduction of a few “realistic” empirical assumptions. Let us assume that the government is privately owned. The ruler literally owns the entire country within state borders. He owns part of the territory outright (his property title is unrestricted), and he is partial owner of the rest (as landlord or residual claimant of all of his citizen-tenants real estate holdings, albeit restricted by some kind of pre-existing rental contract). He can sell and bequeath his property, and he can calculate and “realize” the monetary value of his capital (his country).

Traditional monarchies – and kings – are the closest historical examples of this form of government.

What will a king’s typical immigration and emigration policy be? Because he owns the entire country’s capital value, he will, assuming no more than his self-interest, tend to choose migration policies that preserve or enhance rather than diminish the value of his kingdom.Traditional monarchies – and kings – are the closest historical examples of this form of government.

As far as emigration is concerned, a king will want to prevent the emigration of productive subjects, in particular of his best and most productive subjects, because losing them would lower the value of the kingdom. Thus, for example, from 1782 until 1824 a law prohibited the emigration of skilled workmen from Britain. On the other hand, a king will want to expel his non-productive and destructive subjects (criminals, bums, beggars, gypsies, vagabonds, etc.), for their removal from his territory would increase the value of his realm. For this reason Britain expelled tens of thousands of common criminals to North America and Australia.

On the other hand, as far as immigration policy is concerned, a king would want to keep the mob, as well as all people of inferior productive capabilities, out. People of the latter category would only be admitted temporarily, if at all, as seasonal workers without citizenship, and they would be barred from permanent property ownership. Thus, for example, after 1880 large numbers of Poles were hired as seasonal workers in Germany. A king would only permit the permanent immigration of superior or at least above-average people; i.e., those, whose residence in his kingdom would increase his own property value. Thus, for example, after 1685 (with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes) tens of thousands of Huguenots were permitted to settle in Prussia; and similarly Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, and Maria Theresia later promoted the immigration and settlement of large numbers of Germans in Russia, Prussia, and the eastern provinces of Austria-Hungary.

In brief, while through his immigration policies a king might not entirely avoid all cases of forced exclusion or forced integration, such policies would by and large do the same as what private property owners would do, if they could decide who to admit and who to exclude. That is, the king would be highly selective and very much concerned about improving the quality of the resident human capital so as to drive property values up, not down.

VI

Migration policies become predictably different, once the government is publicly owned. The ruler no longer owns the country’s capital value, but only has current use of it. He cannot sell or bequeath his position as ruler; he is merely a temporary caretaker. Moreover, “free entry” into the position of a caretaker government exists. Anyone can, in principle, become the ruler of the country.

Democracies as they came into existence on a world-wide scale after World War I offer historical examples of public government.Migration policies become predictably different, once the government is publicly owned. The ruler no longer owns the country’s capital value, but only has current use of it. He cannot sell or bequeath his position as ruler; he is merely a temporary caretaker. Moreover, “free entry” into the position of a caretaker government exists. Anyone can, in principle, become the ruler of the country.

What are a democracy’s migration policies? Once again assuming no more than self-interest (maximizing monetary and psychic income: money and power), democratic rulers tend to maximize current income, which they can appropriate privately, at the expense of capital values, which they cannot appropriate privately. Hence, in accordance with democracy’s inherent egalitarianism of one-man-one-vote, they tend to pursue a distinctly egalitarian – non-discriminatory – emigration and immigration policy.

As far as emigration policy is concerned, this implies that for a democratic ruler it makes little, if any, difference whether productive or unproductive people, geniuses or bums leave the country. They have all one equal vote. In fact, democratic rulers might well be more concerned about the loss of a bum than that of a productive genius. While the loss of the latter would obviously lower the capital value of the country and loss of the former might actually increase it, a democratic ruler does not own the country. In the short run, which most interests a democratic ruler, the bum, voting most likely in favor of egalitarian measures, might be more valuable than the productive genius who, as egalitarianism’s prime victim, will more likely vote against the democratic ruler. For the same reason, a democratic ruler, quite unlike a king, undertakes little to actively expel those people whose presence within the country constitutes a negative externality (human trash, which drives individual property values down). In fact, such negative externalities – unproductive parasites, bums, and criminals – are likely to be his most reliable supporters.

As far as immigration policies are concerned, the incentives and disincentives are likewise distorted, and the results are equally perverse. For a democratic ruler, it also matters little whether bums or geniuses, below or above-average civilized and productive people immigrate into the country. Nor is he much concerned about the distinction between temporary workers (owners of work permits) and permanent, property owning immigrants (naturalized citizens). In fact, bums and unproductive people may well be preferable as residents and citizens, because they cause more so-called “social” problem,” and democratic rulers thrive on the existence of such problems. Moreover, bums and inferior people will likely support his egalitarian policies, whereas geniuses and superior people will not. The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if they could have decided for themselves, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves. Thus, the United States immigration laws of 1965, as the best available example of democracy at work, eliminated all formerly existing “quality” concerns and the explicit preference for European immigrants and replaced it with a policy of almost complete non-discrimination (multi-culturalism).

Indeed, though rarely noticed, the immigration policy of a democracy is the mirror image of its policy toward internal population movements: toward the voluntary association and dissociation, segregation and desegregation, and the physical distancing and approximating of various private property owners. Like a king, a democratic ruler will promote spatial over-integration by over-producing the “public good” of roads. However, for a democratic ruler, unlike a king, it will not be sufficient that everyone can move next door to anyone else on government roads. Concerned about his current income and power rather than capital values and constrained by egalitarian sentiments, a democratic ruler will tend to go even further. Through non-discrimination laws – one cannot discriminate against Germans, Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Hindus, homosexuals, etc. – the government will want to open even the physical access and entrance to everyone’s property to everyone else. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the so-called “Civil Rights” legislation in the United States, which outlawed domestic discrimination on the basis of color, race, national origin, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, etc., and which thereby actually mandated forced integration, coincided with the adoption of a non-discriminatory immigration policy; i.e., mandated inter-national desegregagtion (forced integration).

VII

The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as it is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars or bums or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to kick out those who do not fulfill these requirements as trespassers; and to solve the “naturalization” question somewhat along the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen.

What should one hope for and advocate as the relatively correct immigration policy, however, as long as the democratic central state is still in place and successfully arrogates the power to determine a uniform national immigration policy? The best one may hope for, even if it goes against the “nature” of a democracy and thus is not very likely to happen, is that the democratic rulers act as if they were the personal owners of the country and as if they had to decide who to include and who to exclude from their own personal property (into their very own houses). This means following a policy of utmost discrimination: of strict discrimination in favor of the human qualities of skill, character, and cultural compatibility.The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with “free” immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian).

More specifically, it means distinguishing strictly between “citizens” (naturalized immigrants) and “resident aliens” and excluding the latter from all welfare entitlements. It means requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant. It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias.

----------


## erowe1

> _I_ think our current laws regarding border security are not wrong. But I also think some of the mandated actions included in those laws, ie. armed border patrol agents with arrest/detainment authority, would be wrong for an individual citizen to do. It appears that to you that would mean those actions/laws/authorities are wrong for the government's agents to do too.
> 
> Did  I misread your inference?


Wrong is wrong.

Something that is wrong when an individual does it can't be right for the government to do. Where does the government get any just powers unless they are delegated to it by individuals who have that right in the first place?

Also, you conspicuously mention only the most insignificant and ineffective means of "securing the border." Real control of immigration requires that the government burden every single one of us, including citizens who were born here, with severe restrictions of our liberty, requiring that whenever we hire someone to work for us or go to work for someone else, we submit information to the government about ourselves.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So, how about the Constitutional argument?  What is the Constitutional position on immigration?

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no provision in the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make any restrictions on immigration per se.  Congress is explicitly authorized to make naturalization laws and citizenship requirements.  They are not allowed to prevent people from becoming tourists or resident aliens.

What's more, the federal government did not put any restrictions on immigration until 1878 or so, and then only meaningful restrictions in the 1920s.  So there was a long period of no federal restrictions on immigration whatsoever, which makes sense, since they don't seem to have the authority to make any such restrictions.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

On the level of the individual colonies and then states, it is a different matter.  There certainly were immigration restrictions and qualifications.  There was even at least one mass deportation that I know of.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> So, how about the Constitutional argument?  What is the Constitutional position on immigration?


Already answered on post #83 of this thread.

----------


## ga anderson

> Wrong is wrong.
> 
> Something that is wrong when an individual does it can't be right for the government to do. Where does the government get any just powers unless they are delegated to it by individuals who have that right in the first place?
> 
> Also, you conspicuously mention only the most insignificant and ineffective means of "securing the border." Real control of immigration requires that the government burden every single one of us, including citizens who were born here, with severe restrictions of our liberty, requiring that whenever we hire someone to work for us or go to work for someone else, we submit information to the government about ourselves.


Whew! I hear the songs of the Sirens, but I see tunnels a lot deeper than I want to go.

Staying on topic... and assuming you would agree that some type of physical authoritative border presence was needed, (if you don't agree with a presence of authority on the border the rest doesn't matter)

I think an armed border guard with arrest and detaining authority is a proper presence of authority. I do not think it is a wrong action.
I think every citizen having arrest and detaining authority for border purposes is wrong - for many more realistic reasons than legal and _Rights_ ones.

My world sees a difference, as explained. My world accepts the reality of rules for human behavior in societies. Whether it be one rule; You cannot kill people, or whether it is one million rules; right down to restrictions on how much fertilizer you can put on your land.
Lots of gray in my world. Not in principles, but in the act of living.

As for the example... it wasn't picked for its significance or priority of importance, it was simply the first thing that came to mind as an uncomplicated example of my point. Feel free to substitute any other example that you prefer that equally illustrates the point. Which it appears you understood, based on your critique.

Your final point(s) about the effects on citizens liberties and right to privacy look like one dark and yawning tunnel that I will leave to you tonight. 

GA

----------


## helmuth_hubener

OK, I'm back.  Was going to post this on another thread, but I'll post it here instead to keep this the clearinghouse for interesting things I have to say about immigration.

Liberty lovers tend to be systematizers.  We want to be consistent.  We want everything to be internally consistent and bullet-proof.  And that's good!  That's our strength!  That may be what led us to value liberty in the first place; at least, the two character attributes are highly correlated.

The open borders / unlimited refugees liberty lovers are trying to have the right position, in light of their positions on everything else.

The shut-er-down / mass deportation liberty lovers are -- believe it or not -- also trying to have the right position, in light of their positions on everything else.  I know it's hard for you open borders guys to see it, but it's true!

*Murray Rothbard* was not opposed to mass immigration because he was an authoritarian, or because he was a statist, or because he was an ignorant country bumpkin.
*Hans Hermann Hoppe* is not opposed to mass immigration because he is an authoritarian, or because he is a statist, or because he is an ignorant country bumpkin.
*Stephan Molyneux* is not opposed to mass immigration because he is an authoritarian, or because he is a statist, or because he is an ignorant country bumpkin.
*Lew Rockwell* is not opposed to mass immigration because he is an authoritarian, or because he is a statist, or because he is an ignorant country bumpkin.
*Tom Woods* is not opposed to mass immigration because he is an authoritarian, or because he is a statist, or because he is an ignorant country bumpkin.
*Stephan Kinsella* is not opposed to mass immigration because he is an authoritarian, or because he is a statist, or because he is an ignorant country bumpkin.

There is a case to be made, gentlemen -- there really is!  Do you have the ears to hear it?  Are you willing to consider new ideas?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I received some comments from a good, quality, long-time member here and with his permission I will reply to his thoughts.  They are of a critical nature, but the position warrants criticism, it really does.  I understand it does.  And I do understand where you guys are coming from.




> Learn what words mean: "anarcho-capitalist libertarian" is not compatible with "owners of that society" - perhaps you meant if only one person wants that person there to live, work, buy their house, etc, but I doubt it ... maybe take the racism elsewhere too


  "Perhaps" no more -- sure enough I did mean that!  Who else could be owners but... owners?  There must be unanimous consent to enact restrictions on neighborhood residence.  If there's one hold-out, well then he's a hold-out.  And he has a perfect right to hold out for as long as he likes.

In a true, consummated anarcho-capitalist society, each plot of land with an unencumbered deed is technically its own kingdom (with some limitations).  And every man is a king.  King of his own body, at least, and also king of whatever things (land, objects, etc) he has acquired.  And an independent kingdom can allow or disallow into its territory whomever it wishes.

However, as a practical matter one single person wanting to invite in the immigrant is not enough, unless his kingdom is actually relatively self-sufficient and not just a typical suburban plot.  As you wrote: "wants that person there to live, work, buy their house, etc."  Maybe I want him to come rent from me, OK, fine, but do I want to hire him, too?  No way!  And that's a big "Etc."  There's a lot to life, see.  Do I want to sell him groceries?  Do I want to let him access my roadways?  Do I want to generate electricity for him?  No to all of the above!  You see, I don't have a grocery store; I don't own any roadways or other transportive means, much less a sufficient network to allow him to survive; I don't own an electrical plant nor distribution network.  While I may be conceptually a kingdom, in actuality I'm not.  I can't unilaterally do almost anything.  Virtually everything I do in life, virtually all the processes I rely upon to survive, depend upon my neighbors.  If the vast majority of my neighbors are determined to not welcome in the type of immigrant I am happy to welcome in, guess who wins?  They do.

So, even in this primitive, super non-hierarchical concept of anarcho-capitalism, having effective immigration quality standards is very doable, and is very likely.

In more realistic versions of anarcho-capitalism with more social hierarchy, it becomes very possible to even have immigration quality standards justly enforced by law, via deed covenants (as I mentioned earlier in this thread), voluntary city-states, and a multitude of other arrangements.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Continuing the conversation:




> Feel free to step forward and debate it!  Up until very recently, I have had what is probably the identical view to your own on the subject of immigration.


 I assume you are in favor of unrestricted, indiscriminate (non-discriminatory) immigration.  This was what I also was in favor of, and advocated for, until recently.  That's all I meant.




> Which stance do you intend to defend
> a) your position on immigration
> b) the meaning of 'anarcho-capitalist libertarian'


 Both!  Well, actually, I didn't know that b), the meaning of 'anarcho-capitalist libertarian,' was in dispute.  But I'm happy to defend the True and Right meaning of it if it is in need of defense.




> You and fisharmor do not share the same ideology. You can both co-exist in the big tent of liberty, but for words to have meaning - "anarcho-", "capitalist", "libertarian" - then you cannot be the "same" in these regards. One regard - pro liberty / libertarian - maybe. Possibly two but I doubt that without a more free flow of labor.


 He is welcome in my tent, as are you.  I am an anarcho-capitalist libertarian.  Anarcho-capitalism is all about private property rights: systematized and absolutized.  "Labor" cannot just go wherever he pleases.  He can only go where he is invited, with the permission and good graces of the property owners.  *There exists no right of immigration in a free society.*  It is not a real right.  It doesn't exist.  It's a philosophical error.




> If you think this is needless pedantry, then there is nothing to debate. If words don't have meaning, we can't communicate effectively. That is not, IMO, debate. It is needless argumentation.


  No, I don't think that your saying, "you aren't an anarcho-capitalist, Helmuth," is pedantry.  It's a legitimate accusation, it just happens to not be correct.




> As to the subject of sharing the same view ("probably the identical") either you really did or you really did not. It is a common and EXTREMELY disingenuous argumentation technique on the nets for people to say some variation of, "I used to think exactly like you but then I grew up." The reality typically is that the person never had the same opinion, not even close. They - like yourself - might think it was the same but that is usually a failure to understand the differences and a failure to think ideologically.


 I was for open immigration.  Simple.  You could look up my Posts of Christmases Past, or I could.

This doesn't mean I am correct now.  It just means I changed my view.  But I do have intelligent (I think) reasons for my new view.  And, interestingly, I don't think that any of the arguments (that I can recall) that I previously used in favor of open borders were wrong, or even slightly mistaken.  Not a one!  Figure _that_ out!

There are multiple layers to this issue.  You can be right on one layer ("free association!  I can hire whomever I want!"), and yet be wrong on another level, or even unaware of that layer's existence.




> For example, I view 'anarcho-', 'capitalist', and 'libertarian' as distinct things.  Each has different implications like pro liberty, an economic system, or a non-coercive organization of society. My thinking is you simply don't grasp these concepts and possibly you think being correct about immigration is an excuse not to think critically.


 Well, feel free to define away!  For while I may grasp my own concepts (sometimes! on a good day! ), I very likely do not grasp your concepts.  How could I?  I don't know even what those concepts are!  So let's remedy that.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's really simple, don't go where bad people like to go, and the odds of getting victimized by a bad person go down.


 Not allowing more and more statistically bad people to come live near to you also could help.  

Yes, Section 8 is related as an issue to immigration.  

Section 8 is forced integration on a city / neighborhood level.  Good neighborhoods go down the tubes as more and more black welfare hoodlums, lazy hispanic gang members, and, yes, white trash, move into neighborhoods they cannot afford and where they do not belong, thanks to Uncle Sam.  And they take over.  The formerly quiet, bourgeoisie suburb becomes the hood.

Unlimited nondiscriminatory immigration policy is forced integration on a national / continent level.  Good countries and good continents that were nice places to live go down the tubes as low-skill, low-intelligence, and even no-skill refugees and criminal underclass flood into countries where they do not belong.  And they will eventually take over, extrapolating the mathematical trends.  Formerly high homogeneity, high-mutual-trust, high social cohesion, high intelligence (and thus high living standard) societies are broken apart and replaced by a hodgepodge of incompatible peoples who do not like each other, do not trust each other, and do not even understand each other.  Crime goes up, social cooperation goes down.  Also, because the people coming in are of a lower productivity, skill level, and intelligence than those who were there before, the overall standard of living in the country will go down.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Well, I'm clearly just talking to myself.  I guess immigration is just a topic no one on RPF cares about right now.  That's OK.  It really is a pretty esoteric topic that nobody anywhere is really talking about; it's not a blip on the radar screen.  It's not in the news cycle.  So why think about it?  Why talk about it?  

To me, one big reason to come here is to try to have interesting conversations with interesting people about interesting ideas.  Is that not the case for anyone else?  Erowe, you're happy to just ignore my dialogue with you?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

A thought on Merkel:

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> One reason is because I run a nationally recognized, award winning business and the Hispanics who work on my staff are the hardest working, most dedicated people I have.  They are the reason for my success.


Oh I know you do, and of course they are.  There is no way to do low or even medium-end hoteliery in the US today without the very cheap low-skill immigrant workers.  Fact of life.

I guess if this guy was familiar with the realities of the motel industry he'd know that.  But obviously most people are not familiar with most industries.




> Oh, I see now why Sola is in favor of open borders. Cheap labor for his business.


 Actually, it's a wash either way.  If there were no no-skill super cheap foreign workers to be had, it would mean Sola_Fide would not have them, but neither would any of his competitors.  On the other hand if there were an extra 20 million that came in from Bangladesh, it would mean that all his competitors' cost structure would change as they hire the Bangladeshis and fire their existing hispanic and work-exchange-asian employees, and Sola_Fide would also have to fire all of his to stay competitive.

Bottom line: I can see this guy's point of view about wanting to stop the demographic change he sees all around him and preserve the way of life he loves.  That's natural.  We like to keep all the things we know and love as they are, because we see value in them.  The little things, the local institutions, the patterns and beauty of a community.  Today we had a picnic and there were a bunch of boys playing -- unsupervised -- at the playground, tossing the football around, messing about, being active.  And then driving home were a couple even younger kids out on a bike ride -- again, unsupervised.  I love to see this kind of thing.  My wife says it gives her hope for humanity, because we hear so much about people being paranoid about letting their kids wander about on their own and have unsupervised fun.  This couldn't happen in every neighborhood.  It can happen here because it's a rich white neighborhood.  People feel safe.

People need to feel safe, to have a very high degree of trust for each other, to be able to form good societies and nice, wholesome places to live.

Fact of life: people do not feel safe in <strike>multi-racial</strike> multi-_cultural_ "communities."  People like being around people like themselves, people who they can understand and thus trust.  It's not even a very racial thing -- the rich white neighbors would be perfectly (or at least mostly) comfortable with a black man in the neighborhood, because it would be a _rich_ black _family_ man -- a doctor, a lawyer, whatever; someone who they can understand and relate to.  Someone the boys in the hood, on the other hand, would call an "Uncle Tom" and beat up as soon as they would anyone else.

This is a fact of life.  It's a biological fact.  It's not going to change, no matter how much we may not like it.  People trust and understand those whom they have a lot in common with, and the more in common the more the trust.  And the better the neighborhood can be.  It can in time become an actual community.

So yes, I understand wanting to preserve picnics and kids bike-riding and the neighborhood frozen custard shop and, and, and.  All these little things, everything that goes into a culture.  They want to keep things the same.  They want to preserve the good.  And to do that, they want to keep out the different.  That's what you don't like.  Because you can look at the new, the different, and say, "These are not bad.  These are good.  These are very good people."  You have up-close, personal experience.  You know for a fact they are not bad.  And so you think anyone not 100% in favor of these good, wonderful people must be himself bad, deranged, hateful, ignorant, etc.

I understand exactly where you are coming from.

But let me tell you: I am one of those who would rather keep out the flood of low-skill / no-skill third-world people.  And I am not bad, deranged, hateful, ignorant, etc.  (Well, maybe etc. )  And neither was Murray Rothbard.  And neither is Tom Woods, Stephan Molyneux, Lew Rockwell, Stephan Kinsella, and Hans Hermann Hoppe.  There are very good, very rational, very well-thought-out reasons to hold this position.

For one: we don't want to see western civilization destroyed.

That's a pretty good reason.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, I'm clearly just talking to myself.  I guess immigration is just a topic no one on RPF cares about right now.  That's OK.  It really is a pretty esoteric topic that nobody anywhere is really talking about; it's not a blip on the radar screen.  It's not in the news cycle.  So why think about it?  Why talk about it?  
> 
> To me, one big reason to come here is to try to have interesting conversations with interesting people about interesting ideas.  Is that not the case for anyone else?  Erowe, you're happy to just ignore my dialogue with you?


  I'm sorry, did it seem like you were ignored? Such a wretched thing that. Allow me to tear myself away from other things to assuage your ego. How may I be of assistance?

----------


## kahless

In the past I was willing to look the other way on immigration but one just cannot overlook the data.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> In the past I was willing to look the other way on immigration but one just cannot overlook the data.


Reagan's amnesty didn't change any minds? I thought that's what we were supposed to do to win their votes, amnesty, amnesty, and more amnesty?

----------


## erowe1

> In the past I was willing to look the other way on immigration but one just cannot overlook the data.


Party affiliation is pretty important to you. Huh?

----------


## kahless

> Party affiliation is pretty important to you. Huh?


You want to ignore the gun control and party affiliation pics, then okay I could do better.  Here you go.

75% of Hispanics prefer bigger government
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/0...s-and-religion



> When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than a smaller government with fewer services. Some 75% of Hispanics say this, while 19% say they would rather have a smaller government with fewer services. By contrast, just 41% of the general U.S. public say they want a bigger government, while nearly half (48%) say they want a smaller government.

----------


## erowe1

> You want to ignore the gun control and party affiliation pics, then okay I could do better.  Here you go.


I wasn't talking about gun control. You also shared something on party affiliation, so I asked you about it. I'll ask again. Is party affiliation important to you?




> 75% of Hispanics prefer bigger government


So do 90% of white people, judging from how they vote.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You want to ignore the gun control and party affiliation pics, then okay I could do better.  Here you go.
> 
> *75% of Hispanics prefer bigger government*


Arguing for spending more money on illegal immigration is favoring bigger government too. I guess we can count you in that category as well then.   Does it make more sense to spend more money on Mexican immigration when that number is actually negative (more have left than new ones have entered the US)? (side note on their voting patterns- they are also much more likely to be Church going than citizens and are strongly anti- abortion). 



The number of all illegal immigrants is down since 2007.  Should we expand the government even more to deal with this major crisis of people leaving? 


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...on-in-the-u-s/

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm sorry, did it seem like you were ignored? Such a wretched thing that. Allow me to tear myself away from other things to assuage your ego. How may I be of assistance?


Come on, phill, go easy on me.  I wasn't trying to whine.  You contributed a lot in this thread, and I thought we both pretty well wrapped up our exchange.  But, since you stopped by, did you have any of your own thoughts on immigration?  I'd love to hear them.

It was mostly just E Rowe whom I was griping at, because he clearly _does_ still have a lot to say about immigration, but he is clearly content to just repeat the same things over and over a hundred times (per day) and has no interest in interfacing with any unique, surprising, or thought-provoking ideas on the subject.  He wants to keep it a the level of "you guys are all racist; everyone is racist and evil but me".  A nice, low, comfortable level.  Him and Sola_Fide.

People are talking about immigration, so I thought it might be nice to have an intellectual discussion of it.  All the best, highest-level arguments.  All the best thoughts from all the best thinkers.

But, maybe everybody just likes yelling at each other.

Racist!

SJW!

Xenophobe!

Cultural Marxist!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Not to be one-sided, here are some of the best, most top-notch arguments _for_ open immigration from a libertarian perspective:

*Until the middle of the 1920s this country followed a general policy of unrestricted immigration; except for some
exclusion of orientals, anyone who wanted to come was welcome. From 1905 to 1907, and again in 1910, 1913, and
1914, over a million immigrants a year came. They and their descendants have created a large part of our economic
and cultural wealth. It would be hard to find any major public figure willing to argue that this policy was a mistake.

It would be almost as hard to find a major public figure who would advocate a return to that policy. Recent debates
have been on how we should allocate and enforce our limited immigration quota among different nationalities, not on
whether the quota should exist.*

In my opinion, the restriction on immigration is a mistake: we should abolish it tomorrow and reopen the most
successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen.

One danger in this policy is that poor immigrants might come with the intent of somehow surviving until they became
citizens, and then going on welfare. I therefore include in my proposal the condition that new immigrants should face a
fifteen year 'residency' requirement before they become eligible for welfare. I also suggest that the federal and state
minimum wage laws be altered so as not to cover new immigrants, or, better yet, be repealed.

We would receive a vast flood of immigrants, probably more than a million a year, possibly several million. Most
would come from Asian and Latin American countries. Most would be poor. Many would work as unskilled labor for
the first generation, as did most of the previous immigrants. They would bring with them levels of education, nutrition,
and health, which would appall our social workers; they would live, by our standards, very badly, but they would live
well by their former standards, and that is why they would come.

Unrestricted immigration would make us richer, as it has in the past. Our wealth is in people, not things; America is
not Kuwait. If a working wife can hire an Indian maid, who earned a few hundred dollars a year in India, to work for
her at six thousand dollars a year, and so spend her own time on a 30 thousand a year job, who is worse off?
As long as the immigrants pay for what they use, they do not make the rest of the society poorer. If increased
population makes the country more crowded, it does so only because the immigrants produce wealth which is worth
more to the owners of land than the land is worth, and the immigrants are able to use that wealth to buy the land. The
same applies to whatever the immigrants get on the free market; in order to appropriate existing resources for their own
uses, the immigrants must buy them with new goods of at least equal value.

The immigrants will get some governmental services for which they will not pay directly. They will also pay taxes.
Given present conditions, I see no reason to expect that they will cost government more than government will cost
them.

The new immigrants will drive down the wages of unskilled labor, hurting some of the present poor. At the same time,
the presence of millions of foreigners will make the most elementary acculturation, even the ability to speak English, a
marketable skill; some of the poor will be able to leave their present unskilled jobs to find employment as foremen of
'foreign' work gangs or front men for 'foreign' enterprises.

More important than any of these economic effects is the psychological effect on the present poor; they will no longer
be the bottom of the barrel, and as Liberals have pointed out with some justice, it is where you are, not what you have,
which defines poverty. Mobility will be restored; each generation of immigrants will be able to struggle up to a
position from which to look down on their successors.

A policy of unrestricted immigration would bring us more than cheap unskilled labor. It would bring a flood of new
skills, not least among them the entrepreneurial ability that has made Indian and Chinese emigrants the merchant
classes of Asia and Africa. Once the new citizens become familiar with the language and culture of their adopted
country, they will probably work their way into the great American middle class just as rapidly as did their
predecessors of eighty years ago.

It is a shame that the argument must be put in terms of the economic or psychological 'interest' of the present
generation of Americans. It is simpler than that. There are people, probably many millions, who would like to come
here, live here, work here, raise their children here, die here. There are people who would like to become Americans,
as our parents and grandparents did.

If we want to be honest, we can ship the Statue of Liberty back to France or replace the outdated verse with new lines,
'America the closed preserve/That dirty foreigners don't deserve.' Or we can open the gates again.

-- David Friedman

~~~

His first two paragraphs are the strongest, the most convincing.  Closed border advocates: try to address or refute them.  I think you will have a hard time.

The rest of the article gets progressively weaker, with the last two paragraphs being extremely weak and utterly unpersuasive.... unless you think America somehow "owes" the rest of the world.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So, how about the Constitutional argument? What is the Constitutional position on immigration?
> 			
> 		
> 
> Already answered on post #83 of this thread.


Post #83 was:



> You're forgetting that the Constitution authorizes the Congress to define and punish offenses against the Laws of Nations. That includes defining what migration is lawful and punishing those who would break that law.


But that is exactly the type of nebulous, very expansive interpretation of powers that I oppose.  You might as well start justifying Social Security because it mentions the "general welfare".  There is a list of powers in Article 1, Section 8, and if it's not in that list, it ain't a power, plain and simple.  That's my approach to the Constitution.

The other thing you say in post 83, though, is totally correct: *Every state and colony had and exercised its power to regulate migration because everyone understood that every nation-state has that power.*

States did restrict immigration.  Also, very importantly: economic reality restricted immigration. The cost to come across the Atlantic and relocate in America was prohibitively high throughout the 17 and 1800s (and even more so before that).  Only the very rich or the very motivated could come, for the most part; and the slaves.  So that was a natural barrier to entry, sifting out the wheat from the chaff (except for the slaves).  The equivalent today would be to say: "You can only come to America by paying half a million dollars."  The people coming in would be pretty high end.  I see nothing wrong with that.  You want people who will bring up the average, not pull it down.

----------


## Danke



----------


## helmuth_hubener

Thanks, Danke.  It appears Youtube's policy is to take down all videos negative towards these "refugees" -- that is, showing their actual barbaric behavior -- and so watch it while you can.  It will likely soon be taken down like the rest.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> .The classical argument in favor of free immigration runs as follows: Other things being equal, businesses go to low-wage areas, and labor mov


Stopped reading right there. The classical argument is who the heck do you think you are to tell me who I can't employ or associate with? 

The anti-immigration threads on this board are probably the most disappointing aspect of the whole liberty movement on the Internet. Free trade, end the drug war, no fiat money sure, but if you people dare cross that imaginary line to try to better your life I'm going to need to see your papers.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Stopped reading right there. The classical argument is who the heck do you think you are to tell me who I can't employ or associate with?


Well said!  I, too, believe in free association.

I believe in the whole libertarian ball of wax.

The problem we face is how can we realistically get it?  How can we get free association and free-market money and everything else we want?  *Realistically?*

What do you think, IDefend?  Any ideas?

As for me, I think that when one brings in _realism_, there are some very important considerations and consequences of immigration policy to consider above and beyond the raw moral stance (which you have given us, though only one half of it).  If one brings in the imperative to actually _implement_ libertarianism, or at least to actually see libertarian progress, or, nay, to at the very least see societies with sparks of liberty survive and not be utterly swallowed up and subsumed into worldwide statism, then one asks oneself: what is the order of operations?  

Is the first policy priority to repeal all legal restrictions on immigration?  

Is the first priority to blow up all government roads and airports because they are all illegitimate, moral monstrosities funded by theft?  

Or are we allowed to take into account practical considerations, like: 

Do we really want to inundate those very few societies with a libertarian tradition with the hundreds of millions of very poor, very non-libertarian people who would like to come?  

And, do we really want to cause the mass starvation and death of millions of people because the grocery logistic system can no longer work because we blew up all the roads and airports?  

Respectively.

I think it is eminently reasonable to take these practical considerations into account.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

If we were to replace immigration and the arguments associated with societal change with economy and arguments associated with societal change, and warped the year to 2008, your arguments would be remarkably similar to those who supported Federal Reserve and federal government action to prevent economic collapse.

Realism and practicality are perfectly fine when steps are taken to reduce government activity. However, as Hoppe astutely observes in essentially every other area other than immigration, anything the government does goes awry in a hurry. Libertarian realism and practicality cease to be libertarian when the position becomes expanding State power and increasing government activity. Arguing that we need the government to keep people out in order to preserve culture sounds neat, but you of all people should know, helmuth, that entrusting the State to preserve culture is the surest way to destroy it.

The only acceptable libertarian proposal to curb immigration and its alleged deleterious effects is to eliminate state handouts. If the retort to this proposal is that this is unreasonable and won't happen - you're right, it won't happen when people like yourself, who would typically state the libertarian solution, instead abandon the libertarian solution. Additionally, it's even more unreasonable to assume that granting the State the authority and powers necessary to control immigration would work out exactly as you hope it will. As you know, the people who pull the strings in all forms of government are not libertarians.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The only acceptable libertarian proposal to curb immigration and its alleged deleterious effects is to eliminate state handouts.


 Not at all.  There's an almost unlimited array of imaginative ideas one could come up with which would be compatible with libertarianism.  As an easy example: blowing up all the immoral state-run roads and airports.  That would make virtually all immigration well-nigh impossible.  What do you think about _that_ idea, Feeding?  It's totally flawless, from a libertarian perspective.  It's pure as the driven snow.  Should we do it?




> If we were to replace immigration and the arguments associated with societal change with economy and arguments associated with societal change, and warped the year to 2008, your arguments would be remarkably similar to those who supported Federal Reserve and federal government action to prevent economic collapse.


 As would be the arguments of the person not wanting to immediately blow up all the roads.  And yet... we _don't_ want to immediately blow up the roads, as libertarian as that would be.  _Do we?_




> Realism and practicality are perfectly fine when steps are taken to reduce government activity. However, as Hoppe astutely observes in essentially every other area other than immigration, anything the government does goes awry in a hurry.


 Oh, I think that Hoppe's anarchist credentials exceed either of ours.  Perhaps we would so well, then, to not flippantly reject this as a stupid blind spot.  Do we really want to say "Oh, that Hoppe, he's good on most everything else, but man, when it comes to immigration, what a dope!"?  That doesn't seem plausible, does it?  Not if you know anything about Hoppe.  The man is rigorous.

Have you read _A Short History of Man_, Feeding?




> Arguing that we need the government to keep people out in order to preserve culture sounds neat, but you of all people should know, helmuth, that entrusting the State to preserve culture is the surest way to destroy it.


  Indeed.  Government Doesn't Work!



Spoiler alert, but do you know why, according to Harry, government doesn't work?  It's because government uses _force_ to try to get people to do things they don't want to do.  This is not in these people's self-interest -- otherwise they would have already been doing these things already -- and so they will take further actions in order to continue their self-interest anyway, either circumventing the government's force or twisting it into something different.  Unintended consequences.  The put-upon people do not just sit there and "take it."  And so it never quite works out as planned.

So, what is the government doing right now vis a vis immigration that isn't working?

The answer is very simple: Forcing Americans to live with, work with, play with, buy from, sell to, and be increasingly surrounded by people:

Who are of a different race than them
Who speak a different language than them
Who have a vastly different culture than them
Who are, on average, stupider than them
Who like a very different type of music (which they play loudly)
Who have a completely different body of literature
Who are influenced by a different set of great thinkers
And finally, crescendo:
Who have a different religion than them!

That's what the government is doing right now.  And guess what: it isn't working!  I mean, surprise, surprise.  We're all going to have a heart attack from that surprise, right?  It's a total disaster.  It's getting worse and worse.  It could blow up in a lot of ways you and I would not like.  A hundred million people -- more! -- _hate_ this policy.  They _hate_ this massive demographic change, this massive change to their way of life that *the government is forcing upon them.*



They are not just going to sit there and take it.



Unintended consequences.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Well said!  I, too, believe in free association.
> 
> I believe in the whole libertarian ball of wax.
> 
> The problem we face is how can we realistically get it?  How can we get free association and free-market money and everything else we want?  *Realistically?*
> 
> What do you think, IDefend?  Any ideas?
> 
> As for me, I think that when one brings in _realism_, there are some very important considerations and consequences of immigration policy to consider above and beyond the raw moral stance (which you have given us, though only one half of it).  If one brings in the imperative to actually _implement_ libertarianism, or at least to actually see libertarian progress, or, nay, to at the very least see societies with sparks of liberty survive and not be utterly swallowed up and subsumed into worldwide statism, then one asks oneself: what is the order of operations?  
> ...


Helmuth I've always appreciated your contributions to this board but you are way way overthinking this. The mental gyrations you're putting yourself through to justify govt intervention are over the top. Blow up the roads? Mass starvation? 

Also there are many possible solutions for actually creating a libertarian society (political action, waiting for economic collapse, agorism) but anytime I hear someone say we need more government intervention to help move us closer to a libertarian society I just can't take it seriously. It's like supporting tax hikes because you think the end result will be more people becoming anti-government. 

The most realistic solution is to be consistent and clear in supporting the principles you want implemented. Like Ron Paul says, fight with ideas because that's what will lead to real lasting changes.

----------


## osan

> Geographical arrangement matters, erowe.


Demographic arrangement matters.

multiculturalism in the absence of a strongly predominant host culture to which the minority cultures adapt themselves Is a proven loser.  Twenty first century nations such as the UK and to a lesser extent America are prime examples of this. 

The he progressive liberal model of social utopia is as demented as anything any school of human thought has ever concocted, and is in fact far worse than 99.9% of all.

----------


## DevilsAdvocate

> Demographic arrangement matters.
> 
> multiculturalism in the absence of a strongly predominant host culture to which the minority cultures adapt themselves Is a proven loser.  Twenty first century nations such as the UK and to a lesser extent America are prime examples of this. 
> 
> The he progressive liberal model of social utopia is as demented as anything any school of human thought has ever concocted, and is in fact far worse than 99.9% of all.


Exactly. Different cultures need different governments. You can't have Sharia law one year and liberal democracy the next, depending on which cultural faction seizes the government. Different cultures need to be separate so they can pursue their own path in the world.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Exactly. Different cultures need different governments. You can't have Sharia law one year and liberal democracy the next, depending on which cultural faction seizes the government. Different cultures need to be separate so they can pursue their own path in the world.


Isn't this a fairly self-explosive viewpoint, particularly if you are not an anarchist? In order to have a cohesive nation, different cultures need different governments... but cultures split among many different lines, not (just) national ones. Your argument means we can't have people of different age groups living together; after all, it is quite clear that baby boomers will never understand millenials, and vice versa. It basically means that everyone born in a nation must be clones of one another. Can't have any income inequality, either.  It means arguably one of the most successful nations (due to a decentralized political system, not because of immigration restrictions) and everyone's favorite quasi-libertarian country, Switzerland, wouldn't exist at all in its present form. After all, French, northern Italian, Romansch and southern German cultures are all very different from each other. You may as well come right out and admit that you are drawing racial distinctions rather than vague "cultural" ones. 

The way I see it, people complaining about the mass overthrow of Western/"white" civilization due to brown immigration missed the boat a long time ago. European civilization began destroying itself a long time ago with the  Romans, the Germanic Völkerwanderungen and the Norman Conquest. But somehow no one weeps for all the white folk who lost their cultures at the hands of other white folks.

----------


## TheCount

> In order to have a cohesive nation, different cultures need different governments... but cultures split among many different lines, not (just) national ones. Your argument means we can't have people of different age groups living together; after all, it is quite clear that baby boomers will never understand millenials, and vice versa. It basically means that everyone born in a nation must be clones of one another.


In this conversation, culture is code for race.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In this conversation, culture is code for race.


 As for me, when I mean culture I write "culture," and when I mean race I write "race."  I'm remarkably easy to figure out that way.  I expect that all the other posters are likewise capable of expressing themselves accurately.

Do you self-appointed thought police really have to make up invented thoughts to wag your finger at?  Haven't I _actually_ written enough controversial things in this thread that you could just focus on fanning yourself in shock and outrage over _them_?  Rather than over imaginary not-written statements?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The answer is very simple: Forcing Americans to live with, work with, play with, buy from, sell to, and be increasingly surrounded by people:
> 
> Who are of a different race than them
> Who speak a different language than them
> Who have a vastly different culture than them
> Who are, on average, stupider than them
> Who like a very different type of music (which they play loudly)
> Who have a completely different body of literature
> Who are influenced by a different set of great thinkers
> ...


How is that being forced on people?

Also, I haven't seen any evidence of "a hundred million people" hating integration.  News flash, the majority of white people, like myself, have no issue with minorities.

Honestly, it's a lot more interesting when people are different.

----------


## erowe1

> That's what the government is doing right now.


How is the government doing all those things?

On the other hand, the government, by its immigration laws, is forcing people not to hire people who lack the requisite government papers. That needs to stop.

----------


## kahless

> How is that being forced on people?
> 
> Also, I haven't seen any evidence of "a hundred million people" hating integration.  News flash, the majority of white people, like myself, have no issue with minorities.
> 
> Honestly, it's a lot more interesting when people are different.


You are confusing people having an issue with minorities with people have an issue with illegals and how certain groups of minorities vote.  You can forget about reducing the size and roll of government in the coming years if Hispanic immigration continues at it's current rate.

Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/0...src=prc-number



> 75%, Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significally lower among the public at large.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> You are confusing people having an issue with minorities with people have an issue with illegals and how certain groups of minorities vote.  You can forget about reducing the size and roll of government in the coming years if Hispanic immigration continues at it's current rate.
> 
> Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government
> http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/0...src=prc-number


Helmuth seemed to be suggesting that most white people don't want to associate with minorities.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Here is another (potentially) convincing  reason: The quality of a society is ultimately determined by the quality  of the individuals in that society.  Without good, quality people you  cannot have a good, quality society, no matter how good (meaning  libertarian) your institutions and laws may be.
> 
> If you have built a society with an average IQ of 98, and then decide to  let in a flood of people with an average IQ of 87 (Mexico) or 79  (Guatemala), then the intelligence level of your society will be  drastically altered.  Regardless of how libertarian your laws are, you  will now be surrounded by significantly stupider people.  Perhaps that  will be good for you personally, it could make you feel smarter by  comparison, but perhaps it could be annoying to you to have to deal with  unintelligent people on an everyday basis.  To me, for my own personal  preferences, I want to live around smart people.  I think a more  intelligent society is a better society.
> 
> That's just one metric.  If you have a neighborhood that places a high  value on work ethic, full of very hard-working, diligent people, that  seems like a good thing to me.  Hard work can be _encouraged_ by being libertarian, by allowing men to keep all the fruits of their hard labor, but the character trait cannot be _created_.   If you invite in a flood of people with a more lazy character, a  "siesta" culture let's say, the nature of your neighborhood is going to  change.  It just is.  It's going to be full of lazy people.  Why?   Because you just had a bunch of lazy people move in.  It's simple  physics.
> 
> Perhaps you value living in a city full of people with high skill and  usefulness, pride in what they do, high competence.  I certainly do.  If  you allow hundreds of thousands of low-skill people to move into your  city, what will you have?  A city full of low-skill people!
> 
> So, this simple fact of reality that the quality of a society rests upon  the quality of its individuals -- a highly individualist insight that  we as libertarians can readily understand and agree with -- leads us to  the conclusion that it would be beneficial to have quality controls upon  who can come into one's society.  Not all individuals are of the same  quality.  Rational people who are interested in living in a high-quality  society will invite people into their society that have something to  contribute, that will raise the average and make the society a better  place.  They will not invite those who will lower the average and thus  deteriorate the society they've worked so hard, for many generations  possibly, to build.


_Adding_ a person of below average quality (however defined)  to an existing society does not harm that society, provided there's no  redistribution. Bob's being a lazy idiot doesn't cause any of his  neighbors any harm: it doesn't make them dumber or lazier, nor does it  lower their material standard of living. In fact, absent any  redistribution, such that Bob must support himself by his own labor, the  addition of Bob to the community materially enriches the community by  an amount equal to the difference between his wage and his marginal  revenue product (the former always being less than the latter).




> The people who would be making the decisions about who to invite into their society are the *owners* of  that society!  The legitimate, bonafide owners.  If the owner or owners  of a neighborhood is/are opposed to allowing someone to live in that  neighborhood, they can't move in.  Sorry!  
> 
> That's property rights.  
> 
> That's freedom.  
> 
> That's liberty.  
> 
> The "liberty" to go trample on someone else's grass is not liberty at all.


Are  you arguing that voters are or should be recognized as the legitimate  owners of all the land in the country? Do you think that communal land  ownership is a good arrangement? If it's acceptable for them to exercise  their alleged property rights to deny immigrants entry, would it be  acceptable for them to exercise these alleged right in order to extort  money from the rich redistribute to themselves ("pay or leave the  country"), or to impose price controls ("charge no more than $X or leave  the country), etc, etc? 

Taking a modern democratic state, and defining the voters as equal-share owners of the state, does not  transform it into a proprietary state and thus justify its actions. The  essence of the proprietary state is not that whoever exercises the power  can be characterized as an owner (if that were true, every state would  be a proprietary one, and the concept would be meaningless), it is that  those ownership shares are _alienable_. As long as the right to  vote is not saleable, characterizing the American democratic state as a  proprietary one is nonsense. A so-called proprietary state, where  everyone has an equal and inalienable ownership share, is simply  democratic socialism.




> Well, the lower-quality people, if there are lower-quality people, will  affect my life a good deal less (understatement) if they are two  thousand miles away in a different sovereign nation than if they are my  next-door neighbor, or checking my groceries, or robbing me.  Surely you  agree with this.  Surely you cannot seriously expect to be able to hold  and defend the position that it doesn't matter where anyone lives.


Surely  you aren't suggesting that the collective residents of an area have the  right to violate the property rights of an individual resident of that  area, as by prohibiting from hiring someone at his grocery store who  they find objectionable, or (say) prohibiting him from painting his  house a color which they find unpleasant? If this is your actual  position, then you've abandoned private property altogether and turned  into a democratic socialist. As noted above, characterizing the  residents as equal owners of the land in the area (effectively, of the  local state) doesn't solve the problem; that's just another way of  saying democratic socialism. To solve the problem, you'd have to say  that these residents do not own the land in the area until/unless those  shares of ownership are alienable: which is to say, since voting rights  are in fact not alienable in the US at present, that you cannot  characterize the US as any kind of proprietary goverbment, and thus  cannot justify any of its actions on that basis.




> But I try to understand.  Really I do.  I make the effort.  Could you be  coming at this from just a pure altruistic / save-the-world point of  view?  Could it be your only interest in politics, in philosophy, in  life, is to improve all of humanity in aggregate?  You're not concerned  with whether Maine gets better, could care less whether the quality of  your own life gets better, you are such a big-hearted, Universal Man  you've risen above such selfish ugliness and care only about humanity as  a whole.  Is that basically it?


That's the starting point of any ethics worthy of the name.

Note that this in no way implies egalitarianism, not even equality under the law.

 It might be that a rigidly hierarchical society is the best means of benefiting humanity as a whole.

The point is that everyone's well-being ought to be considered.




> This is a very important question.  In a community where everyone is a  full-deed unrestricted landowner, each land-owner can of course do  whatever he wants (theoretically at least, but there may be strong  social pressure).  But in a neighborhood with deed restrictions, with  covenants, everyone would be bound by the covenants.  All the neighbors  can agree -- and it must be unanimous -- to bind themselves to not sell  or rent to anyone not meeting whatever standards they want to set.   Maybe no violent criminal record, maybe a certificate of good character  from their church, maybe take an IQ test, maybe meet with the neighbors  and convince them he'd be a good addition -- the neighborhood could make  whatever entry requirements they want.


And that's all  perfectly fine. The problem is in pretending that the entire US is such a  homeowners association. First, in view of how property rights have  actually developed in the US, how the government was formed, etc, it  simply isn't. Second, even if we don't care about such technicalities  (and I admittedly don't), you don't want to treat the US like a giant  homeowners association: not if you want libertarian outcomes. You know  what kind of outcomes you'll get from an HOA of the size and structure  of the US? Exactly the same outcomes we actually get now, because the  change would only b semantic. Functionally, there's no difference.  You'll have all the evils of democracy, under the dishonest name of  proprietary government. To beat a dead horse, for true proprietary  government, with all its advantages, it must either begin as  non-democratic or, at least, have the equally held shares be alienable  (so that it will rapidly become undemocratic, as shares are concentrated  into fewer hands).




> Putting up a border is essentially turning the entire country into a gated community.


No,  it's just maintaining the democratic socialist state, and proposing  that it pursue a particular policy that you favor. See above.




> I would say never.  A homeowner's  association is a contractual entity.  So long as it remains a  contractual entity, it is not a state.
> 
> A state claims and enforces a monopoly on the ultimate resolution of all  disputes within its boundaries, including disputes involving itself.   It also claims and enforces the privilege of unilaterally deciding how  much to money to take from people within its boundaries.  If a  homeowner's association started arrogating to itself such power, it  would transform into a state (if it did it successfully, which is  unlikely).  But so long as it is a contractual entity, not a  forcibly-maintained monopolist in dispute resolution and taxation, it is  not a state and furthermore is legitimate and not deleterious to  liberty.


An HOA, or any other kind of proprietary  community, is functionally identical to a state (provided it is not  under the jurisdiction of another state).

"Functionally  identical" = having the same practical abilities to extract taxes (call  them rents) or make laws (call them lease terms), whatever the formal  differences

Incicdentally, this is not a criticism of proprietary communities (I'm all for them). 




> Basically the state is not subject to any contract -- it sets the  terms of all contracts, and can change them at any time, and so  effectively there can be no real contract with a state.  A homeowner's  association (or any other system of governance people might, and surely  do, want to set up) is bound by its contract, which it does not have  authority to unilaterally interpret.  No one (in their right mind) would  sign a contract with another person or entity stating that that person  or entity had the right to change the contract however they wished to  impose whatever requirements on you they desired, and the right to  decide themselves, unilaterally, whether or not they were in violation  of the contract!


Contracts would restrain HAOs about as effectively as constitutions restrain states. 




> *On Free Immigration and Forced Integration*


*
*
See this thread.




> So, how about the Constitutional argument?  What is the Constitutional position on immigration?
> 
> As far as I can see, there is absolutely no provision in the  Constitution giving Congress the authority to make any restrictions on  immigration per se.  Congress is explicitly authorized to make  naturalization laws and citizenship requirements.  They are not allowed  to prevent people from becoming tourists or resident aliens.
> 
> What's more, the federal government did not put any restrictions on  immigration until 1878 or so, and then only meaningful restrictions in  the 1920s.  So there was a long period of no federal restrictions on  immigration whatsoever, which makes sense, since they don't seem to have  the authority to make any such restrictions.


That's right.




> He is welcome in my tent, as are you.  I am an anarcho-capitalist  libertarian.  Anarcho-capitalism is all about private property rights:  systematized and absolutized.  "Labor" cannot just go wherever he  pleases.  He can only go where he is invited, with the permission and  good graces of the property owners.  *There exists no right of immigration in a free society.*  It is not a real right.  It doesn't exist.  It's a philosophical error.


Yes,  but this is misleading. There exists no right of free immigration in a  free society only because the "right of free immigration" means nothing  other than that the state has no right to restrict immigration  (since any such effort necessarily violates property rights).  As with  all rights, it reduces to nothing more than a restatement of a  particular case of the general right to property. And that certainly  still holds in a free society. One's neighbors cannot arbitrarily  violates one's property rights by prohibiting one from hiring Pedro. I  see that you understand and agree with this, from what you've already  said, just reiterating for the benefit of lurkers..

----------


## LibForestPaul

> How?


Move to mexico, let me know if it matters.

----------


## erowe1

> Move to mexico, let me know if it matters.


Can you answer the question?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Can you answer the question?


Don't bother, LibForest (I already did, and he ignored the answer).  A better, more challenging question might be the converse: How, or in what ways, does geographical arrangement _not_ matter?

Now in some ways modernity has seemed, on the surface, to make geographical arrangement matter less, due to better communications and logistics.  But on balance, I would say that actually as societies have become more sophisticated it has come to be more and _more_ important!  I think that it probably is the case that, on balance, location is more important now than ever before.  Far more.

Network effects.  

There are certain things that cannot be done effectively anywhere but Silicon Valley.

There are certain things that simply cannot be done anywhere but Shenzhen.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Isn't this a fairly self-explosive viewpoint, particularly if you are not an anarchist? In order to have a cohesive nation, different cultures need different governments... but cultures split among many different lines, not (just) national ones. Your argument means we can't have people of different age groups living together; after all, it is quite clear that baby boomers will never understand millenials, and vice versa. It basically means that everyone born in a nation must be clones of one another. Can't have any income inequality, either.  It means arguably one of the most successful nations (due to a decentralized political system, not because of immigration restrictions) and everyone's favorite quasi-libertarian country, Switzerland, wouldn't exist at all in its present form. After all, French, northern Italian, Romansch and southern German cultures are all very different from each other.


 Short version: "because spectrum, therefore non-existent."

Slightly longer: "Because there are many different dimensions of human difference, and almost none of them have sharply delineated borders, but instead fade into each other, people are morons (and of course bigots and racists and just all-around unacceptable people) for being more comfortable with some humans than others and for feeling they are more similar to some than to others.  Stupid morons.  They make me so angry."

Thanks for stopping by, RothbardianGirl!  Always happy to see you around to share your unbelievably radical egalitarian point of view.  Even though you cannot defend it and have no interest in trying to do so, still to just share it gives us some variety and I appreciate that.




> The way I see it, people complaining about the mass overthrow of Western/"white" civilization due to brown immigration missed the boat a long time ago.


 Not at all -- there are many societies run by whites and consisting almost exclusively of whites.  They are generally very nice societies, the nicest, most desirable societies this Earth has upon it.  

Of course, that's probably just a coincidence.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Helmuth seemed to be suggesting that most white people don't want to associate with minorities.


It would be more accurate to say that people -- all people, of any race -- do not like *new* minorities.  They don't like new people moving in and messing things up.  "Messing things up" means "changing things in  pretty much any way."

Does that make more sense?  Could you go along with that, Tywysog?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

If the community has always been 20% black 80% white (or whatever it is) for your whole life, that is another story.  There may be tensions, but those people are basically used to each other in a way that they are not with newcomers.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> An HOA, or any other kind of proprietary  community, is functionally identical to a state (provided it is not  under the jurisdiction of another state).


 Nope.  It cannot decide disputes involving itself.




> Contracts would restrain HOAs about as effectively as constitutions restrain states.


 Nope, because a homeowners association -- or agricultural cooperative, or religious fellowship, or workers' union, or car manufacturing corporation, or any other voluntary association -- cannot unilaterally interpret its own contract.  It cannot arbitrate disputes involving itself.  No one would sign a contract which said "I can do whatever I want to you, forever."  That would defy all principles of jurisprudence, and indeed of common sense.

As the State, of course, does.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> It would be more accurate to say that people -- all people, of any race -- do not like *new* minorities.  They don't like new people moving in and messing things up.  "Messing things up" means "changing things in  pretty much any way."
> 
> Does that make more sense?  Could you go along with that, Tywysog?


So you basically admit the problem is not immigration, or the nonviolent movement of individuals, but the part where they "mess things up." And by the "changing things in pretty much any way," does that mean I have the right to be angry when a white couple age 65+ moves into my neighborhood? They're boomers, they likely vote for people who will preserve SS and Medicare, and so they're probably going to mess things up. Why is there never any vitriol towards them? In any case, the "messing things up" is the root of the problem, no? It's the statism. Yes, I do have a problem with people feeling "uncomfortable" when others who look different and speak another language happen to move in, because those people resort to violence over what are really learned prejudices. Frequently the minority moving in has gained neither critical mass nor influence; thus, it is not they who are proposing handouts, but rather opportunistic members of the government. So, at the end of all this, I remain unable to see how a migrant worker picking vegetables is at the root of the problem. People only perceive these people as messing things up because they're dependent on an inefficient allocation mechanism (the state) to make them comfortable. Linguistic and cultural assimilation went fairly "well" back in the "wild days" of Europe (and I am sure in other parts of the world as well) when there generally weren't states that were organized enough to give people everything they wanted and take it all away. 

Those great "white societies" you speak of were formed, coincidentally (?), not only with efforts from within Europe. Their societies and cultures owe a great deal to the migrations of people from the Middle East and the steppes. Immigration has the potential to unleash gains in wealth, genetic diversity and overall productivity like the human race has not seen in a long time, but people's expectations (based on the bloated modern state) prevent them from seeing any other way.

Eta: I'm not sure why you chose to blindside me passively like that, but I was trying to show why the "different cultures need different governments" logically must reduce to an "every individual for himself" mentality (anarchic self-secession) since as DA very aptly notes, people are not interchangeable widgets. By his logic, therefore, it is impossible to get two people to agree to any form of government.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm not sure why you chose to blindside me passively like that


 I don't know what that means to "blindside you passively," but presumably it relates to my playful unsympathetic "translations" of your post.

I hope you were/are not _too_ offended by that.  It wasn't meant in a mean-spirited way.  I really do like you and appreciate your contributions.  I think you are smart.  Ultimately, though, I pretty thoroughly reject egalitarianism, so probably you're going to hate me no matter what.  And let's be honest: you _don't_ ever try to defend egalitarianism.  It's just assumed, it's just part of what you believe, and probably you don't think it needs defending, it's so obvious and so universally accepted in all the circles you hang out with.

Plus (even worse?) I am old-fashioned, and as you have previously stated you hate old-fashioned people and they infuriate you.  Understandable.  I sympathize and am sorry to be infuriating (I try to be decent to everyone on RPF), but yet I am not going to change to please you.

If you ever do feel the need or desire to debate egalitarianism, I am sure that would be an invigorating and interesting conversation.

On the immigration issue, I think that ultimately anti-egalitarianism is the strongest basis for those that wish to limit immigration.  Or, from your perspective: basically to embrace racism.  If all humans are basically identical, if there's no human bio-diversity, if there are no differences between ethnicities and everyone is fundamentally compatible and equally susceptible to believing in and valuing liberty, being peaceful, being smart, and being good in all the other ways we would want them to be, then why not let anyone and everyone in, indiscriminately?  I mean, there are lots of other arguments that could be and have been made to be discriminatory and selective in who is allowed to immigrate, but that is the best, strongest, most rational, and most urgent argument, in my opinion.  "That" being the argument, the truth, that all people are _not_ equally susceptible to believing in and valuing liberty, being peaceful, being smart, and being good.  Genetics matter.  Genetics matter a lot.

And that's maybe not fair.  And I know you don't like it.  You don't want to believe it.  You may refuse to ever believe it.  It's racist, it's sexist, it's elitist, it's unfair, it's unequal, it goes against all your strongest moral convictions.  OK, fine.  It's just true.




> but I was trying to show why the "different cultures need different governments" logically must reduce to an "every individual for himself" mentality (anarchic self-secession) since as DA very aptly notes, people are not interchangeable widgets. By his logic, therefore, it is impossible to get two people to agree to any form of government.


 Taking his statement literally and then taking it rigidly and logically to the extreme, you are of course absolutely right.

I doubt his statement was meant to be taken in that sense, but if so you have decisively refuted it.  Probably closer to what he meant would be something like: "Making peoples with very different, incompatible belief systems about how society should be and forcing them to all live under the umbrella of one winner-take-all monopoly government will lead to everyone being dissatisfied with the results and basically to big problems, hatred, etc."  Your reply to this should of course be that this is not a unique problem with immigrants.  And you would of course be right.  The United States, for instance, is simply too big and too diverse a country to have a large amount of central control.  Michiganders are very different than Okies and they both are very different than Alabamans and all three are extremely different from New Yawkers.  Anyway, not a unique problem, true, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem with immigrants at all.  Because it is.




> So you basically admit the problem
> ...the problem
> ...the root of the problem


 It must be nice to have just one Problem.  Just One Great Problem that subsumes all other problems of every stripe, such that there are no other problems.  Just that One.  _The_ Problem.



> Yes, I do have a problem with people feeling "uncomfortable" when others who look different and speak another language happen to move in, because those people resort to violence over what are really learned prejudices.


  They're really not.  The evidence is that even plants can sense genetic distance in other plants, perhaps through very subtle root shape and branching differences, and they like plants that are closely related brothers and cousins more than more distant relatives, even though they are all the same species, even all the same strain.

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/...-plants-do-it/

And certainly humans have this same ability.

The Selfish Gene, Rothbardian Girl.  I'm sorry -- I didn't make the rules.






> Those great "white societies" you speak of were formed, coincidentally (?), not only with efforts from within Europe. Their societies and cultures owe a great deal to the migrations of people from the Middle East and the steppes.


 Right, where would we be without sauerkraut and the number zero? Seriously, though, I'm glad you chose the example of the steppes.  So you are saying that maybe all the great achievements of Europe economically culminating in the Industrial Revolution would not have happened had not Genghis Khan invaded Europe, and then Attilla the Hun?  Maybe.  I can't refute counter-factual history.  But regardless: this was not exactly peaceful, happy "immigration," was it?  Genghis & Co. did not just mellowly come in and, like, "coexist," man, like the bumper sticker exhorts.

Mountains of skulls.  Is this really what you want to defend, Rothbardian Girl?  Is this the means that you think is justified by its (supposed, speculative) end (of contributing to the great European project)?  Is this hill of carcasses the hill you want to die on?




> Immigration has the potential to unleash gains in wealth, genetic diversity and overall productivity like the human race has not seen in a long time, but people's expectations (based on the bloated modern state) prevent them from seeing any other way.


  It can.  It certainly can.  It also can not.  Can _you_ see _that_ possibility?  Given the decivilizationalizing trends Hoppe explains, chances are good that it will not.  Millions of Middle-eastern Muslims has not made France better.  Tens of thousands of Somalis have not made Minnesota better.  Millions of Mexicans and Central Americans have not made Texas better.  Hasn't happened.  They have made things worse.

The data is in.  I see no reason to suspect these results will change in the future.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

You know, I've heard it said that Marxism was more popular among literary critics than actual economists because Marxism offers relatively simple explanatory tools for really complex phenomena. I have a feeling the "HBD"/IQ obsession/excessive reductionism serves the same purpose for people who don't know much about philosophy, history, religion or linguistics, the forces that shape cultural differences they're so hellbent on explaining. 

Genetic differences cannot explain why certain countries "converge" economically and others do not. As an example, HBDers would argue that the fact that South Korea has been enormously successful in the past 50 years when compared to, say, Ghana (the two countries had similar GNP and overall economies) can be explained in terms of, "South Koreans valued thrift and hard work, and Ghanians do not." They will attribute these cultural differences to genetics. But suppose the same comparison was being made in 1955 instead of 2015. A snapshot of South Korea in 1955 would have the HBD charlatan suggesting that East Asia would be doomed to permanent poverty, perhaps because of the relative import placed on conformity in Asian nations. In other words, HBDers employ some reverse induction to try to link together very disparate concepts - genetics and economic success. You can make literally anything fit any narrative if you try hard enough. 

This is how this sophistry works: any time you see an observable difference between two populations, you come up with a genetic explanation for that difference. And along with that, you invent "just-so" stories to back up all these explanations. South Korea used to be poorer than Japan and is now basically equal? Thrift! Hard work! The Irish used to be poor as $#@! and are now relatively rich? Must be all those awesome European genes. But in statistics, we have problems with this approach. Each and every genetic explanation that you cram into your model adds a new parameter to this model. You are "overfitting the model," in other words. K=N. So now what ends up happening is that you are employing post-hoc reasoning, or testing hypotheses suggested by the data, or whatever one wishes to call it. The point is, it's bad stats, and it leads to useless models. 

These are just a few of the troubles with excess reductionism, and why "HBD chick" and the rest of her ilk will not receive an ounce of respect from me, despite sometimes cloaking their faulty stats in eloquent packages.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Your post addresses my post not in the least. 

Of course, you know that.  Just pointing it out.

As for me, I did not claim anything about genetics explaining all the differences between the economic success of nations.  Nor would I.  I believe there are many such factors.  I believe that the most important factor is the liberty of each nation.  If one looks at the level of economic liberty in the nations of the world, and compares that to the level of economic growth occurring in these nations, the correlation is unmistakable and very strong.

Plus, allow me to make your case for you much better than you did.  It would be very difficult to explain the economic difference between South Korea and Ghana? _North_ Korea genetically.  This was the same people.  They're all Koreans.  Sure, there's doubtless been some genetic divergence since the bifurcation, and of course the north was slightly different than the south even before, but so was the east different than the west.  They are the same ethnicity, shared the same culture, spoke the same language, so how come that one got rich and the other got poor?  There's only one big, huge, obvious variable that is not identical in each: the political system!

Likewise, it would be pretty difficult to construct and support a genetic explanation for the difference in fortunes of East Germany and West Germany.  Again, it's as close to a controlled experiment as you can get in the social sciences, and the result was resounding: liberty works, and not just a little.  Liberty matters -- a lot!

I have no idea what horrible crimes this HBD Chick has committed to make her an Unacceptable Person to you.  I am not very familiar with her nor "her ilk."  I referenced her perfectly good explanation of a perfectly good scientific article as an illustration of a well-established genetic principle that completely contradicts and obliterates what you said about preference for the genetically close being "a learned prejudice."  It is natural to have a preference for one's own race, even more-so for one's own ethnicity, and increasing more and more to a very strong loyalty and affinity for one's own family.  Why is it natural?  The same reason it's natural to want to reproduce: passing on your genes.  You share a ton of genes with your family, a lot with your ethnicity, and some with your race (these are just broader and broader categories expanding out, like class, phylum, kingdom).  It is natural to want to protect your sister, it is natural to care about your tribe, and it is natural to care a whole lot less about that other tribe.

So go ahead, have a problem with people with a strong in-tribe preference/loyalty, because you don't have that as much, for whatever reason.  Have a big, honking problem with them.  Just don't pretend that you're morally superior to them.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

I do agree with you about excess reductionism.

We are all susceptible to it.  Even libertarians.

For libertarianism doesn't explain everything.

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Your post addresses my post not in the least. 
> Plus, allow me to make your case for you much better than you did.  It would be very difficult to explain the economic difference between South Korea and Ghana? _North_ Korea genetically.  This was the same people.  They're all Koreans.  Sure, there's doubtless been some genetic divergence since the bifurcation, and of course the north was slightly different than the south even before, but so was the east different than the west.  They are the same ethnicity, shared the same culture, spoke the same language, so how come that one got rich and the other got poor?  There's only one big, huge, obvious variable that is not identical in each: the political system!


The point of the comparison was to draw on the racially charged idea that Africa is backwards in no small part because its inhabitants are somehow genetically predisposed to chaos, which is essentially the argument you seem to be making when you claim that it's no coincidence "the most successful societies have been white-dominated ones." 



> So go ahead, have a problem with people with a strong in-tribe preference/loyalty, because you don't have that as much, for whatever reason.  Have a big, honking problem with them.  Just don't pretend that you're morally superior to them.


I don't really have a problem with people who think tribally, though I'm also not convinced they exist in any great number. I do have a problem when they try to enforce that way of thinking on everyone else, or brand people who happen to select outside the pool as "race traitors" (or otherwise look down on them). Expressing preference for a certain group does not mean you have to denigrate people who are in the out-group, or bend over backwards to explain why you think they are inferior (lower IQs! ugliness! violence!).

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> It would be more accurate to say that people -- all people, of any race -- do not like *new* minorities.  They don't like new people moving in and messing things up.  "Messing things up" means "changing things in  pretty much any way."
> 
> Does that make more sense?  Could you go along with that, Tywysog?


It makes more sense, but I don't think it's a universal reality.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> If the community has always been 20% black 80% white (or whatever it is) for your whole life, that is another story.  There may be tensions, but those people are basically used to each other in a way that they are not with newcomers.


Which of course is absolutely not a legitimate reason to pull a gun on someone, aka "immigration enforcement."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The point of the comparison was to draw on the racially charged idea that Africa is backwards in no small part because its inhabitants are somehow genetically predisposed to chaos, which is essentially the argument you seem to be making when you claim that it's no coincidence "the most successful societies have been white-dominated ones."


 "Genetically predisposed to chaos"?  What does that even mean?  The best, most desirable societies on Earth today are certainly the ones dominated by wither whites or north-asians.  That is just a fact.  Well, a _subjective_ fact -- certainly some few hippies will wax eloquent about the beauties of Bali -- but a fact nonetheless.

Maybe that _is_ a coincidence.  It could be!  You see, there's a very high (basically 100%) overlap between "white-dominated" and "high degree of private property rights a.k.a. economic liberty".  If you are not comfortable with the mean, elitist way that nature operates, feel free to simple attribute all the success to the private property rights and chalk up the racial difference to pure inexplicable chance.




> I don't really have a problem with people who think tribally, though I'm also not convinced they exist in any great number. I do have a problem when they try to enforce that way of thinking on everyone else, or brand people who happen to select outside the pool as "race traitors" (or otherwise look down on them).


 But _you_ are looking down on _them!_  You have a tribe, too, hate to break it to you.  You are intolerant and bigoted too, hate to break it to you.  You have outsiders whom you hate and despise, too.  Your outsiders you slur as hicks; their outsiders they slur as spicks.  It's all the same thing.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Which of course is absolutely not a legitimate reason to pull a gun on someone, aka "immigration enforcement."


But do _you_ have a legitimate reason to pull out your Big Government gun on _them_, the old-timers, to force them to let in and integrate with all the newcomers?

I would say you don't.  And that's what's happening right now!

I don't want to pull a gun on either the old-timers _or_ the new-comers.  I want no guns pulled in aggression against anybody.  But guns in _defense_, remember, are OK in libertarianism.  The old-timers have praxeological priority over the new-comers.  They were there first.  They have the legitimate claim to the land.  It is the man who claims the virgin land _first_ who gets to legitimately homestead it, not the man who claims it second.  The second man can come on the land only by the good graces and will of the first man.  If the first man says no: no it is.

A man's home is his castle.

That is the situation under libertarianism.  We need to try our best to get things back towards that "closed," "xenophobic" society where if some outsider is claiming the right to invade and live in your castle, you can just say no and there's nothing he can do about it.  Because that is actually the true open, libertarian society.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It makes more sense, but I don't think it's a universal reality.


Of course it's not universal.  It's just common.  It's common enough to make it a very important factor.  And who are you to force your multicultural preferences upon those with different preferences?  Don't _they_ have the right to live _their_ lives how they prefer?

For about 50 years now, the answer has been "no".  No, those people (the vast majority, some places) are Unacceptable People and no, they do not deserve to live their lives how they want to.  They don't deserve to even exist, in fact.  We need to eradicate them and their way of life.  They're ugly, they're ignorant, they're backward, and we need to wipe all their ugly, ignorant, backwards thinking off the face of the globe.

You see, the ugly, ignorant hicks don't need to exterminate the folks they don't like.  They're happy to just have some distance.  You stay in your place, don't come in mine.  The Enlightened, Transcendent Egalitarians on the other hand, will not be content as long as there is a "prejudiced" sliver of humanity anywhere on Earth -- make that of prejudiced _white_ humanity (minorities, of course, are far more "prejudiced," have far stronger in-tribal preference and out-tribal hate than whites, but the Enlightened Ones give them a pass on that, look the other way, because they're not white, so they can't be held to the same expectations.  The standard is lower for them.  Talk about racist!).  Their Enlightened goal is not to have a place that meets their cultural preferences to happily live out their lives.  They already have that in spades.  Oh no, that would be too unambitious.  They must range throughout the world, stomping out sin wherever they find it, until the last hick is dead and "their kind" eradicated forever.

So which group, dear reader, would you say are the real bigots?

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Your outsiders you slur as hicks; their outsiders they slur as spicks.  It's all the same thing.


I don't, actually; I don't generally have a lot of respect for liberals who like to make themselves feel superior by throwing around classist slurs. But thanks for playing. 

ETA: Nor is it the same thing. The point of anti-racist criticism is not to politicize white supremacy, but to point out that it already has a political character, and to defend ethnic minorities against this politicization. To whatever extent people are complicit, they are in effect "not minding their own business" (as you want the PC army to do), and thus anti-racism is purely defensive in nature and cannot ever be equivalent to racism. So it's not the evil leftists stirring up the hornets' nest; it's that the backlash is finally arriving after many years.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't, actually; I don't generally have a lot of respect for liberals who like to make themselves feel superior by throwing around classist slurs. But thanks for playing.


 You're welcome!  OK, so you don't like using slurs (very Enlightened of you).  But you do want to exterminate the "Persons of White Rural Backwardness Who are Inclusivity-Disadvantaged".  That is, you want to "help" them.








> ETA: Nor is it the same thing. The point of anti-racist criticism is not to politicize white supremacy, but to point out that it already has a political character, and to defend ethnic minorities against this politicization. To whatever extent people are complicit, they are in effect "not minding their own business" (as you want the PC army to do), and thus anti-racism is purely defensive in nature and cannot ever be equivalent to racism. So it's not the evil leftists stirring up the hornets' nest; it's that the backlash is finally arriving after many years.


 I seriously do not understand this paragraph.  Could you try rephrasing or elaborating or using more concrete terms and concepts so we can tell what in the world you're saying?

Whatever it turns out you are saying, it is hard for me to believe that it will be a strong, rational defense of what turns out (incredibly!) to be your position: that slurring white people is *not* the same thing as slurring latino people.  But... have at it!  I'll be glad to be proven wrong.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Here are some interesting points made by Charles Murray which this conversation made me think of.  Start at 28:20.  There are certainly people who are going to be very disturbed and have a very difficult time accepting the coming scientific consensus regarding the immense differences between ethnicities, and of course even more so between races.




How will you react, Rothbardian Girl?  Will you be one who sticks her head in the sand and refuses to believe reality?  Or will you be able to adjust your thinking to the truth?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> An HOA, or any other kind of proprietary   community, is functionally identical to a state (provided it is not   under the jurisdiction of another state).
> 
> "Functionally  identical" = having the same practical abilities to  extract taxes (call  them rents) or make laws (call them lease terms),  whatever the formal  differences
> 
> 
> Nope.  It cannot decide disputes involving itself.


Why not?

Doing so wouldn't violate libertarian ethics and, even if it did, what force is magically compelling the HOA's obedience to libertarian ethics?

Is it the same force which magically compels a state to obey its constitution?




> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> Contracts would restrain HAOs about as effectively as constitutions restrain states.
> 
> 
> Nope, because a homeowners association -- or agricultural cooperative,  or religious fellowship, or workers' union, or car manufacturing  corporation, or any other voluntary association -- cannot unilaterally  interpret its own contract.  It cannot arbitrate disputes involving  itself. No one would sign a contract which said "I can do whatever I  want to you, forever."  That would defy all principles of jurisprudence,  and indeed of common sense.
> 
> As the State, of course, does.


Putting aside speculation about the nature of the contract between proprietor and resident (vis a vis how much discretion it would grant the former), the larger question is, once again: what compels the HOA to honor these contracts at all? Exit pressure? ...but a state also faces exit pressure.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why not?  Doing so wouldn't violate libertarian ethics and, even if it did, what force is magically compelling the HOA's obedience to libertarian ethics?


 Maybe not, maybe so.  If you want to be today's designated Libertarian Ethics Expert, then that's fine, I will just accept your decree and move on.

The more important thing is it would violate all common sense.

What would compel obedience / prevent unilateral contract violation?  Easy: Third party arbitrators.




> Putting aside speculation about the nature of the contract between proprietor and resident (vis a vis how much discretion it would grant the former), the larger question is, once again: what compels the HOA to honor these contracts at all? Exit pressure? ...but a state also faces exit pressure.


Who will compel the honoring of contracts?  Again, easy: Neutral third parties.

It's really very simple.  It's only common sense!

Exit pressure is always a factor, too.  Even for a state, the smaller the state is, the better (more responsive, less obnoxious) it is likely to be.  This actually also generally holds true for companies and associations of all kinds, too.  The smaller the organization, the better (more responsive, less obnoxious) it is likely to be.

Anyway, a great intermediate libertarian goal: *Every State a Lichtenstein!*  And, bringing it back to the thread topic: Lichtenstein has a very restrictive immigration policy.  It's great.  It's fantastic.  Lichtenstein isn't meaningfully "oppressing" anyone by not having an open border.  I see no problem with a world dotted with 10,000 closed-border Lichtensteins.  That would be a wonderful world.  Agree?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What would compel obedience / prevent  unilateral contract violation?  Easy: Third party arbitrators.


What motivates the HOA to agree to third party arbitration, if it can just impose its will on the other party unilaterally?




> Exit pressure is always a factor, too.  Even for a state, the smaller  the state is, the better (more responsive, less obnoxious) it is likely  to be.  This actually also generally holds true for companies and  associations of all kinds, too.  The smaller the organization, the  better (more responsive, less obnoxious) it is likely to be.


Exit  pressure affects states and proprietors equally, and, since it doesn't  prevent states from aggressing, it won't prevent proprietors from  aggressing.

Exit pressure increases the cost of aggression, and so makes it _likely_ that there will be_ less_ aggression (not _certain_ that there will be _no_ aggression).

To be clear, what I'm arguing _against_ is the idea that exit pressure will prevent a proprietary community from becoming a state. 

A proprietary community _will_ become a state (in affect already is one), even if a relatively minarchic one because of it's small size (i.e. high exit pressure). 




> Anyway, a great intermediate libertarian goal: *Every State a Lichtenstein!* ...That would be a wonderful world.  Agree?


I agree that it would be a massive improvement relative the status quo, but it's still not the ideal outcome in my view. 

The primary driver of good governance is proprietary government: i.e. monarchical or narrowly oligarchical rule. 

Exit  pressure is a secondary consideration (unless the government is  proprietary, there's little incentive for it to respond rationally  to exit pressure). 

While shrinking the state has its advantages  in terms of increasing exit pressure, I think these advantages are  overshadowed by several disadvaybates:

1. War (whenever there are multiple states, there is war)
2.  Instability (through war, states will get larger over time, as some are  swallowed up by others, so that "a world of Lichtensteins" contains the  seeds of its own destruction)

I think a universal monarchy is superior - the advantages of proprietary government without the disadvantages of decentralization.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What motivates the HOA to agree to third party arbitration, if it can just impose its will on the other party unilaterally?


 What motivates it is that no one will agree to let it impose its will on them unilaterally.

But Helmuth, you reply, why will no one agree to let it impose its will on them unilaterally?

Because to do that would be dotty.  Because no one in their right mind would sign a contract-which-really-is-no-contract stating, and I quote:

"I can do whatever I want, I can require you to do whatever I want, and if you ever have any complaint about it I will club you in the head and then send you a bill for the clubbing."

That would just make no common sense.  No one would do that.  Only when encrusted with layer upon layer upon layer of ideological obfuscation does anyone even remotely seem to maybe, somewhat, in theory (when applied to the other guy) seem to agree to anything resembling this.  If stripped naked and treated like an actual business arrangement like you'd have with anyone else, the relationship between the state and the citizen is not one that anyone would ever agree to.




> Exit  pressure affects states and proprietors equally, and, since it doesn't  prevent states from aggressing, it won't prevent proprietors from  aggressing.
> 
> Exit pressure increases the cost of aggression, and so makes it _likely_ that there will be_ less_ aggression (not _certain_ that there will be _no_ aggression).


 Yes, agreed.  Is this supposed to be an indictment?




> To be clear, what I'm arguing _against_ is the idea that exit pressure will prevent a proprietary community from becoming a state.


 Since you do not care whether it becomes a state or not, isn't that a bit... academic?




> I agree that it would be a massive improvement relative the status quo, but it's still not the ideal outcome in my view.


 Yes, mine neither.  But I would content myself with massive improvement! 




> The primary driver of good governance is proprietary government: i.e. monarchical or narrowly oligarchical rule.


 I don't disagree, necessarily.  Monarchy is great, much better than democracy, just as Hoppe has taught us.  But the true natural order is hierarchical with lords, lieges, princes, and yes monarchs, not just one single monarch and every body else a nobody.  Multi-level, not just two-level: king and zero.  And plus, very importantly, with no monopolization of dispute resolution.




> Exit  pressure is a secondary consideration (unless the government is  proprietary, there's little incentive for it to respond rationally  to exit pressure).


 I'm not so sure.  Every small city-state I can think of is pretty good.  They seem to be responding pretty predictably -- the smaller, the less oppressive -- whether they like it or not.




> 1. War (whenever there are multiple states, there is war)
> 2.  Instability (through war, states will get larger over time, as some are  swallowed up by others, so that "a world of Lichtensteins" contains the  seeds of its own destruction)
> 
> I think a universal monarchy is superior - the advantages of proprietary government without the disadvantages of decentralization.


 Your two objections to very small states are reasonable, but your ideal you counter-propose is a one-world monarchy?!?  Do I understand that correctly?  And an absolute monarchy, too, to be a truly "proprietary" government.  So, one man would very literally and completely own the whole world.  I will keep an open mind to it, feel free to present your case, but... it sounds awfully problematic and risky to me.  Forget any hope of exit, but I guess that's OK, you don't think that matters all that much anyway.  But I rather think it does.  It certainly came in handy for Ludwig von Mises.  You listened to the wonderful Raico lectures you recommend in your sig, yes?  I think it was he who said the second-worst thing that could possibly happen to the human race, behind global nuclear war, would be the establishment of a single, all-world state.  Do you understand why?  And why do you disagree?

A one-world government sure would make extra-territorial immigration law a moot issue, though!  We could end our bickering about it and join hands in.... peace?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> What motivates it is that no one will agree to let it impose its will on them unilaterally.
> 
> But Helmuth, you reply, why will no one agree to let it impose its will on them unilaterally?


No, my question would be: why does it _matter_ whether they agree? I'm talking about the HOA simply imposing its will by force on residents, because it can, and because doing so serves its own interests (as in the relationship between state and subject). The viability of such a coercive relationship does not (obviously) depend on the agreement of the residents. 

Now, you might object that the HOA is not physically capable of forcing _every_ resident to do what it demands, which is true (just as with the state), but also irrelevant, since it never faces that situation. Isolated rebels can be picked off before they're able to organize well enough to pose a serious threat: just as with the state. This is how the state is able to exist. 




> If stripped naked and treated like an actual business arrangement like you'd have with anyone else, the relationship between the state and the citizen is not one that anyone would ever agree to.


And yet, apart from a handful of active revolutionaries, all of the Earth's 7 billion inhabitants _do_ agree to such an arrangement, or at least passively accept it; and this has been the situation throughout history. What you're characterizing as an impossibility is fact the norm; irrational as it may seem to you, people _do_ behave this way (I'll bet that you yourself behave this way: paying taxes or observing other laws with which you disagree? Which were imposed on you without your consent?). But it's not really a mystery why this happens; as I say above, passive acceptance, even to an authority which you view as unjust in some sense, is a rational response when revolt is exceedingly dangerous, as it normally is, due to a type of collective action problem, which makes it unlikely that a rebellion can reach "critical mass" before being squelched. 




> Since you do not care whether it becomes a state or not, isn't that a bit... academic?


All I'm saying is that the HOA envisioned by anarcho-capitalists will end up behaving like a state.

If that's a merely academic point, well okay.




> I don't disagree, necessarily.  Monarchy is great, much better than democracy, just as Hoppe has taught us.  But the true natural order is hierarchical with lords, lieges, princes, and yes monarchs, not just one single monarch and every body else a nobody.  Multi-level, not just two-level: king and zero.  And plus, very importantly,


But that destroys the very incentive structure which makes monarchy preferable to democracy. 

The advantage of monarchy is that both the benefits of good governance and the costs of bad government are internalized. 

_Any_ division of power (whether among voters or feudal lords) undermines this (democracy to a much greater extent than feudalism, though), as it becomes possible for one person to externalize the costs of bad governance, while internalizing its benefits, such that he might profit from an operation which would _not_ be profitable for a monarch (for whom all costs and benefits are internalized). Ever see Goodfellas? The part where Paulie take a piece of the restaurant? He buys booze at full price on the credit of the restaurant, and then sells it at half price out the back. This is a huge net loss overall, but Paulie profits. He internalizes the benefit and externalizes the cost, such that an enterprise which is unprofitable overall can still be profitable for him. But the restaurant owner, for whom all costs are internalized, would never pursue this losing scheme. Paulie is like a divided government, the restaurant owner is like a monarchy. 




> with no monopolization of dispute resolution.


Ah, well then it isn't government at all, and we're back to anarcho-capitalism. 

The essence of the state is precisely a monopoly of dispute resolution. 




> Your two objections to very small states are reasonable, but your ideal you counter-propose is a one-world monarchy?!?  Do I understand that correctly?  And an absolute monarchy, too, to be a truly "proprietary" government.  So, one man would very literally and completely own the whole world.


That's right.




> it sounds awfully problematic and risky to me.  Forget any hope of exit, but I guess that's OK, you don't think that matters all that much anyway.  But I rather think it does.  It certainly came in handy for Ludwig von Mises.  You listened to the wonderful Raico lectures you recommend in your sig, yes?  I think it was he who said the second-worst thing that could possibly happen to the human race, behind global nuclear war, would be the establishment of a single, all-world state.  Do you understand why?  And why do you disagree?


I don't disagree with Raico's arguments about the advantages of decentralization; those advantages do exist.

My objection is (a) much of the liberalizing power he attributes to decentralization is actually a result of proprietary government (at the time of the European Miracle, the two factors co-existed, so they're difficult to isolate), and (b) he ignores the offsetting _disadvantages_ of decentralization (chiefly war, as mentioned earlier). He sees the perils of world government, but not its advantages; while I think the advantages outweigh the perils.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> But do _you_ have a legitimate reason to pull out your Big Government gun on _them_, the old-timers, to force them to let in and integrate with all the newcomers?
> 
> .


For the sake of argument I'll assume you're serious and I'll offer this agreement:
You take your big government guns off the imaginary national "border" and I'll not point any big government guns at any landowners forcing them to allow people onto their property. 
Deal?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Of course it's not universal.  It's just common.  It's common enough to make it a very important factor.  And who are you to force your multicultural preferences upon those with different preferences?  Don't _they_ have the right to live _their_ lives how they prefer?


People have the right to live how they prefer, but they don't have the right to force others how to live.  If minorities want to move into a town and some of the white residents don't like it, they have no right to tell them to leave.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> People have the right to live how they prefer, but they don't have the right to force others how to live.  If minorities want to move into a town and some of the white residents don't like it, they have no right to tell them to leave.


Tywysog Cymru, you are a reasonable person.  Tell me if you would be able to consider -- just to entertain the idea -- that there may be a problem with having 25% -- one full quarter -- of the total population of Mexico move into the United States.  Because that is what has happened.  One quarter of Mexico's (former) population has moved, illegally, into the United States.  

Just let that sink in.  That's pretty incredible, isn't it?

Now don't you think that it could be reasonable to have doubts, to have a little skepticism, about the results of such a thing?  To be a little skeptical that maybe this is not a total unalloyed wonderful thing that is just the greatest, happiest thing for America?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> For the sake of argument I'll assume you're serious and I'll offer this agreement:
> You take your big government guns off the imaginary national "border" and I'll not point any big government guns at any landowners forcing them to allow people onto their property. 
> Deal?


If you melt down your big government gun called "mass democracy" then, and only then, would immigration not be an issue.

Until then, importing a huge big-government voting bloc to rig the game in favor of the big-government Democrats is a very big problem.  The Democrats are intentionally doing this.  They are scamming the democratic system, making it more and more impossible for any small government person to ever win.  Ever.  Basically, it's cheating.

Of course, mass democracy is a lousy system anyway.  So I'd be perfectly happy to wave goodbye to it and become an anarcho-capitalist society.  And in exchange, sure, we can have open immigration.  Woohoo!  Though I don't actually understand why that's such a high priority to you.

_That's_ the terms.  Do we have a deal?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And yet, apart from a handful of active revolutionaries, all of the Earth's 7 billion inhabitants _do_ agree to such an arrangement


  Right!  And because of exactly what I said: *ideology!*

_If_ we were in a situation in the first place where there were no states, only homeowner's associations, it would be _because_ of massive, seismic ideological shift.  Once that has occurred, once people have so strongly decided they only want to relate to governments contractually that they actually went out and did whatever was necessary to make that a reality, that new ideology is a very, very strong factor stabilizing the new system and refusing to let the new governments (homeowner's associations) to become ridiculous, outrageous monopolies.  Once people are working with contractual entities, they are going to be loathe to let them usurp that and become extra-contractual, above-the-law, law-unto-themselves entities.  They won't just roll over and let them do that, any more than you'd just roll over and let your cell phone company take possession of your first-born child.

If cell phone companies always had taken first-born children as payment, sure, you probably would.  But that can change.  And that's why we're fighting the ideological philosophical battle -- to explain to people that they don't have to give up their first-born for cell phone service!  That that's not the only way.




> He sees the perils of world government, but not its advantages; while I think the advantages outweigh the perils.


 Such as?  Could you explain these wonderful advantages of a One-World monarchy?  Because I'm not seeing it.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> If you melt down your big government gun called "mass democracy" then, and only then, would immigration not be an issue.
> 
> Until then, importing a huge big-government voting bloc to rig the game in favor of the big-government Democrats is a very big problem.  The Democrats are intentionally doing this.  They are scamming the democratic system, making it more and more impossible for any small government person to ever win.  Ever.  Basically, it's cheating.
> 
> Of course, mass democracy is a lousy system anyway.  So I'd be perfectly happy to wave goodbye to it and become an anarcho-capitalist society.  And in exchange, sure, we can have open immigration.  Woohoo!  Though I don't actually understand why that's such a high priority to you.
> 
> _That's_ the terms.  Do we have a deal?


So your entire argument against immigration boils down to "its brings in an unfavorable voting bloc". Really? You wondered why this is such a high priority for me, here's your answer: Because people are suffering RIGHT NOW because they aren't allowed to cross an imaginary line to better their lives. The "we need to keep them out for x years until we can vote the bums out" argument is just crazy I'm sorry. 


This is scarily close to George Bush's "I had to abandon free market principles to save the free market". 
We need to restrict freedom to create a free society!


On the other hand I'm genuinely happy that we can agree that open borders are ideal in a scenario without government. This means no more "disrupting the culture"/evil gentrification arguments then I'll assume. And I'll take any step in a freedom direction, whether that's lower taxes, less welfare, open borders, less war whatever. Give it all to me, and in any order.  I won't turn down any of it.

----------


## Ender

> Tywysog Cymru, you are a reasonable person.  Tell me if you would be able to consider -- just to entertain the idea -- that there may be a problem with having 25% -- one full quarter -- of the total population of Mexico move into the United States.  Because that is what has happened.  One quarter of Mexico's (former) population has moved, illegally, into the United States.  
> 
> Just let that sink in.  That's pretty incredible, isn't it?
> 
> Now don't you think that it could be reasonable to have doubts, to have a little skepticism, about the results of such a thing?  To be a little skeptical that maybe this is not a total unalloyed wonderful thing that is just the greatest, happiest thing for America?


Those dirty Mexicans- moving illegally into parts of the US that used to be Mexico. Until the US took it illegally, of course- but then America is exceptional and can do what it wants.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Someone needs to *stand up to* these *obnoxious, bratty, evil people* and say: Yes.  Yes you are going back.  You piece of worthless entitlement-mentality garbage.  Get out of my country.

Who will have the courage to stand up against evil?  Who will have the gumption to tell the spoiled, bratty children "NO."?

As libertarians, how can we have any sympathy for these people?  They are nothing but cold, conniving, corrupt *welfare queens*.  It is a scam.  They have *no gratitude* to you for your warm-hearted feelings and generousity toward them.  None.  They have nothing but contempt for you.  You are their mark.  Their rube.  Their sucker.  They do not care about you.  *They do not care about your country and what's best for it.*  They have no genetic ability to care about the commonweal.  They are in it for themselves and no one else, and you are *being duped* and taken for a ride by them.  They are manipulating our superior, perhaps we could say excessive, universal love and caring for outsiders.  The barbarians are taking advantage of the Westerner's universal-mindedness -- our great strength, but also it turns out, a potential great weakness.

----------


## TheCount

> They have no genetic ability to care about the commonweal.


[citation needed]





> our superior... universal love and caring for outsiders


[citation needed]

----------


## phill4paul

> Someone needs to *stand up to* these *obnoxious, bratty, evil people* and say: Yes.  Yes you are going back.  You piece of worthless entitlement-mentality garbage.  Get out of my country.
> 
> Who will have the courage to stand up against evil?  Who will have the gumption to tell the spoiled, bratty children "NO."?
> 
> As libertarians, how can we have any sympathy for these people?  They are nothing but cold, conniving, corrupt *welfare queens*.  It is a scam.  They have *no gratitude* to you for your warm-hearted feelings and generousity toward them.  None.  They have nothing but contempt for you.  You are their mark.  Their rube.  Their sucker.  They do not care about you.  *They do not care about your country and what's best for it.*  They have no genetic ability to care about the commonweal.  They are in it for themselves and no one else, and you are *being duped* and taken for a ride by them.  They are manipulating our superior, perhaps we could say excessive, universal love and caring for outsiders.  The barbarians are taking advantage of the Westerner's universal-mindedness -- our great strength, but also it turns out, a potential great weakness.


  I've heard tell, in some circles, that libertarians are anarchist and athiest so they have no moral compass.

----------


## Ender

> Someone needs to *stand up to* these *obnoxious, bratty, evil people* and say: Yes.  Yes you are going back.  You piece of worthless entitlement-mentality garbage.  Get out of my country.
> 
> Who will have the courage to stand up against evil?  Who will have the gumption to tell the spoiled, bratty children "NO."?
> 
> As libertarians, how can we have any sympathy for these people?  They are nothing but cold, conniving, corrupt *welfare queens*.  It is a scam.  They have *no gratitude* to you for your warm-hearted feelings and generousity toward them.  None.  They have nothing but contempt for you.  You are their mark.  Their rube.  Their sucker.  They do not care about you.  *They do not care about your country and what's best for it.*  They have no genetic ability to care about the commonweal.  They are in it for themselves and no one else, and you are *being duped* and taken for a ride by them.  They are manipulating our superior, perhaps we could say excessive, universal love and caring for outsiders.  The barbarians are taking advantage of the Westerner's universal-mindedness -- our great strength, but also it turns out, a potential great weakness.


In my best Will Smith voice:

That is about the SICKEST thing I have ever heard anyone say.... uh....evah!

You haven't got a clue about American history, have you? Try looking up why these countries are in such a mess.

And while you're at it, try and realize that the America you love sooooo much is nothing but a bunch of immigrants.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Here is another (potentially) convincing reason: The quality of a society is ultimately determined by the quality of the individuals in that society. Without good, quality people you cannot have a good, quality society, no matter how good (meaning libertarian) your institutions and laws may be.


The aggregate market demand in the labor market decides what society wants. That's economic demand...the REAL demand. Political demand is bull$#@!. It's an opinion on a poll, not "put your money where your mouth is" markets. Where people have skin in the game, they have in aggregate decided they like cheap $#@! and thereby immigrant labor. They have also decided what jobs they won't do, and therefore immigrant labor. And if you don't let them come to a job, that aggregate demand will make it so it makes sense for that job to be taken to the immigrant (and then you can't compete for it with them anymore - and if you couldn't beat them for the job, how pathetic for you). 

Plus, how do you evaluate immigrants? The valuation is complex. The poor immigrant parents of one family had a kid, and he started Google here. How do you make that valuation? You can't. It's impossible.

Leave it to the market and stop trying to outsmart the consumer choices of hundreds of millions of people. The fact those people are hypocritical or too economically ignorant to realize that they are both demanding it in action and bitching about it in words is irrelevant. People do that all the time. They say they hate mass incarceration and militarized police, and then say they don't want to end the drug war. Political demand is stupidity ad nauseam. Economic demand is the true guide of the ethics and wants/needs of the people. Oh, you oppose "slave labor" making cell phones in China? Is that a smart phone made in China in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me, hypocrite? That kind of hypocrisy is rampant, but follow the money if you want truth.

----------


## osan

> People have the right to live how they prefer, but they don't have the right to force others how to live.


And yet, without force the Golden Rule will ALWAYS lay trampled under roughshod foot in the environment of Empire.  There are 10 units of stuff available.  Each person starts of wanting one unit.  There are 11 people.  Have fun, y'all. 

This is what people do.  In addition, Empire mind wants more and more and more.  This is how we have been trained to think and to BE.  This mindset in the context of what appears to be a "shrinking" world, is a formula for guaranteed disaster.  Empire is a walk away from reality and down the garden path of grand hallucination.  Such can end only badly because people will never believe that they are heading toward disaster.  It's too much fun deciding what color the new BMW shall be.




> If minorities want to move into a town and some of the white residents don't like it, they have no right to tell them to leave.


Firstly, your characterization that the "defenders" are by necessity white fails the smell test.  That aside, they may not have the right to tell someone to leave, but they sure as hell DO have the right not to sell to them.

Freedom cuts all ways and it can be a real bitch.  That is why most people have absolutely no interest in it.  They want what they want and if that means a gilt cage, then so be it.  This is why humanity is a doomed species, barring irresistible third party intervention.  I a word, we are $#@!ED.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So your entire argument against immigration boils down to "its brings in an unfavorable voting bloc". Really?


 Oh no, not the entire argument by any means.  I have many arguments -- they're coming out my ears!

In fact, I have many arguments in _favor_ of open immigration!  Maybe more than you!

At the moment, though, the arguments against it are very much winning out.

Feel free to try to tilt the balance.




> You wondered why this is such a high priority for me, here's your answer: Because people are suffering RIGHT NOW because they aren't allowed to cross an imaginary line to better their lives.


 So the only way for them to improve their life is to come into the United States?  

Your answer (just a suggestion.  As in, this would be a good comeback): No, Helmuth, that is a strawman.

Me: OK, that's true.  There are lots of nice countries in the world they could go to.  Let's revise and say then the only way for them to improve their lives is to go to Europe or one of its colonial constellations (USA, NZ, Australia).

You: No, that's not true either.  There are gradients of horribleness and undesirability throughout the non-European world.  Most everybody would agree that Beijing is a much nicer place than Mogadishu. That Mumbai is a much nicer place than Darfur.  So they could immigrate to a place at least significantly better than where they're at, even though not at the top of the desirability food chain, and with patience could continue to "level up" until finally they made themselves (or their children -- it could take a while) desirable enough (skillful, educated, trustworthy, non-barbaric) that a top tier country _would_ be willing to accept them.

Me: OK.

You: For that matter, they could even stay in their home country and work to make things better there, to improve their lot in life there.

Me: Wait, really?  They could just stay in their own country and make things better there?  That's actually possible?

You: Of course it is!  You're not saying that the people running these foreign countries are different or, gasp, inferior in any way, are you?  That would be racist!  They're under-achieving countries just because of.... well, because..... umm.....

Me: Never mind, it's OK.  The world is unequal.  Whyever that is, it is what it is, who cares.  The bottom line is, your heart is going out to these people, because they're suffering.  Right?

You: Right.

Me: But unless you are racist, that doesn't mean their only option is to move into a European-run country.  They can just stay in their own non-European country and be surrounded by and work with just as good, just as intelligent, just as high-quality-in-every-way people _there_ as they could _here_.  They will have just as good a chance to better themselves and build a great society there as here.

So, summary: if everyone is exactly equal and identical, as the egalitarians want to pretend to believe, then they can just stay where they are!
And if everyone is _not_ equal, if there are quality differences, then in that case, definitely: they should just stay where they are!

----------


## erowe1

> If minorities want to move into a town and some of the white residents don't like it, they have no right to tell them to leave.


Sometimes the internet doesn't get things across right.

This is a joke, isn't it?

Or maybe, is the operative word "tell," as in, anyone can tell anyone to leave, as long as they don't actually force them to?

----------


## timosman

This is a joke - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5966369




> Our glorious nation has an unlimited capacity for new immigrants and can accept as many people as we want. Pumping 1 million people into our country in a year is not a big deal. It has a great effect on our prosperous economy and has a very positive impact on deficits and wages. It actually helps us raise living standards of all hard working citizens as the immigrants usually make way more than the natives. The work ethic of immigrants can put natives to shame. After escaping terrible conditions in their home country these people will do anything for their new homeland, especially for the ruling class. I have never heard an immigrant complaining about the work conditions and, unlike many natives, demand fair treatment, living wage, work life balance and other crazy ideas which clearly have no place in the modern economy. We need to become as efficient as possible, work more hours and should not question authority. There are, unfortunately, some people who clearly do not see things for what they are. We should make sure we have enough spots reserved for them in the reeducation camps. Like, for example, this crazy lady:

----------


## erowe1

> This is a joke - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5966369


How is that a joke? It's all true.

----------


## timosman

> How is that a joke? It's all true.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If minorities want to move into a town and some of the white residents don't like it, they have no right to tell them to leave.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Sometimes the internet doesn't get things across right.
> 
> This is a joke, isn't it?
> 
> Or maybe, is the operative word "tell," as in, anyone can tell anyone to leave, as long as they don't actually force them to?




Combine over-the-top insufferability with

5 cups of humorless pedantictry

Carefully fold in a generous dollop of autism.

Frost with a lack of re-reading ability that would have caused one to notice the word "no".

Voila!  Delicious.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The aggregate market demand in the labor market decides what society wants. That's economic demand...the REAL demand.


 That is the real demand for labor.  That is not the real demand for people.  Labor is only one aspect of the economy, only one aspect of society, and only one part of life.




> Political demand is bull$#@!. It's an opinion on a poll, not "put your money where your mouth is" markets. Where people have skin in the game, they have in aggregate decided they like cheap $#@! and thereby immigrant labor.


 How exactly would they choose otherwise, Pro?  Could you explain to me that scenario?  How could the American people, were they to be overwhelmingly opposed to mass immigration, and especially to mass unskilled third-world Hispanic and Asian immigration, how could they express this preference in an effective manner today?  How could they have been doing so for the past 50 years?  Hmm?

I don't think there is a legal economic way they could have done so.  Because as it happens, lo and behold, the American people _are_ overwhelmingly opposed to mass immigration!  And especially opposed to mass unskilled third-world Hispanic and Asian immigration!  They are really really opposed and really really don't like it.  But guess what?  They can't do anything about it.  That's illegal.

In a free market, in a free society, people could express their preferences and this overwhelming and very strong preference that most of the American people have would end up being met.  It would become a reality.  That's how the market works.  The customer is always right.  _You_ think the customer is wrong and racist.  OK, that's your opinion.  But actually, they are right.




> They have also decided what jobs they won't do, and therefore immigrant labor.


 Wrong, there are lots of jobs that Americans want to do, will do, and would do, but there are only so many jobs that exist in the American economy.  If all of a sudden 25% of Mexico is living in America, the economy is going to change.  There is going to be massive disruption.  Certainly there's been massive disruption in the construction industry.  In the lawn care industry.  In the restaurant industry.  In the motel industry.  It's not as if in the last few years millions of skilled white construction workers decided they were too good for construction.  It's not as if they all just turned up their noses at their life-long careers.  That seems to be your model, but it's completely unhinged from reality.  No, they were displaced.  Even a very healthy economy would not be able to absorb a massive influx like that this quickly -- it would take a long time to adapt, and the displaced workers, the Americans, would have a very hard time.  Our very sick, very un-free economy?  It has failed them completely.




> And if you don't let them come to a job, that aggregate demand will make it so it makes sense for that job to be taken to the immigrant (and then you can't compete for it with them anymore - and if you couldn't beat them for the job, how pathetic for you).


 You're making it all about the jobs, but it is not all just jobs.  Society is a very complicated construct.  There's more to life than just "jerbs".  But even if we just take the jobs issue, you are not correct.  Many, in fact most, jobs are not just geographically-sensitive but geographically-_anchored_.  You cannot mow a lawn or wait a table unless you are at that lawn or at that table.




> Plus, how do you evaluate immigrants? The valuation is complex. The poor immigrant parents of one family had a kid, and he started Google here. How do you make that valuation? You can't. It's impossible.


  It is not impossible.  It is easy.  There are all kinds of sensible qualification standards that sensible people would find very satisfactory.  If we had freedom, these sensible people would be able to express their preferences for these standards.  Instead, we have the madness of the State.  The State has decided to flood the country with third-worlders who would meet no sensible person's quality standards.  The State has decided it would rather the USA be a third-world hovel.  Interesting decision.  Not one that normal Americans would make.




> Leave it to the market and stop trying to outsmart the consumer choices of hundreds of millions of people.


 Exactly!  That is _my_ position!

I hope you will reply to my thoughts here.  This is real libertarian debate!  If you want to have libertarian debate, here it is!  Let's get to the truth.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> They have no genetic ability to care about the commonweal.


[citation needed]
[/QUOTE] https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results






> our superior... universal love and caring for outsiders
> 			
> 		
> 
> [citation needed]


 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=875008

Thanks for your suggestions, for helping make this a better thread.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That is about the SICKEST thing I have ever heard anyone say.... uh....evah!


 OK.  Why is that?  I am not seeking to sicken you.  I am seeking reasonable discussion and debate.




> You haven't got a clue about American history, have you? Try looking up why these countries are in such a mess.


 Which countries should I look up?  All third-world countries?  Is the reason why they're such a mess going to be (just a wild guess) that it's all the fault of white male dominated countries somehow?




> And while you're at it, try and realize that the America you love sooooo much is nothing but a bunch of immigrants.


 If you believe the generally-accepted out-of-Africa hypothesis, or any other hypothesis positing a localized origin for humanity which then spread out from there across the globe, then this could be said for every country (except wherever the origin is).  That is: the entire Planet Earth you love so much is nothing but a bunch of immigrants.

I'm not sure this is an argument so much as an emotional outburst.  Country X is full of humans so therefore: more humans immigrating there must be a good?  I'm not sure you've thought this through.

----------


## helmuth_hubener



----------


## helmuth_hubener

But, but, but: they're starving!  My heart is bleeding, bleeding I tell you.



Not.

----------


## helmuth_hubener



----------


## helmuth_hubener



----------


## helmuth_hubener

*German Migrants Sue Asylum Centre For Not Giving Them Money Fast Enough*

*Twenty migrants have sued the Berlin State Office for Health and Social Affairs because they had to wait more than a week to register their asylum cases and receive welfare handouts. They are demanding instant payment.*

Germany is struggling to cope with the *1.5 million migrants it expects to absorb this year* and those arriving in Berlin often have to wait days if not weeks to be registered at asylum centres.

The group of twenty who have decided to sue claim they have had to wait more than a week. Their “urgent application” has been confirmed by a court spokesman, Die Welt reports.

The court spokesman said the plaintiffs were seeking to “put pressure on the authorities” by bringing the case, and the court would issue a ruling in the coming days. The spokesman said that the incident was *just one of several similar legal cases brought by migrants over the past two weeks.*

*“We can do it!” proclaimed German Chancellor Angela Merkel* in reference to the migrant influx at the beginning of September. However, just this morning, it was announced that the nation would be extending temporary border controls until the end of October, AFP reports.

Border controls were first implemented on September 17th, just weeks after Mrs Merkel promised to keep the door open for any Syrian migrant who could make it to Germany, on the 25th of August.

“The situation at the border is such that we cannot do without them,” a ministry spokeswoman told AFP. “We need to return to an orderly handling of refugee policy.”

In the southern state of Bavaria, through which the majority of migrants travelling via the Balkans and Austria pass, state premier Horst Seehofer proposed setting up “transit zones” for migrants to be held in as their asylum claims are assessed.

The centre-left Social Democrats, partners in Merkel’s coalition government, argued that they would amount to *“large detention centres in no-mans land.”*

 -- http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015...y-fast-enough/

~~~

My heart is bleeding for these people.  Bleeding!  They are *suffering!*  It is up to all the evil white men with all the money to *help!*  Don't you care about people and their *suffering?*  How could anyone be opposed to these wonderful human beings and their wonderful, heroic lawsuits as they bravely struggle to fit in and become good productive members of German society?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

And another interesting thing about that article in my last post, I think the Social Democrats have a good point.  Is it really a good idea to have thousands, maybe eventually hundreds of thousands, of rowdy riot-prone people squirreled away in huge detention centers?  Especially a group who has made themselves extremely unpopular by behaving outrageously badly?  Germans are very insular.  Germans hate gypsies, and they definitely are going to hate these people at a level about 5 to 10 times higher.  Does this sound a little like..... concentration camps, anyone?

This could end very, very badly.

Just send them all back!  That seems like the best solution (apart from Germany repealing their monopoly state, becoming anarcho-capitalist, etc., etc., etc.).  Deportation is not cruel.  It is not unusual.  It's a whole lot better than courting genocide.  They can go back to their country and try to improve things there.  Or find some other country where they will fit in better, be further up the bell curve, and cause less of a problem.  Maybe India or Afghanistan or Pakistan or Egypt would welcome them.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Right!  And because of exactly what I said: *ideology!*
> 
> _If_ we were in a situation in the first place where there were no states, only homeowner's associations, it would be _because_ of massive, seismic ideological shift.  Once that has occurred, once people have so strongly decided they only want to relate to governments contractually that they actually went out and did whatever was necessary to make that a reality, that new ideology is a very, very strong factor stabilizing the new system and refusing to let the new governments (homeowner's associations) to become ridiculous, outrageous monopolies.  Once people are working with contractual entities, they are going to be loathe to let them usurp that and become extra-contractual, above-the-law, law-unto-themselves entities.  They won't just roll over and let them do that, any more than you'd just roll over and let your cell phone company take possession of your first-born child.


...and the seas will turn to lemonade. 

One can find comparable predictions about the _New Man_ in the more pathetic sort of communist literature.

Bottom line: any system which requires a New Man, a change in human nature, is doomed to failure. 

There is only one Man, and he doesn't behave like these Utopian dreams insist he must. 

Rebuild society to fit man, not the other way round. 




> Such as?  Could you explain these wonderful advantages of a One-World monarchy?  Because I'm not seeing it.


Did you read my last post?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Rebuild society to fit man, not the other way round.


 I agree.  I do not think that humans relating to each other contractually is unheard-of nor unrealistic.

Anyway, all your verbiage seems to boil down to: "I'd like to convince you to not be an anarcho-capitalist."  Well, OK, a noble goal I'm sure, but that's probably not going to happen just because you wish it so.





> Did you read my last post?


Of course I read your last post, r3v.  I read no putting-forth of the wonderful vision of one-world monarchy.  If you want me to catch the vision, you are going to have to paint the picture.  Because I do not see it.

This should hardly be surprising to you.  Just how many people do you think are open to your proposed grand scheme for one-world monarchy?  How many of your friends and family have you brought on-board?  How many Americans would you have to stop on the street and ask about it before you found even one who was so much as friendly towards the idea?  "Let's have one man literally own the whole world, and you and everyone else own nothing."  This is an extremely difficult sell.  Surely you are aware of that.

I am probably the only one on RPF, for example, that would be willing to hear you out and entertain the idea.  So, take advantage of that.  Give me the pitch.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I came back again, and the anti-immigration streak among non-libertarians (the paleoconservatives and those indistinguishable from them) had spread, and people were actually trying to claim closed borders or heavily regulated and quota-laden immigration policy was "libertarian". I mean Hoppe is talking about private property in a hypothetical free market anarchist society.


 No, he is not.  In the hypothetical free market society he is for total private property rights.  You could call what he is in favor of in that scenario "open borders" or you could call it "closed borders," depending on your point of view.

It is explicitly under the existing monopoly state system that he explains that a limited and discriminatory immigration policy would be superior.  He makes that very clear and very explicit.  I don't know how you could have missed it, unless you simply did not read his articles.  Maybe a quick skim?  Maybe you had someone hostile to him give you a quick reader's digest version and you figured that was good enough?




> ..and is not using subsequent generations to make his valuation judgements on immigrants. And he, and his ilk, are in the VAST minority among libertarian thinkers. There's a reason for that...libertarianism is for free movement across borders, for both utilitarian economic reasons AND deontological ethical reasons.


Again, there's a long list of libertarian luminaries who hold the Hoppe view, or some variant very similar to it, and even more who are at least sympathetic to it.

Pro, you are not going to come back and reply to this, I guess, having stormed off in a huff, so I'll just write for r3v: Being against immigration is a fundamentally right-oriented position.  The left are all-inclusive and are fine with letting in anyone and everyone, because the left is fundamentally an "r" strategy-aligned political movement.  The people on the right, the "K"s, have lower fertility and longer time horizons and they are the ones who are *not* OK with being overrun by barbarians.  The Rs can just breed even faster, and plus they have no inhibitions to interbreed with the newcomers, so there's no deep-seated lizard brain threat to them from 25% of Mexico moving in.  Shoot, make it half, why not!  Let 'em all come in, there's room!  The more the merrier!

That's Rs.

By being in favor of open immigration, you are aligning yourself with the Rs and with the left, r3v.  Just FYI.  And you are alienating yourself from the Ks -- the very people that you yourself have finally realized you need to ally with in order to win.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Oh no, not the entire argument by any means.  I have many arguments -- they're coming out my ears!
> 
> In fact, I have many arguments in _favor_ of open immigration!  Maybe more than you!
> 
> At the moment, though, the arguments against it are very much winning out.
> 
> Feel free to try to tilt the balance.
> 
>  So the only way for them to improve their life is to come into the United States?  
> ...


Your arguments are really getting ridiculous. "If everyone's equal/not equal they should definitely stay where they are."  Feel free to try to convince as many immigrants as you want that they needed to stay where they were, but that's a bs reason to point a gun and say "you can't come here because there are plenty of people for you to interact with back home."  Come on. 


Not not that it matters to the principle of the argument, but as an example of how beneficial immigration is in general you should read "Who's your city?" By Richard Florida about the incredible positive effects of people IMMIGRATING between US cities to align with their own best environment. Millions of individual decisions about where to live adding up to a great result and a large net benefit to all concerned.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Your arguments are really getting ridiculous. "If everyone's equal/not equal they should definitely stay where they are."


 The point is lost by that slightly-too-oversimplified paraphrase.  Here is the point:

If everyone is equal, they _can_ stay where they are and be just fine.  You can't say that everyone's only hope for a good life is to live around white people in societies built by north-western Europeans.  Because, fanfare: that would be racist!  That would be admitting that the north-western Europeans are qualitatively better at building societies than other groups.  Which, of course, is true.  But if you want to deny that truth, then you're stuck.  You can't argue out of one side of your mouth that all races and ethnicities and groups are totally equal and out of the other side of your mouth that everyone's only hope for a good life is to live in countries run by whites.  You can't argue that it's an outrageously unfair inflicting of suffering to deny people the privilege of being unfairly oppressed by whites in white-dominated societies, and that it would be cruel and unusual torture to make them live in countries run by their own ethnicity.  It's incoherent.

If instead you want to acknowledge the obvious (but verboten in public!) truth that people are unequal, then you are left with a different problem.  If some races, more precisely ethnicities, are more peaceful, more civilized, and better at building successful societies than others, then the desireability of keeping away the less-peaceful, less-civilized ethnicities is inescapable.

It's pure logic, IDefendthePlatform.  It's also in the Republican Platform -- maybe you should defend it.  





> Feel free to try to convince as many immigrants as you want that they needed to stay where they were, but that's a bs reason to point a gun and say "you can't come here because there are plenty of people for you to interact with back home."  Come on.


 Not if it's your land.  Then it's totally a wonderful and valid reason to point a gun at them.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the government should point a gun at them.  *I'm just making the point that the goal of limiting or even ending a flood of skill-less third-world immigrants is a good goal, a reasonable and understandable goal.  Don't you agree?*  I'm not talking about the means (yet).  The first problem is that you and most supporters of unlimited, indiscriminate, biased-to-third-world-lawbreakers immigration do not even see it as a problem.  That doesn't even register on their craniums as a potential problem that 25% of Mexico now lives here.

So to have any hope of communicating and understanding each other, first you have to understand how someone could see it as a problem.  Do you understand?  Do you see the goal of limiting a flood of skill-less third-world immigrants as a reasonable and understandable goal?

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

This is what I mean when I say your arguments have gotten ridiculous:
Helmuth: "You can't argue out of one side of your mouth that all races and ethnicities and groups are totally equal and out of the other side of your mouth that everyone's only hope for a good life is to live in countries run by whites."

No one said this. Read my last paragraph again about "Who's your city?"  The decentralized decisions of millions of people making their own judgements about where they want to live has and will continue to have an incredibly net positive effect on all concerned. None of this made up bs about "everyone's only hope blah blah blah". Don't put words in my mouth.   

Also your "not if its your land" quip is a total straw man and you know it.  I'm the one defending property rights, you are wanting to interfere with those rights.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> This is what I mean when I say your arguments have gotten ridiculous:
> Helmuth: "[COLOR=#111111]You can't argue out of one side of your mouth that all races and ethnicities and groups are totally equal and out of the other side of your mouth that everyone's only hope for a good life is to live in countries run by whites."
> 
> No one said this. ... Don't put words in my mouth.


  I am _not_ putting them in your mouth!  I apologize that I must not have made that clear enough.  I was merely making a logical argument.  I am sorry if you felt attacked.  Please do not take pure logical arguments personally.




> Also your "not if its your land" quip is a total straw man and you know it.  I'm the one defending property rights, you are wanting to interfere with those rights.


Perhaps you could quote me somewhere where I have advocated the abrogation of property rights.  In the slightest!  Just one eensy beensy quote, please.  Thanks!

You see, you are jumping to conclusions about what I believe, putting me in a convenient box even though I have in this thread specifically disavowed that box.  Please, try to _understand_ rather than to say "Oh, he's Ann Coulter.  I will write to him what I would write to Ann Coulter."  I don't fit in your box.  I am an anomaly.

*Do you agree that the goal of limiting a flood of skill-less third-world immigrants is a very reasonable and understandable goal?*

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> I am _not_ putting them in your mouth!  I apologize that I must not have made that clear enough.  I was merely making a logical argument.  I am sorry if you felt attacked.  Please do not take pure logical arguments personally. 
> 
> .
> *?*


Dude you're honestly disappointing me in this thread.  First, nowhere did I "take it personally". I said don't put words in my mouth because that's exactly what you did and it's impeding the actual argument. Your quote was "You can't argue out of one side of your mouth..." followed by complete exaggerations of what I said. ("Everyone" "only hope" etc) 

2. You absolutely ARE advocating for property right abrogation. If I want someone on my property to work for me and you say they can't go there, that's violating my property rights. Or if I want to sell my property to someone and you say I can't because they're "illegal", same scenario. 

3. I haven't thought about Ann Coulter in years. I'm meeting your arguments directly. and if you've been paying attention I've already answered your bolded question at least twice. Hint: "who's your city?"

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Dude you're honestly disappointing me in this thread.  First, nowhere did I "take it personally". I said don't put words in my mouth because that's exactly what you did and it's impeding the actual argument. Your quote was "You can't argue out of one side of your mouth..." followed by complete exaggerations of what I said. ("Everyone" "only hope" etc)


 It was meant as a generic "you".  Obviously _you_, IDefendThePlatform, did not say any of those things.  Probably no one anywhere has ever said any of those things.  It was meant as a generic "you".  I should have used "one" instead, but that sometimes sounds a bit stilted and hard-to-read.

Do you understand now?  Do you accept my apology and my explanation?




> 2. You absolutely ARE advocating for property right abrogation. If I want someone on my property to work for me and you say they can't go there, that's violating my property rights. Or if I want to sell my property to someone and you say I can't because they're "illegal", same scenario.


Find me the quote!  Show me the quote!

If I am "advocating" for all these things you claim, if I "say" all the things you claim I say, you should be able to very easily find instances of me *actually saying them!*

Let me tell you: you will not find any such instances.  You will search in vain.  How could that be?  Why would I never write "they can't go there" or "[you] can't"?  But, but, aren't I just a run-of-the-mill anti-immigration stereotype?

No.  I am not.  I do not fit in your box.  Sorry about that.  Your standard pre-set criticisms do not apply to me.

Try understanding me.  You are not meeting, and cannot meet, my arguments effectively unless you first do that.  Sorry.

The best way to answer a question is to actually answer it.  The question is: do you agree that the goal of limiting a flood of skill-less third-world immigrants is a very reasonable and understandable goal?  I do not know your answer to that question.  I do know that you like the book "Who's Your City?".  Perhaps you'd also enjoy "The Big Sort," by the way.  But I do not know whether you can understand, comprehend, or relate to at all the desire to not have a flood of skill-less third-world immigrants come into your country.  Do you?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I agree.  I do not think that humans  relating to each other contractually is unheard-of nor  unrealistic.


There has never in human history been a society based purely on voluntary relationships.




> Of course I read your last post, r3v.


To be clear, is the question about the advantages of monarchy in general, or universal monarchy in particular?

...mind you, I've already given arguments in favor of both, but which requires elaboration?




> I read no putting-forth of the wonderful vision of one-world  monarchy.  If you want me to catch the vision, you are going to have to  paint the picture.  Because I do not see it.


I'm a political theorist, not a poet; not sure how well I can _paint a picture_, but I'll take that under consideration.




> This should hardly be surprising to you.  Just how many people do  you think are open to your proposed grand scheme for one-world  monarchy?


approximately none




> How many of  your friends and family have you brought on-board?  How many Americans  would you have to stop on the street and ask about it before you found  even one who was so much as friendly towards the idea?  "Let's have one  man literally own the whole world, and you and everyone else own  nothing."  This is an extremely difficult sell.  Surely you are aware of  that.


Indeed I am, fortunately it's success does not  rest on mass proselytization. Power will naturally concentrate over  time; a world-state is probably inevitable in the long-run. The  important thing is to educate the power elite, a first step toward which  is to educate the intellectual elite: a first step toward which is to  build a school of thought, whose membership consists of at least one  person other than myself. 




> I am probably the only one on RPF, for example, that would be  willing to hear you out and entertain the idea.  So, take advantage of  that.  Give me the pitch.


See above, I need some clarification on what I'm to pitch.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> There has never in human history been a society based purely on voluntary relationships.


 Don't know that we can prove that either way.  Depends on what we want to mean by "voluntary," too.

Have you listened to Hoppe's lectures on the History of Man?  I quite enjoyed them, and since we both enjoyed Raico's History of Liberty series, maybe you would, too.

https://mises.org/library/economy-society-and-history/0

Basically: feudalism was on the right track.  It was not that bad.  In fact, I don't know that there's any problem with feudalism in the western European style vis a vis libertarian principles.  Not that maybe you care about that; anyway, from a practical standpoint, too: very good results, lots of societal progress and gene pool improvement, and large degree of freedom (again, maybe _total_ freedom -- depends how you define it).

The kings getting a forcibly-enforced monopoly on dispute resolution was just a relatively minor deviation from the natural order.  It turned into a very big deviation as the centuries went on, like railroad tracks forking and getting farther and farther apart.




> To be clear, is the question about the advantages of monarchy in general, or universal monarchy in particular?


 Universal monopoly.  I am very aware of the owner vs. manager advantages of monarchy over democracy.  But a single world-wide monarchy is a bit much, to put it mildly.  I don't see why that would be so great.  I am skeptical of the virtues of massive centralization and especially of a centralization and monopolization of force from which there can be no escape.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> ....so I'll just write for r3v: Being  against immigration is a fundamentally right-oriented position.  The  left are all-inclusive and are fine with letting in anyone and everyone,  because the left is fundamentally an "r" strategy-aligned political  movement.  The people on the right, the "K"s, have lower fertility and  longer time horizons and they are the ones who are *not* OK  with being overrun by barbarians.  The Rs can just breed even faster,  and plus they have no inhibitions to interbreed with the newcomers, so  there's no deep-seated lizard brain threat to them from 25% of Mexico  moving in.  Shoot, make it half, why not!  Let 'em all come in, there's  room!  The more the merrier! 
> 
> That's Rs.


To which  letter-group did the Europeans who nurtured socialism from, say, 1789 to  1965 (when electorally significant numbers of non-Europeans began  arriving) belong?




> By being in favor of open immigration, you are aligning yourself  with the Rs and with the left, r3v.  Just FYI.  And you are alienating  yourself from the Ks -- the very people that you yourself have finally  realized you need to ally with in order to win.


It's not clear to me why you see nationalism as an ally of monarchism.

Historically, nationalism and democracy were joined at the hip.

The  old conservatives, vaguely anti-democratic if not overtly monarchist,  hated both equally, and rightly lumped them together, on the left. 

...Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn being an archetypal example

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Don't know that we can prove that either way.  Depends on what we want to mean by "voluntary," too.
> 
> Have you listened to Hoppe's lectures on the History of Man?  I quite enjoyed them, and since we both enjoyed Raico's History of Liberty series, maybe you would, too.
> 
> https://mises.org/library/economy-society-and-history/0


In all honesty, I've started listening to that lecture series three or four times, and I've always had to stop.

I'm really just not impressed with Hoppe's thought, despite the fact that he and I are in agreement on monarchy v. democracy.

He's one of Hayek's "second hand dealers in ideas," (mostly Rothbard's ideas, in this case) and not much more. 

But I always reserve the right to be wrong; convince me that there's something worthwhile in that lecture and I'll listen to it. 




> Basically: feudalism was on the right track.  It was not that bad.


It was a good system, certainly better than democracy; doesn't mean it's ideal. 




> Universal monopoly.  I am very aware of the owner vs. manager advantages of monarchy over democracy.  But a single world-wide monarchy is a bit much, to put it mildly.  I don't see why that would be so great.  I am skeptical of the virtues of massive centralization and especially of a centralization and monopolization of force from which there can be no escape.


What is the disadvantage, other than the absence of exit pressure, as we already discussed?

Meanwhile, the advantage (I reiterate) is the absence of war.

P.S. Ultimately, the question is this; which is the greater cause of state-growth, war or the absence of exit pressure?

Answering the question definitively requires a comparison of _magnitudes_, which a priori reasoning cannot provide. 

It's an empirical question; one would have to do a survey of historical cases, trying to measure and separate the effects of the two factors on state-growth. 

...of course there are huge methodological problems with this (no controlled experiments are possible, etc). 

So, at this point, it's a matter of educated guessing; and my educated guess is that  war tends to grow the state more than the absence of exit pressure.

Ergo, a world-state (no war and no exit pressure) is likely to be more liberal than a patchwork of states (exit pressure but also war), ceteris paribus.

...and, in either case, we want the state(s) to be monarchical, for reasons you appreciate.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> To which  letter-group did the Europeans who nurtured socialism from, say, 1789 to  1965 (when electorally significant numbers of non-Europeans began  arriving) belong?


 Not that simple -- it's epigenetic.




> It's not clear to me why you see nationalism as an ally of monarchism.


 Nationalism?  Nothing about nationalism.  Higher in-group (genetically-close) preference maybe, but that's not the same thing.  I'm saying the Ks are allies of, well, pretty much everything good that seems to be unraveling right now.  But.... not _everything_ -- Rs are good, too!  Rs are innovators, risk-takers, and that is essential to drive things forward, too.  Not enough Rs and maybe you end up with thousands of years of stability -- and stasis -- like China under the Mandarins.

Anyway, a lot of overlap, and certainly choice involved: you can choose to settle down and have a family even if raised by a single mom in a stressful environment, and you can choose to risk it all and start a business even if you are otherwise generally a play-it-safe, plan-for-the-future square from a strong traditional bourgeois family.  These genes make probabilities, not destinies.  Epigenetic gene _expression_, affected strongly by environment, not just by inheritance.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So your reason that a One World Order would be great is the same reason all the other One World Order people dream of it: world peace!  Unity, endless harmony, and the abolition of warfare.

I am skeptical.  Sounds awfully utopian.  But, I guess saying "that sounds utopian" is maybe just a way of saying "I disagree with that".  Exhibit A: an-cap doesn't sound all that utopian to me, but to you it does.  Universal health care doesn't sound utopian to the advocate of it, but to the conservative opponent, it does.

Anyway even under the best case scenario, it is not absolutely true that a one-world monarch necessarily ends warfare.  You could still have internecine wars.  My rough familiarity with human nature and history suggests to me that you almost certainly _would_.  People are going to feel a bit... stifled, claustrophobic.... in a word: _oppressed_, if one man owns the whole universe.

Some previous thoughts I've had on the subject:

*You Could Own a Whole Planet, But You'd Have Calculation Problems: 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3759398
Continued: 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3785571*

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So your reason that a One World Order would be great is the same reason all the other One World Order people dream of it: world peace!


Yup




> I am skeptical.  Sounds awfully utopian.  But, I guess saying "that sounds utopian" is maybe just a way of saying "I disagree with that".  Exhibit A: an-cap doesn't sound all that utopian to me, but to you it does.  Universal health care doesn't sound utopian to the advocate of it, but to the conservative opponent, it does.


The difference being that I can provide (read: have provided, ad nauseam) _reasons_ to think that anarcho-capitalism is impossible; as opponents of socialized medicine can provide _reasons_ to think that socialized medicine will be problematic; but what are your reasons for preferring international anarchy to a world state? 




> Anyway even under the best case scenario, it is not absolutely true that a one-world monarch necessarily ends warfare.  You could still have internecine wars.


Sure, but civil war is a possibility for any state (global or otherwise).




> Some previous thoughts I've had on the subject...[re calculation problem]


Why are you assuming that the world-state would attempt central planning?

If the ruler wished to maximize his own revenues, and understood economics, would he not reject central planning precisely because of the calculation problem?

....this is the whole point of monarchy (at whatever scale); the self-interest of the ruler incentivizes him to pursue laissez faire.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why are you assuming that the world-state would attempt central planning?


 _Every_ venture attempts central planning.  Your local grocery store: central planning.  Apple is central planning on a grand scale.

The calculation problem comes with scale.  It also comes with lack of competition.  100% of all the land and natural resources in the world, and in fact the universe (can't let people escape to space and secede, or else you have political multipolarity again, and the potential for war) is a very big scale -- the biggest possible.  Can't get bigger than everything.  It also has a lack of competition.  The lack of competition is total.  One man has total hegemony and everyone else is forbidden from competing with him.

So the scale / scope is total, and the lack of competition is total, so you couldn't devise a better situation for a more thoroughly problematic calculation problem!




> If the ruler wished to maximize his own revenues, and understood economics, would he not reject central planning precisely because of the calculation problem?


 And if Apple wanted to maximize its revenues, it would of course do everything right and choose all the most efficient processes and choose all the best products to bring to market.

But, the bigger they get, the harder that task is.  Same for states.  Competition is a great boon.  Have you ever noticed how similar laws are in many states?  It's sheer copycatism.  The managers of one state/company can't have all the good ideas.  They all check out what each other are doing, see who's successful, and either get ideas from that or outright copy them, and dump their own less-successful ideas.  If Apple had no competition, global hegemony, we might all be typing to each other on the latest iteration of the Cube.  If Europe had had no political competition, if the Roman Empire had never fallen, then we would possibly not exist at all.  The population of Earth would still be 500 million and we'd all be digging in the mud, stopping every few hours to drink water that came out of lead pipes.  No decentralization.  No competition.  No one to show a better way.

Your Universal Monarch is also going to have no one to show him a better way.  Sounds like a recipe for stagnation.

So there's only one monolithic State for everything and everyone.  Is he going to have minimum wage?  No, of course not, because he's a genius and realizes how stupid that would be.  Would he have a free and open market in electricity?  Mmmmm.... proaaaabably.  Because he's an elite genius with all the best ideas.  So he'll figure that out.  Will he privatize the road system?  Hmm.  Will he set up a dynamic and efficient system of competing free-market judges for people to use to resolve their disputes?  Well, not even r3v 3.0 has caught the vision of that idea.  Not even he supports that.  Can we really count on our Philosopher King being even _more_ libertarian and brilliant than r3v?  I think not.

Can we count on him being _as_ libertarian as r3v?  Can we count, in fact, on him being libertarian at all?  I think not.   Sorry, r3v.  I see no realistic reason to believe that the same qualities that are going to lead a man to be so masterful and elite at rising through the ranks and gaining political power such that he gets himself crowned King of the World are also going to lead him to be a libertarian, or a proponent of even the most watered down classical liberalism, or to respect human liberty of any kind, in any way.  He might!  But he might not.  Seems like an awfully big all or nothing risk.  Spin the wheel, come on red!

We're in that same boat now, already.  If libertarians ever rose to the top, then they would repeal the minimum wage and all the bad oppressive things and that would be great!  But is there any reason to believe that libertarians will ever rise to the top and take over Congress?  There is that much or less reason to think that the proposed King of the World _will ever_, much less _"must always,"_ be a libertarian.

So how is this a step forward?

No, it would be a huge, tragic step backward.  A colossal mistake on a colossal scale.  It could plunge humanity into a Dark Ages that could last thousands of years and from which we might never recover.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In all honesty, I've started listening to that lecture series three or four times, and I've always had to stop.
> 
> But I always reserve the right to be wrong; convince me that there's something worthwhile in that lecture and I'll listen to it.


 Well, first thing, it's Hoppe, so I would recommend always pressing the 1.5x or 2x button on your iPod.   If you had not done that, that may be your problem.

But you could also read the book, _A Short History of Man_, in probably a lot less time.




> It was a good system, certainly better than democracy; doesn't mean it's ideal.


 Maybe it does.  What was wrong with it?  If you can't come up with any objection to it, maybe it was unobjectionable.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The calculation problem comes with scale.


It comes with the complexity of the enterprise; it has nothing to do with the _size of the geographical area_ in which the enterprise is operating. A state pursuing laissez faire (such that it only produces law and order related services, leaving the production of all other goods and services to the market) does not face the Misesian calculation problem (MCP), no matter how geographically large that state may be: whether continental, global, or galactic. A monopoly producer of everything (i.e. a socialist state) faces the MCP because _there are no market prices for its own inputs_. A monopoly producer of just a few goods/services (i.e. a minarchist state), _whose inputs are bought on the market from private producers_, does not face the MCP. It can calculate costs just fine.

(excursus)

Now, any very large enterprise (be it a minarchist state or a multi-national banana producer), may face an altogether separate problem: the principal-agent problem (PAP). Only the owner (principle) of an enterprise is motivated to maximize the value of the enterprise; mere employees (agents) wish only to maximize their own wages. Whether the efforts of employees to increase their own wages also increase the value of the whole enterprise depends on the quality of the orders given to them by their employer, and on the employer's ability to monitor their performance in relation to those orders. As the complexity of an enterprise increases (more employees, more variety of tasks for them, etc), it becomes harder for the owner to monitor his employees' performance, or even to know what tasks to assign them in the first place; any owner, however competent and motivated, has a limited amount of time and expertise. E.G. The majority share-holder of Toyota has neither the time nor the knowledge to set the daily agenda for each of his 35,000 employees and also personally monitor them all day to see if they're doing the work assigned. This supervisory function can be delegated, but at a certain scale the owner lacks the time/expertise even to manage the supervisors. 

This was a major problem for large states historically: e.g. Rome, which divided into two parts for precisely this reason. 

But there's actually a fairly simple solution for any ruler who understands economics. Divide the state into small, manageable parts, and make the governorships of these parts _proprietary_. That is, the governor would be absolute ruler of the province (except for having to pay a tax to the monarch); while governorships could be freely bought and sold. Thus the governors have the same incentives for good government as the monarch (better, in fact, since they face exit pressure, unlike the monarch), but operate on a scale where _they can evade the PAP_. 

But doesn't this system amount to a rejection of absolutism; isn't it a kind of federalism, with the monarch restricted to the function of enforcing the rules of the game between the governors? Yes and no. Yes the monarch's role is limited, but this is a limitation that the monarch has _imposed on himself_, in the interest of maximizing the efficiency of the state, and thus his own revenues. It is not that the governors are "checking" or "balancing" the power of the central government (as per the classical conception of federalism). This is federalism not as a tenuous balance of power between co-sovereign entities, but rather federalism as the freely adopted _administrative technique_ of an absolute monarch. The monarch must retain the ability to compel the governors to obey the rules, which necessarily gives him the ability to violate those rules himself, but the monarch will choose not to do so because the maintenance of the system serves his own interests (maximizing state revenues). Put another way, the world-monarch in this system will respect the rights of his governors for the same reason that the monarch of a smaller state will respect the rights of his individual subjects.

Again, all that's required for such a system to actually be adopted by a world-monarch is for him to (a) want to maximize his own revenues, and (b) have a moderate understanding of economics. 




> It also comes with lack of competition.


The MCP has nothing to with a lack of competition per se. As long as there's a market (and thus prices) for inputs, there's no problem calculating costs. See above. 




> So there's only one monolithic State for everything and everyone.  Is he going to have minimum wage?  No, of course not, because he's a genius and realizes how stupid that would be.


It requires genius to understand that the demand curve slopes downward?

IMO, the cause of bad governance in virtually all cases is not ignorance of economics on the part of rulers (wrong means), it is improper incentives (wrong ends).




> Can we really count on our Philosopher King being even _more_ libertarian and brilliant than r3v?  I think not. Can we count on him being _as_ libertarian as r3v?  Can we count, in fact, on him being libertarian at all?  I think not.


He need not be a libertarian at all. 

He can be motivated purely by greed, having absolutely no concern for the welfare of his subjects, and yet (if he understands economics) he will pursue libertarian policies, because those will maximize his own revenues. 




> What was wrong with [feudalism]?


With respect to any individual feudal state, the problem was that power was divided, and so there were opportunities for cost externalization (discussed at length in an earlier post: remember the parable of Paulie and the restaurant), and thus incentives to engage in irrational economic policies, which would not have existed in an absolute monarchy. With respect to the whole system, Europe-wide, it was international anarchy, and so there was - inevitably - lots of war (and as we discussed earlier, I find that the disadvantages of war far outweigh any advantages from exit pressure).

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Dear r3v,

You make some good points.

I do understand the orthodox MCP applies vertically, not horizontally, _as I wrote in the two posts I linked to_.

But surely it is intuitive that total lack of competition would cause problems.

And it certainly is counter-intuitive that to make the state smaller, we should first make the state much bigger.

It is counter-intuitive that we must first crank up the centralization of power to the max, in order to... _de_centralize power?

The idea just seems strange.  It sounds off.

The concept is that if we reduce the number of agents to one, we eliminate all possibility of conflict.  But I don't think it works that way.

Look at everyday life.  Full of agents.  Lots of independent agents.  Each one with the potential to make conflict.  And yet, in high-trust European market societies, they hardly ever do!  They very easily _could_.  The individuals passing each other in the mall all could shoot each other very easily.  Trivially.  And yet, they don't.  The free market works really well.

The smaller the state, the more it resembles a market entity.  In a North America with 10,000 Lichtensteins, much more so than with three mega-states each Lichtenstein will be subject to market-esque forces, and there will be a market-like dynamic.  Again, remember: the free market works really well.  So there is reason to believe this would work really well.

Consolidating everything into one global mega state is going the _opposite_ direction of we want to go.

Anyway, I have a theory that you do not actually believe this off-the-wall idea of go-go Global Hegemon at all, but are just trying to see if you can get me to agree it wouldn't be that bad.  Well, I don't agree.  It would be terrible.  As in an absolute, weep-for-humanity disaster.

Do I pass the test?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Oh, also, all the points about "Oh, I know he wouldn't be a libertarian, but it doesn't matter"?  They don't work.




> Put another way, the world-monarch in this system will respect the rights of his governors for the same reason that the monarch of a smaller state will respect the rights of his individual subjects.
> 
> Again, all that's required for such a system to actually be adopted by a world-monarch is for him to (a) want to maximize his own revenues, and (b) have a moderate understanding of economics.


 Yes, and all that's required for a monarch of a small country to adopt libertarianism is (a) want to maximize his own revenues, and (b) have a moderate understanding of economics.  And yet.... none of them have!




> He need not be a libertarian at all.
> 
> He can be motivated purely by greed, having absolutely no concern for the welfare of his subjects, and yet (if he understands economics) he will pursue libertarian policies, because those will maximize his own revenues.


 The Prince of Lichtenstein need not be libertarian at all.  He can be motivated purely by greed, having absolutely no concern for the welfare of his subjects, and yet (if he understands economics) he will pursue libertarian policies, because those will maximize his own revenues.

And yet, the Prince of Lichtenstein has _not_ pursued libertarian policies.  It is inevitable that he do so.  But, he didn't do so.  Sounds like there may be a problem with your theory.  I mean, Lichtenstein is a great place.  Pretty high on the freedom scale, I would say, compared to elsewhere.  But it is no libertarian ideal.  It is not even any 19th century America.

It's kind of like: you have proved logically and apodictically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, via mathematical proof, that your future wife will be a super-model.  And yet, all the women you are currently dating are 5s at best.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But surely it is intuitive that total lack of competition would cause problems.


Inter-state competition comes in two forms: peaceful (competition for labor and capital, i.e. exit pressure) and violent (war). 

The former is good (tends to encourage liberal behavior), the latter is bad (tends to encourage illiberal behavior).

Both forms of competition would be present in international anarchy. 

Neither form of competition would be present under a world-state.

It  is not clear a priori which is better, on balance (since these forces  are pushing in opposite directions, and we don't know their relative  magnitudes). 

My educated guess is that the costs of war outweigh the benefits of peaceful competition, and so a world-state is preferable. 

Your educated guess is to the contrary.

Absent  some serious empirical research on the issue (which, AFAIK, does not  currently exist), neither of us is going to able to prove the other  wrong.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree for the moment.




> And it certainly is counter-intuitive that to make the state smaller, we should first make the state much bigger.


....only if you equivocate on the meaning of "size."

I'm proposing to increase the size of the state _geographically_ in order to decrease its size in terms of _the extent to which it interferes in the market economy_.




> It is counter-intuitive that we must first crank up the centralization of power to the max, in order to... _de_centralize power?


The goal is not to decentralize power, it is to change the incentives of those who hold power. 




> The Prince of Lichtenstein need not be libertarian at all.  He can be  motivated purely by greed, having absolutely no concern for the welfare  of his subjects, and yet (if he understands economics) he will pursue  libertarian policies, because those will maximize his own revenues.
> 
> And yet, the Prince of Lichtenstein has _not_ pursued libertarian  policies.  It is inevitable that he do so.  But, he didn't do so.   Sounds like there may be a problem with your theory.


Nowhere have I claimed that monarchical governments will inevitably pursue laissez faire. 

My claim is that, all else being equal, monarchical governments are more likely to pursue laissez faire than governments of any other form (i.e. oligarchic or democratic).

There's no perfect system, only better and worse ones.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

[QUOTE=r3volution 3.0;6018671]


> My educated guess is that the costs of war outweigh the benefits of peaceful competition, and so a world-state is preferable. 
> 
> Your educated guess is to the contrary.
> 
> Absent  some serious empirical research on the issue (which, AFAIK, does not  currently exist), neither of us is going to able to prove the other  wrong.
> 
> I think we'll have to agree to disagree for the moment.


 Yes, I think that sums it up.  You are very generous and fair in how you put it.






> ....only if you equivocate on the meaning of "size."


 True, that is exactly what I have done.  Two different senses of "small" and "large", but nevertheless it is intuitive that increasing scope should not be predicted to decrease ambition.  And certainly not necessarily so.  A global state could easily be a tyrannical state.  It seems all too likely to me.




> I'm proposing to increase the size of the state _geographically_ in order to decrease its size in terms of _the extent to which it interferes in the market economy_.


 Increase both how much geography and how many humans are under its jurisdiction.

Your goal and mine is definitely to reduce the extent of interference.  I agree on that.  I do not know why we should expect a global hegemon to inevitably and always exercise restraint and wisdom in this matter.  I do not know why we should expect a global hegemon to inevitably and always try to interfere as little as possible in the market.  I do not think that 100% of people, if put into the position of Global Hegemon, would limit the extent in which they interfered in the market.  You will say "exactly, that's why it has to be the elite," but really, how elite are the elite?  Are they always going to have all the best ideas?  Are their souls _all_ going to be glowing so brightly with enlightened self interest?  You will say no, of course not, there's no perfect system, only better and worse ones.  Utopia is not an option.  But when the whole world is at stake, it becomes really really important to never, ever, ever have a horrible leader!  Not even once!  The stakes are too high.  Pol Pot gets in power and slaughters his population, OK, tragic, but you know what?  Life goes on.  Not the end of the world.  As callous as that sounds.  But World-King James XV goes crazy and does the same thing: guess what?  It _IS_ the end of the world!  Kill off all the scholars and scientists and rich people?  He has just destroyed the entire gene pool.  You can destroy Cambodia and the world goes on.  There's other human gene strains that survive.  But there's only one Earth anywhere within reasonable walking distance.  Hose that and you're done.

It's just too much risk.  It's just too much power in the hands of one man.




> The goal is not to decentralize power, it is to change the incentives of those who hold power.


 The goal is to decentralize power.  That is a synonymous term with "decrease the extent of the government's interference in the market."  Every facet of life that you take out from under the purview of the hegemon (global or not) and put into the market, you decentralize that particular power.  You are wanting to centralize certain powers (and you hope it is a very short list) in order to radically decentralize all the rest of them.  I do get the idea, I'm just saying, it's counter-intuitive.




> Nowhere have I claimed that monarchical governments will inevitably pursue laissez faire.


 But if they don't inevitably, that's not acceptable.  It's OK if one state or another goes loco and hoses their jurisdiction.  Humanity survives.  It's not OK if the jurisdiction is the whole world.  We could not afford even one single case of madness in our superkingly line.  Ninety-nine good kings followed by just one bad king means what again?  The End of the World.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> But if they don't inevitably, that's not acceptable.  It's OK if one state or another goes loco and hoses their jurisdiction.  Humanity survives.  It's not OK if the jurisdiction is the whole world.  We could not afford even one single case of madness in our superkingly line.  Ninety-nine good kings followed by just one bad king means what again?  The End of the World.


Given the existence of nuclear weapons, I'd say that war is more likely to result in The End of The World that an insane world-king. 

We like to point out how many tens of millions of people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century (and rightly so), but even more were killed in war.

Moreover, while your doomsday scenario requires a lunatic as world-king, apocalyptic wars can be initiated by perfectly rational people, or even by accident.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Well, once again you have made good points.  I don't particularly disagree.

One thing is: how would the global monarchy come about?  How do we get from here to there?  A war (to end all wars, of course)?  A long series of consolidatory wars?  Perhaps you have some potential narrative in mind that would _not_ result in a power-mad megalomaniac winning the game and gaining the throne?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> One thing is: how would the global monarchy come about?  How do we get from here to there?


To be honest, I've focused on the "why" to the near total exclusion of the "how," but I can give some tentative answers. 

First let's talk about restoring monarchy at the national level.



The plan for a given country depends on its present location in the anacyclosis:

(For Dictatorships) -- The road to monarchy runs through dictatorship. A dictatorship is merely an immature monarchy; a monarch is a dictator who is sufficiently secure in his rule to manage a _peaceful_ transition to his designated successor. Where dictatorships already exist (in much of the developing world), they should be preserved and their stability should be encouraged. Therefore, our first task, in the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath, is to oppose our own government's democratic crusades. Someone like Assad, Qaddafi, or Saddam should be left alone or, if possible, actively assisted in consolidating power: not harassed, undermined, and overthrown. 

(For Oligarchies) -- As with dictatorships, the first task here is to prevent militant democracies like those in the West from infecting these societies with democracy: China being the prime example. Beyond that, any member of the ruling oligarchy capable of seizing power and establishing himself as a dictator should be encouraged to do so, but, as you can see in the anacyclosis diagram, this runs against the natural current of political change. Moreover, as a form of government, oligarchy is second best to monarchy, and so it should not be risked unless the prospects of achieving monarchy are very good indeed.  

(For Democracies) -- In unstable democracies, as in much of the third world, the establishment of dictatorship by military coup should be encouraged. In established democracies (i.e. the West), where a military coup against civilian authorities is unthinkable, the path forward is - unfortunately - to just wait for the chaos which the epic mismanagement inherent in this system will eventually generate. Out of that chaos a dictatorship will emerge. We, as residents of established democracies, should try to arrest the decline as long as possible, while preparing for the collapse. 

(For Monarchies) -- Obviously, these should be left alone and/or  protected; sadly, there are only a handful of these in the world. 

So, as a practical matter, what do we do?

1. Keep developing and propagating the ideas
2. Work through electoral politics to stop our government's democratic evangelism
3. Arrest the decline of our own countries as long as possible, and prepare for the collapse

N.B. By "prepare for the collapse" I don't mean survivalism, I mean getting ourselves into a position to influence political events when the crisis arrives.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Two separate logical defenses of immigration restriction, from Roderick Long:

A1. Those who enter the U.S. acquire the ability to make use of various public (i.e., tax-funded, i.e., stolen) resources — schools, welfare, etc.– and will certainly make use of some of them (e.g., roads), without the permission of the taxpayers.
A2. Use of stolen resources without the permission of the rightful owners is a violation of the owners’ rights.
A3. So long as public services are tax-funded, those who enter the U.S. are violating the owners’ rights. (from A1 & A2)
A4. If X steals from Y, and Y cannot succeed in getting X to return Y’s property, Y is justified in at least getting X to use the property in Y’s interest rather than transferring it to a third party.
A5. If abolishing tax-funded public services cannot presently be achieved, taxpayers are justified in at least getting the government to control access to those services, reserving them to those who funded them rather than allowing newcomers to draw upon them. (from A3 & A4)
A6. Abolishing tax-funded public services is not currently politically feasible, while increased restriction on immigration is.
A7. Therefore, taxpayers are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from A5 & A6)



B1. If a cost is imposed on X as a result of government aggression, and would not have occurred in the absence of such aggression, then this cost counts as a violation of X’s rights.
B2. If X does not wish to associate with Y, and X is nevertheless brought into association with Y, such association is a cost borne by X.
B3. If X does not wish to associate with Y, and X is nevertheless brought into association with Y as a result of government aggression and would not otherwise have been so, such association counts as a violation of X’s rights. (from B1 & B2)
B4. In the context of such examples of government aggression as public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., loose immigration laws bring immigrants into association with people who do not wish to associate with immigrants (call such people ‘nativists’ for short), in ways that would not have occurred without the aggression.
B5. Immigrant/nativist contact resulting from loose immigration laws in the context of such examples of government aggression as public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., counts as a violation of nativists’ rights. (from B3 & B4)
B6. If a rights violation results from a combination of two factors, one of which cannot effectively be addressed, the victim of the rights violation is entitled in self-defense to take action against the other factor.
B7. If restricting immigration is politically feasible while abolishing public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is not, then nativists are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from B5 & B6)
B8. Restricting immigration is politically feasible while abolishing public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is not.
B9. Nativists are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from B7 & B8)

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Two separate logical defenses of immigration restriction, from Roderick Long:
> 
> A1. Those who enter the U.S. acquire the ability to make use of various public (i.e., tax-funded, i.e., stolen) resources — schools, welfare, etc.– and will certainly make use of some of them (e.g., roads), without the permission of the taxpayers.
> A2. Use of stolen resources without the permission of the rightful owners is a violation of the owners’ rights.
> A3. So long as public services are tax-funded, those who enter the U.S. are violating the owners’ rights. (from A1 & A2)
> A4. If X steals from Y, and Y cannot succeed in getting X to return Y’s property, Y is justified in at least getting X to use the property in Y’s interest rather than transferring it to a third party.
> A5. If abolishing tax-funded public services cannot presently be achieved, taxpayers are justified in at least getting the government to control access to those services, reserving them to those who funded them rather than allowing newcomers to draw upon them. (from A3 & A4)
> A6. Abolishing tax-funded public services is not currently politically feasible, while increased restriction on immigration is.
> A7. Therefore, taxpayers are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from A5 & A6)
> ...


Alright, so replace 'immigration' with 'birth' in 'A'.  China here we come.

As far as B4 goes, this implies the author _knows_ what restrictions would come with private roads.  For instance, maybe the Mexican government would be the high bidder were we to sell the public roads, or if we want to rewind a bit, the highest bidder in buying the land in which they were going to build roads.  And the Mexican government would wish to regulate it such that no 'nativists' were allowed access to the roads.  So if this hypothetical is the case, as opposed to the authors hypothetical, we can replace 'nativist' with 'immigrant' and 'immigrant' with 'nativist'.

And further, anti-discrimination laws are generally bestowed (forced?) upon everyone equally, that is to say the black business owner who wishes to not associate with whites also has their rights violated.  Is it fair from B6 then to say that, because the black business owner has no chance at reversing anti-discrimination laws that he/she is justified in self defense against *all whites?*  Not even just the whites who would encroach on his property against his wishes?  That is some sick $#@! you're buying into Helmuth.

And even further, B does not take into account that prevented association by means other than strict adherence to property rights also constitutes a violation of rights.  So at best (for those looking to justify immigration controls) B9 would say 'Nativists are justified in supporting tighter or loser immigration controls'.  I.E. it says abso-$#@!ing-lutely nothing.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Here is another (potentially) convincing reason: The quality of a society is ultimately determined by the quality of the individuals in that society.  Without good, quality people you cannot have a good, quality society, no matter how good (meaning libertarian) your institutions and laws may be.
> 
> If you have built a society with an average IQ of 98, and then decide to let in a flood of people with an average IQ of 87 (Mexico) or 79 (Guatemala), then the intelligence level of your society will be drastically altered.  Regardless of how libertarian your laws are, you will now be surrounded by significantly stupider people.  Perhaps that will be good for you personally, it could make you feel smarter by comparison, but perhaps it could be annoying to you to have to deal with unintelligent people on an everyday basis.  To me, for my own personal preferences, I want to live around smart people.  I think a more intelligent society is a better society.
> 
> *This is simply a pure fabrication. There is no evidence or reason to think people from Latin America are of a lower IQ. This is just nationalistic garbage. Further, even if it were true it would be irrelevant. Stupid people have rights too.*
> 
> That's just one metric.  If you have a neighborhood that places a high value on work ethic, full of very hard-working, diligent people, that seems like a good thing to me.  Hard work can be _encouraged_ by being libertarian, by allowing men to keep all the fruits of their hard labor, but the character trait cannot be _created_.  If you invite in a flood of people with a more lazy character, a "siesta" culture let's say, the nature of your neighborhood is going to change.  It just is.  It's going to be full of lazy people.  Why?  Because you just had a bunch of lazy people move in.  It's simple physics.
> 
> *First of all, you must be ignorant of a number of things to think Latin Americans are "lazy." Not only have studies shown that napping during the work day actually boosts profits and productivity (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=2831235), meaning taking a siesta is actually an intelligent thing to do, running counter to your claims above, but siestas developed not out of laziness but because it is hard for anyone to work in the hotter, more humid climates of Mexico and Central America. When it is 102 degrees with 85%+ humidity,it is hard to do any work at all. So resting makes sense, not only do you avoid literally killer heat, but you refresh yourself for working later in the day. Also, how are lazy immigrants taking so many jobs if all they do is sleep all day? I wish you nationalists would all get on the same page.*
> ...


I can barely describe the levels fail in this post.Nevertheless I try, in bold.

----------


## PierzStyx

> If you actually understood 8000 years of human history you would understand that the threat of barbarians at the gates is no phantom, and that your rabid desire to throw the gates open for them makes you, with respect to your fellow countrymen, either a traitor (strictly, not loosely, construed) or a dangerous madman who will get everybody killed.


Barbarians have never overthrown a country that wasn't already falling apart internally. The barbarians aren't the threat, rather it is the state that uses scare tactics against foreigners and increased militarism to justify its continued existence that is the real threat. German barbarians didn't destroy Rome, the Romans did that all on their own. The Germans just built something from the ashes.

----------


## PierzStyx

> In Europe, mass immigration is now leading to the closing of borders for European citizens and the death of the passport-less Schengen Area.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-police.html
> 
> Thanks to immigration proponents like those here, Europeans will soon be less free to travel than they have been in generations.


Idiotic drivel. It isn't immigration, it is the state seeking further control that is the threat and scapegoating immigrants.

----------


## Ender

> I can barely describe the levels fail in this post.Nevertheless I try, in bold.


Agree on all points.

And anyone who thinks Mexicans are lazy has never worked with them. The Mexicans I have known work harder and faster- plus do a great job- more than anyone I have ever associated with.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That is some sick garbage you're buying into Helmuth.


 Umm, no, it is a logical argument that I am posting.  Tow, actually.  It is not "sick" in any way, it is just logic.  And I do not myself completely buy into either of them, though I do think they are pretty well done.

Try not to be so emotional.  You have made some moderately good points against both the A and B lines of reasoning, but not presented in the best, clearest way.  Your emotion is muddling things.  Too much rant; not enough A, so B, so C.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I can barely describe the levels fail in this post.Nevertheless I try, in bold.


Pierz, you area clearly very emotional on this issue.  Do you think it would be possible to calmly, rationally, and objectively consider this issue?  Or are your emotions just too strong and entrenched on this matter to set them aside?

I would love to converse with you on this!  We really need someone willing to defend the pro-unlimited-immigration stand, and more importantly capable of doing so rationally.  And here you are!  You have the capacity, but you need to be able to set aside your visceral emotions on it.  What do you say?  Are you up for that?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Umm, no, it is a logical argument that I am posting.  Tow, actually.  It is not "sick" in any way, it is just logic.  And I do not myself completely buy into either of them, though I do think they are pretty well done.
> 
> Try not to be so emotional.  You have made some moderately good points against both the A and B lines of reasoning, but not presented in the best, clearest way.  Your emotion is muddling things.  Too much rant; not enough A, so B, so C.


Well, if you're looking for reasoning presented in the best, clearest way, you should most definitely look elsewhere.  But at least I take a crack at this anti-liberty 'logic' while you, and you say you have problems with it, would choose to just let it stand because it furthers your purpose.  So go suck a dick, I may not be as smart as you, but at least I'm on the right side.

No offense intended.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But at least I take a crack at this anti-liberty 'logic'


 And I thank you for it!  If I get some time, I will try to give your points the attention they deserve.  As I say, they're not bad points, but I do think that they do not completely demolish Roderick's logic.




> while you, and you say you have problems with it, would choose to just let it stand because it furthers your purpose.


 Umm, have you read the whole thread?  I take it no?  I have also "let stand" a chapter from David Friedman's book putting forward the pro-immigration position.  I wish that an anti-immigration person would come take a crack at refuting it, as you have done for Roderick's arguments.




> No offense intended.


  LOL, none taken!

----------


## Cabal

Some relevant information to the discussion of immigration:




http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/c...fare-final.pdf

I suppose you could look at this in a couple of different ways. On one hand, you could make the argument that this level of sustained and increased welfare consumption will eventually force these kinds of welfare programs to have to change or be eliminated. One problem with that is how much collateral damage is being done in the meantime, and what other related problems will arise as a result. On the other hand, you could make the argument that with more, and more dependent on (or at least making use of) these programs, it is potentially causing their expansion and perpetuation. Another issue to consider is what does this mean for a population that [ostensibly] elects government officials and representatives?

----------


## erowe1

Why should we care about anyone's IQ when it comes to immigration?

----------


## Danke

> Why should we care about anyone's IQ when it comes to immigration?


Because many haven't figured out how avoid taxation?

----------


## Suzanimal

> Some relevant information to the discussion of immigration:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
> http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/c...fare-final.pdf
> 
> I suppose you could look at this in a couple of different ways. On one hand, you could make the argument that this level of sustained and increased welfare consumption will eventually force these kinds of welfare programs to have to change or be eliminated. One problem with that is how much collateral damage is being done in the meantime, and what other related problems will arise as a result. On the other hand, you could make the argument that with more, and more dependent on (or at least making use of) these programs, it is potentially causing their expansion and perpetuation. Another issue to consider is what does this mean for a population that [ostensibly] elects government officials and representatives?


Good information in the video, Stefan went through a lot of stats and I have no reason to dispute them but he didn't offer any solutions. Do we really want to lock down our borders a la Trump? I don't. It would expand the government and I will not endorse that on any level. End the welfare state? (The only solution I find palatable) HAHAHA! Not gonna happen. The Dems love it and the Repubs don't have the balls to do anything about it.

Personally, I don't think either will ever happen. I think we'll keep chugging along just like we have been until the $#@! eventually hits the proverbial fan.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Exactly.  For liberty to survive, the country has to be demographically capable of supporting liberty.





> That sounds a lot like saving the free market by abandoning it.


I see what you mean, but I am actually nowhere suggesting an anti-liberty, rights-violating solution.  Search my posts.  I am simply saying there's a problem.  A massive influx of millions of people who, when surveyed, say they support bigger government at over 80% rates, that is a problem.  I am just trying to get rational people (like yourself, for instance) to acknowledge that it's a problem.

As of now, we are sticking our heads in the sand as libertarians.  Every pro-immigration person just says "immigration is terrific, there's no problem with immigration."  No, there are very serious problems with certain types of immigration.  Like, for instance, the type that in the US we have now and on a huge scale.  I am just looking for someone, anyone, to be rational to acknowledge the problem.  So far no one has.

Once we agree that half of Mexico moving up here is a problem, then we can discuss solutions.  It's like drugs: just because you acknowledge there's a problem doesn't mean that the solution is to have the State shoot people and ban things and lock millions in cages.  But if you just say "Oh, meth is fine.  Doing meth doesn't actually cause any problem.  Meth is just a chemical.  We're a nation of chemicals," then anyone who with a rationally anti-drug-addiction position is going to look at you like you have three heads.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Good information in the video, Stefan went through a lot of stats and I have no reason to dispute them but he didn't offer any solutions. Do we really want to lock down our borders a la Trump? I don't. It would expand the government and I will not endorse that on any level. End the welfare state? (The only solution I find palatable) HAHAHA! Not gonna happen. The Dems love it and the Repubs don't have the balls to do anything about it.
> 
> Personally, I don't think either will ever happen. I think we'll keep chugging along just like we have been until the $#@! eventually hits the proverbial fan.


Yes, like you, Suz, I don't know what the best solution is.  Well, actually, we both know what the best solution is, but it's not going to happen.  So, what's a good _realistic_ solution?  I don't know.

----------


## Suzanimal

> I see what you mean, but I am actually nowhere suggesting an anti-liberty, rights-violating solution.  Search my posts.  I am simply saying there's a problem.  A massive influx of millions of people who, when surveyed, say they support bigger government at over 80% rates, that is a problem.  I am just trying to get rational people (like yourself, for instance) to acknowledge that it's a problem.


The video Cabal posted clearly illustrates something's $#@!y.




> As of now, we are sticking our heads in the sand as libertarians.  Every pro-immigration person just says "immigration is terrific, there's no problem with immigration."  No, there are very serious problems with certain types of immigration.  Like, for instance, the type that in the US we have now and on a huge scale.  I am just looking for someone, anyone, to be rational to acknowledge the problem.  So far no one has.


Hmmm...is immigration the problem or are taxes and welfare the problem?

----------


## Ender

> I see what you mean, but I am actually nowhere suggesting an anti-liberty, rights-violating solution.  Search my posts.  I am simply saying there's a problem.  A massive influx of millions of people who, when surveyed, say they support bigger government at over 80% rates, that is a problem.  I am just trying to get rational people (like yourself, for instance) to acknowledge that it's a problem.
> 
> As of now, we are sticking our heads in the sand as libertarians.  Every pro-immigration person just says "immigration is terrific, there's no problem with immigration."  No, there are very serious problems with certain types of immigration.  Like, for instance, the type that in the US we have now and on a huge scale.  I am just looking for someone, anyone, to be rational to acknowledge the problem.  So far no one has.
> 
> Once we agree that half of Mexico moving up here is a problem, then we can discuss solutions. * It's like drugs: just because you acknowledge there's a problem doesn't mean that the solution is to have the State shoot people and ban things and lock millions in cages.  But if you just say "Oh, meth is fine.  Doing meth doesn't actually cause any problem.  Meth is just a chemical.  We're a nation of chemicals," then anyone who with a rationally anti-drug-addiction position is going to look at you like you have three heads.*


This is a good case in point. 

Drugs are NOT the problem, the government is. The WoD is a profitable business for the alphabets and the drug cartels are all part of government tactics. Drugs were just as big a reason we went to Afghanistan as any oil profits. 

Immigrants are NOT the problem, the government is.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Drugs are NOT the problem, the government is.


Wrong, drugs are a very real, very serious problem, too.  Try using meth every day for a year or two.  By the end you will not be posting here, let me tell you.  You will be fried.  Toast.  Drugs can really mess people up.  They are a serious problem.

Denying that a serious problem is a serious problem is just delusional.  That is, to me, what you are doing with immigration.  Maybe with drugs, too, now.

Acknowledging something is a serious problem does _not_ mean that the solution is to expand the monopoly state.  

Though with immigration, the case could be made that the current situation of a mass flood of immigration is a government-led, government-caused, government-run program, and that to end it would not really be an expansion of government power, just a redirection of it in a more sane and rational direction.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Drugs are NOT the problem, the government is.


Wrong, drugs are a very real, very serious problem, too.  Try using meth every day for a year or two.  By the end you will not be posting here, let me tell you.  You will be fried.  Toast.  Drugs can really mess people up.  They are a serious problem.

Denying that a serious problem is a serious problem is just delusional.  That is, to me, what you are doing with immigration.  Maybe with drugs, too, now.

Acknowledging something is a serious problem does not mean that the solution is to expand the monopoly state.  Though with immigration, the case could be made that the current situation of a mass flood of immigration is a government-led, government-caused, government-run program, and that to end it would not really be an expansion of government power, just a redirection of it in a more sane and rational direction.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

Here is my biggest gripe with those who wish to use the state to control immigration; we all have a breaking point in which the non-violent defense of individual liberties must subside for the violent defense of individual liberties.  Being that this movement is focused on obtaining freedom by beating the state back, I think it is a reasonable expectation that individuals involved in this movement ought to have that breaking point *well before* a point where they would advocate using the state to beat freedom back.  If this government isn't so bad that you're willing to stand up and die fighting it, then it sure as hell isn't so bad that you should be attempting to use it to do just the opposite of what we gather here to do, picking winners and losers by choosing who gets to exercise what liberty.  That is my line in the sand, and why I can have no respect for those advocating state controlled immigration.  'Coward' I think would be a good word to describe them.

----------


## paleocon1

One of the few legit jobs of the State is to control the Borders in a manner which aligns with the Interests of most Citizens.

----------


## erowe1

> One of the few legit jobs of the State is to control the Borders in a manner which aligns with the Interests of most Citizens.


The manner that aligns with the interests of most citizens is nothing at all.

By the way, native English speakers don't capitalize common nous.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The manner that aligns with the interests of most citizens is nothing at all.
> 
> By the way, native English speakers don't capitalize common nous.


I knew it, he's a crypto-Mexican..

Probably has a secret room in his house full of donkeys and salsa.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You imposing laws on me that tell me I can't invite certain other people onto my property is the same as you trampling on my grass.
> 
> The "society" you own stops at your property line.


Well if America is yours to give away, its ours to take from you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You guys always use these vague meaningless platitudes like, "protecting the border." What specifically does that involve? If the specific actions it involves would wrong for you or me as an individual to do, then no, these are not things the state is supposed to do.


Its not vauge, you just claim it is, it involves denial of entrance of persons crossing illegally.

----------


## erowe1

> Its not vauge, you just claim it is, it involves denial of entrance of persons crossing illegally.


Until you say how, it's still vague. What specifically do you do to prevent illegal border crossing?

Imagine someone said they wanted to "protect our red lights." Somehow they have this idea that something could be done that would make running red lights just stop happening, and they don't say what that is. That's the same as people who talk about "protecting the border."

----------


## erowe1

> Well if America is yours to give away, its ours to take from you.


It's nobody's to give away or take. I have my own property, and that's it. And I have the right to sell it to you, and you have the right to buy it. I also have the right to rent it out to you or hire you to work on it. The government has no right to be involved in any of those things regardless what papers either of us have.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Until you say how, it's still vague. What specifically do you do to prevent illegal border crossing?
> 
> Imagine someone said they wanted to "protect our red lights." Somehow they have this idea that something could be done that would make running red lights just stop happening, and they don't say what that is. That's the same as people who talk about "protecting the border."


The same thing that prevents people from walking into your home, walls, and the use of force against anyone who violates the sovereignty of your home. Replace home with nation and there you have it.

No your side just makes up crap like that. 

Walls work, barb fences work, force against invaders works.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It's nobody's to give away or take. I have my own property, and that's it. And I have the right to sell it to you, and you have the right to buy it. I also have the right to rent it out to you or hire you to work on it. The government has no right to be involved in any of those things regardless what papers either of us have.


You fail to understand that the elites are import serfs as to replace the existing American culture and people as we are too hard to rule over and too well armed to outright exterminate so their aim is to replace us.

So the idea that all cultures and people have the right to come here is nonsense, we have every right to keep them out as well should anyone who favors aliens over us will be dealt with.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's nobody's to give away or take. I have my own property, and that's it. And I have the right to sell it to you, and you have the right to buy it. I also have the right to rent it out to you or hire you to work on it. The government has no right to be involved in any of those things regardless what papers either of us have.


When you have the ability to teleport them directly from their place of origin to your property and you keep them on your property and are 100 percent responsible for their actions, then we can talk.  Until then, nope, sorry, you don't.

----------


## erowe1

> The same thing that prevents people from walking into your home, walls, and the use of force against anyone who violates the sovereignty of your home. Replace home with nation and there you have it.
> 
> No your side just makes up crap like that. 
> 
> Walls work, barb fences work, force against invaders works.


You are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to the truth. It is you who want to use violent force to tell me that I don't have the right to decide who can and can't come on my own property by your support of immigration laws.

You don't have the right to treat all of the USA as if you own it.

----------


## erowe1

> When you have the ability to teleport them directly from their place of origin to your property and you keep them on your property and are 100 percent responsible for their actions, then we can talk.  Until then, nope, sorry, you don't.



No I don't. As long as they stay off your property, it's none of your concern. And you don't own the USA.

Anyone in the world would be able to get along just fine in the USA without ever needing to set foot on the property of the few people who live here that don't want illegal immigrants on their property.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to the truth. It is you who want to use violent force to tell me that I don't have the right to decide who can and can't come on my own property by your support of immigration laws.
> 
> You don't have the right to treat all of the USA as if you own it.


Do you own every inch of land they will be stepping foot on? Unless you do then you have no foot to stand on. Do what ever you want with your property, you do not own the nation, nor the border, nor will you bare the costs of your lust for mass immigration.

I have the right to insure your xeno lust does not destroy it nor harms my life, liberty, rights, and future..

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No I don't. As long as they stay off your property, it's none of your concern. And you don't own the USA.
> 
> Anyone in the world would be able to get along just fine in the USA without ever needing to set foot on the property of the few people who live here that don't want illegal immigrants on their property.


No, since we pay the costs they run up and are displaced culturally, politically, and demographiclly it is our concern and our say is bigger then yours. Do not like? Leave. No they would not get along just fine, why do you ignore human nature and history? 

What world do you live in?

----------


## erowe1

> Do you own every inch of land they will be stepping foot on?


No. But the land they set foot on that I don't own is none of my concern. Likewise, the land they set foot on that you don't own is none of your concern.

----------


## erowe1

> our say is bigger then yours.


No it isn't. Your say pertains to your property. That's it.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No. But the land they set foot on that I don't own is none of my concern. Likewise, the land they set foot on that you don't own is none of your concern.


No, it is my concern, I have to pay the costs of them being here, so it not only to I have to pay of but I have to deal with the side effects, sorry if you can not understand that fact. 

The real world still exist regardless of your opinion.

----------


## tod evans

> No, it is my concern,* I have to pay the costs of them being here,* so it not only to I have to pay of but I have to deal with the side effects, sorry if you can not understand that fact. 
> 
> The real world still exist regardless of your opinion.


What's the grand tally of "tax" that you've paid in your lifetime?

"Your" taxes ain't paying dick, not even the interest on the welfare queens drawing a check during your mother's generation......

Couch a logical argument if you want to argue.

In fact odds are in my favor if I bet that you're not even paying your own way in life yet...............Are you?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No it isn't. Your say pertains to your property. That's it.


No, it is, you want more people,more crime, more poverty, more division,  more statism, less Liberty and a darker future, We do not and since your actions/polices create such a distopia we have a bigger say and say it is time to end mass immigration.

----------


## erowe1

> end mass immigration.


How?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What's the grand tally of "tax" that you've paid in your lifetime?
> 
> "Your" taxes ain't paying dick, not even the interest on the welfare queens drawing a check during your mother's generation......
> 
> Couch a logical argument if you want to argue.
> 
> In fact odds are in my favor if I bet that you're not even paying your own way in life yet...............Are you?


I still pay, so I have a say, and I say "No More". You want to live a 3rd world latin hellhole? Move to on, do not move it here.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> How?


Reduce it.


Solutions to Illegal immigration
1.       Secure the border with a Triple layer fence across the US/Mexican border
2.       Prevent Amnesty at all costs
3.       End birthright citizenship for non U.S Citizens.
4.       End all welfare for illegals
5.       Mandate E-verify for all jobs
6.       Punish all business who hires illegal labor
7.       Stop all funds for "sanctuary cities"
8.       Remove the lowers courts from issues of immigration via Jurisdiction stripping





Reform and Reducing legal immigration
1.       Work to reduce visas as to protect the American Worker
2.       End the "refugee" scam
3.       End visa over stays by automation of the system.
4.       End the immigration of non-comparable cultures to America
5.       List of requirements for immigration.
6.       Cap the limit of immigration to America at 200,000 per year.

----------


## erowe1

> Reduce it.
> 
> 
> Solutions to Illegal immigration
> 1.       Secure the border with a Triple layer fence across the US/Mexican border
> 2.       Prevent Amnesty at all costs
> 3.       End birthright citizenship for non U.S Citizens.
> 4.       End all welfare for illegals
> 5.       Mandate E-verify for all jobs
> ...


Ok, then, any pretense you ever tried to maintain or giving a rip about freedom is completely gone.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> No, it is, you want more people,more crime, more poverty, more division,  more statism, less Liberty and a darker future, We do not and since your actions/polices create such a distopia we have a bigger say and say it is time to end mass immigration.


Driving out the brown skinned folks while keeping people like you around does absolutely nothing for the cause of liberty.

----------


## Zippyjuan

1) about half of those in the country illegally entered legally and overstayed.  A 100% border doesn't stop them. They also dig tunnels under it, put up ramps over it, and sail around it.  

4) Illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal benefits like SNAP (food stamps), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.  

5. Mandate E-verify for all jobs.   Turn all employers into INS agents.  Probably should require schools to check immigration status of all pupils too.  Want a loan?  Let's see your immigration status.  Even if you claim you are citizen- you must have papers!  Forgot them?  Congrats!   You just won a free bus ride to Mexico!  

3. End visa over stays by automation of the system.  How?  Go around checking IDs on everybody to be sure they are in the country legally?  That will seriously step on personal freedoms for *everybody*- not just immigrants.  Papers please!  

4) What is "non- compatible culture" mean?  English speaking? No Germans, Italians, Spanish- only British and Australian. Irish? Do they speak English? Kind hard to understand. Better be safe and kick them out too.  Christian?  Mexico is far more Christian than the United States with 90% Catholic and big on family and anti-abortion.

PS- there are FEWER illegal immigrants in the country today than there were in 2007.  But if you are worried about being "outnumbered" there is a simple solution which does not involve less freedom and more taxes- make more babies to outnumber them.

----------


## tod evans

> I still pay, so I have a say, and I say "No More". You want to live a 3rd world latin hellhole? Move to on, do not move it here.


You have only as much say as you're willing to take.

Seeing as how you don't know me, don't know where I live or how I act you're unqualified to even assume what I'd possibly want.

Then you have the audacity to try and type "Move on" or some such nonsense?

If you and people of your intellectual acumen are the future of the Anglo Saxon American then I'm sorry to say my forefathers lay down their lives for naught.

Thank God that even here in the backwoods of the Ozark Mountains the local uneducated inbreds are able to couch more logical arguments and thanks to modern technology most are even able to present them in complete sentences.

Go earn a living, find a woman or two, drink some beer, smoke some weed if you're so inclined but grow the $#@! up!

----------


## Zippyjuan

All those darned illegal Mexicans moving to the US!

----------


## The Gold Standard

I have no doubt that open borders and promises of our wealth to newcomers serves the interests of the government. The vast majority that come here for the riches will vote to keep them coming. But to think ending immigration is the solution is ridiculous. The government would love that solution about as much. Lock Americans in a giant cage. Troops marching the streets checking your papers. That is the stuff of their wet dreams.

----------


## timosman

> I have no doubt that open borders and promises of our wealth to newcomers serves the interests of the government. The vast majority that come here for the riches will vote to keep them coming. But to think ending immigration is the solution is ridiculous. The government would love that solution about as much. Lock Americans in a giant cage. Troops marching the streets checking your papers. That is the stuff of their wet dreams.


Nope, they are engaged in a big ponzi scheme and the constant influx of new slaves is very important.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Nope, they are engaged in a big ponzi scheme and the constant influx of new slaves is very important.


Also voter importation.

----------


## The Gold Standard

If they have us accepting life in a giant prison, they don't need voters, or to keep up the illusion of prosperity for that matter.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Ok, then, any pretense you ever tried to maintain of giving a rip about freedom is completely gone.



No you claim that does not make it so, more over have you seen what mass immigration does to the areas/state it effects nothing but hard core leftists are elected, How free will America be when it is one large California?

----------


## Danke



----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Driving out the brown skinned folks while keeping people like you around does absolutely nothing for the cause of liberty.


Really? So getting rid of future leftist/welfare voters will not do anything? Please go on.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> 



GOD DAMN IT STOP USING FACTS!

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Really? So getting rid of future leftist/welfare voters will not do anything? Please go on.


Instead of the leftist/welfare voters we get the fascist/police state voters? No thanks. Let the brown folks come and get their welfare and hurry along the collapse of this house of cards.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Instead of the leftist/welfare voters we get the fascist/police state voters? No thanks. Let the brown folks come and get their welfare and hurry along the collapse of this house of cards.


So a secure border will lead a police state but bring in millions of leftist voters will do nothing at all? LOL. Wow.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So a secure border will lead a police state but bring in millions of leftist voters will do nothing at all? LOL. Wow.


~99% of the electorate voted for Romney or Obama

Do you consider Romney voters leftist voters?

If not, what was the policy difference between Romney and Obama?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Do you consider Romney voters leftist voters?
> 
> If not, what was the policy difference between Romney and Obama?


Votes? Depends on the voter person by person. What policy point? I their was on some issues others he was nothing more then a white shadow pardon the pun.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Votes? Depends on the voter person by person. What policy point? I their was on some issues others he was nothing more then a white shadow pardon the pun.


So, you're acknowledging that virtually all whites voted for a person who is indistinguishable from Barrack Obama?

----------


## timosman

> So, you're acknowledging that virtually all whites voted for a person who is indistinguishable from Barrack Obama?


Romney had magic underwear.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Ron Paul:  http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201




> The 12-term Texas congressman spent the better part of a 25-minute address thinking aloud about the thorny subject. He talked about how Americans are more accepting of outsiders when the economy is good, but when trouble looms there is a search for scapegoats.
> 
> "*I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state,*" Paul told the group. "In Nazi Germany they had to have scapegoats to blame and they turned on the Jews.
> 
> "*Now there's a lot of antagonism and resentment turned just automatically on immigrants,"* he continued. "You say, no not immigrants, it's just illegal immigrants. I do believe in legal immigration. I want to have a provision to obey those laws. You have to understand this in the context of the economy."
> 
> Paul said he's *not one of those politicians who believes that "barbed-wire fences and guns on our border will solve any of our problems." That's not, he said, the American way. And he doesn't think that a national identification card is the way to go.*
> 
> What the country does need, he said, is "a much better immigration service" fed by more resources. Not that he'd "vote for extra money." But he does, he told the crowd, have a plan.


Liberty is for everybody- or it is for nobody.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Ron Paul:  http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...forum-20120201
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty is for everybody- or it is for nobody.


If you want to defend those that will supplant you then you are engaging in your own destruction. If you want to, great. That being said we will not allow you to drag us all down with you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So, you're acknowledging that virtually all whites voted for a person who is indistinguishable from Barrack Obama?



Their were a some differences, but hey lets slit hairs and talk about nothing, I guess that is what people who have no point love to do.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> If you want to defend those that will supplant you then you are engaging in your own destruction. If you want to, great. That being said we will not allow you to drag us all down with you.


I like being around people who want to make something better.  People come to America because they want to make something better- for themselves and their families.  They take risks.  It doesn't always work out, but at least they are trying. That is how our country was built- people coming here from all around the world and taking risks- trying to make things better. "We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".  They took a risk in simply trying to start a new country. 

 Trying to freeze things in the past means you stop moving forwards.  Instead you move backwards. Not being able to accept change is moving backwards.  Getting worse- not better.   The "good old days" weren't as great as we think they were.  Life has always been a struggle.  Fearing change is moving in reverse. "They are going to destroy this country!".  Letting it rot by not adapting to new things destroys the country.  I want to go forwards.  I know I cannot convince you to change your ideas about people not exactly like you.  Everybody exactly like me would be far too boring.

----------


## Zippyjuan

dp

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I like being around people who want to make something better.  People come to America because they want to make something better- for themselves and their families.  They take risks.  It doesn't always work out, but at least they are trying. That is how our country was built- people coming here from all around the world and taking risks- trying to make things better. "We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor".  They took a risk in simply trying to start a new country.


Yeah, the thing is, their may make it worse by their actions and their politics. Well lets take the risk of insure that we are not dispalced inside of our own nation.





> Trying to freeze things in the past means you stop moving forwards.  Instead you move backwards. Not being able to accept change is moving backwards.  Getting worse- not better.   The "good old days" weren't as great as we think they were.  Life has always been a struggle.  Fearing change is moving in reverse. "They are going to destroy this country!".  Letting it rot by not adapting to new things destroys the country.  I want to go forwards.  I know I cannot convince you to change your ideas about people not exactly like you.  Everybody exactly like me would be far too boring.


 Forward? Really? If forward is off the end of a cliff is wise to keep walking towards it? Not all "change" is an improvement. Really how would a everybody valuing Liberty, Freedom, Min Government and Maximum freedom be "too boring"? IF you that is boring then you not to Get the $#@! Out of America. Sorry but America is not going to be changed due to your boredom r xeno lust.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah, the thing is, their may make it worse by their actions and their politics. Well lets take the risk of insure that we are not dispalced inside of our own nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Forward? Really? If forward is off the end of a cliff is wise to keep walking towards it? Not all "change" is an improvement. Really how would a everybody valuing Liberty, Freedom, Min Government and Maximum freedom be "too boring"? IF you that is boring then you not to Get the $#@! Out of America. Sorry but America is not going to be changed due to your boredom r xeno lust.


If English is your second language it might help get your point across if you found a proof reader.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Liberty is for everybody- or it is for nobody.


You do not care about liberty.  You only care about getting more and more brainless leftist voters.  So that you can win.

Keep on shilling.... keep on shilling.....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I like being around people who want to make something better.


 No you do not.  You do not care about that.  You just want to rig democracy by importing tons of Democrat voters.




> People come to America because they want to make something better- for themselves and their families. Not being able to accept change is moving backwards.


 The data is very clear that actually, the vast majority come and get on welfare.  The vast majority and a majority getting greater by the year.  I will grant that may be technically better for them monetarily, but not morally.  Now for you, you who love welfare and dependency, that's great news!  More dependents for you equals ka-ching at the voting booth!

Now there's a change you can accept! 

Keep on shilling.... keep on shilling..... 

For we who hate the inhumanity and the slavery of the dole, for we who honor self-reliance and independence, for we who play by the rules and pay our own way, and yes for we who actually love America, who are deeply touched by the beauty of our patriotic hymns, we want to preserve America's greatness.  We say this is not right, this cynical, cynical, cynical rigging of our country.  

You don't care about these people.  If you did, you wouldn't allow them to be sucked into the slavery of the dole, which robs them of all dignity and self-respect. You wouldn't stand for it!  Instead, that's exactly what you stand for.  Your day job is to stand in line with them, in fact, to speak Spanish to the welfare workers for them, to help them navigate the system and start collecting those checks.  And of course to help them register to vote.  Actually, in California is one automatically registered to vote upon applying for handouts?  Probably.

Anyway, it's sick, it's sick the triangulation game you're trying to play with us here.  It's transparent.  You are against liberty through and through.  We all know it.  That immigration is the Number 1 Issue for _you_, that _you_ will bend all your creativity and cleverness and deviousness and rhetoric towards the task of promoting unlimited immigration, frankly this should give some of the genuine libertarians here who also support unlimited immigration, it should give them pause.  *Serious cause for pause and reflection.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> So, you're acknowledging that virtually all whites voted for a person who is indistinguishable from Barrack Obama?


Wow, you are sure taking the extremely narrow, short-term, "What's in it for me _today?_  NownownowNOW!" view.

Here is the election results from 2012:



Doesn't look quite right to you?  Seem to remember things turning out differently?  Hmm.... what could the discrepancy be?

In 1960, 88.6% of the population was white.  In fact, even in 1980 it was still 83%.  If we had the same demographic make-up as in 1980, this would have been the map!  It would have been a wipe-out!  Obama would have got nothin'.  Not even New York!

Rule out all the single moms and even Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, (and maybe Oregon) fall:



Now with your narrow, short-term view you are already writing a blistering reply: "What do we care!  Romney was not any better than Obama!  They were both socialists!"  You're missing the point.  The point is, r3v, Obama would have never been run in a 1980s America, an 80% white America.  Never run at all.  Neither would Romney.  Romney, if anything, would have been the _Democrat_ candidate!  The Republican candidate would have been a Pat Buchanan or Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul -- someone much further to the right than Romney.

What this demographic manipulation via flooding the country with third world peasants has done is to shift the entire game way to the left.  With 80% or 88% whites, no Obama could win in a hundred years.  *The country has actually moved significantly to the right since 1950!*  I bet you didn't know that.  A Lyndon B. Johnson probably could not win the white vote today.  Socialism has basically been discredited by empirical results and the people who actually _have_ ideologies, the people who _think_, the people whose voting habits are addressable by _reason_, they have changed their minds.  They've gotten more conservative.  The peasants, on the other hand, have not (surprise!).

Even the commie professors now will acknowledge the success of and some value in capitalism, as long as limited and regulated.  Even they now couch their diatribes in the language of the market.  _Natural Capitalism_; _Capital in the 21st Century_; _Freakonomics_; -- the intellectual battleground has moved to the right.  Nobody is saying any more that the means of production should be nationalized.  Nobody!  No longer is the great debate between the Leninist Marxists and the Stalinist Marxists.  We would be winning, and we are winning, among people who use reason and logic in their political opinions.  But meanwhile 25% or more of the nation of Mexico has been imported in to join us, as well as millions of Asians and Central Americans.  _That_ has been our downfall, electorally.

----------


## TheCount

> What this demographic manipulation via flooding the country with third world peasants has done is to shift the entire game way to the left.  With 80% or 88% whites, no Obama could win in a hundred years.  *The country has actually moved significantly to the right since 1950!*


Because the baby boomers are old and easily frightened by pictures of brown people on Fox.

The trend you are describing will not survive the death of the boomers.  If you put an age cap on that white-only election analysis, you would see an entirely different result.

----------


## kahless

> Because the baby boomers are old and easily frightened by pictures of brown people on Fox.


So are younger non-racist whites that are finding no matter what they do are being treated horribly by people of color and falsely accused of racism.  Eventually they are not going to stand for that crap like the boomers did.

----------


## kahless

Simply humane solution to the problem.







To ensure no humanitarian issues migrants can be returned to temporary housing communities paid for by the host countries and our foreign aid.  Over time this expense would be less as an issue with stricter border controls.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Because the baby boomers are old and easily frightened by pictures of brown people on Fox.


While _you_, on the other hand, are incapable of perceiving intra-species threats, due to your body's r-strategy gene expression, and also incapable of perceiving and assessing threats in general, due to a smaller amygdala.  So yeah, yuk it up, buddy.

It is actually whites on _both the left and right_ who have shifted further right.  Many a moderate, or even left-leaning person has been completely alienated by the Democrats and is consistently or semi-consistently voting GOP.  I mean, look at the map above.  You think all those whites in New York and California are drooling, Fox-watching, country hicks?  No, they are educated people who consider themselves moderates or even liberals.  But they all voted for Romney.

Being "afraid of brown people" is being able to recognize that others, even of your own species, may be a threat to you.  Could pose a threat to your way of life.  Rs can't do that.  Ks can.  Rs also can't recognize threats like "the national debt is rising".  It just doesn't register.  Does.  Not.  Compute.  In the long run we're all dead, right?  Health care is free, right?

Our job is not to make fun of the Ks -- the Ks are the only ones biologically capable of being reached by libertarianism.  Our job is to reprogram them with reason.  Like, being afraid of Muslims on the other side of the world with no army, navy, or air force is pretty stupid.  That's a pretty low-level threat.  If you can put it to these people like that, as in: "Look, I'm a tough guy, I'm aggressively pro-America, I'm for national defense, but that stupid stuff over there is none of our business, let them duke it out," they can buy that.  They get it.  They are used to and capable of rationally assessing and categorizing threat levels.  So, it is quite possible to explain: look, here's the problems that are top threats to our way of life: 1) destruction of the family, 2) national debt, 3) massive flood of third-world dole-parasites, 4) our slow, long-term loss of productivity and economic infrastructure (factories, etc.) will eventually lead to economic stagnation and even regression,.... etc., etc.  And then to say here's how we're going to solve those problems.  Rs don't care about a single one of those problems, and they can't be made to care about them.  They just don't have that hook.  Those are distant, theoretical, abstract problems, that without a large amygdala simply do not emotionally resonate.  A kid with a popsicle-stick gun, _that_ resonates.  People being offended or suffering somehow right now, _that_ resonates.  Paying off a trillion dollars of 30-year bonds in thirty years? That does _not_ resonate.  

For Ks, it does.  Those are our allies.  That is our constituency.  And if they want to kick out all the immigrants, hey, there are far worse things they could do.  That would not be the end of the world.  There are very sane, rational reasons for wanting to do so, in fact.  It is our job as libertarians to help them do it in a humane, respectful way that will uphold and respect the rights of all individuals while doing so.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Wow, you are sure taking the extremely narrow, short-term, "What's in it for me _today?_  NownownowNOW!" view.
> 
> Here is the election results from 2012:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look quite right to you?  Seem to remember things turning out differently?  Hmm.... what could the discrepancy be?
> 
> In 1960, 88.6% of the population was white.  In fact, even in 1980 it was still 83%.  If we had the same demographic make-up as in 1980, this would have been the map!  It would have been a wipe-out!  Obama would have got nothin'.  Not even New York!
> ...


I love you...

And should we fall electorally, well we always have other means.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Because the baby boomers are old and easily frightened by pictures of brown people on Fox.
> 
> The trend you are describing will not survive the death of the boomers.  If you put an age cap on that white-only election analysis, you would see an entirely different result.


Yeah, that is is, its not people understanding that mass immigration is harming them and will if it is not stop result in their nation being stolen from them.

Yes it will if we secure the border, deport the illegals, end birthright citizenship, and reduce immigration we can ensure our dominance.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Yeah, that is is, its not people understanding that mass immigration is harming them and will if it is not stop result in their nation being stolen from them.
> 
> Yes it will if we secure the border, deport the illegals, end birthright citizenship, and reduce immigration we can insure our dominance.


How much is dominance insurance?  Is it high deductible?  [For AF ]

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> While _you_, on the other hand, are incapable of perceiving intra-species threats, due to your body's r-strategy gene expression, and also incapable of perceiving and assessing threats in general, due to a smaller amygdala.  So yeah, yuk it up, buddy.
> 
> It is actually whites on _both the left and right_ who have shifted further right.  Many a moderate, or even left-leaning person has been completely alienated by the Democrats and is consistently or semi-consistently voting GOP.  I mean, look at the map above.  You think all those whites in New York and California are drooling, Fox-watching, country hicks?  No, they are educated people who consider themselves moderates or even liberals.  But they all voted for Romney.
> 
> Being "afraid of brown people" is being able to recognize that others, even of your own species, may be a threat to you.  Could pose a threat to your way of life.  Rs can't do that.  Ks can.  Rs also can't recognize threats like "the national debt is rising".  It just doesn't register.  Does.  Not.  Compute.  In the long run we're all dead, right?  Health care is free, right?
> 
> Our job is not to make fun of the Ks -- the Ks are the only ones biologically capable of being reached by libertarianism.  Our job is to reprogram them with reason.  Like, being afraid of Muslims on the other side of the world with no army, navy, or air force is pretty stupid.  That's a pretty low-level threat.  If you can put it to these people like that, as in: "Look, I'm a tough guy, I'm aggressively pro-America, I'm for national defense, but that stupid stuff over there is none of our business, let them duke it out," they can buy that.  They get it.  They are used to and capable of rationally assessing and categorizing threat levels.  So, it is quite possible to explain: look, here's the problems that are top threats to our way of life: 1) destruction of the family, 2) national debt, 3) massive flood of third-world dole-parasites, 4) our slow, long-term loss of productivity and economic infrastructure (factories, etc.) will eventually lead to economic stagnation and even regression,.... etc., etc.  And then to say here's how we're going to solve those problems.  Rs don't care about a single one of those problems, and they can't be made to care about them.  They just don't have that hook.  Those are distant, theoretical, abstract problems, that without a large amygdala simply do not emotionally resonate.  A kid with a popsicle-stick gun, _that_ resonates.  People being offended or suffering somehow right now, _that_ resonates.  Paying off a trillion dollars of 30-year bonds in thirty years? That does _not_ resonate.  
> 
> For Ks, it does.  Those are our allies.  That is our constituency.  And if they want to kick out all the immigrants, hey, there are far worse things they could do.  That would not be the end of the world.  There are very sane, rational reasons for wanting to do so, in fact.  It is our job as libertarians to help them do it in a humane, respectful way that will uphold and respect the rights of all individuals while doing so.


I can not believe like mind people like you exist, thank God.

If we stop that it would go along way to stop the increase in the national debt due to welfare cost alone not to mention ending and deporting millions of leftist welfare voters.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *I love you...*
> 
> And should we fall electorally, well we always have other means.


Awe- isn't that sweet!   You can make more white babies together to outnumber the durned furners.

As for America being more conservative today:  

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/so...hes-right.aspx

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So are younger non-racist whites that are finding no matter what they do are being treated horribly by people of color and falsely accused of racism.  Eventually they are not going to stand for that crap like the boomers did.


by _William Rome_
If whitey moves out of a black neighborhood—“white-flight”—he is _racist. If whitey moves into a black neighborhood—“gentrification”—he is racist.

If whitey doesn’t give welfare to blacks, he is racist. If whitey does give welfare to blacks, he is “keeping them on the plantation” and is racist. 

If whitey doesn’t let in non-white immigrants, he is racist. If whitey does let in non-white immigrants, he is subjecting them to “white privilege” and is racist. 

If whitey builds up the Third World through colonization, he is racist. If whitey doesn’t build up the Third World through foreign aid he is racist. 

If whitey doesn’t promote Affirmative Action, he isn’t giving non-whites a chance and is racist. If whitey does promote Affirmative Action, he is peddling “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and is racist. 

If whitey doesn’t celebrate non-white cultures, he is “narrow minded” and is racist. If whitey does celebrate non-white cultures, he is committing “cultural appropriation” and isracist. 

If whitey doesn’t vote for a non-white candidate, he is only doing so because of the candidate’s race and is racist. If whitey does vote for a non-white candidate, he is only doing so because of the candidate’s race and isracist. 

If whitey doesn’t create a history month for a non-white group, he is racist. If whitey does create a history month for a non-white group, he is “confining that group’s history to only a month” and is racist. 

If whitey isn’t colorblind, he is racist. If whitey is colorblind, he is racist. 

No matter what whitey does, he is racist. 

Whitey can’t win. Can he


_Yes he can, do what is best of you, your family, Whites, and do our best to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Time to do what is best for ourselves and to hell with what others say.

"That`s racist!"...That phrase no longer has any value to anyone of value. We must let go of the fear of being labeled a “racist”, a” bigot” or “hate monger”. The moment you lose your fear of being labeled is the moment they lose their power over you.  


What do you fear most? Being called names, or being enslaved or rendered extinct?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Awe- isn't that sweet!   You can make more white babies together to outnumber the durned furners.
> 
> As for America being more conservative today:  
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/so...hes-right.aspx


Yeah its not like they over sample or ask very verge and nebulous questions..Right?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No you do not.  You do not care about that.  You just want to rig democracy by importing tons of Democrat voters.
> 
>  The data is very clear that actually, the vast majority come and get on welfare.  The vast majority and a majority getting greater by the year.  I will grant that may be technically better for them monetarily, but not morally.  Now for you, you who love welfare and dependency, that's great news!  More dependents for you equals ka-ching at the voting booth!
> 
> Now there's a change you can accept! 
> 
> Keep on shilling.... keep on shilling..... 
> 
> For we who hate the inhumanity and the slavery of the dole, for we who honor self-reliance and independence, for we who play by the rules and pay our own way, and yes for we who actually love America, who are deeply touched by the beauty of our patriotic hymns, we want to preserve America's greatness.  We say this is not right, this cynical, cynical, cynical rigging of our country.  
> ...


Funny how they claim to value Liberty but some how the idea that people have the right to live apart from failed politics and cultures does not exist. Open border shills are the worse.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Conservatives have been moving to the middle too.  Some groups have just gotten louder, not bigger.

----------


## wizardwatson

> "That`s racist!"...That phrase no longer has any value to anyone of value. We must let go of the fear of being labeled a “racist”, a” bigot” or “hate monger”. The moment you lose your fear of being labeled is the moment they lose their power over you.  
> 
> 
> What do you fear most? Being called names, or being enslaved or rendered extinct?


"If you can't beat the racists, join the racists."

That's what I'm hearing.

Are the fascists going to go away when Trump goes away, or are they here to stay?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> "If you can't beat the racists, join the racists."
> 
> That's what I'm hearing.
> 
> Are the fascists going to go away when Trump goes away, or are they here to stay?


Is is "racist" to stop surrendering and compromising your Liberty, Wealth, and Future away?

Is it "racist" to stop caring about other groups and care about your own? 

LOL..."fascists", "Racists" LOL is this a front for DU?

----------


## fisharmor

When you claim with a straight face that non-Northern European races are genetically incapable of understanding political concepts, that's kind of the dictionary definition of racism.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> When you claim with a straight face that non-Northern European races are genetically incapable of understanding political concepts, that's kind of the dictionary definition of racism.


Clearly you do not know of r/K selection and epigenetics.

Take you cry of racism somewhere else.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Is is "racist" to stop surrendering and compromising your Liberty, Wealth, and Future away?
> 
> Is it "racist" to stop caring about other groups and care about your own? 
> 
> LOL..."fascists", "Racists" LOL is this a front for DU?


It's racist to think of yourself as belonging to a group.  The only reason you would self-identify with a group is because you see some special quality of that group.  People don't "care" about belonging to a group that doesn't elevate their self-esteem.

And yes, October 2015 join date, I'm the resident leader of the DU faction of RPF.  You're on notice.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It's racist to think of yourself as belonging to a group.  The only reason you would self-identify with a group is because you see some special quality of that group.  People don't "care" about belonging to a group that doesn't elevate their self-esteem.
> 
> And yes, October 2015 join date, I'm the resident leader of the DU faction of RPF.  You're on notice.


I am a member of countless groups, LOL Sure, its not because I want to seek out like mind person to be around, maybe build things and achieve common goals, right? No could not be, just "racism", right?

Stop projecting your self hatred onto others..

----------


## wizardwatson

> I am a member of countless groups, LOL Sure, its not because I want to seek out like mind person to be around, maybe build things and achieve common goals, right? No could not be, just "racism", right?
> 
> Stop projecting your self hatred onto others..


Is there a neo-reactionary propaganda factory somewhere, where you guys are trained and then set loose on libertarian boards to try to co-opt the word "liberty" and post 90% on immigration related threads?

As entertaining as it is sometimes to show how much better of an understanding I have it's kind of redundant since there's nothing unique about your position that I haven't already refuted when it came from 5 or 6 other people on here in a hundred or so of my posts.

Stop trying to put people in groups.  Ron Paul 101, newbie.

I use words like racism and nazi because they do have meaning.  The fact that people overuse them doesn't mean that I'm not using them correctly.  And this Trump awakening of white supremacist xenophobes is quite deserving of the label "racist" in my opinion.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Is there a neo-reactionary propaganda factory somewhere, where you guys are trained and then set loose on libertarian boards to try to co-opt the word "liberty" and post 90% on immigration related threads?
> 
> As entertaining as it is sometimes to show how much better of an understanding I have it's kind of redundant since there's nothing unique about your position that I haven't already refuted when it came from 5 or 6 other people on here in a hundred or so of my posts.
> 
> Stop trying to put people in groups.  Ron Paul 101, newbie.
> 
> I use words like racism and nazi because they do have meaning.  The fact that people overuse them doesn't mean that I'm not using them correctly.  And this Trump awakening of white supremacist xenophobes is quite deserving of the label "racist" in my opinion.


You tell me to stop putting people into groups as you put others into groups...Irony. So because people are tired of paying for welfare for illegals and being displaced by mass immigration they have to be "white supremacists" and "xenophobes" they never have any valid complements?

Please keep talking, the more you do the more you show us what a leftist you are. 

Think of how great it will be when immigration is reduce in number and origin, the border secured, illegals deported, birthright citizenship, hundreds of billion of tax dollars saved, and millions of future leftist voters send back home, never able to vote against us.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You tell me to stop putting people into groups as you put others into groups...Irony. So because people are tired of paying for welfare for illegals and being displaced by mass immigration they have to be "white supremacists" and "xenophobes" they never have any valid complements?
> 
> Please keep talking, the more you do the more you show us what a leftist you are. 
> 
> Think of how great it will be when immigration is reduce in number and origin, the border secured, illegals deported, birthright citizenship, hundreds of billion of tax dollars saved, and millions of future leftist voters send back home, never able to vote against us.


You talk of "illegal" immigration, which kind of gives you some implied moral leverage.  But your stance on immigration would be the same even if you were opposing liberal amounts of legal immigration.  Imposing anti-immigration policy based on pseudo-scientific beliefs is anti-liberty.  It is immoral.  

In the other discussions I had with people with similar views to yours it was ultimately determined that they are amoral and nihilistic.  In fact, in my research I determined that a number of the talking heads in this neo-reactionary movement seemed to put forward the idea that inciting racial tensions was a means to an end.  In other words, a lot of these intellectual fascists running around aren't really all that racist, but they see a society in racial chaos as the first stage in purging the existing power structures.  

So when I see you spouting the same tired lines of "you hate your race", "we have to stop immigration", I don't have the least bit of trust in your underlying commitment to true liberty and I question what you are even doing here.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You talk of "illegal" immigration, which kind of gives you some implied moral leverage.  But your stance on immigration would be the same even if you were opposing liberal amounts of legal immigration.  Imposing anti-immigration policy based on pseudo-scientific beliefs is anti-liberty.  It is immoral.


Its pro immigration, just low immigration. I did not know basic math and stats like the number of immigrants on welfare is  pseudo-scientific beliefs... 

No, what is immoral is flooding a nation with cheap labor and voters as to make the native born powerless in their own nation.




> In the other discussions I had with people with similar views to yours it was ultimately determined that they are amoral and nihilistic.  In fact, in my research I determined that a number of the talking heads in this neo-reactionary movement seemed to put forward the idea that inciting racial tensions was a means to an end.  In other words, a lot of these intellectual fascists running around aren't really all that racist, but they see a society in racial chaos as the first stage in purging the existing power structures.


Their is racial chaos, are you blind? Laws are applied and enforce based on skin color and facts are rejected based on feelings..




> So when I see you spouting the same tired lines of "you hate your race", "we have to stop immigration", I don't have the least bit of trust in your underlying commitment to true liberty and I question what you are even doing here.


Why, what have I lied about? What have not been totally honest about? More over I only want to protect what is rightfully ours, if that makes me a bad person in the eyes of some, so be it.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Its pro immigration, just low immigration. I did not know basic math and stats like the number of immigrants on welfare is  pseudo-scientific beliefs...


Saying things like certain hispanics are genetically predisposed to "loving" a specific type of candidate is pseudo-scientific garbage talk.  You said that in another thread.




> No, what is immoral is flooding a nation with cheap labor and voters as to make the native born powerless in their own nation.


Well, now you're sounding like what I have to correct my 12 year old on.  "Those guys are doing bad stuff too!"  Doesn't matter what existing immorality is present.  You have to judge actions according to some kind of moral standard.  Moral relativism is amoral.




> Their is racial chaos, are you blind? Laws are applied and enforce based on skin color and facts are rejected based on feelings..


Not really at epidemic levels yet and I don't think rampant racism is the general case in our legal system.




> Why, what have I lied about? What have not been totally honest about? More over I only want to protect what is rightfully ours, if that makes me a bad person in the eyes of some, so be it.


Well, for one why are you always using collective pronouns?  What group do you identify with.  Is it just genetically white people or do you have an underlying political philosophy that has led you to these beliefs?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Saying things like certain hispanics are genetically predisposed to "loving" a specific type of candidate is pseudo-scientific garbage talk.  You said that in another thread.


So Hispanics are not more tribal then other groups?




> Well, now you're sounding like what I have to correct my 12 year old on.  "Those guys are doing bad stuff too!"  Doesn't matter what existing immorality is present.  You have to judge actions according to some kind of moral standard.  Moral relativism is amoral.


The moral standard is the following does it benefit he American people, does it protect Liberty.

Also moral superiority is highly over rated.





> Not really at epidemic levels yet and I don't think rampant racism is the general case in our legal system.


Really? We have millions of people in this nation because laws were not enforced in large part of people and groups play the race card and you stand here and claim "Not really at epidemic levels yet"....Wow great to see how far you are out of it. But hey as long as it does not effect you or you can not see it it must not exist.





> Well, for one why are you always using collective pronouns?  What group do you identify with.  Is it just genetically white people or do you have an underlying political philosophy that has led you to these beliefs?


White, Right leaning, Liberty valuing, immigration reductionists, Constitutionalists.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> When you claim with a straight face that non-Northern European races are genetically incapable of understanding political concepts, that's kind of the dictionary definition of racism.


I wasn't accusing TheCount of being non-Northern European.  I was accusing him of being r-selected.  Try to keep up.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> So Hispanics are not more tribal then other groups?
> 
> 
> 
> The moral standard is the following does it benefit he American people, does it protect Liberty.
> 
> Also moral superiority is highly over rated.
> 
> 
> ...


What does the Constitution say about immigration?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What does the Constitution say about immigration?


'
"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

No where does it say it is a right of the world to flood in.

The founders had very strict views when it comes to immigration.



George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that *"by an* *intermixture** with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."*



In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily *"incorporate himself into our society."*



Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: *"The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."*



Hamilton further warned that *"The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust;the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."*



The survival of the American republic,Hamilton maintained, depends upon *"the preservation of a national spirit and a national character."* *"To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothingless than to admit the* *Grecian horse* *into the* *citadel** of our liberty and sovereignty."*
*The Federalist Papers (1787-1788)*

*ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JAMES MADISON & JOHN JAY*

FEDERALIST 2
*Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
by John Jay*"

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people  a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.


This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties."






The nation of immigrants myth has been busted time and time again.

ask what a true nation of immigrants would be. 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. Wow sounds alot like what is happening today..

----------


## wizardwatson

> '
> "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
> 
> No where does it say it is a right of the world to flood in.
> 
> The founders had very strict views when it comes to immigration.


Who gives a rats ass about a rich slave-owning classes opinions about immigration policy?  We study the writings of men concerning the subject in question.  We don't worship the lot and mimic their ignorance out of reverence. 




Script from 1:51 in video:

*



			
				Barack Obama (on TV): ...to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one...

Driver: You hear that line? Line's for you.

Jackie Cogan: Don't make me laugh. One people. It's a myth created by Thomas Jefferson.

Driver: Oh, so now you're going to have a go at Jefferson, huh?

Jackie Cogan: My friend, Thomas Jefferson is an American saint because he wrote the words 'All men are created equal', words he clearly didn't believe since he allowed his own children to live in slavery. He's a rich white snob who's sick of paying taxes to the Brits. So, yeah, he writes some lovely words and aroused the rabble and they went and died for those words while he sat back and drank his wine and $#@!ed his slave girl. This guy wants to tell me we're living in a community? Don't make me laugh. I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business. Now $#@!in' pay me.
			
		

*

Best minute of the movie.

----------


## wizardwatson

bump for edits

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Who gives a rats ass about a rich slave-owning classes opinions about immigration policy?  We study the writings of men concerning the subject in question.  We don't worship the lot and mimic their ignorance out of reverence. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Script from 1:51 in video:
> 
> 
> 
> Best minute of the movie.


Because they were right...

----------


## TheCount

> While _you_, on the other hand, are incapable of perceiving intra-species threats, due to your body's r-strategy gene expression, and also incapable of perceiving and assessing threats in general, due to a smaller amygdala.  So yeah, yuk it up, buddy.


When you first started posting on immigration topics I didn't think that you'd drank the kool-aid, but it's sadly clear now that you did.

Just because you perceive that there is a threat does not mean that the threat is plausible and rational.





> Being "afraid of brown people" is being able to recognize that others, even of your own species, may be a threat to you.  Could pose a threat to your way of life.


Yeah, let's talk about threats to my way of life for a minute.


The politicians I'm worried about?  White.

The police I'm worried about?  White.

The economic criminals I'm worried about?  White.

The violent criminals I'm worried about?  Also white.


The fact that Carlos, who works illegally as a line cook in my favorite restaurant, didn't get approval from the government to live here and cook my food?  That's so far down the line of threats to my way of life that it isn't even on the radar.  It's going to have to get in line.





> Rs can't do that.  Ks can.  Rs also can't recognize threats like "the national debt is rising".


Is there any indication whatsoever that people who are concerned about race are also concerned about shrinking the deficit?  This can be the first [citation needed] of my post.





> Our job is not to make fun of the Ks


According to (if your logic is at all sound) most of the Ks on this forum, that is explicitly my job.





> the Ks are the only ones biologically capable of being reached by libertarianism.


[citation needed]





> look, here's the problems that are top threats to our way of life: 1) destruction of the family, 2) national debt, 3) massive flood of third-world dole-parasites, 4) our slow, long-term loss of productivity and economic infrastructure (factories, etc.)


Oh cool, you made a list too!  Let's walk through it:





> 1) destruction of the family


Whites





> 2) national debt


Whites





> 3) massive flood of third-world dole-parasites


Let's pretend this is true.  Non-whites.





> 4) our slow, long-term loss of productivity and economic infrastructure (factories, etc.)


Whites


So three of the four problems on your top four problems list have nothing whatsoever to do with non-whites or immigration.  Hell, the non-white thing didn't even make your top two!  How, exactly, is it that this is the most important issue of the moment?





> For Ks, it does.  Those are our allies.  That is our constituency.


[citation needed]





> And if they want to kick out all the immigrants, hey, there are far worse things they could do.  That would not be the end of the world.  There are very sane, rational reasons for wanting to do so, in fact.  It is our job as libertarians to help them do it in a humane, respectful way that will uphold and respect the rights of all individuals while doing so.


You're trying to put a face on this like you don't at all agree with it and that racists are merely a convenient tool for you to advance libertarianism.  It's equally true that libertarianism is a convenient tool to advance race-based politics, and that any pretense at liberty will be left on the sidelines in the progression toward their goals.  Despite the fact that the conservative movement has already seen this exact formula several times in American history, you don't seem to consider that potential.  Maybe that's a threat that your underdeveloped r-type amygdala cannot comprehend.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Because they were right...


Of course.  

There's little point to address you I think since all you care to comment about is how immigration policy is the holy grail of strategic methods for achieving liberty.  By addressing your points all I'm doing (like with the others before you) is giving you an opportunity to post more propaganda about how us whites need to "join together".

Afraid I can't join your white club though as I already screwed up and had a half-brown baby.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> '
> "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
> 
> No where does it say it is a right of the world to flood in.
> 
> The founders had very strict views when it comes to immigration.
> 
> 
> The nation of immigrants myth has been busted time and time again.
> ...


So the Constitution says nothing about limiting immigration.  Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant from the Dutch West Indies.  By allowing Naturalization (which IS in the Constitution) a path is allowed for immigrants to achieve citizenship status.  Without immigration, such a process would not be needed. They knew there would be immigrants and wanted them to join society. Citizenship was not just based on birth. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1898163.html




> By guaranteeing a "uniform rule of naturalization," the Constitution presupposes an immigrant nation. In the original conception, the Constitution protected a society of immigrants and citizens living side-by-side. While reserving the right to vote and hold office for citizens, the document protects the rights of "life, liberty, and property" for "any person," not just any citizen.
> 
> The Constitution's principal framer, James Madison, argued that the freedoms the Constitution guaranteed actually depended upon this pluralism. *"This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America,"* he said at the Virginia ratifying convention, "for where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest." Madison repeated this point in Federalist #10: in America, diversity would defend freedom.
> 
> Thomas Paine echoed this view in The Rights of Man. "If there is a country in the world where concord... would be least expected, it is America," he wrote. "Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable." But he argued that if the government protects the equal rights of all, "there is nothing to engender riots and tumults," and "all the parts are brought into cordial unison."
> 
> *The Constitution's 20-year prohibition on any Congressional limitation on immigration reflects the importance they placed on immigrants.* The Declaration of Independence had denounced the king for "prevent[ing] the population of these states" by "obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners" and "refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither." In this spirit, states after independence sold land at discounts to those who emigrated from abroad and granted citizenship in as little as two years.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson , reflecting the general sentiment, said, "The present desire of America is to produce rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible." On this point, Jefferson's archrival, Alexander Hamilton, agreed. "Immigrants exhibit a large proportion of ingenious and valuable workmen," he wrote, "who by expatriating from Europe improved their own condition, and added to the industry and wealth of the United States."
> ...

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> When you first started posting on immigration topics I didn't think that you'd drank the kool-aid, but it's sadly clear now that you did.
> 
> Just because you perceive that there is a threat does not mean that the threat is plausible and rational.


Ever notice those that down play threats are wrong around half the time?



Y


> eah, let's talk about threats to my way of life for a minute.
> 
> 
> The politicians I'm worried about?  White.
> 
> The police I'm worried about?  White.
> 
> The economic criminals I'm worried about?  White.
> 
> The violent criminals I'm worried about?  Also white.



So not of all colors just if they are white? No who is the racist.




> The fact that Carlos, who works illegally as a line cook in my favorite restaurant, didn't get approval from the government to live here and cook my food?  That's so far down the line of threats to my way of life that it isn't even on the radar.  It's going to have to get in line.


When he and millions of his kind vote for marxists I can assure you will look back and wish you had taken this threat at face value..











> Oh cool, you made a list too!  Let's walk through it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cultural Marxists
Cultural Marxists
Cultural Marxists (they opened the door for mass immigration)
Cultural Marxists










> You're trying to put a face on this like you don't at all agree with it and that racists are merely a convenient tool for you to advance libertarianism.  It's equally true that libertarianism is a convenient tool to advance race-based politics, and that any pretense at liberty will be left on the sidelines in the progression toward their goals.  Despite the fact that the conservative movement has already seen this exact formula several times in American history, you don't seem to consider that potential.  Maybe that's a threat that your underdeveloped r-type amygdala cannot comprehend.


[/QUOTE]

Sadly you are the kind of person that will never understand that some people are not repetitive the liberty and those that are not must be barred from entry into America.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So the Constitution says nothing about limiting immigration.  Alexander Hamilton was an immigrant from the Dutch West Indies.  By allowing Naturalization (which IS in the Constitution) a path is allowed for immigrants to achieve citizenship status.  Without immigration, such a process would not be needed. They knew there would be immigrants and wanted them to join society. Citizenship was not just based on birth. 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_1898163.html


No, it does say something about immigration, its in Article one Section 8. Are you that much of a leftist that you can not even read it?

They also understand the threat of mass immigration from cultures and people that did not understand or value Liberty. Funny how you leave that part out.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Of course.  
> 
> There's little point to address you I think since all you care to comment about is how immigration policy is the holy grail of strategic methods for achieving liberty.  By addressing your points all I'm doing (like with the others before you) is giving you an opportunity to post more propaganda about how us whites need to "join together".
> 
> Afraid I can't join your white club though as I already screwed up and had a half-brown baby.


The left sees it as a method for achievement permanent political power via voter importation.



By denying them this voter pipe line we will work to insure they not able to import ringers for future elections, along with taking back education we stave these parasites out of our institutions.  

If non whites want to work to reduce immigration that is fine, it  benefits them them as well economically, politically, etc

That child has just as much skin in the game as you or me, should your child have a say over the nation`s future and not a bunch of imported welfare voters?

----------


## wizardwatson

> The left sees it as a method for achievement permanent political power via voter importation.
> 
> 
> 
> By denying them this voter pipe line we will work to insure they not able to import ringers for future elections, along with taking back education we stave these parasites out of our institutions.  
> 
> If non whites want to work to reduce immigration that is fine, it  benefits them them as well economically, politically, etc
> 
> That child has just as much skin in the game as you or me, should your child have a say over the nation`s future and not a bunch of imported welfare voters?


Yes, I will be sure to have a long talk with my kid about how the rule of law and truth isn't what needs to be upheld to affect world peace.

The real solution to utopia is radicalized gerrymandering.

Someone should shoot off an email to Rand Paul.  He needs to get the word out.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> When you first started posting on immigration topics I didn't think that you'd drank the kool-aid, but it's sadly clear now that you did.


 You're going to decide that because I called you r-selected?  Come on, man.  Did you read this whole thread?  I've said far more "offensive" things than that in other posts.  I wasn't even serious about you being r-selected; obviously I know little to nothing about you. 




> Just because you perceive that there is a threat does not mean that the threat is plausible and rational.


 Absolutely!  Any potential threat must be weighed and considered and carefully assessed (so long as time allows it).





> Yeah, let's talk about threats to my way of life for a minute.
> 
> The politicians I'm worried about?  White.
> The police I'm worried about?  White.
> The economic criminals I'm worried about?  White.
> The violent criminals I'm worried about?  Also white.


 Yes, yes, same here, but the bigger picture is that _for whatever reason_ all the hispanics in America and all of the blacks most of the Asians vote Democrat.  That means that there are real, long-term consequences to liberty if they increase from 4% to 15% to 30% and finally to 50% of the population.  The reason that the white politician you don't like is so far to the left is because immigration has enabled -- has forced -- the entire political spectrum in America to be shifted far to the left of what it otherwise would be.  You saw the maps.  If not for demographic change, Romney won in a bigger landslide than Reagan.




> Is there any indication whatsoever that people who are concerned about immigration are also concerned about shrinking the deficit?


 Actually yes, that is precisely what I see.  It is the very same people who are concerned about immigration and who are concerned about the debt.  The people on the right.  The Ks.




> How, exactly, is it that immigration is the most important issue of the moment?


 Where did I say that it is?  The world is a big, complex, interesting place.  It's full of issues.




> You're trying to put a face on this like you don't at all agree with it and that racists are merely a convenient tool for you to advance libertarianism.  It's equally true that libertarianism is a convenient tool to advance race-based politics, and that any pretense at liberty will be left on the sidelines in the progression toward their goals.


OK, so what are their goals?  Who are these bad people and what are their nefarious goals?  This is the huge majority of the American people, by the way, who you are smearing. The huge majority of the American people, and of conservatives in particular, who are against illegal immigration, what precisely is their agenda that's so evil and bad, exactly?  By the way, I don't accept your premise that just because people are against unlimited third-world immigration they are racist.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Yes, I will be sure to have a long talk with my kid about how the rule of law and truth isn't what needs to be upheld to affect world peace.
> 
> The real solution to utopia is radicalized gerrymandering.
> 
> Someone should shoot off an email to Rand Paul.  He needs to get the word out.


Would you play by a set of rules that ensures you lose?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> No, *it does say something about immigration, its in Article one Section 8. Are you that much of a leftist that you can not even read it?*
> 
> They also understand the threat of mass immigration from cultures and people that did not understand or value Liberty. Funny how you leave that part out.


Let's see.  Article One Section 8.  What does it say about immigration?  Since it sounds like you haven't read it yet, so here it is:  




> SECTION 8
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> *To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,* and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> ...


http://constitutioncenter.org/intera...cles/article-i

Just one line.  And it does not say what immigration should be- only that Congress establish a way for immigrants to become citizens. It does not establish any restrictions on immigration or even say that Congress has the power to limit immigration.  So a "True Constitutionalist" must support immigrants ability to become citizens.  That is not exactly banning them. 




> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

----------


## Zippyjuan

> *The left sees it as a method for achievement permanent political power via voter importation.*
> 
> 
> 
> By denying them this voter pipe line we will work to insure they not able to import ringers for future elections, along with taking back education we stave these parasites out of our institutions.  
> 
> If non whites want to work to reduce immigration that is fine, it  benefits them them as well economically, politically, etc
> 
> That child has just as much skin in the game as you or me, should your child have a say over the nation`s future and not a bunch of imported welfare voters?


Illegal immigrants are not eligible to vote. Legal immigrants can only vote once they become citizens (and are at least 18 years old). http://immigration.about.com/od/immi...ns_Elgblty.htm

Should we prohibit citizens from voting?  Or violate the Constitution and say immigrants can't become naturalized (citizens)? 

 But if you are worried about the numbers, go make more babies. Or go out and try to convince them to vote the same way you do.  But just as a suggestion- you won't win any over by trying to label them as "second class humans".   The more anti- immigrant language you use the more likely they will vote against you.  Not a good way to try to win them over.  Even if they do already agree with you on things like family values, religion, and anti- abortion. 

And which group is "exploiting chaos, division, racial/ ethnic tensions" for their political benefit?  Seems to be coming from the far right, not the far left. Fear the foreigners!

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I love you...
> 
> And should we fall electorally, well *we always have other means.*


That sounds like you are advocating violence.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That sounds like you are advocating violence.



Should we lose at the ballot box and are reduced to minority in our own nation, with no means to defend and advance our interests and rights, yes I do.

Tell me, would you play by a set of rules that are designed to ensure you lose? Yes or No?

Would play by a game that is by its very nature rigged against you as for you to never win it? Yes or No?

What values more to you? Liberty or "equality"?

“He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but even the good to do wrong.” -St John Chrysostom

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Let's see.  Article One Section 8.  What does it say about immigration?  Since it sounds like you haven't read it yet, so here it is:  
> 
> 
> 
> http://constitutioncenter.org/intera...cles/article-i
> 
> Just one line.  And it does not say what immigration should be- only that Congress establish a way for immigrants to become citizens. It does not establish any restrictions on immigration or even say that Congress has the power to limit immigration.  So a "True Constitutionalist" must support immigrants ability to become citizens.  That is not exactly banning them.


It is only logical you want to take in people who have something to add, will not be burdens or threats to the nation, nor subvert it from within.

No, it does and we will on support immigration if it benefits the American nation, culture and people, if it does not it will be reduced as to ensure it does not harm us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Clearly you do not know of r/K selection and epigenetics.
> 
> Take you cry of racism somewhere else.


Take you racism and your statism somewhere else.  You're on the wrong website.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Would you play by a set of rules that ensures you lose?


Way ahead of you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

[QUOTE=Zippyjuan;6040868]Illegal immigrants are not eligible to vote. Legal immigrants can only vote once they become citizens (and are at least 18 years old). http://immigration.about.com/od/immi...ns_Elgblty.htm

Voter fraud cases say otherwise.

What you failed understand is they will vote after they are given amnesty.

They also effect House Seats.

http://cis.org/gang-of-eight-bill-shifts-house-seats

So please stop with the lie that they do not effect our elections, they do.




> Should we prohibit citizens from voting?  Or violate the Constitution and say immigrants can't become naturalized (citizens)?


Great strawman. They should not become citizens nor should they remain in this nation to begin with.





> But if you are worried about the numbers, go make more babies. Or go out and try to convince them to vote the same way you do.  But just as a suggestion- you won't win any over by trying to label them as "second class humans".   The more anti- immigrant language you use the more likely they will vote against you.  Not a good way to try to win them over.  Even if they do already agree with you on things like family values, religion, and anti- abortion.



Let me put this in terms you can understand. You can not bail out a ship if the water is coming in a rate greater they you can pump it out.

We are taking in people in such numbers and from such primitive cultures they can not be assimilated.

They can not be convinced to vote for smaller goverment as it would reduce the amount of welfare benefits they get.

Most of us really like capitalism, meritocracy, property rights, rule of law, Limited Government, and above all Gun Rights. But you need to recognize that the left's program of demographic replacement will destroy those things forever, and that those values, as "universally good" as they may be and they are, they are largely only attractive to persons to people that have grown up with them in cultures that value you.

 The current incoming waves of immigrants are not going to vote for Freedom, Limited Government and Capitalism. They do not have any understanding of them, any loyalty to them and since they have grown up in a collectivist nation/culture they have a great deal of contempt and dislike them. They don't vote for it in Mexico, they don't vote for it in Venezuela, they don't vote for it in Colombia, they don't vote for it in Bolivia, they don't vote for it in Argentina, they don't vote for it in Brazil, they don't vote for it in Chile, they don't vote for it in Guatemala, they don`t vote for in China, they don`t vote for it in Thailand, they don`t vote for in India, they don`t vote for it in  even in the nations that produced the Founding Stock of America, England and Holland and they're not going to vote for it here.


They will not vote for Liberty minded candidates or party, do not believe me?


























*They will not vote for us as our values, culture, and politics are not compatible as they come from serf/peasant cultures.

They will not vote against us because they will not become citizens, as we will have reduce immigration in size, method of admittance and from origin as well as ending birth right ciztenship. (just so the left can not play the long term game)

See how that works? We do not allow future voters to be imported they are most likely to vote against! 

See how that works? Problem is not solved it is prevented from over being a problem!

Hate to break it to you but victory at all costs is a proven method of achiveing and maintaining political power, with out political power you can have all the ideas, plans, policies, and goal you want but without the means to implament them they might as well not exist.

Time to play to one goal in mind, Win. With political power we can clearly advance our agenda of restoring Liberty.

If that means we have to keep out large groups of people to achieve and maintain power and Liberty...So be it.

*



Family values thing is  myth. 

http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_...ly_values.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...her-mac-donald

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/articl...h-republicans/

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/0...ic-social.html


Catholics are solid statists and supports of the Democratic party a majority of the time


As for abortion they support it! 


Now I support over the counter, cheap birth control as it avoid the issue all together as well as prevents single motherhood which is a burden on us and creates more Democratic voters..




> And which group is "exploiting chaos, division, racial/ ethnic tensions" for their political benefit?  Seems to be coming from the far right, not the far left. Fear the foreigners!


Yeah, its not the left, you know the side that is importing votes as they can not win election with the media openly lying for them buying the votes o the desperate, poor, and the low informed...

Its not like one side is point out how mass immigration is harming America, has mountains of data to prove it and one side is just denying everything.

Its funny, every claim you make it totally wrong. Well you do not have to learn only lose with your side win, do not worry a 1924 styled immigration act will do us wonders. We will secure the blessings of Liberty for _ourselves and our_ posterity.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Take you racism and your statism somewhere else.  You're on the wrong website.


So wanting to keep out large numbers of people that are going to out vote you and support Marxism is "racism" and "statism"..So self preservation is "racist" and "statist"? LOL

Hate to break it to you but those cry of racism is a total of the left and it no long works.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Way ahead of you.


Answer the question, would you play by a set of rules that insure you lose? Yes or No?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

*Dances With Elephants*

By Bionic Mosquito
August 28, 2015


Recently I have commented quite a bit on libertarianism and culture  prompted by the singularly identifiable event of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.  This journey has led me to Hoppe and his views on this intersection of libertarianism and culture. Recently, the conversation has turned specifically to Hoppes views on immigration.

I was offered the following by Anon at August 10, 2015 at 7:00 AM:

_    Im restating Block. You really should read his stuff to get it from the horses mouth. He obliterates Hoppes argument. He answers your objections._
So I went looking for Blocks articles on this topic.

I first will thank the anonymous commenter for pointing me this way.  It is one of the benefits of documenting my intellectual journey in a public forum; I often receive such good feedback.

I will add, however, that I find it difficult to imagine that anyone obliterates Hoppes argument on anything libertarian.  I say this not because I personally find disagreement with Block on this topic (on many points I agree, on some minor points I disagree, on the major issue at hand I conclude the issue might very well be insoluble via the thinnest of thin libertarian theory alone  and certainly not via the method Block recommends); I do this because in this debate, perhaps the most capable, knowledgeable, well-read and thoughtful libertarian theorists sit on opposite sides.

On one side is Block; on the other you will find Hoppe and (per Block) Kinsella.  One or the other of these gentlemen is going to obliterate the others on a question of libertarian theory?  I dont think so.

What makes it even more impossible to award one side or the other the title of Champion Obliterator is Rothbard.  According to Block, Rothbard changed his views from one side to the other over the course of his life (moving from what is today Blocks position toward what is today Hoppes position).  So, I guess Rothbard sits on both sidesperhaps he obliterated himself?

This is not the stuff of obliteration.

The fundamental issue is that this is a dialogue inherently intertwined with the states involvement in owning and defending property.  It isnt clear that there is a purely libertarian-based argument to untangle this, other than abolish the state and remove from it all property and all decisions regarding property.  But the debate isnt waiting for this hoped-for day of salvation.  So we are left with a debate regarding the second-best option.

*Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique*

Walter Block:

_    The thesis of the present paper is that the claims of Hoppe (1998, 2001), Kinsella (2005) and Rothbard (1998) on immigration are erroneous. In their view, the government of the U.S. is at present justified in restricting immigration to the country, on libertarian grounds.  There is no need to even discuss what libertarian theory is, since there is not a dimes worth of difference on this score between the three of us on this matter._
In case you didnt hear me the first time: four individuals, each of whom is rightly considered extremely thorough in their understanding of libertarian theory and further (despite my disagreements with each on certain topics), each is always unquestionably sincere in his attempts to apply libertarian theory to the everyday problems of the real world.  Yet they sit on different sides of this discussion.

Block presents Crusoe on an island.  When Friday arrives, can Crusoe legitimately bar him from cultivating unused land on the other side of the island?  Crusoe claims the entire island as his own  he just hasnt got to doing much with all of it yet.  Block believes this is not a legitimate claim on Crusoes part.  Block uses this to demonstrate the unowned nature of much of the so-called government owned land.  No one is using it  the Rocky Mountains and the vast deserts, for example.

This raises a point that I have always stumbled over.  I have never contemplated it to any great extent, so consider here that I am shooting from the hip (Whats new? I hear some of you say in the audience).

When the British first colonized the Americas, from their little footholds on the Atlantic (previously owned?) they claimed the territory with no (or an undefined) border in the west; coast to coastor whatever there was over those mountains (I am greatly simplifying this, I know).

What does own (defined as control, use, and disposition) mean in such a world, this world we occupy?

The several million (or however many) inhabitants of the northern portion of the North American continent were of little or no consequence to the British and their land claims (BTW, did those few people really exercise ownership of an entire three-thousand-mile-wide continent?).  Conversely, the British were of no consequence to most of those inhabitants.

My point is the claims of one side meant nothing to the claims of the other  as long as the two parties didnt come in contact.  The British might claim whatever was over those mountains, but until the two sides actually came into contact in a meaningful way, the issue of own was kind of irrelevant.

Yet own means something  eventually they come into contact.  This leads me to consider the possibility: own means what one can defend.   I dont say that this fits neatly in libertarian theory; I dont say it is just; I dont say that if an individual can present a valid claim to previously stolen goods (land ownership) that he is not entitled to it.

How about another example?  Today, many wealthy Americans own millions of acres of land  much of it left in its natural state.  It is difficult to for me disagree with the notion that the landowner of one million acres of virgin forest is justified in removing squatters  even if the landowner is doing nothing with the land besides leaving the trees to grow.

Is each individual entitled to only the amount of land he can cultivate with his bare hands?  With a mule and a plough?  A tractor?  Who is to say the proper limit?  Does he own it only when he ploughs it?  what if he just likes to look at it?

Even if the land is nothing but virgin forest, is he not entitled to keep others out if he is so able  in other words: how much land can he defend?

In the civilized world, we defend the ownership interest in our property via lawyers, recordings of title and the like.  In the uncivilized world (for the case relevant to the debate between the libertarian elephants, meaning the world of the state)?  How might the state defend its land claims?  Well, if lawyers dont work, I am certain the United States government, all state governments, and all local governments can violently defend the Rocky Mountains and the vast deserts from trespass.  They have bigger guns than you do.

Oh, bionic, you are now calling for state action.  What kind of libertarian are you?  One that is attempting to address what seems to be an insoluble problem, a problem (immigration) not separable from state involvement.  Be patient, I will expand on this.

I suppose, given my logic above, I could conclude that Blocks immigrant squatter on the top of the Rocky Mountains now owns the land under his feet  at least until the owner (taxpayer, government  it really doesnt matter at the moment) defends it and removes him.  Which the state will, via the US military (or some similar agency).

But you see the circle this leads to?  It is just for me to defend my property, it is just for me to assign an agent to this task, I am severely limited in who I might assign (I have no say in the matter), so I am conflicted in exercising what is inarguably my right.

Hence I come back to the underlying difficulty of this entire topic: this is a dialogue inherently intertwined with the states involvement in owning property.

But the state cant own property, you say.  I say your theory sounds nice, very sweet, innocent in fact.  In practice?  HAHAHA comes to mind.

I will address, shortly, how it might be possible to turn that theory into practice  Block has a plan.  Maybe it can work, or maybe not.

Now, as to what kind of libertarian I am: although funded via coercion, there are state activities that would be considered legitimate if privately funded.  Instead of rewriting my thoughts, I will offer my reply to Todd August 10, 2015 at 12:14 PM, who wondered exactly this question: because of the forced nature of financing, no state function can be legitimate.  What kind of libertarian are you, bionic?

    Todd, we walk down a path from where we are today to the libertarian utopia. Along this path will be interim steps. Are the interim steps illegitimate if they are taken with a view of the ultimate objective? Is this not a libertarian path?

    We dont get to start as virgins. We are all soiled, swimming in mud. We debate things like can a libertarian use a sidewalk?

    Libertarian theory is one thing; reaching something close to a libertarian ideal is quite another; maintaining a libertarian tradition once achieved is even another.

    What is the ultimate objective? For the one community where I would choose to live out of the ten thousand different communities that I hope are to come, my ultimate objective is to achieve a condition where all functions are funded voluntarily; where private property is respected absolutely; where the non-aggression principle is respected.

    There is a rub  culturally I would add other conditions to my community. With my neighbors, we agree in a very libertarian manner to these not-libertarian-based conditions. Is this libertarian? I say yes.

    In any case, we dont get to start where we would like; we only get to start where we are. The subject of immigration doesnt even exist in a world without a state; libertarian theory and practice need not butt heads.

    To your critique: it is undeniable that some of the functions currently done by the state will also be desired by voluntarily-paying customers in numbers sufficient to create a market. Many of these are quite consistent with libertarian theory and the NAP  private arbitration instead of state courts, private security services instead of city police, etc.

    It is in reference to these functions that I use the label legitimate.
For example, in a libertarian world, some people would voluntarily fund the salaries of individuals who are today professors employed by state-funded universities!

In all seriousness, when the only reasonable course of action for a just (via the NAP) act is through a state actor (yes, I knowtaxes), lets just say that eliminating this isnt high on my list of concerns  on the list of reasons to end the state, these would be in the One day, when I get to it category.  The list of unjust actions by and through government actors is both very long and far more damaging.

I will take it a step further  a measure of your thinness, if you will:

    If you walk on sidewalks, you have gained one pound.
    If you drive on public roads and highways, you have gained three pounds.
    If you fly, you have gained five pounds.
    If you call the fire department because your house is burning, you have gained four pounds.
    If you use the court system, you have gained six pounds.
    If you visit a National Park, you have gained three pounds.
    If you use Federal Reserve notes (or Euros or Swissies or Yen), you have just gained twenty pounds.

The FRNs have the most calories and simple carbs; central banking is the ultimate tool of control  and you are contributing to this control of your fellow man (yes, every single purist reading this post).

I could list 100 more items  each perfectly just if funded voluntarily, yet jaded by the method of funding and the lack of reasonable alternatives.

You see, being thin when it comes to libertarian theory is easy  even mandatory in my book.  Putting thin into practice?  You cant even live in a shed at 10,000 feet and accomplish this  well, for sure if you are also reading this post you cant (I dont have to worry about the non-readers disproving me).

Oh, where to draw the thin-libertarian line.

But I digress.  Block disagrees with Kinsellas argument that the state has a right to establish rules for property it owns.  The example being offered is that of a community pool.  Block offers the proper way to put libertarian-theory purity into libertarian-inducing practice.

Block says, dont follow their rules; instead, he says tear down the wall (well, he doesnt really say that, but it flowed very nicely, dont you think?):

_    The radical alternative is that the rules of the pool should be fashioned so as to eliminate these enterprises from governmental control. For example, everyone, anyone, should be allowed to walk off with the water in the pool, even the very bricks of which it is composed._
(See, he kind of did say that Pink Floyd thing.)

OK, Block; I will dip my toe in the water.

_    My point is that the radical scenario I am positing seems to me more compatible with the libertarian ethos than the more conservative one depicted by our author._

It might be more compatible, but it is a dangerous game with a very unsatisfactory outcome.  Once property destruction takes hold, does Block believe the participants (because once property destruction starts, the participants will likely not be limited to NAP-respecting libertarian purists) will listen kindly to a meek [insert age, hairline, nationality/religion here] professor about his libertarian theory?  Will they stop their destruction merely at the community pool, or only state owned buildings?

Will Block physically stop them?  Talk about trying to defend the undefendable! (I will send flowers.)

Remember, Block isnt suggesting what to do in a world made up of a large portion of libertarians.  He is writing of todays world.  So, no, they wont stop there.  And then, when all the destruction and looting (yes, there will be looting) comes to your street and your house and your store  no problem; Professor Block will offer you a smiling face: welcome to the libertarian world.

Of course you libertarian purists will be smiling, perhaps serving lemonade while basking in the glow of your purity.  But what about your neighbors?  Do you think your non-libertarian-purist neighbors will resist the urge to call in the state in order to bring this glorious liberation to an end?  And will the state then say, No, you dont understand  Professor Block said it was OK.  We will not increase in any way the draconian police state as a result of this crisis?

The state will allow a crisis go to waste?  Maybe a reverse ratchet effect?  That would be a first, wouldnt it?

Are you sure Blocks second best solution will be more conducive to a libertarian nirvana?  Really?

Not me; in fact I am sure it wont be.  I think the most compatible is to advocate turning title of the pool over to those who funded it.  In the meantime, proper fiduciary care of the pool wouldnt be a bad idea as a second best option.  I am certain it is a better second-best option, given the certain (yes, I am comfortable using that word) consequences to the depravation of liberty via Blocks option:

_    It seems to me decidedly unlibertarian to advocate these sorts of reasonable rules. A more libertarian stance would be to welcome actual chaos on all property statists steal from victims. The likelihood is that pure bedlam and pandemonium on all such terrain would deter the thieves from their evil deeds._
Out of the chaos brought on by social conflict will emerge libertarian order?  I greatly admire and respect Dr. Block, but I cannot resist.  On what planet?

This out of chaos libertarian order view is also the view of left-libertarian anarchists, about whom I have written fairly often recently (and no, I do NOT include Block as a member of this philosophical-basket-case crowd).  The only thing that differentiates this left-libertarian view from the views of Antonio Gramsci is that left-libertarians claim respect for property rightsthey dont really, but they say they do.

But once property rights are disrespected  no matter the theoretical soundness of the professors idea  will the masses listen to libertarian reason about where to draw the line?  Once property rights are disrespected, you are left with pure Gramsci.  I am not arguing libertarian theory; I am suggesting that Blocks suggested path from here to there will move society away from, and not toward, a libertarian world.

Interim steps are fine, as long as they move us toward liberty.  I think some guy named Murray wrote something like that once.  So why choose a path certain to steer the car in the wrong direction?

Human nature and history are on my side  liberty has rarely, if ever, sprung forth from such bedlam.  Instead, the people demand a savior to stop the bedlam  using any and all liberty-destructing tools available.

I know I have referred to it before, I will again.  The European Middle Ages offers one of the better examples of something coming close to a libertarian theory of law.  It did not come out of violence  no one took the Colosseum down stone by stone.  It was based on the sacred oath  a mans word was his bond  with God as party to the deal (and if there was disagreement about the words, the person with the oldest document won).

Rome died its own slow death  it died more from apathy of the people and Romes expansion of empire than it did from any invading army.  Roman citizens fled their so-called civilization and voluntarily became slaves to the barbarians.

Look more recently at the former Soviet Union.  It too died from a slow withering-away  not because the people stormed the Kremlin.  Certainly, what replaced it was not libertarian; yet, anyone with knowledge of life behind the Wall (Pink Floyd again) would agree that there is more freedom today than during Stalins time.

_    However, I have a concern I regard as even more important; libertarian theory. Perhaps it is possible for utilitarian or consequentialist libertarians to reconcile their principles with regulated borders, but this is not possible, I contend, for deontological ones such as myself._
But it is possible.  If I have a right to control the borders to my property, I along with my neighbors have the right to delegate this to an agent, acting on our behalf.  This is as perfectly libertarian as it gets.

The only issue is that todays provider is the monopoly state; I have only one way to put my sound libertarian right into practice.  Only one.  It is also true that those libertarians who wish to allow any and every biped from all corners of planet earth onto their property also have only one way to put their desire into practice.  Only one.

Libertarian theory supports both.  Libertarian theory offers no answer.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how many people would choose this service given that the agent today is the monopoly-state.  We do know that where property owners have freedom to discriminate, they do so.  There is a market for discrimination-supportive services  today.  In any case, if one is arguing solely on the libertarian theory of the matter (and not the practical application), my statement is at least equally as valid as is Blocks.

Oh, but bionic, by definition as you are leaning on the state, yours is less libertarian.

Perhaps you are right  but we are left with second-best alternatives in this discussion. So you see, I wont go away so easily.

Lets try a little experiment.  We can examine the views of Mr. Federal Reserve Note (FRN) libertarian and Mr. Protect My Border (PMB) libertarian.

PMB: You know, I hate the state.  But in the case of border control they do provide a service that I value.

FRN: You know, I hate the state.  But in the case of medium of exchange they do provide a service that I value.

PMB: I would give anything to have an alternative to state-provided border control.

FRN: I would give anything to have an alternative to a state-provided medium of exchange.

PMB: Wait a minute; I have no alternative, but you do.

FRN: No I dont.

PMB: Barter.  Metals not stamped by the government mint.  Bumpers for chickens.

FRN: Never mind.

Good old Mr. FRN has more alternatives than Mr. PMB, yet it is Mr. PMB taking all of this abuse.

So, I will tell you what.  The only way I will consider further counter arguments: Please, hand over to me all of your FRNs in your wallet and digits in your bank account.  Of course, you dont drive on the government roads, so I will take your car also  and I will not have one ounce of libertarian-purity-remorse when I use the governments DMV to register the car in my name.

Oh yeah, no walking on sidewalks  I will take your shoes, thank you very much.

As they say, put your money where your mouth is.  Until a commenter in support of open borders takes me up on this, you will be referred to as Mr. Big Hat No Cattle (BHNC)  wow, when did I become the Mogambo Guru?

Today the state is the agent regarding this aspect of defense of property.  We all agree: the state is, always and everywhere, the enemy.

Yet, I wonder if a libertarian frequent-flier would be in favor of suddenly dismantling the FAA while he is in flight in a thunderstorm while flying over one of the busier airports of the country  say Atlanta or Dallas (both about equidistant from New Orleans, I will guess; and both home to some of the worst thunderstorms known to man).  You know, unplug the computers, shut off the radios, you get the idea.

In theory it is a good idea.  In practice?  I am not so sure.

Thank goodness, Block rides to the rescue.  Even Block offers that certain functions of the state need not be stripped tomorrow, due to the likelihood for chaos (in this example, roads; in my example, Block making a flight connection through one of two nearby hubs).  From On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe, By Anthony Gregory and Walter Block:

_    One days notice would be simply far too little. But, suppose that the government made this announcement one year ago, and allowed a libertarian tribunal to figure out which private companies (owned by mulcted taxpayers) should take over which roads._
So perhaps libertarians might consider working on dismantling the state before deciding to throw the world into chaos by dismantling the community swimming pool.  Besides, why give William F. Buckley, Jr. more cannon fodder?

Returning to immigration: I think this issue is not resolvable via strictly thin libertarian theory in a world where the state owns property.  At least not resolvable via libertarian purity.

The result will be chaos, not liberty.

I know I jumped into this fight beginning what seems like a year ago  with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.  I made the point then that the issues I raised were more cultural than libertarian.

Libertarian purity in practice is not the only acceptable standard for a libertarian given that we live in this world  no one is a virgin, no not one.  It is not even achievable in theory given the many questions upon which libertarian theorists with unimpeachable devotion to the theory disagree.  Hoppe, Kinsella and Block disagree on this topic.  Rothbard the elder apparently even disagreed with Rothbard the younger.  Yet, somehow, libertarians are supposed to have complete conviction on the answer to this question in todays state-run environment?

Even without this disagreement amongst elephants, libertarian theory is in any case not enough to answer every question in life.  I know for certain that I do not want the chaos of wanton destruction of community swimming pools.  I know where that culture leads.

It might be debatable as to the second best option regarding immigration in a world where the state owns property; I know Block doesnt find it.  It is not debatable that culture matters generally, and that certain cultural norms are more conducive to maintaining a libertarian social order than others.

I dont want Blocks wished-for chaos  a one-way train to totalitarian-town.

I continue in my agreement with Hoppe.

Well, what do now?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> *Dances With Elephants*
> 
> By Bionic Mosquito
> August 28, 2015
> 
> 
> Recently I have commented quite a bit on libertarianism and culture – prompted by the singularly identifiable event of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.  This journey has led me to Hoppe and his views on this intersection of libertarianism and culture. Recently, the conversation has turned specifically to Hoppe’s views on immigration.
> 
> I was offered the following by Anon at August 10, 2015 at 7:00 AM:
> ...



Amen.

Out of chaos will not come Liberty...

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> *Dances With Elephants*
> 
> By Bionic Mosquito
> August 28, 2015
> 
> 
> Recently I have commented quite a bit on libertarianism and culture  prompted by the singularly identifiable event of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.  This journey has led me to Hoppe and his views on this intersection of libertarianism and culture. Recently, the conversation has turned specifically to Hoppes views on immigration.
> 
> I was offered the following by Anon at August 10, 2015 at 7:00 AM:_    Im restating Block. You really should read his stuff to get it from the horses mouth. He obliterates Hoppes argument. He answers your objections._
> ...



Amen.

Out of chaos will not come Liberty...

----------


## erowe1

> Well, what do now?


The entire blog and everything Hoppe and Rockwell have written against keeping the state from restricting immigration is irrelevant until they answer that question.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Amen.
> 
> Out of chaos will not come Liberty...


Does liberty come out of people controls?

----------


## tod evans

> Does liberty come out of people controls?


Liberty only comes from lack of oversight and regulation.

Some here are calling for government to let folks in, others for government to keep folks out.

I want government out of the way!

Let foreigners walk/drive or fly in and let Americans deal with them without government intervention.

If Spartan-boy wants to shoot furriners let him, if you want to hire them to work at your motel then you get 'em here and provide a safe environment for them.

Stop taking money from working people to enforce or support either position.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Oh, erowe and Sola_Fide!  Welcome!  Did you want to actually discuss and ponder this in-depth as I am doing?

No?  You just wanted to toss off one-liners convincing yourself how right you are?

Why don't you go play with Ronin Truth.  Run along, now!

----------


## Ender

> Amen.
> 
> Out of chaos will not come Liberty...



Tell that to William Wallace.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Tell that to William Wallace.


_Zing!_

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The entire blog and everything Hoppe and Rockwell have written against keeping the state from restricting immigration is irrelevant until they answer that question.



No, its very relevant as are the facts that prove mass immigration is harmful to the preservation of Liberty and the culture/people that are the prerequisite for it to continue to exist.

----------


## osan

The various filaments of this thread serve to remind me of just how hopeless the Empire model of the human world remains.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Does liberty come out of people controls?



When has Liberty come out of Chaos? When has anything come out of Chaos expect totalitarianism?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Liberty only comes from lack of oversight and regulation.
> 
> Some here are calling for government to let folks in, others for government to keep folks out.
> 
> I want government out of the way!
> 
> Let foreigners walk/drive or fly in and let Americans deal with them without government intervention.
> 
> If Spartan-boy wants to shoot furriners let him, if you want to hire them to work at your motel then you get 'em here and provide a safe environment for them.
> ...


So criminals, people with diseases, terrorists? Should they be allowed to walk right in.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Tell that to William Wallace.


That was war, not the same thing as mindless chaos. 

Also that was not Liberty, that was tyranny lite.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The various filaments of this thread serve to remind me of just how hopeless the Empire model of the human world remains.



Tell me about it.

----------


## tod evans

> So criminals, people with diseases, terrorists? Should they be allowed to walk right in.


Yup.




> Liberty only comes from lack of oversight and regulation.
> 
> Some here are calling for government to let folks in, others for government to keep folks out.
> 
> I want government out of the way!
> 
> *Let foreigners walk/drive or fly in and let Americans deal with them without government intervention.*
> 
> *If Spartan-boy wants to shoot furriners let him*, if you want to hire them to work at your motel then you get 'em here and provide a safe environment for them.
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> Oh, erowe and Sola_Fide!  Welcome!  Did you want to actually discuss and ponder this in-depth as I am doing?


I must have missed it. You posted an article, and after a lengthy introduction of irrelevant pontificating to the effect that something must be done, its body consisted wholly of the question, "what do now?" and that was the end of the detailed discussion.

----------


## erowe1

> So criminals, people with diseases, terrorists? Should they be allowed to walk right in.


All of those are already being born here.

----------


## erowe1

> Tell me about it.


He's talking about the empire model, i.e. your model.

----------


## erowe1

> Also that was not Liberty, that was tyranny lite.


What level of tyranny is the tyranny of making me tell the government whom I work for and whom I hire to work for me, so I can get their permission first, and so they can punish me if I hire someone without that?

----------


## Ender

> That was war, not the same thing as mindless chaos. 
> 
> Also that was not Liberty, that was tyranny lite.


We're not in war? Whodda thunk? 

And learn a little history- Wallace gave his life for FREEDOM. HE wasn't tyranny lite.

There is no Liberty w/o chaos- if we are not allowed chaos we are not free.

And speaking of chaos, there are some historians who believe that Wallace was actually the real Robin Hood. Robin knew what real freedom was; he didn't need a power hungry Prince and a groveling sheriff to tell him what or who to obey.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> All of those are already being born here.


So why do we need more of them? Make that case.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> He's talking about the empire model, i.e. your model.


I do not advocate for the empire model.




> What level of tyranny is the tyranny of making me tell the government whom I work for and whom I hire to work for me, so I can get their permission first, and so they can punish me if I hire someone without that?


If you hire a person who is the nation illegally whom we have subside yeah you get punished, want to hire them? You pay every single cent they cost the tax payer.




> We're not in war? Whodda thunk? 
> 
> And learn a little history- Wallace gave his life for FREEDOM. HE wasn't tyranny lite.


The system that followed after his death was very little difference from what they fought against.




> There is no Liberty w/o chaos- if we are not allowed chaos we are not free.


WE have been over this already. You clearly do not know the meaning of the word  chaos.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Yup.



So if you are barfing up blood, you are dying of Ebola you should be allowed to walk right in?

----------


## Ender

> I
> 
> The system that followed after his death was very little difference from what they fought against.
> 
> *Kinda the same way today, isn't it?
> *
> WE have been over this already. You clearly do not know the meaning of the word  chaos.


*And YOU clearly do not know the meaning of FREEDOM.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I must have missed it. You posted an article, and after a lengthy introduction of irrelevant pontificating to the effect that something must be done, its body consisted wholly of the question, "what do now?" and that was the end of the detailed discussion.


_Zing!_

The big brains are working overtime tonight!  You guys sure are hard hitters!

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Wow, you are sure taking the extremely narrow, short-term, "What's in it for me _today?_  NownownowNOW!" view.
> 
> Here is the election results from 2012:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look quite right to you?  Seem to remember things turning out differently?  Hmm.... what could the discrepancy be?


Yes, I know that whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney. 

But, see, my point was that...

....whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney.



(whose policies were practically identical to Obama's). 




> Now with your narrow, short-term view you are already writing a blistering reply: "What do we care!  Romney was not any better than Obama!  They were both socialists!"  You're missing the point.  The point is, r3v, Obama would have never been run in a 1980s America, an 80% white America.  Never run at all.  Neither would Romney.  Romney, if anything, would have been the _Democrat_ candidate!  The Republican candidate would have been a Pat Buchanan or Chuck Baldwin or Ron Paul -- someone much further to the right than Romney.



Franklin Delano Roosevelt
John Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Jimmy Carter

All elected before non-whites became a meaningful part of the electorate, all dog$#@! - Explain




> What this demographic manipulation via flooding the country with third world peasants has done is to shift the entire game way to the left.  With 80% or 88% whites, no Obama could win in a hundred years.  *The country has actually moved significantly to the right since 1950!*  I bet you didn't know that.  A Lyndon B. Johnson probably could not win the white vote today.  Socialism has basically been discredited by empirical results and the people who actually _have_ ideologies, the people who _think_, the people whose voting habits are addressable by _reason_, they have changed their minds.  They've gotten more conservative.  The peasants, on the other hand, have not (surprise!).


I thought it was genetic?

You mean, white people have improved politically since they elected Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and other assorted $#@!?




> Even the commie professors now will acknowledge the success of and some value in capitalism, as long as limited and regulated.
> 
> Even they now couch their diatribes in the language of the market.  _Natural Capitalism_; _Capital in the 21st Century_; _Freakonomics_;  -- the intellectual battleground has moved to the right.  Nobody is  saying any more that the means of production should be nationalized.   Nobody!  No longer is the great debate between the Leninist Marxists and  the Stalinist Marxists.  We would be winning, and we are winning, among  people who use reason and logic in their political opinions.  But  meanwhile 25% or more of the nation of Mexico has been imported in to  join us, as well as millions of Asians and Central Americans.  _That_ has been our downfall, electorally.


No, not really. 

It's the same as it always was.

Only the radicals ever explicitly called for communism.

....And they still do in the soft sciences; admittedly, they've been driven out of economics proper.

...but the "mainstream" (virtually all white, ivy league "educated") is thoroughly  Keynesian (i.e. communist, but without the balls to admit it).

Don't believe me? Look at book sales, or (more importantly) who sits on the various governmental advisory committees. 

They make Friedman look like Mises.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Yes, I know that whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney. 
> 
> But, see, my point was that...
> 
> ....whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> (whose policies were practically identical to Obama's). 
> ...


Aw the classic "I do not see any difference therefore their is no difference" bit.

You do understand if immigration is not limited in number and in origin those people and their view will be the only elected into power, right?

Culture Marxist, but do not like reality bite you into the ass.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> *And YOU clearly do not know the meaning of FREEDOM.*


Says the man who thinks its wrong to keep out people that will out vote you and vote to steal your wealth and rights.

----------


## tod evans

> So if you are barfing up blood, you are dying of Ebola you should be allowed to walk right in?


I've answered this twice now, how about you address the idea you keep promoting about how more government is going to protect you from a set of problems caused by government?

Get off your knees Boy!

Quit sucking government dick!

Stand up and be a man........

The government you're begging to to protect you from the "Evil inheritance stealing foreigners" brought them here on purpose, the government feeds, houses and cares for them, it schools their children and curries their vote.....

And still you maintain that this is a government you want fighting a battle for you......

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I've answered this twice now, how about you address the idea you keep promoting about how more government is going to protect you from a set of problems caused by government?
> 
> Get off your knees Boy!
> 
> Quit sucking government dick!
> 
> Stand up and be a man........
> 
> The government you're begging to to protect you from the "Evil inheritance stealing foreigners" brought them here on purpose, the government feeds, houses and cares for them, it schools their children and curries their vote.....
> ...


Answer the question.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I've answered this twice now, how about you address the idea you keep promoting about how more government is going to protect you from a set of problems caused by government?
> 
> Get off your knees Boy!
> 
> Quit sucking government dick!
> 
> Stand up and be a man........
> 
> The government you're begging to to protect you from the "Evil inheritance stealing foreigners" brought them here on purpose, the government feeds, houses and cares for them, it schools their children and curries their vote.....
> ...


I don't get it, Tod.  Are you advocating the overrun of our borders?  I don't agree with Spartan on everything, but I darn sure do about the illegal alien invasion of our country.  There is no doubt that the government is doing this on purpose and it boggles the mind that so many on this forum think it's a good thing.  Except for those who naively believe that some libertarian wunderkind will spring from the ashes.  I don't think you are one of those, so what's the deal?

----------


## tod evans

> Answer the question.


I've answered you twice.

Now you answer me.

[edit to repeat myself]




> You have only as much say as you're willing to take.
> 
> Seeing as how you don't know me, don't know where I live or how I act you're unqualified to even assume what I'd possibly want.
> 
> Then you have the audacity to try and type "Move on" or some such nonsense?
> 
> If you and people of your intellectual acumen are the future of the Anglo Saxon American then I'm sorry to say my forefathers lay down their lives for naught.
> 
> Thank God that even here in the backwoods of the Ozark Mountains the local uneducated inbreds are able to couch more logical arguments and thanks to modern technology most are even able to present them in complete sentences.
> ...

----------


## tod evans

> I don't get it, Tod.  *Are you advocating the overrun of our borders?*  I don't agree with Spartan on everything, but I darn sure do about the illegal alien invasion of our country.  There is no doubt that the government is doing this on purpose and it boggles the mind that so many on this forum think it's a good thing.  Except for those who naively believe that some libertarian wunderkind will spring from the ashes.  I don't think you are one of those, so what's the deal?


Absolutely not.

I'm advocating that real people, not government agents, take matters into their own hands.

Do not rely on government to take care of anything, they're inept, incompetent and way too expensive for what ineffectual services they provide.  

The government that was instituted over the USA was instituted to unite armed, independant, self-sufficient men since that time it has grown to usurp that function and is being used to promote dependence of the weak and manipulative.

As all of us have seen the dependant will swarm like flies to a fresh corpse and at this point they're so thick nothing good can come of it....

Maggots and carrion eaters come next........

Good men would have already buried this corpse of a nation and began reeping the crops from fertile ground....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Yes, I know that whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney. 
> 
> But, see, my point was that...
> 
> ....whites voted overwhelmingly for Romney.


Wow, you also are incapable of understanding a relatively simple point.  Or are choosing to play dumb.  Whatever.  Good one, man.  Great one-liner.

_Zing!_

Oh, and you also have a funny picture to show how smart you are and how stupid I am.  Bonus!  You, too, may go play with Ronin Truth.  Run along.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Absolutely not.
> 
> I'm advocating that real people, not government agents, take matters into their own hands.
> 
> Do not rely on government to take care of anything, they're inept, incompetent and way too expensive for what ineffectual services they provide.  
> 
> The government that was instituted over the USA was instituted to unite armed, independant, self-sufficient men since that time it has grown to usurp that function and is being used to promote dependence of the weak and manipulative.
> 
> As all of us have seen the dependant will swarm like flies to a fresh corpse and at this point they're so thick nothing good can come of it....
> ...



Take the first shot then.

----------


## tod evans

> Take the first shot then.


Jump Judy......

Keep sniveling for government to protect you too.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I don't get it, Tod.  Are you advocating the overrun of our borders?  I don't agree with Spartan on everything, but I darn sure do about the illegal alien invasion of our country.  There is no doubt that the government is doing this on purpose and it boggles the mind that so many on this forum think it's a good thing.  Except for those who naively believe that some libertarian wunderkind will spring from the ashes.  I don't think you are one of those, so what's the deal?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Jump Judy......
> 
> Keep sniveling for government to protect you too.


So you are unwilling to fire the first shots but you call others "cowards" for doing the same thing you refuse to do...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Absolutely not.
> 
> I'm advocating that real people, not government agents, take matters into their own hands.
> 
> Do not rely on government to take care of anything, they're inept, incompetent and way too expensive for what ineffectual services they provide.  
> 
> The government that was instituted over the USA was instituted to unite armed, independant, self-sufficient men since that time it has grown to usurp that function and is being used to promote dependence of the weak and manipulative.
> 
> As all of us have seen the dependant will swarm like flies to a fresh corpse and at this point they're so thick nothing good can come of it....
> ...


I understand, but why are you riding his butt, while letting the open borders useful idiots off the hook?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

Just too keep count, Immigration Restriction have won, Self Hating, Suicidal Open Border/Mass Immigration Supporters have lost epicly as they can not make an argument base based on facts and have resorted to fallacies and name calling.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I understand, but why are you riding his butt, while letting the open borders useful idiots off the hook?


Because he can not understand that they are using him.

----------


## tod evans

> I understand, but why are you riding his butt, while letting the open borders useful idiots off the hook?


I'm not letting them off the hook.

I want government completely out of the way, absolutely no protection or services provided for non citizens.

Hell I don't want government providing social services for citizens but it's an easier sell to promote refusal of services to non-citizens first.

You can't really blame the flies for swarming offal but you can blame the farmer for not burying it.

----------


## tod evans

> Because he can not understand that they are using him.


Don't try to talk for me $#@!.

Get back on you knees and suck government cock in the hope they'll protect you without your having to do any more than bob your head.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm not letting them off the hook.
> 
> I want government completely out of the way, absolutely no protection or services provided for non citizens.
> 
> Hell I don't want government providing social services for citizens but it's an easier sell to promote refusal of services to non-citizens first.
> 
> You can't really blame the flies for swarming offal but you can blame the farmer for not burying it.


I'm not sure I understand.  It sounds like you don't want the government. at any level, involved in any way in deterring illegal aliens from flooding our country en masse.  Is that correct?

----------


## tod evans

> I'm not sure I understand.  It sounds like you don't want the government. at any level, involved in any way in deterring illegal aliens from flooding our country en masse.  Is that correct?


Correct. No federal involvement.   

They've already proven that they're not capable of satisfying the bleeding hearts and the closed border crowd so fire them!

Stop paying them for services they don't provide and don't let them imprison those who will provide the service.

I don't know anyone who actually wants foreign families, let alone single males, moving into their neighborhood.....Do you?

By letting government have that authority you're gambling that yours won't be next, you can damn sure bet the idiots in DC who promote this crap or the bleeding heart liberals in their suburban utopia won't be housing any on their dirt....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Correct. No federal involvement.


What about state government or local government?




> They've already proven that they're not capable of satisfying the bleeding hearts and the closed border crowd so fire them!
> 
> Stop paying them for services they don't provide and don't let them imprison those who will provide the service.
> 
> I don't know anyone who actually wants foreign families, let alone single males, moving into their neighborhood.....Do you?


Oh, I think erowe and ender would be fine with it. 




> By letting government have that authority you're gambling that yours won't be next, you can damn sure bet the idiots in DC who promote this crap or the bleeding heart liberals in their suburban utopia won't be housing any on their dirt....


I understand, Tod.   But, I'm also not willing to just say, ok, fine, let 'em come until the people get organized to stop them.  If you think it's up to the individual farmer on the border to stop the cartel who is coming through his property, all on his own, I don't know, man, that's expecting a lot from an individual person.

For me, I don't care who does it, I just want it done.  Before it's too late.  It may already be.

----------


## tod evans

> So you are unwilling to fire the first shots but you call others "cowards" for doing the same thing you refuse to do...


I'm advocating for the only possible peaceful solution, coward.

Strip the federal government of it's ability to provide social services, strip it's ability to control the borders and return these duties to the counties, not the states but the counties.

You're the one who keeps insisting that the feds can be bent to your will, I know better.

Maybe if you suck really well the feds will throw you a bone and permit you to live amongst them where you won't be exposed to the lower classes..

----------


## erowe1

> You do understand if immigration is not limited in number and in origin those people and their view will be the only elected into power, right?


If immigration is not limited in number and origin, then unlimited people will immigrate from unlimited origins. Given that, who are "those people" and what is "their view"?

Furthermore, whatever their view is, if it's something tyranny-empowering, then doesn't that mean that it would tend toward limiting immigration, since immigration restriction is tyrannical in itself and its presence is always directly related to the extent of other kinds of tyranny that are present, which is precisely what you want?

----------


## erowe1

> So if you are barfing up blood, you are dying of Ebola you should be allowed to walk right in?


In what?

Once you start asking yourself and answering basic questions like that one, you'll come to see how incoherent your position is.

----------


## tod evans

> What about state government or local government?


Local, absolutely!

State, not so much.....

I look at Illinois, the vast majority of the state must bow to Cook County but all the liberals in Cook county would vote to put their welfare voters in the surrounding counties.




> Oh, I think erowe and ender would be fine with it.


I'm fine with their counties doing whatever they'd like, just don't expect me to move my family there and don't expect me to pay for it directly or indirectly.





> I understand, Tod.   But, I'm also not willing to just say, ok, fine, let 'em come until the people get organized to stop them.  If you think it's up to the individual farmer on the border to stop the cartel who is coming through his property, all on his own, I don't know, man, that's expecting a lot from an individual person.
> 
> For me, I don't care who does it, I just want it done.  Before it's too late.  It may already be.


Look to Cliven Bundy to see what can happen in spite of the feds, think what could happen without them....

----------


## erowe1

> So why do we need more of them? Make that case.


I don't need to make that case because I don't propose that we have some central manager trying to control the makeup of our population, whether that be to manipulate it to have more or less of anything. I want to be left alone and permitted to welcome onto or exclude from my own property whomever I want without you telling me I can't.

----------


## erowe1

> I do not advocate for the empire model.


Nearly every comment I've ever seen you make, including this one, advocates it.




> If you hire a person who is the nation illegally whom we have subside yeah you get punished, want to hire them? You pay every single cent they cost the tax payer.


Is this about people who cost tax payers money? Or is it about illegal immigration? Make up your mind.

If the former, then their immigration status is irrelevant, and your dogma (if you are consistent) would also demand that I pay the cost to tax payers for natural born citizens whom I employ who cost them money as well. And these natural born citizen leeches should be deported just as much as illegal immigrant ones should. Right?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Local, absolutely!
> 
> State, not so much.....
> 
> I look at Illinois, the vast majority of the state must bow to Cook County but all the liberals in Cook county would vote to put their welfare voters in the surrounding counties.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine with their counties doing whatever they'd like, just don't expect me to move my family there and don't expect me to pay for it directly or indirectly.


That's all nice and fine, Tod, but the reality is that you and I would, the way things are now.  Not to mention the fact that if they brought diseases into the country, we would be getting those too, and any criminal intents they brought with them.  

When erowe and co. can figure out how to teleport them to their own properties, keep them there and bear sole responsibility for their actions, then maybe.  Until then, HELL NO.




> Look to Cliven Bundy to see what can happen in spite of the feds, think what could happen without them....


You know I agree with you on that, although that's not the best example, since he had his livestock on "government" land.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Nearly every comment I've ever seen you make, including this one, advocates it.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this about people who cost tax payers money? Or is it about illegal immigration? Make up your mind.
> 
> If the former, then their immigration status is irrelevant, and your dogma (if you are consistent) would also demand that I pay the cost to tax payers for natural born citizens whom I employ who cost them money as well. And these natural born citizen leeches should be deported just as much as illegal immigrant ones should. Right?


It's both.  You are exactly who Lew Rockwell was talking about when he made his speech about the naivete of the open borders supporters.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't need to make that case because I don't propose that we have some central manager trying to control the makeup of our population, whether that be to manipulate it to have more or less of anything. I want to be left alone and permitted to welcome onto or exclude from my own property whomever I want without you telling me I can't.


Like I've told you before, when you can teleport them from their place of origin to YOUR property, you have the ability to keep them on your property and only your property, and you are willing to bear complete responsibility for everything they do, then we can talk.   Until then, you're attempting to infringe on other Americans' liberty.

----------


## erowe1

> Like I've told you before, when you can teleport them from their place of origin to YOUR property, you have the ability to keep them on your property and only your property, and you are willing to bear complete responsibility for everything they do, then we can talk.   Until then, you're attempting to infringe on other Americans' liberty.


That would be one way. Another would be the normal way of them just traveling the same way everybody else does, and just staying off of your property, which is the only property you have the right to control, while they do. If you want to control any property outside of your own, then it's you who are attempting to infringe on America's liberty. The rest of us want to be allowed to have the people you consider illegal immigrants on our property.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That would be one way. Another would be the normal way of them just traveling the same way everybody else does, and just staying off of your property, which is the only property you have the right to control, while they do. If you want to control any property outside of your own, then it's you who are attempting to infringe on America's liberty. The rest of us want to be allowed to have the people you consider illegal immigrants on our property.


No, the rest of us do not.  Only the useful idiots and traitors.

If you want them on your own property, erowe, I have already said I don't give a $#@!.  But, if they harm anyone else, you also should be held accountable.  i.e. if they kill someone, your own head should be severed.  Are you up for that?

EDIT:  In a way, this is somewhat like the old way of choosing immigrants.  If someone wanted to immigrate here, they had to show they could be self-sufficient or be sponsored by another American, who would be responsible for them.

----------


## erowe1

> No, the rest of us do not.


Some of you do not. The rest of us do.

Those of you who do not may keep anyone you want off of your own property. But you have no right to interfere with the rest of us. The people you call illegal immigrants would have no difficulty traveling all over the US if you did that. Teleportation would not be needed.




> EDIT:  In a way, this is somewhat like the old way of choosing immigrants.  If someone wanted to immigrate here, they had to show they could be self-sufficient or be sponsored by another American, who would be responsible for them.


That's not the old way. That is the new and current way that was developed by the progressives.

----------


## tod evans

> That's all nice and fine, Tod, but the reality is that you and I would, the way things are now.  Not to mention the fact that if they brought diseases into the country, we would be getting those too, and any criminal intents they brought with them.


And this is exactly why I keep calling to rip the powers of immigration and welfare away from the feds. They're not able to provide the level of service locals could at 1000 times the cost.




> When erowe and co. can figure out how to teleport them to their own properties, keep them there and bear sole responsibility for their actions, then maybe.  Until then, HELL NO.


County by county would be acceptable to me, small enough I can find the bastards who make decisions I don't agree with but large enough to support itself...




> You know I agree with you on that, although that's not the best example, since he had his livestock on "government" land.


Without federal interference there wouldn't be federal land.

The people who work don't need the federal government, it's the people who leech that do.

----------


## tod evans

Both sides of this issue realize there's a problem...

Instead of looking for the cause of the problem and addressing it, arguing ensues about the various aspects of the problem itself.

From here it appears as though both sides are crying for the cause of the problem to fix it, which leads government to deduce that lack of enough government is causing the problem.......

It's no wonder there's problems....

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Just to explain, more concisely, my point that r3volution 3.0 was playing dumb about**:

Yes, the native white populace has gotten significantly better politically, significantly more libertarian and conservative in the last three decades.  The Soviet Union collapsed.  Socialism was discredited.  The native whites (which was 90% of the natives) shifted libertarian-conservative.

If it weren't for massive third-world immigration, we would be living in a shockingly freer country today -- a much, much freer country.  If you want to get an idea of how things might have went, look at New Zealand.  New Zealand had a "White New Zealand" immigration policy until the 1970s, and although the policy changed then, it was fairly irrelevant because no immigrants wanted to come: more people were leaving than coming up through 1991.  So, they have not had nearly as massive a demographic change.  NZ is still overwhelmingly white.  And so when the discrediting of socialism and subsequent ideological shift occurred, there was no huge block of impervious big-government voters standing in its way.  It hit with full force.  Their government actually shrunk, massively shrunk!  It was like what Reagan's rhetoric promised, but on hard-core steroids and actually implemented in reality!  Here's what happened:

Actually cut government a lot!
Slashed spending
Slashed taxes
Slashed welfare
Slashed government regulations of all types.  For instance:
Removed all restriction of broadcasting in 1989 (The Broadcasting Act of 1989)
Repealed its banking law in 1995, did not replace it with anything
and on and on.

As our local Kiwi idiom puts it:

In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't even a thing (exaggeration, but not by much)

And they were _far_ further along the socialist path than us.  Before 1980, they were totally socialist.  And yet they were able to do a complete U-turn to become one of the most radically libertarian places around.  That could have been us!  That could have been America!  And it still could be, if only we weren't saddled with 25% of Mexico, millions and millions from Central America, millions and millions from Asia, one and a half million Arabs, etc.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

OK, actually that wasn't all that concise.  Let me try again:

The American natives got more libertarian-conservative.
The New Zealand natives got more libertarian-conservative.

New Zealand became a much more, a massively more libertarian-conservative country.
America..... _didn't_, because we had imported millions of big-government voters.

In NZ, the natives still run the show.  In America, we don't.  

That's a problem.  If you care about liberty actually succeeding, that's a problem.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Both sides of this issue realize there's a problem...


The erowe/Ender/Sola/Pierstyx camp does _not_ recognize there is a problem.  They have made that clear enough.  They do not believe there is any problem whatsoever.  25% of Mexico in America is great.  50% would be even better.  Anyone who says otherwise is racist.  This is not a caricature of their views.  This is not an exaggeration.  This is what they have repeatedly and very clearly written.  How could they have made themselves more clear?  I don't think they could have.

The left also does _not_ recognize our massive immigration influx as a problem.  Why should they?  Ha, ha, ha, this is the furthest thing from a problem for them!  This is the best thing to ever happen to the country, from their perspective.  This is the opposite of a problem.  This is a wonderful thing.

One of my main goals in this thread was to see if any of the open borders people here could be brought to a mutual understanding that there _are_ real problems brought about by immigration.  That the consequences are not all positive and rosy and wonderful.  Thus far, that has not happened.  If we can agree there's a problem, we could start discussing possible solutions that would be acceptable to us all, to all the people on RPF.  But they don't accept there could ever be any problem with over-immigration, with a country being overrun.  Just not a problem.  So we're talking past each other; no communication.  It's like we're on two different planets.

----------


## erowe1

> The erowe/Ender/Sola/Pierstyx camp does _not_ recognize there is a problem.


I do. The problem is immigration restriction.

----------


## tod evans

> I do. The problem is immigration restriction.


By whom?

----------


## erowe1

> By whom?


Any government that does it.

----------


## tod evans

> Any government that does it.


I'm good with counties restricting anything they like, booze, people, religion, dope or even clothing but I draw the line at a state doing it and certainly the feds. 

Or were you alluding to federal governments?

All encompassing phrasing leaves too much wiggle room for logical discourse.

----------


## osan

> I've answered this twice now, how about you address the idea you keep promoting about how more government is going to protect you from a set of problems caused by government?


I find it interesting to note that the problems that "government" protects others from are almost universally caused by.... <drumroll>... GOVERNMENT!

----------


## William R

Bottom line.   We should not be admitting anyone who goes on welfare.  We should make that very clear.  Come here don't expect any help from Uncle Sugar Daddy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Bottom line.   We should not be admitting anyone who goes on welfare.  We should make that very clear.  Come here don't expect any help from Uncle Sugar Daddy.


Agreed

Free immigration 
+ no welfare (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...)
 + no voting (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...) 
= no problem

----------


## osan

> Bottom line.   We should not be admitting anyone who goes on welfare.  We should make that very clear.  Come here don't expect any help from Uncle Sugar Daddy.


We ought not have welfare at all.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> We ought not have welfare at all.


Evidently it's only free$#@! for the wetbacks which concerns them (though that's a tiny fraction of total welfare spending).

National socialist really is an apt term (Godwin's Law notwithstanding)...

...free$#@! for us! (_for us_).

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That would be one way. Another would be the normal way of them just traveling the same way everybody else does, and just staying off of your property, which is the only property you have the right to control, while they do. If you want to control any property outside of your own, then it's you who are attempting to infringe on America's liberty. The rest of us want to be allowed to have the people you consider illegal immigrants on our property.


No, we still pay for public services that they use, more over they effect the outcomes of elections, therefore we get a say and we say immigration reduction.

Its not just us, its this thing call "The Law".

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Some of you do not. The rest of us do.





> Those of you who do not may keep anyone you want off of your own property. But you have no right to interfere with the rest of us. The people you call illegal immigrants would have no difficulty traveling all over the US if you did that. Teleportation would not be needed.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the old way. That is the new and current way that was developed by the progressives.




Most do.

 Great news Americas show Massive Support for Immigration reduction!
More over many Americans of all colors, age groups, and sides support reducing immigration.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171962/de...-increase.aspx
https://www.numbersusa.com/news/poll...se-pres-obamas
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...ion-numbe.html
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/22/me...l-immigration/

More Americans said they had a favorable opinion of North Korea (11 percent)   than wanted to than wanted to increase immigration (7 percent).  The poll data are overwhelming; politicians will disregard public opinion on this issue at their peril: Remember RINO Eric Cantor and how he lost the primary to David Brat? (Cantor was denying the border was being overrun as the media was showing human waves over taking it during the two weeks before the election)

* Gallup (1/29/15): By a more than 5-to-1 margin (39% vs. 7%), Americans who are dissatisfied with current immigration levels want less rather than more

* Pew (2012): 69% say we should restrict and control people coming to live in our country more than we do now (including 59% of Hispanics)

* Reuters (8/7/14): By a nearly 3-to-1 margin (45% vs. 17%), Americans think immigration rates should be reduced, not increased

* Princeton Survey Research Associates (6/23/13): 61% say that there should be restrictions on the number of STEM-related foreign workers allowed to enter the U.S.

* Gallup (6/8/14): By a 2-to-1 margin (41% vs. 22%), Americans think immigration should be decreased rather than increased

* The Polling Company (8/14/14): By a staggering 10-to-1 margin (75% vs. 8%), Americans believe that a business seeking workers should raise wages and improve working conditions before hiring new labor from abroad


So we win by default.

Yes it was, they did not want people that were going to vote away their wealth to fund a welfare system....

----------


## Danke



----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Just to explain, more concisely, my point that r3volution 3.0 was playing dumb about**:
> 
> Yes, the native white populace has gotten significantly better politically, significantly more libertarian and conservative in the last three decades.  The Soviet Union collapsed.  Socialism was discredited.  The native whites (which was 90% of the natives) shifted libertarian-conservative.
> 
> If it weren't for massive third-world immigration, we would be living in a shockingly freer country today -- a much, much freer country.  If you want to get an idea of how things might have went, look at New Zealand.  New Zealand had a "White New Zealand" immigration policy until the 1970s, and although the policy changed then, it was fairly irrelevant because no immigrants wanted to come: more people were leaving than coming up through 1991.  So, they have not had nearly as massive a demographic change.  NZ is still overwhelmingly white.  And so when the discrediting of socialism and subsequent ideological shift occurred, there was no huge block of impervious big-government voters standing in its way.  It hit with full force.  Their government actually shrunk, massively shrunk!  It was like what Reagan's rhetoric promised, but on hard-core steroids and actually implemented in reality!  Here's what happened:
> 
> Actually cut government a lot!
> Slashed spending
> Slashed taxes
> ...





> OK, actually that wasn't all that concise.  Let me try again:
> 
> The American natives got more libertarian-conservative.
> The New Zealand natives got more libertarian-conservative.
> 
> New Zealand became a much more, a massively more libertarian-conservative country.
> America..... _didn't_, because we had imported millions of big-government voters.
> 
> In NZ, the natives still run the show.  In America, we don't.  
> ...


And they think the more socialists we import, some how things will get better.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I do. The problem is immigration restriction.


How and why is restriction on immigration a problem?

Why do you not understand the harm of allowing people to flood into our nation that do not value, respect or understand our culture and will vote away our wealth and destroy our Liberties?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The erowe/Ender/Sola/Pierstyx camp does _not_ recognize there is a problem.  They have made that clear enough.  They do not believe there is any problem whatsoever.  25% of Mexico in America is great.  50% would be even better.  Anyone who says otherwise is racist.  This is not a caricature of their views.  This is not an exaggeration.  This is what they have repeatedly and very clearly written.  How could they have made themselves more clear?  I don't think they could have.
> 
> The left also does _not_ recognize our massive immigration influx as a problem.  Why should they?  Ha, ha, ha, this is the furthest thing from a problem for them!  This is the best thing to ever happen to the country, from their perspective.  This is the opposite of a problem.  This is a wonderful thing.
> 
> One of my main goals in this thread was to see if any of the open borders people here could be brought to a mutual understanding that there _are_ real problems brought about by immigration.  That the consequences are not all positive and rosy and wonderful.  Thus far, that has not happened.  If we can agree there's a problem, we could start discussing possible solutions that would be acceptable to us all, to all the people on RPF.  But they don't accept there could ever be any problem with over-immigration, with a country being overrun.  Just not a problem.  So we're talking past each other; no communication.  It's like we're on two different planets.


Remember they do not have learn, they just have to lose, remember that now and always.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Evidently it's only free$#@! for the wetbacks which concerns them (though that's a tiny fraction of total welfare spending).


No free $#@! for any illegal aliens.




> National socialist really is an apt term (Godwin's Law notwithstanding)...


In your eyes, national sovereignty is national socialism.  lolol




> ...free$#@! for us! (_for us_).


FYI.  There is no such thing as free $#@!.   Someone pays for it.   

And no one recommended free $#@!.  But, here on the real world, we are not going to get from where we are right now to 0 welfare.  So, it is a beginning to stop handouts to any and all illegal aliens.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Evidently it's only free$#@! for the wetbacks which concerns them (though that's a tiny fraction of total welfare spending).
> 
> National socialist really is an apt term (Godwin's Law notwithstanding)...
> 
> ...free$#@! for us! (_for us_).


No, welfare as a whole does, but welfare for people who should not be allowed into the nation (poor people either legally or illegally) is not only indefensible but border line treason.

You think National Sovereignty and rule of law is "Nazism"

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I do. The problem is immigration restriction.


You see, Tod?  How could they make themselves more clear?  Cockroaches streaming in and infesting the house is not a problem.  Cockroaches are a wonderful and beautiful part of ecology.  Cockroaches do the work that the domestic creatures refuse to do.  So do we have a problem?  You bet we have a problem!  The problem is: *not enough cockroaches!*  We need to get some more cockroaches in this place, ASAP!

----------


## tod evans

> You see, Tod?  How could they make themselves more clear?  Cockroaches streaming in and infesting the house is not a problem.  Cockroaches are a wonderful and beautiful part of ecology.  Cockroaches do the work that the domestic creatures refuse to do.  So do we have a problem?  You bet we have a problem!  The problem is: *not enough cockroaches!*  We need to get some more cockroaches in this place, ASAP!


I don't want more cockroaches, neither do I want Terminix to become a bigger conglomerate.  

Especially given the fact that Terminix is trying to distribute cockroaches to the furthest reaches of the country.

My idea is for the areas unaffected by cockroaches to wage war on Terminix because that's who's trying to bring the infestation to them.

Those already infected must decide whether or not to re-up their Terminix contract that's not been working as promised or hire a private contractor that might prove effective....

Or they could fire Terminix and invest in landfills and slums in order to propagate more cockroaches...

----------


## William R

> Agreed
> 
> Free immigration 
> + no welfare (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...)
>  + no voting (preferably for anyone, but immigrants would be a start...) 
> = no problem


No free immigration.  Free goods and services crossing borders.  But not people.  50 million Muslims would be a disaster

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't want more cockroaches, neither do I want Terminix to become a bigger conglomerate.  
> 
> Especially given the fact that Terminix is trying to distribute cockroaches to the furthest reaches of the country.
> 
> My idea is for the areas unaffected by cockroaches to wage war on Terminix because that's who's trying to bring the infestation to them.
> 
> Those already infected must decide whether or not to re-up their Terminix contract that's not been working as promised or hire a private contractor that might prove effective....
> 
> Or they could fire Terminix and invest in landfills and slums in order to propagate more cockroaches...


I am all for your sentiment to "just do it yourself; don't whine to the government"!  I do have to admit that it's not particularly practical or realistic or applicable to reality as it exists.  You're saying, "I accept that there's too many cockroaches in the house, but at the same time I hate the government (my exact same position!); so my position is that each of us should take care of them individually."  And yet, it is illegal to do so.  This "Terminix," which really is acting as a reverse-Terminix, importing and dumping off a million cockroaches a year into the house, has declared itself a monopoly.  If anyone were to implement your suggestion and take matters into his own hands, he would be imprisoned or killed.

You yourself are not implementing your suggestion.

And yet, you call others cowards for likewise not implementing it.  You call them cowards for deciding, just like you, to not go vigilante.

I don't know that failing to go rogue and become a vigilante shows a lack of courage.  There's more than one way to wage a war.

----------


## tod evans

> I am all for your sentiment to "just do it yourself; don't whine to the government"!  I do have to admit that it's not particularly practical or realistic or applicable to reality as it exists.  You're saying, "I accept that there's too many cockroaches in the house, but at the same time I hate the government (my exact same position!); so my position is that each of us should take care of them individually."  And yet, it is illegal to do so.  This "Terminix," which really is acting as a reverse-Terminix, importing and dumping off a million cockroaches a year into the house, has declared itself a monopoly.  If anyone were to implement your suggestion and take matters into his own hands, he would be imprisoned or killed.
> 
> You yourself are not implementing your suggestion.
> 
> And yet, you call others cowards for likewise not implementing it.  You call them cowards for deciding, just like you, to not go vigilante.
> 
> I don't know that failing to go rogue and become a vigilante shows a lack of courage.  There's more than one way to wage a war.


Have you ever been to the Ozarks?

There is no need for any "vigilantism".....

When Terminix starts breeding and planting their cockroaches in previously uninfected areas it is in fact acting in Terminix best interest, the concern isn't for the cockroaches or the property owners under contract with Terminix, the concern isn't even for the Terminix exterminators, it's all about upper management and shareholders...

Simple fact is Terminix profits from cockroaches, if there aren't enough roaches to keep growing the company then the company will supply them. Blaming the roaches is not very intelligent, neither is encouraging or supporting Terminix when they try to keep XYZ Exterminators from using Chlordane even if it's "illegal"......

The person who really want to be rid of roaches will quietly treat his property with Chlordane and make sure his neighbors have access too because roaches have a way of reappearing (Thanks Terminix).....

Chlordane will fix the roach problem but it won't fix the Terminix problem, neither will appointing a different CEO.........

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Have you ever been to the Ozarks?


 Yep!  And lived there.  It's a terrific place!




> There is no need for any "vigilantism".....


 You have repeatedly said that if someone has a problem with immigration policy, he should take care of it his own darn self and stop calling for the policy to be changed.  Calling for the policy to be changed is somehow "cowardly".  I disagree.  More than one way to fight a war.

And it's tacky to call people cowards for taking the exact same non-actions as you yourself.




> When Terminix starts breeding and planting their cockroaches in previously uninfected areas it is in fact acting in Terminix best interest, the concern isn't for the cockroaches or the property owners under contract with Terminix, the concern isn't even for the Terminix exterminators, it's all about upper management and shareholders...


 No particular disagreement.




> Blaming the roaches is not very intelligent


 Why is it that this chestnut is always trotted out?  I'm tired of it.  Let me put it to rest: I am not blaming the roaches.  I am not "blaming" the immigrants.  I am looking at immigration policy critically.  That is the same for every other mass-immigration skeptic who has posted on this thread: they are blaming the policy!  They are blaming the bad policy!  They are saying, simply: "this policy is bad."    They are not blaming the immigrants themselves.  *The immigrants did not make the policy!*  Congress said come, the people came; who could blame them?  We might come too, in their situation.

Nobody is "blaming the immigrants."  We are trying to have an intelligent discussion and debate about policy.




> The person who really want to be rid of roaches will quietly treat his property with Chlordane and make sure his neighbors have access too because roaches have a way of reappearing (Thanks Terminix).....


 So, how is this not calling for taking matters into your own hands (in other words: becoming a vigilante)?  Am I not understanding the analogy?  I mean, what's more, Chlordane is fatal, yes?  So, the Tod Evans Immigration Plan: "Everyone take rifle in hand and kill all illegal immigrants you see."

_Any_ other plan sounds humane compared to this.  Perhaps you could clarify.

----------


## erowe1

> Cockroaches streaming in and infesting the house is not a problem.  Cockroaches are a wonderful and beautiful part of ecology.  Cockroaches do the work that the domestic creatures refuse to do.


Can you quote me saying anything that resembles this?

----------


## tod evans

> You have repeatedly said that if someone has a problem with immigration policy, he should take care of it his own darn self and stop calling for the policy to be changed.  Calling for the policy to be changed is somehow "cowardly".  I disagree.  More than one way to fight a war.
> 
> And it's tacky to call people cowards for taking the exact same non-actions as you yourself.


Changing policy isn't going to accomplish anything, the day to day life of the citizen, the government functionary or the immigrant won't differ one iota in 10 years if you could magically flip "policy" on it's ass.

I do not address policy, I don't even discuss it beyond pointing out that more government isn't going to fix bad government.

I will not call on government to fix a problem they caused, if that's "non-action" in your opinion, okay...





> So, how is this not calling for taking matters into your own hands (in other words: becoming a vigilante)?  Am I not understanding the analogy?  I mean, what's more, Chlordane is fatal, yes?  So, the Tod Evans Immigration Plan: "Everyone take rifle in hand and kill all illegal immigrants you see."_Any_ other plan sounds humane compared to this.  Perhaps you could clarify.


You misrepresent what I've typed, go back and reread if you came away with me shooting immigrants.

What I actually typed was that without government interference your Bud Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked and other folks like Erowe/Sola could import whomever they liked.

This immigration/welfare issue isn't one for the feds, it's not even viable at a state level.

It's not working now, it hasn't worked in decades and more of the same isn't going to fix anything. 

Now I'd like a sincere apology for misrepresenting what I've typed, accusing me of advocating to shoot immigrants was blatantly dishonest and obviously intentional.


If you in fact actually did live in the Ozarks at some point you should have noticed that old homes treated with Chlordane existed on the same block as new or untreated homes that housed thriving cockroach colonies. Cockroaches tend to colonize where the environment is conducive to their existence and avoid where it's not. Applying your opinion of either me or immigrants to what I've typed and then twisting your conclusions in order to present that I promote "killing illegal immigrants" is really quite a leap even for you.

Now maybe after you've apologized you'll share your ideas on how you think government is going to fix government?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You misrepresent what I've typed, go back and reread if you came away with me shooting immigrants.


 I asked you to clarify.  If you are not for using lethal force against immigrants, then just say so.  Instead, you have repeatedly said the opposite.  Indeed, in the very next sentence!  In the very next sentence, you write:




> What I actually typed was that without government interference your Bud Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked


 So, you are saying anyone who has concerns with excessive illegal immigrants ought to go around shooting them.

As I say, this is not a practical plan -- obviously not a sane one, in fact.  And yet, this is not hyperbole, this is what you have explicitly, word-for-word written.  It's right there in black and white.

I expected that your clarification would be that while Chlordane is fatal to roaches, you did not mean it so literally.  That the decentralized individual actions you recommend are somehow less.... bloody.  Perhaps just signs in windows saying "No Immigrants" or something.  I mean, I don't know what you're thinking.  I can't read minds.  But you could tell me.

Instead, your clarification is to distance yourself from those who have a problem with the excessive illegal immigrants.  You say: I recommend that _they_, that anyone who doesn't like immigrants, go shoot people in the head.  That's the course _they_ should take.  But not me!

That doesn't quite work, because you're already on record multiple times as being less than enthusiastic about immigrants.  So you don't like immigrants, but yet you (presumably!) are not out there at night shooting them all in the head.  Liberty Eagle also is not out there shooting them in the head.  Nor am I.  Nor is Ron Paul.  So how come that we're cowards... and you're not?

*I support your decentralized approach to and thinking about this matter, in a general sense.  It's very practical.  I'd just like for you to be a little more specific about what you think individuals and communities could and should actually do, as opposed to saying, "Well, if they don't like immigrants they can just shoot them."*

----------


## tod evans

> I asked you to clarify.  If you are not for using lethal force against immigrants, then just say so.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care one way or the other if you want to use lethal force against anybody.Imigrants get no special consideration.
> 
> 
>  Instead, you have repeatedly said the opposite. Indeed, in the very next sentence!  In the very next sentence, you write: 
> 
> ...



*Are you dense?*

*My initial response about Spartan-boy shooting people;*




> Liberty only comes from lack of oversight and regulation.
> 
> Some here are calling for government to let folks in, others for government to keep folks out.
> 
> I want government out of the way!
> 
> Let foreigners walk/drive or fly in and let Americans deal with them without government intervention.
> 
> If Spartan-boy wants to shoot furriners let him, if you want to hire them to work at your motel then you get 'em here and provide a safe environment for them.
> ...


*Here's me talking about "taking matters into your own hands";*




> Absolutely not.
> 
> I'm advocating that real people, not government agents, take matters into their own hands.
> 
> Do not rely on government to take care of anything, they're inept, incompetent and way too expensive for what ineffectual services they provide.  
> 
> The government that was instituted over the USA was instituted to unite armed, independant, self-sufficient men since that time it has grown to usurp that function and is being used to promote dependence of the weak and manipulative.
> 
> As all of us have seen the dependant will swarm like flies to a fresh corpse and at this point they're so thick nothing good can come of it....
> ...


*Here's my response to the use of "coward" by Spartan-boy;*




> I'm advocating for the only possible peaceful solution, coward.
> 
> Strip the federal government of it's ability to provide social services, strip it's ability to control the borders and return these duties to the counties, not the states but the counties.
> 
> You're the one who keeps insisting that the feds can be bent to your will, I know better.
> 
> Maybe if you suck really well the feds will throw you a bone and permit you to live amongst them where you won't be exposed to the lower classes..


*And here's what I had to say about taking action, notice there's no mention of "policy" in my post;*




> And this is exactly why I keep calling to rip the powers of immigration and welfare away from the feds. They're not able to provide the level of service locals could at 1000 times the cost.
> 
> County by county would be acceptable to me, small enough I can find the bastards who make decisions I don't agree with but large enough to support itself...
> 
> Without federal interference there wouldn't be federal land.
> 
> The people who work don't need the federal government, it's the people who leech that do.



*Now,

Are you going to apologize for misrepresenting what I've typed or not?*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Are you going to apologize for misrepresenting what I've typed or not?[/B]


Well before I apologize for misrepresenting you, I want to be sure if I actually have misrepresented you.

Do you or do not not believe that a world in which Spartan-boy can shoot any immigrants he wants would be a desirable one?

i.e.

Are you or are you not saying that that would be a good thing?

You see, you seem to support "no government interference".  To quote you: "I want government out of the way!"  And you say that in a world "without government interference your Bud[sic]* Spartan-boy could shoot anyone he liked."  So you can see my confusion, I trust.  Call me dense if you like, but it seems like you are saying that you would prefer a world in which there is no government interference, and in which all the Spartan-boys of the world can shoot anyone they like.  This very well _may_ be a misrepresentation.  Just let us know one way of the other.

In the meantime, since it seems very important to you, I will apologize that you feel misrepresented, since that was not my intention to have you feel that way.  I think you're great and A-OK.  I just want to get a more clear idea of your views.

* American Spartan is not my "bud", except to the extent I have a general affinity with all the Ron Paul fans and freedom-valuers on RPF.  I do not know him at all.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I am all for your sentiment to "just do it yourself; don't whine to the government"!  I do have to admit that it's not particularly practical or realistic or applicable to reality as it exists.  You're saying, "I accept that there's too many cockroaches in the house, but at the same time I hate the government (my exact same position!); so my position is that each of us should take care of them individually."  And yet, it is illegal to do so.  This "Terminix," which really is acting as a reverse-Terminix, importing and dumping off a million cockroaches a year into the house, has declared itself a monopoly.  If anyone were to implement your suggestion and take matters into his own hands, he would be imprisoned or killed.
> 
> You yourself are not implementing your suggestion.
> 
> And yet, you call others cowards for likewise not implementing it.  You call them cowards for deciding, just like you, to not go vigilante.
> 
> I don't know that failing to go rogue and become a vigilante shows a lack of courage.  There's more than one way to wage a war.


Yeah the whole "Do what I want to do but not willing to do or you are a "coward" bit is very funny..

How can he not understand you import more marxst, you get more marxism, you do not allow them in, and you reduce the existing stock. Loved your New Zealand post about it.

----------


## tod evans

> Do you or do not not believe that a world in which Spartan-boy can shoot any immigrants he wants would be a desirable one?


I'm okay with counties authorizing the shooting of anyone deemed undesirable. As long as Spartan-boy plied his shooting trade within those counties I have no objection. 

_Now pay attention!_

The other side of this scenario is that counties could forbid shooting anybody.

Counties could mandate caring for the unproductive or immoral, just as they could forbid their presence under penalty of said shooting...

There are too many differing views about right/wrong, moral/immoral, acceptable/unacceptable people/behavior for the country to live under a set of rules that forces homogenization under the barrel of a gun.

Spartan-boy has stated that he wants to bring the force of government to bear against immigrants and there are many others who feel the same way, these people should have counties where they can bring the force of the government they pay for to bear.

Others want counties where everybody from everywhere is welcome with open arms, they too should have their counties in which they write and enforce the laws.

Big dollar counties could hire/support surrounding ones so long as they came to agreement..

I don't foresee counties where people of Spartan-boys ilk would shoot trespassing immigrants on site but it is possible one could exist for a while...

The division of the populace along economic/political/racial and geographical lines is going to come to a head eventually if the federal government is permitted to continue undertaking ventures people strongly disagree with.

State government today oversees a larger population than the federal government did when it was instituted, many counties populations exceed those of the early states.

A federal government that taxes and disburses has the power to force homogenization, there are too many people with differing ideas for that to work.

_After all that, you were looking to pin me down on which type of county I'd choose to live in, at least that what your query sounded like...._

I would choose to ply my trade and raise my kid in a county inhabited by folks of like mind, that would not include shooting immigrants on site.

[edit]

Thank you for the apology.

I have not advocated shooting anybody.

----------


## tod evans

> Yeah the whole "Do what I want to do but not willing to do or you are a "coward" bit is very funny..
> 
> How can he not understand you import more marxst, you get more marxism, you do not allow them in, and you reduce the existing stock. Loved your New Zealand post about it.


Go back and read, twas you that began the "coward" vernacular, up until that point my posts to you consisted of not crying for more government.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I'm okay with counties authorizing the shooting of anyone deemed undesirable. As long as Spartan-boy plied his shooting trade within those counties I have no objection.


 Well, I guess I am a bit more of a moral absolutist, because I _would_ have a problem with that.  I think that kind of wildly disproportionate response amounts to unjustified murder, and that is always wrong.

That said, we're pretty similar in our approach for practical purposes, because even though I would absolutely be strongly morally opposed to that county's actions, doesn't mean I'd be calling for other counties to invade it and force it to stop, any more than I think the US should be invading Pakistan and forcing its government to stop... oh, I can't even choose a specific outrage -- to stop being horrible, corrupt and oppressive in basically every way.

Anyway, you clarified very well, thank you.  I understand your point of view much better now, and maybe others do, too.  You are arguing for policy to be set on the county level, which seems much more civilized and reasonable than "policy" being arbitrarily set by each individual, which would (IMO) amount to vigilantism and a chaotic, blood-soaked situation.




> The other side of this scenario is that _counties could forbid_ 
> 
> _Counties could mandate..._
> 
> _these people should have counties_ where they can bring the force of the government they pay for to bear.
> 
> Others..._they too should have their counties_ in which they write and enforce the laws.


 You're all about counties.  More decentralization -- I am all for that!

Plus, even though you're not willing to condemn shooting immigrants, you do seem to at least think it's an undesirable outcome:



> I don't foresee counties where people of Spartan-boy's ilk would shoot trespassing immigrants on site but it is possible one could exist for a while...


...which is probably why you raised it in connection with American Spartan.  Connect a person you find unacceptable with an outrageous proposal most people will find unacceptable.  Makes sense.

But for the record: American Spartan never said anything about shooting people (I don't think!).  You did.  And he has now repeatedly disavowed that proposal in horror, as any decent normal person would.




> _After all that, you were looking to pin me down on which type of county I'd choose to live in, at least that what your query sounded like...._


 No, I did not understand your proposal was all about counties going through a reasonable legal process, and not random individual rogue anti-immigrant snipers just... going for it.




> I would choose to ply my trade and raise my kid in a county inhabited by folks of like mind, that *would not include shooting immigrants on sight.*
> 
> [edit]
> 
> Thank you for the apology.
> 
> *I have not advocated shooting anybody.*


 You have answered my question.  Well then I think I _did_ misrepresent your view, it turns out, and I apologize again for that.

Part of it was that I _am_ dense: I didn't know what Chlordane was, and imagined from the context it was some sort of nasty poison you sprayed on and around roaches to make them die horrible deaths, like the Raid neurotoxin one sprays into hornet's nests, or like the Trojan Horse chemical ant traps.  Looking it up, it turns out it's a passive protectant -- the roaches don't all convulse on the floor and die, they just all go away and don't come back.  In other words, it's _not_ fatal to the roaches.  So, if you would have explained that, or I would have known, I would have realized that yes, what you were saying _was_  more akin to "No Immigrant" signs and refusal to hire and rent and things like that, and not to mass slaughter.

----------


## tod evans

> But for the record: American Spartan never said anything about shooting people (I don't think!).You did. And he has now repeatedly disavowed that proposal in horror, as any decent normal person would.


[edit]

Here's the first mention of "shooting" that I could find in the dialog between Spartan-boy and myself, and I haven't found anywhere he disavowed the proposal in horror, would you be so kind as to point that out for me? 




> Take the first shot then.


Government only has one tool and it's guns.

Calling for government to "keep people out" only happens by* force* of law...

Just as government mandating that states take in X number of refugees only happens by *force* of law..

Any time the federal government mandates or prohibits some behavior it is by *force* of law.. 

By reducing such legislation down to counties one is far more likely to find a set of laws he can live under whether those laws suit somebody 1500 miles away or not.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, the native white populace has gotten significantly better politically, significantly more libertarian and conservative in the last three decades.  The Soviet Union collapsed.  Socialism was discredited.  The native whites (which was 90% of the natives) shifted libertarian-conservative.


Why have you chosen the last three decades, I wonder. Could it be because the political behavior of white people in the proceeding ~150 years tells exactly the opposite story? White Americans (for instance) take for granted government activities which would have been anathema to even their relatively recent ancestors. I would attribute this change first and foremost to democracy itself (over time, there's a kind of Darwinian process driving politicians toward ever more intervention, on behalf of voters and the donor class), and also the left's long march through the institution. I'm not sure how this can be accounted for in your model, however, where the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic. 

And with regard to the collapse of communism, what's your argument exactly? Russia became more white, so communism collapsed? Aside from being something of a non sequitur (no voting during the Soviet era, so...?), I'm fairly certain that the white population of Russia's been declining proportionally since well before 1989. Or is the argument that Russian whites, who had previously instituted the most horrific regime in human history, eventually improved (though again, with no voting, what's the mechanism here?). Again, that would seem to undermine your claim that the problem is genetic.




> And [New Zealanders] were _far_ further along the socialist path than us.  Before 1980, they were totally socialist.  And yet they were able to do a complete U-turn to become one of the most radically libertarian places around.  That could have been us!  That could have been America!  And it still could be, if only we weren't saddled with 25% of Mexico, millions and millions from Central America, millions and millions from Asia, one and a half million Arabs, etc.


There are far more examples of overwhelmingly white societies moving in the opposite direction since 1989.

..most of Europe, for instance.

Greece, greatest basket case on the continent, is more than 95% European _today_. 

None of the PIIGS are less than 90% European.

New Zealand looks like an exception, not the rule.

*In short, Helmuth, your theory appears to be internally inconsistent, and based on a cherry-picking of the facts.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why have you chosen the last three decades, I wonder.


 I don't think you wonder.  Because if you or anyone sincerely wondered about this for more than ten seconds, you would come to the conclusion that the last three decades is the time during which immigration has been the most relevant, when we have seen the most rapid influx in history, and that the title of this thread contains the word "Immigration" and so maybe that is what we're discussing.  No, I do not think you "wonder" about this.  I think that, like the rest of your post, you are just writing it for rhetorical effect because you are so strongly pro-unlimited-and-nondiscriminatory-immigration you want to crush and discredit any arguments against that by any means necessary.

Is that pretty much it?  Did I sum it up?




> I'm not sure how this can be accounted for in your model, however, where the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic.


 I do not have a "model" in which "the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic".  You have invented a view for me which I have never come even close to stating anything like, and, lo and behold, that view is very easy for you to knock down as incorrect.  There is a name for this fallacy, when it is a fallacy.  But you are smart enough that I think you did it intentionally.

And the entire rest of your post is devoted to knocking down that fictional view you created.

"Bother!  He got me," you are saying.  Am I right?




> In short, Helmuth, your theory appears to be internally inconsistent, and based on a cherry-picking of the facts.


 Your theory, that you invented for me, that race explains everything in the world, and also that all the problems of the world, including The Problem (which you never define) could be solved by simply having everyone be the right race, yes, that theory appears to be slightly weak.  Perhaps to not hold up to close scrutiny.

Imagine that.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't think you wonder.  Because if you or anyone sincerely wondered about this for more than ten seconds, you would come to the conclusion that the last three decades is the time during which immigration has been the most relevant, when we have seen the most rapid influx in history, and that the title of this thread contains the word "Immigration" and so maybe that is what we're discussing.  No, I do not think you "wonder" about this.  I think that, like the rest of your post, you are just writing it for rhetorical effect because you are so strongly pro-unlimited-and-nondiscriminatory-immigration you want to crush and discredit any arguments against that by any means necessary.
> 
> Is that pretty much it?  Did I sum it up?


No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.

If you're retreating to the more modest position that immigrants are more leftist than natives upon their arrival, but they (or at least their children) can eventually assimilate (i.e. that the problem is not genetic), then you need not be opposed to immigration at all; you need only be opposed to giving them the franchise right off the boat, as am I. 




> I do not have a "model" in which "the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic".  You have invented a view for me which I have never come even close to stating anything like, and, lo and behold, that view is very easy for you to knock down as incorrect.  There is a name for this fallacy, when it is a fallacy.  But you are smart enough that I think you did it intentionally.


You do. On previous occasions when we've discussed immigration, I've argued that immigrants having leftist political tendencies is not a problem so long as they're not enfranchised until after they've assimilated, to which your retort has always been that they can't assimilate, for genetic reasons. Do I need to dig up some old threads and quote you to yourself, or do you remember this?




> And the entire rest of your post is devoted to knocking down that fictional view you created.
> 
> "Bother!  He got me," you are saying.  Am I right?
> 
>  Your theory, that you invented for me, that race explains everything in the world, and also that all the problems of the world, including The Problem (which you never define) could be solved by simply having everyone be the right race, yes, that theory appears to be slightly weak.  Perhaps to not hold up to close scrutiny.
> 
> Imagine that.


So, you're acknowledging that the racial theory that I'm "falsely" attributing to you is incorrect?

....that immigrants can in fact assimilate, and therefore there's no reason to deny them entry, since we can instead simply delay giving them the franchise?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.


They do not assimilate in large part, and the support larger goverment more so then whites.



As for genetics, well their IQs are by and large lower then that of Europeans.





> If you're retreating to the more modest position that immigrants are more leftist than natives upon their arrival, but they (or at least their children) can eventually assimilate (i.e. that the problem is not genetic), then you need not be opposed to immigration at all; you need only be opposed to giving them the franchise right off the boat, as am I.


Their children do not assimilate at a large enough number at a fast enough rate, then we take in millions more the next year we can not wait 3 generations for them to come around to our point of view politically time to keep them out.





> You do. On previous occasions when we've discussed immigration, I've argued that immigrants having leftist political tendencies is not a problem so long as they're not enfranchised until after they've assimilated, to which your retort has always been that they can't assimilate, for genetic reasons. Do I need to dig up some old threads and quote you to yourself, or do you remember this?


And how do you control that? How do you determine what constitutes "assimilated?

More over do prevent leftist from just adding them into the voter ranks? That is right, you cant, and since we can not pervent them from doing so we need to prevent them access to the nation.


They cant assimilate, its either Genetic, Cultural or both. Look at the South West for proof of this.





> ....that immigrants can in fact assimilate, and therefore there's no reason to deny them entry, since we can instead simply delay giving them the franchise?


Some of them can, such as people who have shared culture, values, politics, etc. You can not take people from cultures as vastly non compatible such as from the 3rd world and claim "well because the Irish assimilated (they did not do such a good job and it take them more or less 130 years) then the 3rd worlders can as well" 

Its the Lighting Fallacy on steroids. 

They are many reasons to deny them entry, economical, culture, crime, disease, terrorism and at some point they will be able to vote, you only delay the inevitable while we try and prevent that avoidable.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> 


That's lumps together all non-whites (including native-born ones).

Here's a more germane one, focusing on immigrants:






> As for genetics, well their IQs are by and large lower then than that of Europeans.


FIFY...

In any event, that's true, but irrelevant to politics. 

The average white, though smarter, is still _far_ too dumb to understand politics, hence they continue to make horrifying stupid decisions. 

Despite a majority of whites saying they want smaller government, ~99% of them vote for more government every election.

By way of analogy, oak is much stronger than pine, but neither is suitable for constructing submarines.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That's lumps together all non-whites (including native-born ones).
> 
> Here's a more germane one, focusing on immigrants:


That you for proving my point for me.





> FIFY...
> 
> In any event, that's true, but irrelevant to politics. 
> 
> The average white, though smarter, is still _far_ too dumb to understand politics, hence they continue to make horrifying stupid decisions. 
> 
> Despite a majority of whites saying they want smaller government, ~99% of them vote for more government every election.
> 
> By way of analogy, oak is much stronger than pine, but neither is suitable for constructing submarines.


No it is very relevant, we have more then enough stupid or uneducated people, we do not need any more. 

Well they vote for the candidates that are running. Do not plan them their is not a party that is viable to be elected and cause real change/improvement.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well they vote for the candidates that are running. Do not plan them their is not a party that is viable to be elected and cause real change/improvement.


Ron Paul was running (twice), why so few votes for him from these genetically-libertarian whites?

The LP has been running every cycle since the 70s - never got more than ~1%. Why?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Ron Paul was running (twice), why so few votes for him from these genetically-libertarian whites?
> 
> The LP has been running every cycle since the 70s - never got more than ~1%. Why?


The party establishment changed the rules in order to keep him out as they knew he could not be controlled.

Because they lack funding. That is why, then you have to figure in the tens of million of immigrants/their kids who if not for the 1965 immigration act would not be here and voting solidly Dem.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The party establishment changed the rules in order to keep him out as they knew he could not be controlled.


So how would having fewer non-white voters prevent this from happening?




> Because they lack funding.


Why aren't the genetically-libertarian whites funding them then? They fund the GOP and the Dems.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So how would having fewer non-white voters prevent this from happening?


That is inner party conflict with the Neo cons who are aging out and the Patriots, we will win in do time. 

How would fewer non whites voters effect this? Well they would not be voting for the Dems if we do not let them into the nation to begin with.





> Why aren't the genetically-libertarian whites funding them then? They fund the GOP and the Dems.


Because they know we can not work outside of the 2 party system for the time being. They are funding "outsiders" that are working within the GOP much to the hatred of the GOPe

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That is inner party conflict with the Neo cons who are aging out and the Patriots, we will win in do time.


1. To which race do the Republican establishment, and its corporate sponsors, mostly belong?

2. Who did these patriots vote for last cycle?




> How would fewer non whites voters effect this? Well they would not be voting for the Dems if we do not let them into the nation to begin with.


So, instead of Obama, we get Romney?

Could you explain to me the policy differences between the two?




> Because they know we can not work outside of the 2 party system for the time being. They are funding "outsiders" that are working within the GOP much to the hatred of the GOPe


Jeb Bush donations = $127 million
Rand Paul donations = $15 million

By this measure, the whites, the one's with the money anyway, are for more government, not less.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> 1. To which race do the Republican establishment, and its corporate sponsors, mostly belong?
> 
> 2. Who did these patriots vote for last cycle?


Largely the ruling class, so White and mostly Neo cons Whites.

The lesser of two evils, which was so Milquetoast millions of voters stayed home.

His proof that "moderates" do not win.






> So, instead of Obama, we get Romney?
> 
> Could you explain to me the policy differences between the two?


On what subject? He difference some what on immigration and gun rights (albeit his record on the later is less then flattering.




> Jeb Bush donations = $127 million
> Rand Paul donations = $15 million
> 
> By this measure, the whites, the one's with the money anyway, are for more government, not less.


Jeb is a Neo Con cuck who thinks even now he can be elected, He cant and wont. GWB was the last hurrah of the Ne Con Branch, they are either controlled opposition or people who do not want win and make gains in restoring Liberty. 

No, just Neo Cons as any such action would harm them or their donor class.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Largely the ruling class, so White and mostly Neo cons Whites.


So how will deporting non-whites prevent the white ruling class from pushing for more government?




> On what subject? He difference some what on immigration and gun rights (albeit his record on the later is less then flattering.


So that's it?

If we allow the immigrants in, we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with poor gun rights. 

If we keep them out...we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with moderate gun rights. 

...that's what this is all about?

(and, incidentally, Romney was terrible on gun rights when he was Gov., his sudden change was just pandering to the GOP base, and they were dumb enough to buy it)




> Jeb is a Neo Con cuck who thinks even now he can be elected, He cant and wont. GWB was the last hurrah of the Ne Con Branch, they are either controlled opposition or people who do not want win and make gains in restoring Liberty.


...and a large majority of whites voted for George W. Bush, so how would deporting the non-whites have made any difference?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So how will deporting non-whites prevent the white ruling class from pushing for more government?


Well they will not have tens of millions of imported welfare voters to back their decisions not dilute the election outcomes.
Plus we will not have to expend the goverment to care for the increases that adding tens of millions of welfare voters will cause.






> So that's it?
> 
> If we allow the immigrants in, we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with poor gun rights.


If we allow in immigrants who favor big goverment and control we will end up with a solid Democratic rule which will mean infringements on the 2nd Amendment, which without will mean that Americans will be helpless against an out of control goverment or rampant criminally.

Never mind the possibility of race based conflict should whites lose the majority statues and are disarmed as they are in South Africa.




> If we keep them out...we'll end up with a warmongering socialist $#@!hole, with moderate gun rights.


Wrong, If we keep them out, they can not vote against us. Its just that simply. without tens of millions of imported voters the left will lose and the Neo Con right will die its rightful death.




> ...that's what this is all about?


Its about protect our rightful ownership over our nation, culture, Liberty and future and not having it usurp by tyrants and given to the 3rd world hordes who have no right or claim to it.




> (and, incidentally, Romney was terrible on gun rights when he was Gov., his sudden change was just pandering to the GOP base, and they were dumb enough to buy it)


Clearly, but he was not out to destroy it like the Boy King is.

Romney defeat did more good, as it showed the Cuckservative"middle of the road" does not work, it never did. 

You are seeing the birth of the "New Right" which will destroy the left.





> ...and a large majority of whites voted for George W. Bush, so how would deporting the non-whites have made any difference?


That was the past, the last hurrah of the Neo Cons, they are nothing more then a dying faction as they should be.

How it would have effected us? Easy, fewer non whites means fewer Democratic Voters/Welfare Voters.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Wrong, If we keep them out, they can not vote against us. Its just that simply. without tens of millions of imported voters the left will lose *and the Neo Con right will die its rightful death.*


The Neocons get their support almost exclusively from white Americans.  Without Hispanic voters neocon McCain probably would have won in 2008.




> Its about protect our rightful ownership over our nation, culture, Liberty and future and not having it usurp by tyrants and given to the 3rd world hordes who have no right or claim to it.


Prove that you have a right to it.  Were all of your ancestor here in 1787?




> Clearly, but he was not out to destroy it like the Boy King is.
> 
> Romney defeat did more good, as it showed the Cuckservative"middle of the road" does not work, it never did. 
> 
> *You are seeing the birth of the "New Right" which will destroy the left.*


If every minority votes Democrat you need 69% of white voters for a Republican victory in 2016.  That number gets higher every year.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...form.html?_r=0

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The Neocons get their support almost exclusively from white Americans.  Without Hispanic voters neocon McCain probably would have won in 2008.


Come again?





> Prove that you have a right to it.  Were all of your ancestor here in 1787?


That is not how it works, you have to prove to me that I do not have a right to this nation, culture, Liberty, in clear violation to the words of the founds "To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity"

Ah, here we go, that classic "You are the descendants of immigrants so you can not bar others from coming in". Wrong we so very clearly can.






> If every minority votes Democrat you need 69% of white voters for a Republican victory in 2016.  That number gets higher every year.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...form.html?_r=0


Which is why we are cutting off the voter importing spigot IE mass immigration.

With that one act we can stop the demographic slide.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Come again?


I said it pretty clearly.




> That is not how it works, you have to prove to me that I do not have a right to this nation, culture, Liberty, in clear violation to the words of the founds "To secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity"
> 
> Ah, here we go, that classic "You are the descendants of immigrants so you can not bar others from coming in". Wrong we so very clearly can.


I'm just saying I'm glad that my German ancestors weren't stopped from entering the US in the late 19th century because of Germany's authoritarian government.




> Which is why we are cutting off the voter importing spigot IE mass immigration.
> 
> With that one act we can *stop* the demographic slide.


I think you mean "slow."

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I'm just saying I'm glad that my German ancestors weren't stopped from entering the US in the late 19th century because of Germany's authoritarian government.


So because if your past we need to risk our Liberty and future...Why? 

At some point you need to close the gates and say "no more" well that time is here and that is what we are doing, and all the teary eyed stories, or revisionism, or Romanticism, name calling or cliches is not going to stop from happening.





> I think you mean "slow."


Now, we will also deport either by force or attrition the illegals here as well as use the Sailer strategy.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sa...o-save-america

That and a booming economy, Whites will bounce back.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> So because if your past we need to risk our Liberty and future...Why? 
> 
> At some point you need to close the gates and say "no more" well that time is here and that is what we are doing, and all the teary eyed stories, or revisionism, or Romanticism, name calling or cliches is not going to stop from happening.


The majority of Americans don't even support that.




> Now, we will also deport either by force or attrition the illegals here as well as use the Sailer strategy.
> 
> http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-sa...o-save-america
> 
> That and a booming economy, Whites will bounce back.


You know that most Hispanics are here legally and they still have more children than white people.  So You would just slow down the trend.  Blacks are also growing at a faster rate than whites.  Sometime in the near future Mississippi will be majority-black.  And very few black people are illegal immigrants.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The majority of Americans don't even support that.


Oh, but they do!

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/28/pe...d-immigration/

http://samepagenation.com/2015/09/do...s-immigration/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/di...on-levels.aspx







> You know that most Hispanics are here legally and they still have more children than white people.  So You would just slow down the trend.  Blacks are also growing at a faster rate than whites.  Sometime in the near future Mississippi will be majority-black.  And very few black people are illegal immigrants.


Not true.

http://fusion.net/story/53820/what-t...e-u-s-economy/

Now, think of what would happen if birth right ciztenship was ended, Can you think of how great the drop would be? No more life time welfare, no more "free" healthcare, education ,etc. Not a damn thing. Along with E-verify, no renting without E verify alone will force them to leave. It will be epic.

With abortion rates, if it were not for immigration from Afrcia their numbers would be going down even faster then the are now.

Yes, they are not. Why is that? Maybe because Africa is not within walking distance.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Oh, but they do!
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/28/pe...d-immigration/
> 
> http://samepagenation.com/2015/09/do...s-immigration/
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/181313/di...on-levels.aspx


I've seen polls that say otherwise, like on this thread or the other one.




> Not true.
> 
> http://fusion.net/story/53820/what-t...e-u-s-economy/
> 
> Now, think of what would happen if birth right ciztenship was ended, Can you think of how great the drop would be? No more life time welfare, no more "free" healthcare, education ,etc. Not a damn thing. Along with E-verify, no renting without E verify alone will force them to leave. It will be epic.


White people are not having very many kids.  and even if the Hispanic birth rate is plummeting it's still higher than that of whites.  Not to mention that a lot of whites have children with non-whites.




> With abortion rates, if it were not for immigration from Afrcia their numbers would be going down even faster then the are now.
> 
> Yes, they are not. Why is that? Maybe because Africa is not within walking distance.


The numbers of African Americans are not going down.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I've seen polls that say otherwise, like on this thread or the other one.


Show people a blue car and more then a few will claim it red. 

Just google terms and polls and you will see what the Media does not want to talk about immigration reduction, its because the large majority of Americans support it.





> White people are not having very many kids.  and even if the Hispanic birth rate is plummeting it's still higher than that of whites.  Not to mention that a lot of whites have children with non-whites.


Only thanks to mass immigration. And we whites are not having as many kids as them because 1. We do not qualify for all the "free" stuff they do, 2. We want to live a decedent life, not just survive in poverty  and 3. We do not see the value in mindlessly breeding.

Secure the borders, deport the illegals, end birthright ciztenship, along with economical growth and whites will bounce back.




> The numbers of African Americans are not going down.


[/QUOTE]

http://www.eurweb.com/2011/01/eur-sp...nority-status/

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Show people a blue car and more then a few will claim it red. 
> 
> Just google terms and polls and you will see what the Media does not want to talk about immigration reduction, its because the large majority of Americans support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only thanks to mass immigration. And we whites are not having as many kids as them because 1. We do not qualify for all the "free" stuff they do, 2. We want to live a decedent life, not just survive in poverty  and 3. We do not see the value in mindlessly breeding.
> 
> Secure the borders, deport the illegals, end birthright ciztenship, along with economical growth and whites will bounce back.


http://www.eurweb.com/2011/01/eur-sp...nority-status/[/QUOTE]


Even if you somehow manage to reduce immigration whites still aren't having very many children and many of them are having children with people of different races.  The percentage of mixed race people will continue to grow.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Here's the first mention of "shooting" that I could find in the dialog between Spartan-boy and myself, and I haven't found anywhere he disavowed the proposal in horror, would you be so kind as to point that out for me?


Well, maybe he didn't, maybe I was wrong about that, or maybe it's at least an exaggeration.  I have not truly kept up on you guys' conversations in various threads, only occasionally skimmed.  It is not my job to defend American Spartan, though (or anyone else).

----------


## tod evans

> Well, maybe he didn't, maybe I was wrong about that, or maybe it's at least an exaggeration.  I have not truly kept up on you guys' conversations in various threads, only occasionally skimmed.  It is not my job to defend American Spartan, though (or anyone else).


That post was in this thread HH, the thread where you accused me of wanting to shoot people and then decreed that Spartan-boy was virtuous to the point he exhibited "horror" at shooting people...When in fact 'twas him that brought up the subject with his bold suggestion that I take the first shot...

If you read this thread you'll find me blaming government for immigration problems and strongly advocating to not grant them any more power or authority in the matter.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No, the following sums it up: Your argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.


 None of this is true.

Look, I told you in a very simple, easy-to-understand way that you were wrong about my views:



> I do not have a "model" in which "the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic". You have invented a view for me which I have never come even close to stating anything like, and, lo and behold, that view is very easy for you to knock down as incorrect. There is a name for this fallacy, when it is a fallacy. But you are smart enough that I think you did it intentionally.


Your come-back is to now insist "do too!  do too! do too!":



> *You do.* On previous occasions when we've discussed immigration, I've argued that immigrants having leftist political tendencies is not a problem so long as they're not enfranchised until after they've assimilated, to which your retort has always been that they can't assimilate, for genetic reasons. Do I need to dig up some old threads and quote you to yourself, or do you remember this?


So sure, tiger, go ahead and dig up all those posts.  I have a habit of assuming good faith, so let me guess that you probably have confused/merged me together with other posters.  Or perhaps just not understood my posts.  In any case, the exercise of searching and digging will probably do more to educate you on what I have written than me taking time attempting to reiterate myself yet again.




> If you're retreating to the more modest position that immigrants are more leftist than natives upon their arrival, but they (or at least their children) can eventually assimilate (i.e. that the problem is not genetic), then you need not be opposed to immigration at all; you need only be opposed to giving them the franchise right off the boat, as am I.


 So everyone will assimilate and become interchangeable.  One person is as good as another.  Sounds awfully egalitarian to me.  

In your "digging," I would recommend you dig back to read my very first post in this thread.  That is my position.  Everyone is _not_ the same.  Everyone does _not_ just melt together and assimilate and become indistinguishable from each other merely because they live within the same X national borders for X period of time.  Rather, people have different characteristics and different quality levels.  Because these differences are real, and because these differences are important, taking these differences into account is relevant.

You're attempting to morph this rock-solid, unimpeachable view into some dried-grass bovine feed that's much more easily attacked.  Understandable.  But not intellectually honest.  It _doesn't matter_ if the differences are genetic or environmental.  It doesn't matter if differences are caused by astrological signs, or sunspots, or the curse of Cain, or evolutionary selection, or anything you can think of.  None of that matters to my point, and none of that matters to immigration policy.  What matters is that the differences exist and are real and measurable, and that they are intractable.  That is, they persist.  They don't seem to change.  They are "sticky." Even over long periods of time, even in the face of people trying to change them, people remain the way they are.  People just are the way they are.  So _whatever_ is causing people to be different, the fact is that they are different, and so it would only seem rational to be willing to accept that fact and take it into account.

Anyway, I don't understand why you feel compelled to inform me of what my own views are, and correct me on it, as if you are the expert on my views, and I am the clueless, errant dunce.  I don't understand why you seem to have decided it's so important for you to smear me.  I don't understand, frankly, why you have become rabidly obsessed with the issue of immigration, and with smearing or destroying all posters who may hold any slightly non-open-borders viewpoint.  But I definitely don't understand why you would feel the need to smear and defame me, personally.  I don't understand how that fits into your strategy and furthers your goals.  Maybe you should just stick to promoting Rand, and not smearing those who should be your allies.  Eh?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That post was in this thread HH, the thread where you accused me of wanting to shoot people and then decreed that Spartan-boy was virtuous to the point he exhibited "horror" at shooting people...When in fact 'twas him that brought up the subject with his bold suggestion that I take the first shot...
> 
> If you read this thread you'll find me blaming government for immigration problems and strongly advocating to not grant them any more power or authority in the matter.


Gotcha, and thank you for setting me straight.  I really was not accusing you of wanting to shoot people, as I feel I know you well enough to know perfectly well that you do not want to go around shooting anyone; I just wanted you to clarify and explain your views.  I didn't understand what you were saying, and wanted to understand.  And now I do, better than I did before.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> 
> No, the following sums it up: Your  argument against non-European immigration rests on the assumption that  these immigrants will be unable to assimilate, which in turn rests on  the assumption that they're more genetically predisposed toward leftism  than Europeans - yet the factual support for this latter claim is weak  to non-existent, as I've been pointing out.
> 
> 
> None of this is true.


And yet, in _this very post_ (I didn't need to do much digging..), you say:




> ...people have different characteristics and different quality levels...
> 
> ...these differences are important...
> 
> ...the differences exist and are real and measurable, and that they are  intractable.  That is, they persist.  They don't seem to change...


If that doesn't mean that the differences are genetic, I don't know what it could possibly mean.

In any event, here's the bottom line:

1.  If (as seems plain) you're saying that political behavior is genetic,  and that whites are genetically predisposed toward better political  behavior than non-whites, then that argument is weak for the reasons  explained in my last several posts (in short, the empirical evidence  does not provide the neat correlation between race and political  outcomes that this view requires). 

2. If (as you now claim)  you're saying that political behavior is not genetic, that immigrant  political behavior is entirely a product of the environment in their  home countries (and, similarly, Americans' political behavior is a  product of the environment in the US), then there is no reason to  suppose that the immigrants will not - over time - adopt the political  behavior of Americans*, in which case there is no reason to restrict  immigration (one could simply delay enfranchisement). 

Either way, there's no here case for restricting immigration.

*which is abominable, of course

----------


## TheCount

> http://www.eurweb.com/2011/01/eur-sp...nority-status/


You need a remedial class on percentages.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> http://www.eurweb.com/2011/01/eur-sp...nority-status/



Even if you somehow manage to reduce immigration whites still aren't having very many children and many of them are having children with people of different races.  The percentage of mixed race people will continue to grow.[/QUOTE]

Grows at a trickle, and we are going to reduce it. We just need to get to replacement and all will be well.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> None of this is true.
> 
> Look, I told you in a very simple, easy-to-understand way that you were wrong about my views:
> 
> 
> Your come-back is to now insist "do too!  do too! do too!":
> So sure, tiger, go ahead and dig up all those posts.  I have a habit of assuming good faith, so let me guess that you probably have confused/merged me together with other posters.  Or perhaps just not understood my posts.  In any case, the exercise of searching and digging will probably do more to educate you on what I have written than me taking time attempting to reiterate myself yet again.
> 
>  So everyone will assimilate and become interchangeable.  One person is as good as another.  Sounds awfully egalitarian to me.  
> ...


Remember "Diversity" + Proximity= Conflict

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> ....that immigrants can in fact assimilate, and therefore there's no reason to deny them entry, since we can instead simply delay giving them the franchise?


No, we can as a large majority of them do not assimilate. So that is why we will deny them franchise and entry.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> And yet, in _this very post_ (I didn't need to do much digging..), you say:
> 
> 
> 
> If that doesn't mean that the differences are genetic, I don't know what it could possibly mean.
> 
> In any event, here's the bottom line:
> 
> 1.  If (as seems plain) you're saying that political behavior is genetic,  and that whites are genetically predisposed toward better political  behavior than non-whites, then that argument is weak for the reasons  explained in my last several posts (in short, the empirical evidence  does not provide the neat correlation between race and political  outcomes that this view requires). 
> ...


Political views are effected by genes and culture.

https://www.google.com/search?q=polt...+views+genetic

To you, their will never be any reason to limit immigration, not even self preservation. Well hate to break it to you but their are many reasons to and we will do. Do not like it? Pound sand.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You need a remedial class on percentages.


How much is that of native growth and how much is caused by immigration?

----------


## tod evans

> we are going to reduce it. We just need





> we can  So that is why we will





> and we will do.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> How much is that of native growth and how much is caused by immigration?


Very little is caused by immigration.  Immigration from Africa has not been in large numbers since 1807.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Very little is caused by immigration.  Immigration from Africa has not been in large numbers since 1807.


The stats prove you wrong, we have let in a great since 1965, never mind the refugees.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Originally Posted by Tywysog Cymru  View Post
> *The majority of Americans don't even support that*.
> 			
> 		
> 
> *Oh, but they do!*
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/28/pe...d-immigration/
> 
> ...


From your Gallop Poll link: 




> In a follow-up question that queried Americans who are dissatisfied with the current levels of immigration, *39% of U.S. adults in total -- said they would like to see the level of immigration decrease*.


That is down from 50% as recently as 2008.  39% is not a majority of Americans.  In 2006 a majority agreed- but not today.  33% are satisfied with current levels of immigration.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> then there is no reason to  suppose that the immigrants will not - over time - adopt the political  behavior of Americans


Oh no, no reason.  No reason at all.  Except for the facts.

Inconvenient little things.

Anyway, you're still being dishonest about my views, trying to twist them into the least-popular corner you can come up with.  Again, I don't really understand why you've decided that smearing me is so important -- so important that honesty goes out the window.  Is it really that important, 3.0?  Am I really that much of a threat?

Whether it's genetic, whether it's cultural, who can say?  Clearly you are predisposed to believe it's cultural, while I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic.  *But regardless, it does not seem to improve over 40 year time frames.*  That's the important thing.  You are not capable nor qualified of arguing the biology of it with me, and it _does not matter._  Regardless of the reason, immigrants to America do support big, overbearing government massively, massively more than the native population.  As do their children.  And their grandchildren.  And their great-grandchildren.

That is relevant to people wanting liberty to win.  If you want liberty to win electorally, anything standing in the way of liberty winning electorally is a problem.  So the question is, *do you actually care about that?  I do.*

That's just one possible reason that people might want to limit immigration into their communities, though.  Just one.  As I explain in my first post in this thread, there are many others.  There are a virtually unlimited array of reasons, having to do with all the little things that make the person love and treasure the place they live in the first place, most of which will change with unlimited, indiscriminate immigration.  And there are, in contrast, almost no reasons that would make someone favor having unlimited immigration into his community.  

Indeed, you can see this proved out right here: the people on RPF most strongly in favor of unlimited immigration are those who place virtually no value on the place they live.  They don't love it at all.  They hate and spit on American culture; in fact no such thing exists, they say.  The West is a bunch of mass-murdering hypocrites, they say.  Americans are a bunch of "dumb," "abominable" "idiots" whom they find loathsome and despicable.  So, since zero of the unlimited array of reasons mentioned above are relevant to them, the reasons in favor of unlimited indiscriminate waves of immigration win out, even though there are relatively few of them.  If ones hates his community, who cares if it gets trashed and turned upside-down?

Sum up:

*My views may not be perfect, but they are fact-based.
You're still being dishonest about my views.
If you want to continue this conversation, shape up and fly straight.*

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> The stats prove you wrong, we have let in a great since 1965, never mind the refugees.


Among Hispanics and Asians, but Africans are a very small percentage of the total number of immigrants.  There are probably more Europeans coming in than Africans.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Even if you somehow manage to reduce immigration whites still aren't having very many children and many of them are having children with people of different races.  The percentage of mixed race people will continue to grow.
> 
> Grows at a trickle, and we are going to reduce it. We just need to get to replacement and all will be well.


So make more babies. You have until 2044. Possibly longer.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/op...-minority.html




> *The Myth of a White Minority*
> 
> IN 2012, the Census Bureau announced that nonwhite births exceeded white births for the first time. In 2013, it noted that more whites were dying than were being born. In March, it projected that *non-Hispanic whites would be a minority by 2044*.
> 
> But the forecast of an imminent white minority, which some take as a given, is wrong. We will seem like a majority-white society for much longer than is believed.
> 
> The predictions make sense only if you accept the outdated, illogical methods used by the census, which define as a “minority” anyone who belongs to “any group other than non-Hispanic White alone.” In the words “group” and “alone” lie a host of confusions.
> 
> A report the Pew Research Center is releasing today on multiracial Americans demonstrates how problematic these definitions have become. Pew estimates that 8.9 percent of Americans now have family backgrounds that involve some combination of white, black, Latino, Asian and Native American.
> ...


I found this part particularly interesting- 




> Some of *the mixed children now classified as minorities surely will think of themselves mainly as whites when they grow up; researchers have already found a significant group of American adults who declare themselves as non-Hispanic whites to the census, but acknowledge having some Mexican ancestry. Others may have mixed or even minority identities, but will be “sociologically white,” integrated into white communities and family networks and seen as essentially no different from anyone else.*
> 
> According to the new Pew report,* adults from mixed white and Asian backgrounds feel they have more in common with whites than they do with Asians; almost half have friendship circles that are mostly made up of whites; and two-thirds live in mostly white neighborhoods. Two-thirds of the multiracial Americans in the report who have some white ancestry are themselves married to whites.*
> 
> We can grasp these emerging social realities by remembering our history of assimilation. At midcentury, religious boundaries were highly salient in white America. Catholics, Jews and Protestants were distinct populations, whose social lives were largely confined within their own group*. Yet in only a few decades, the differences faded, and interaction across the boundaries proliferated.* It was not that people ceased being Catholic or Jewish. But the public faces of those identities became much more muted and rarely intruded on everyday life. The Jewish intermarriage rate, around 10 percent in 1950, climbed to 58 percent by 2013.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Whether it's genetic, whether it's  cultural, who can say?  Clearly you are predisposed to believe it's  cultural, while I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic.  *But regardless, it does not seem to improve over 40 year time frames.*  That's the important thing.  You are not capable nor qualified of arguing the biology of it with me, and it _does not matter._   Regardless of the reason, immigrants to America do support big,  overbearing government massively, massively more than the native  population.  As do their children.  And their grandchildren.  And their  great-grandchildren.







> As  I explain in my first post in this thread, there are many others.   There are a virtually unlimited array of reasons, having to do with all the little things that make the person love and treasure the place they live in the first place, most of which will change with unlimited, indiscriminate immigration.


Being a libertarian, I find it unethical to violate people's property rights for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.

I wouldn't like it if a gaggle of butch lesbians moved into my neighborhood, but I wouldn't be asking the government to deport them at gunpoint either.




> And there are, in contrast, almost no reasons that would make  someone favor having unlimited immigration into his community.


Apart from an abstract opposition to aggression, there's the fact that immigration raises the average real income of Americans.




> Anyway, you're still being dishonest about my views


I claimed that you think political behavior is significantly genetic - you do, you just said so again in this post. 

Helmuth: "I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic"

So..how am I misrepresenting your views? 




> Again,  I don't really understand why you've decided that smearing me is so  important -- so important that honesty goes out the window.  Is it  really that important, 3.0?  Am I really that much of a threat?






...I'm not trying to smear you helmuth, I'm merely rebutting an argument you're making.

You recall that I too believe that there are non-trivial differences between the races?

So, it's not as if I'm calling you a racist or something.

We simply part on the effect of those genetic differences: I don't think they extend to political behavior - I see no evidence for it.

----------


## statist slayer

Arguing that racial genetic differences affect assimilation is both misinformed and unhelpful to the cause of reforming immigration policy.  No reputable population geneticist makes this argument, and I can guess that people who regurgitate half-baked internet articles supporting genetic differences have no rigorous training in biology.  The only major genetic differences between races relate to skin pigmentation, height and other relatively superficial attributes; disease protection or susceptibility; and athletic ability, such as in East Africans (but even this is disputed).  It is parsimonious (and pretty damn obvious) to conclude that differences in immigrant economic success in the United States and other Western nations are chiefly caused by cultural differences (religion, customs, and value systems) and, to some extent, persistent racism (especially in Europe).

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> From your Gallop Poll link: 
> 
> 
> 
> That is down from 50% as recently as 2008.  39% is not a majority of Americans.  In 2006 a majority agreed- but not today.  33% are satisfied with current levels of immigration.


Yeah, never mind the other two polls, right? Anything to keep the tide from turning against you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> So make more babies. You have until 2044. Possibly longer.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/op...-minority.html
> 
> 
> 
> I found this part particularly interesting-


Do not worry, when we reduce immigration and send the illegals back it will do a great deal for us. Do not worry Juan, we whites will still be control of America as we should be. I do not know why we should not be.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> 


So you want us to wait 3 generations to win when we could won right now by stopping immigration and not take massive and seemingly pointless risks?





> Being a libertarian, I find it unethical to violate people's property rights for purely selfish aesthetic reasons.
> 
> I wouldn't like it if a gaggle of butch lesbians moved into my neighborhood, but I wouldn't be asking the government to deport them at gunpoint either.


Well you should have the means of stopping them from moving in via the freedom of association. Like it or not they will force their values on to you and your moral signaling will not stop them. 





> Apart from an abstract opposition to aggression, there's the fact that immigration raises the average real income of Americans.


Bald faced lie. *During* the *low*-*immigration period* from *1948-1973*, *real median compensation* for *U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent*





> I claimed that you think political behavior is significantly genetic - you do, you just said so again in this post. 
> 
> Helmuth: "I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic"
> 
> So..how am I misrepresenting your views?


Well it is, are you going to say genetics does not exist?





> ...I'm not trying to smear you helmuth, I'm merely rebutting an argument you're making.
> 
> You recall that I too believe that there are non-trivial differences between the races?
> 
> So, it's not as if I'm calling you a racist or something.
> 
> We simply part on the effect of those genetic differences: I don't think they extend to political behavior - I see no evidence for it.


Its not trivial, and your calling it that does not make it so. It total extends to political behavior, how can it not be?





> Arguing that racial genetic differences affect assimilation is both misinformed and unhelpful to the cause of reforming immigration policy.  No reputable population geneticist makes this argument, and I can guess that people who regurgitate half-baked internet articles supporting genetic differences have no rigorous training in biology.  The only major genetic differences between races relate to skin pigmentation, height and other relatively superficial attributes; disease protection or susceptibility; and athletic ability, such as in East Africans (but even this is disputed).  It is parsimonious (and pretty damn obvious) to conclude that differences in immigrant economic success in the United States and other Western nations are chiefly caused by cultural differences (religion, customs, and value systems) and, to some extent, persistent racism (especially in Europe).


And if facts were presented? No IQ is also effected by genes. Either way we have every right to keep some groups out and we are going to once again. Time for us to protect our nation, culture, and control over our nation, culture, and future.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Do not worry, when we reduce immigration and send the illegals back it will do a great deal for us. *Do not worry Juan, we whites will still be control of America as we should be.* I do not know why we should not be.


Whites have been the ones in power. If the country is screwed up, it is their fault.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Whites have been the ones in power. If the country is screwed up, it is their fault.


No, we do not have as much power as we did or we should.

Look at were non whites rule the show..Either with Mexico or Somalia

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Whites have been the ones in power. If the country is screwed up, it is their fault.


No, we do not have as much power as we did or we should.

Look at were non whites rule the show in America..Either its Mexico or Somalia

----------


## statist slayer

> And if facts were presented? No IQ is also effected by genes. Either way we have every right to keep some groups out and we are going to once again. Time for us to protect our nation, culture, and control over our nation, culture, and future.


The burden of proof is on you if you want to argue that there are significant racial genetic differences in intellect.  Good luck.

But this is somewhat beside the point.  Whatever the reason, we agree that unchecked immigration is the death of the country.  It may already be too late if the Democrats have immigrant supermajorities in the critical swing states -- ANY ONE OF Florida, Virginia, or Ohio.  I'm willing to argue that this is the last election a Republican has a chance of winning.  After the census of 2020, the jig is up, and there will be two new political parties in town -- the bureaucratic statists of Hillary, Jeb, Christie, and Bloomberg, and the revolutionary statists of Bernie, Warren, and Obama.  The ascent of Trump is the canary in the coal mine that the Republican Party is in its death throes and has decided to self-immolate.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> The burden of proof is on you if you want to argue that there are significant racial genetic differences in intellect.  Good luck.


Honest question, how much proof would it take to win you over? Can you be won over? 




> But this is somewhat beside the point.  Whatever the reason, we agree that unchecked immigration is the death of the country.  It may already be too late if the Democrats have immigrant supermajorities in the critical swing states -- ANY ONE OF Florida, Virginia, or Ohio.  I'm willing to argue that this is the last election a Republican has a chance of winning.  After the census of 2020, the jig is up, and there will be two new political parties in town -- the bureaucratic statists of Hillary, Jeb, Christie, and Bloomberg, and the revolutionary statists of Bernie, Warren, and Obama.  The ascent of Trump is the canary in the coal mine that the Republican Party is in its death throes and has decided to self-immolate.


We are in total agreement here and have a common goal, shut down the voter importation. All they need is Florida and with Cubans and Portia ricans flooding into that state with might be done for. The Establishment is worse then the enemy as they are the enemy while these people are traitors.

More over that is why we have gerrymander and deport as much as possible as well as reduce legal immigration.

More over if we lose, we really do not to just secede. Why bother playing a rigged game?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> 


 Yes, you seem to think that this handy graphic (which I think _I_ posted first, for the record) disproves anyone who thinks that the immigrant peasants from the third world vote and believe differently than native Americans.  But it doesn't.

First, you will note that _all_ the Hispanic bars are tilted more heavily towards loving big government than the natives.  Minor detail, that, eh?  Since _I_ am saying that they love big government more, and _you_ are saying, "no, no problem -- assimilation!" it would seem that this survey verifies my statement as fact, and not yours.

But, of course, the reason you are posting it is that you say "Look!  The percentages get smaller!  That shows assimilation.  Extrapolating, maybe in 200 years, after ten generations, they will at least stop actively harming the cause of liberty."  That brings us to our second note: no, not really.  To demonstrate the claimed assimilation with any modicum of scientific validity, one would need a longitudinal study.  The people in the handy graphic above listed as "second generation" are not children of the "first generation," and the "third and up" generation folks are not descendants of the second (nor the first).  These are all different groups of people, who came in with different waves of immigration.  It is natural that the small, elite if you will, group of people who managed to flee Cuba (or Mexico, or Argentina) in the 1950s and 1960s or earlier and also managed to get admitted to the United States under the rules that back then made it much more difficult for anyone from non-European countries to enter, that these select elite would be more favorable to the ideals of small government than the teeming hordes of Mexicans and Central Americans who were able to stream in during the 1970s and 1980s, and more still than the massive population dump in the 1990s and 2000s up to today which has relocated more than 25% of Mexico into the US.  The survey also does not, of course, attempt to measure and correct for intermarriage.  These factors do not only _confound_ the data for the purposes of the conclusion you are trying to draw from it: they _destroy_ it.




> Being a libertarian, I find it unethical to violate people's property rights


 As do I.  But, how many times do I have to write it?: Just because there's a problem doesn't mean that the solution is more government!  Doesn't mean the solution is to violate people's rights!  It's as if I have written, "Hey guys, I've come to the conclusion that maybe cancer is a problem.  I don't like people I love getting cancer," and in comes erowe and r3v3.0 and Zippyjuan crying, "You statist pig!   How dare you support government anti-cancer programs?  You are immoral and sickening.  You're a National Socialist."  But I didn't say that, did I?  In this scenario, e, 3, and Zip would just look confused and stupid.

Just because there's a problem doesn't mean that the solution is more government!

And just because the solution is not more government doesn't mean that there must not be a problem!

Are we clear?




> Apart from an abstract opposition to aggression, there's the fact that immigration raises the average real income of Americans.


 That is not a given.  That is not an economic certainty.  Just because geographical area X experiences an influx of one million additional people from geographical area Y, we have no reason to think that the average income of the million people who were already in X must rise.  Nor, by the way, that the incomes of those in Y will fall.




> I claimed that you think political behavior is significantly genetic - you do, you just said so again in this post. 
> 
> Helmuth: "I am more disposed to believe it is largely genetic"
> 
> So..how am I misrepresenting your views?


 No, what you wrote was: "in your model, however,... the essence of the problem is supposed to be genetic." (along with lots of other things to the same effect).  The problem is big government/tyranny; we both agree on that.  And, according to your mis-characterization of me, the _cause_ of this problem is (fanfare): non-white people!  You imply repeatedly and doggedly that my position is "white people good, non-white people bad."  Your "refutations" of "my" view consist of recounting historical episodes in which white people have supported big government.  Also of recounting other random historical episodes, such as the Soviet Union's collapse, and saying "Look!  See?  How in the world can you explain this episode with race alone?  How could race have caused the Soviet Union's collapse?"

*But this is a malicious and transparent straw man, which you, not I, have woven out of whole cloth (straw?).

I never said that white people are good and non-whites are bad.
I never said that white people always and everywhere have stood against tyranny.
I never said that the cause of all state expansion is racial.
I never said that all of history, every incident, has a racial explanation.*

Is that clear enough?  Are you going to shape up and fly right?  You have demonstrated enough intelligence in the past there is no reason we should be having this conversation.  There is no reason I should be having to disclaim views which I *so obviously* have never stated!  It's just ridiculous.  I don't have the time or energy for it.  It's a waste.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Yes, you seem to think that this handy graphic (which I think _I_ posted first, for the record) disproves anyone who thinks that the immigrant peasants from the third world vote and believe differently than native Americans.  But it doesn't.
> 
> First, you will note that _all_ the Hispanic bars are tilted more heavily towards loving big government than the natives.  Minor detail, that, eh?  Since _I_ am saying that they love big government more, and _you_ are saying, "no, no problem -- assimilation!" it would seem that this survey verifies my statement as fact, and not yours.
> 
> But, of course, the reason you are posting it is that you say "Look!  The percentages get smaller!  That shows assimilation.  Extrapolating, maybe in 200 years, after ten generations, they will at least stop actively harming the cause of liberty."  That brings us to our second note: no, not really.  To demonstrate the claimed assimilation with any modicum of scientific validity, one would need a longitudinal study.  The people in the handy graphic above listed as "second generation" are not children of the "first generation," and the "third and up" generation folks are not descendants of the second (nor the first).  These are all different groups of people, who came in with different waves of immigration.  It is natural that the small, elite if you will, group of people who managed to flee Cuba (or Mexico, or Argentina) in the 1950s and 1960s or earlier and also managed to get admitted to the United States under the rules that back then made it much more difficult for anyone from non-European countries to enter, that these select elite would be more favorable to the ideals of small government than the teeming hordes of Mexicans and Central Americans who were able to stream in during the 1970s and 1980s, and more still than the massive population dump in the 1990s and 2000s up to today which has relocated more than 25% of Mexico into the US.  The survey also does not, of course, attempt to measure and correct for intermarriage.  These factors do not only _confound_ the data for the purposes of the conclusion you are trying to draw from it: they _destroy_ it.
> 
>  As do I.  But, how many times do I have to write it?: Just because there's a problem doesn't mean that the solution is more government!  Doesn't mean the solution is to violate people's rights!  It's as if I have written, "Hey guys, I've come to the conclusion that maybe cancer is a problem.  I don't like people I love getting cancer," and in comes erowe and r3v3.0 and Zippyjuan crying, "You statist pig!   How dare you support government anti-cancer programs?  You are immoral and sickening.  You're a National Socialist."  But I didn't say that, did I?  In this scenario, e, 3, and Zip would just look confused and stupid.
> 
> Just because there's a problem doesn't mean that the solution is more government!
> ...


You do understand that they will not understand or retain a single word you posted, right? We are dealing with leftist who have the attention of a goal fish.

----------


## statist slayer

> The burden of proof is on you if you want to argue that there are significant racial genetic differences in intellect.  Good luck.


Having graduate training in science, including biology, in order to sway me, you would have to find peer-reviewed scientific studies that have not been thoroughly rebutted.  The most common argument I've heard is that certain races do better on certain standardized tests, but this falls short when you control for socioeconomic factors.  I think it is much more persuasive and obvious to argue that other races often have cultures that differ dramatically from the culture of self-sufficiency in which the Republic (and republicanism) flourished.

----------


## statist slayer

> All they need is Florida and with Cubans and Portia ricans flooding into that state with might be done for.


It is especially ironic that there's a mass exodus of Puerto Ricans from a failed socialist experiment, and they come to the U.S. and vote Dem.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I _never said_ that white people are good and non-whites are bad.


 I never said you did.

 I said that you said that a whiter population leads to better political outcomes, which you did.  




> I _never said_ that white people always and everywhere have stood against tyranny.


 I never said you did.  

 I cited instances of white populations moving towards tyranny (e.g. Greece), in response to your example of a white population moving towards freedom (e.g. New Zealand), to demonstrate that the empirical evidence is ambigious (i.e. does not support your claim that, whiter population → better political outcomes).  




> I_ never said_ that the cause of all state expansion is racial.


 I never said you did.

 I said that you said that race is a significant cause of state expansion, which you did.  




> Are we clear?


I doubt it, and the prospects don't look good. 




> I don't have the time or energy for it.  It's a waste.


Agreed, so I think I'll just leave it here.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Just for the record, I want to restate my own position here, as it may have gotten lost in the noise.

1.  Ideology is not a product of genetics. I say this because (a) there's  no empirical evidence for such a causal relationship and (b) it makes  sense on its face (one twin raised in N. Korea and another raised by Ron  Paul in Texas will, I'm fairly certain, end up with radically different  political beliefs; I'd argue that the information to which a person's  exposed determines their ideology, while intelligence (which is at least  partly genetic) merely determines the _depth_ of their understanding of that ideology). 

2.  For the masses, ideology is shallow, unexamined dogma, which the person  passively accepts from some external source. Consequently, it's very  fluid, i.e. it can easily change through reindoctrination. Person A  favors capitalism because he's read Mises, Person B because a TV  personality that he likes at an emotional level always says that  capitalism is good - which one is going to be easier to convert to  anti-capitalism? QED. The average immigrant is like the average person  anywhere; his ideology is a product of the indoctrination to which he's  been subjected, and it's shallow and highly fluid. When the immigrant  arrives, he still harbors the dogma instilled in him by the  propagandists in his old country, but his ideology will change as he's  subjected to the new propaganda in the new country. He will  "assimilate." But let's be clear about what that means.

3. The  new immigrant may well prefer the Democratic party (the data shows that  they typically do), perhaps because it uses slogans and emotional  arguments similar to the propagandists in his old country, but this  doesn't mean he's going to be voting more for more government than the  average Republican. The slogans of the parties are diametrically  opposed, but as we all know, they're virtually identical in substance.  Republicans skip to the polling booth cheering "small government! small  government!" and then vote for Mitt Romney. This is the kind of  absurdity that results when a person's ideology is shallow.

So, to summarize:

--Political beliefs are a product of environment, not genetics
--New immigrants' political beliefs are a product of the environment in their home country
--Over time, immigrants' political beliefs change to reflect the new environment
--For whatever reason, this usually means that they become standard Democrats
--But  that's not a problem from the libertarian point of view, since Reps and  Dems end up doing essentially the same thing in office

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> It is especially ironic that there's a mass exodus of Puerto Ricans from a failed socialist experiment, and they come to the U.S. and vote Dem.


More reason we need to cut that turd lose. "Yeah lets come here and mess it up in the same way we destroy our nation"...$#@!ing morons.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> I never said you did.
> 
>  I said that you said that a whiter population leads to better political outcomes, which you did.  
> 
> 
>  I never said you did.  
> 
>  I cited instances of white populations moving towards tyranny (e.g. Greece), in response to your example of a white population moving towards freedom (e.g. New Zealand), to demonstrate that the empirical evidence is ambigious (i.e. does not support your claim that, whiter population → better political outcomes).  
> 
> ...



Kiwis are Anglos...Just saying.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Just for the record, I want to restate my own position here, as it may have gotten lost in the noise.
> 
> 1.  Ideology is not a product of genetics. I say this because (a) there's  no empirical evidence for such a causal relationship and (b) it makes  sense on its face (one twin raised in N. Korea and another raised by Ron  Paul in Texas will, I'm fairly certain, end up with radically different  political beliefs; I'd argue that the information to which a person's  exposed determines their ideology, while intelligence (which is at least  partly genetic) merely determines the _depth_ of their understanding of that ideology).


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...ogy+is+genetic

Nature vs Nurture





> 2.  For the masses, ideology is shallow, unexamined dogma, which the person  passively accepts from some external source. Consequently, it's very  fluid, i.e. it can easily change through reindoctrination. Person A  favors capitalism because he's read Mises, Person B because a TV  personality that he likes at an emotional level always says that  capitalism is good - which one is going to be easier to convert to  anti-capitalism? QED. The average immigrant is like the average person  anywhere; his ideology is a product of the indoctrination to which he's  been subjected, and it's shallow and highly fluid. When the immigrant  arrives, he still harbors the dogma instilled in him by the  propagandists in his old country, but his ideology will change as he's  subjected to the new propaganda in the new country. He will  "assimilate." But let's be clear about what that means.


We have shown that some are more able and willing to change then others as their culture is more similar to our own. That being said still no reason why we have to let in people non compatible with us.





> 3. The  new immigrant may well prefer the Democratic party (the data shows that  they typically do), perhaps because it uses slogans and emotional  arguments similar to the propagandists in his old country, but this  doesn't mean he's going to be voting more for more government than the  average Republican. The slogans of the parties are diametrically  opposed, but as we all know, they're virtually identical in substance.  Republicans skip to the polling booth cheering "small government! small  government!" and then vote for Mitt Romney. This is the kind of  absurdity that results when a person's ideology is shallow.


Wrong, they will as the left is moving harder and harder to the left. More over the idea that "Well their is no difference between the party so the point is moot" is moronic, the left is importing tens of millions of voters, we can not allow that to happen.




> So, to summarize:
> 
> --Political beliefs are a product of environment, not genetics
> 
> Not true, genetics plays a part.
> 
> --New immigrants' political beliefs are a product of the environment in their home country
> 
> Yes they are, so why not keep most of them that are from a hostile environment out?
> ...


.




> --But  that's not a problem from the libertarian point of view, since Reps and  Dems end up doing essentially the same thing in office


Libs and Neo cons, yeah but Real Conservatives are nothing like the Neo Con traitors.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I said that you said that a whiter population leads to better political outcomes.


 Good, thank you.  You have given me a much more reasonable and defensible point of view to defend.  How generous of you.  Yet, you still don't quite have it.  *Yes, it does happen to be that the native population of America supports liberty more strongly than the invading third-world peasantry* (surprise, surprise!).  It is you, however, who are saying that race is the cause.  Yes, the native population of America is overwhelmingly white, but that could be coincidental.  Certainly it would be much more politically correct, and as statist slayer puts it, "persuasive" (respectable, non-explosive, un-infuriating, etc.), to say that's just a coincidence.  So fine: say it!  As I wrote many, many times, and as you have assiduously ignored each time: it does not matter to the point!  What matters is that the differences are real, and they are long-lasting and intractable.  That could be culture.  Great!  So it's culture!  It really doesn't matter what the "underlying cause" is.  *The fact is that these immigrants have inferior ideologies.  That's the whole point.*  Who cares why?  And the side-point is that they and their inferior ideologies do not appear susceptible to change.  That is just a side-point, brought in solely because your counterpoint to the above (that these immigrants have inferior ideologies) is, "Oh, but that's temporary; they'll get better!"  No, there is no good evidence for that, only evidence for the contrary.  And so, bereft of evidence, you resort to saying, "Well, even though there's no evidence, you _have_ to believe it's true that they could change their minds as easily as the natives, because to believe otherwise is to say political beliefs are genetic and blah, blah, blah."  No, I am just looking at the facts and evidence at hand.  The immigrants' ideological variance is "sticky".  _Why_ that is, does not matter.  _That_ that is, is a fact, and does matter.




> I cited instances of white populations moving towards tyranny (e.g. Greece), in response to your example of a white population moving towards freedom (e.g. New Zealand), to demonstrate that the empirical evidence is ambigious (i.e. does not support your claim that, whiter population → better political outcomes).


 You are bound and determined to try to make this about white and non-white.  And despite your "assurances," you obviously know that paints the whole idea as racist.  But actually it's just about immigration.  You know, the title of the thread?  In both cases, US and NZ, the host population happened to move to the right.  That's why they are interesting to look at together.  In one case this shift was confounded and counteracted by massive immigration, and in the other it wasn't.  So it's pretty fascinating.  In the case of Greece, the host population never shifted to the right, so it's not really as interesting or relevant.  Unless you want to talk about _ancient_ Greece and the role immigration played in its collapse. 




> I said that you said that race is a significant cause of state expansion, which you did.


 No, I said that _mass immigration_ is, in the case of the contemporary US, furthering state expansion and impeding our (or at least my) efforts to thwart it and move towards liberty.

That may or may not be because of the immigrants' race.  It doesn't matter.

That may or may not hold true at other times and in other countries.  Again, that doesn't matter.

What matters to the argument is the real, boots-on-the-ground practical reality in the United States today.

*In the United States today, we would be better off politically had these immigrants not come in, and we would be better off today were they to be elsewhere.*  That is just the reality, and you frankly cannot deny it.  So you have resorted to rhetorical obfuscation (and quite skillfully, by the way!).




> I doubt it, and the prospects don't look good.


 Yes, so pretend that I haven't been saying, clearly, the same thing this whole time, and that you haven't been intentionally twisting it into something else.  Well, I will steadfastly assume good faith anyway and simply be happy that you have now come to understand my view at last.  I'm glad I could clear up your misunderstandings.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

In another thread, I felt that erowe was not representing Ron Paul's view in an accurate and unbiased way, so I posted this.  And if we're going to have a full range of libertarian thought on the matter, Ron Paul's views are certainly worthy of a hearing.  Here is his view as set forth in Liberty Defined:

*IMMIGRATION*

There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders. The Constitution, common sense, and the philosophy of freedom offer a principled alternative to these two rash options.

It’s best to try to understand why immigration is such a hot-button issue for most Americans. There are many reasons why the politics of immigration are so emotionally charged. The most telling reason is related to economic concerns and violence; immigrants, it is said, take jobs from American working people; federal mandates require states to provide free medical and educational benefits to illegals; a weak economy exaggerates the economic consequences of legal and illegal immigration.

The political motivations are important contributing factors as well and are the concerns of many Americans. It is assumed that all immigrants, including illegals, will benefit liberals and Democrats at the voting booth. Evidence exists that some illegals do vote and they don’t vote for Republicans. Illegals are counted in the census, creating a situation where they can statistically add up to several congressional districts. Texas, for instance, gained four new seats after the 2010 census was completed and this was, to a large degree, a reflection of our immigration policies.

Due to the immensity of this emotionally charged problem, a simple answer under current conditions will not be easily found. In the ideal libertarian world, borders would be blurred and open. It would be something similar to what the Constitution did with the borders between the various states. Civilization has not yet come even close to being capable of such a policy, though it engages some in a theoretical discussion.

The libertarians who argue for completely open borders for the free flow of goods and people fail to realize that a truly libertarian society would not necessarily be that open. The land and property would be privately owned and controlled by the owners, who would have the right to prevent newcomers from entering without their permission. There would be no government havens or welfare benefits and new immigrants would come only after a sponsor’s permission.

Under today’s circumstances, with a government-precipitated recession (a depression for those who earn under $30,000 a year) and promises of welfare, obviously some rules are required.

It’s important to note that the greatest resentment comes from government-mandated free services and a government-created unemployment crisis. Fix these two problems and finding a scapegoat for our economic crisis wouldn’t be necessary.

A free and prosperous economy always looks for labor; immigrant workers would be needed and welcomed. This need could be managed by a generous guest worker program, not by illegal immigrants receiving benefits for the family and securing an easy route to permanent citizenship and thus becoming pawns of partisan political interests.

Since Washington will not soon come to its senses and allow for the needed economic corrections to restore a healthy free market economy, we are forced to deal with current conditions, which are rapidly deteriorating.

Even today with all our government excesses we have millions of people and businesses protected by private security. Dow Chemical has fences and private security guards, as do most of the chemical plants located a few miles from where I live. There are no trespassers and if a problem occurs, the police or sheriff is called.

But if a rancher on our border wants to stop trespassers on his land, he is forbidden to do so. The Feds don’t even allow the state law enforcement officers to interfere! This, they argue, could lead to violence if an appropriate use of force is not used. Shooting suspected illegal aliens on sight would be a horrendous error and serious people are concerned about it happening.

At the federal government–maintained borders, where a war is going on, the violence is already out of control and growing. The conditions we have created with illegal trafficking in immigrants is serious, but the recent escalation has involved the drug cartels and border guards, the military, and the police, a consequence of the ridiculous notion that drug prohibition is a sensible social policy.

Everyone by now should know that our current war on drugs makes no more sense than alcohol prohibition did in the 1920s. One only needs to study the drug trade and corruption ongoing in Afghanistan to see the danger of the war on drugs. The huge profits that can be made are a significant incentive for corruption across the board.
Even with a healthy economy and stricter border controls, the issue of what to do with twelve-million-plus illegals already here would persist. One side says use the U.S. Army, round them up, and ship them home. The other side says give them amnesty, make them full-fledged citizens, and reward the lawbreakers, thus insulting and unfairly penalizing those who have patiently waited and obeyed our immigration laws.

The first choice—sending twelve to fifteen million illegals home—isn’t going to happen and should not happen. Neither the determination or the ability to accomplish it exists. Besides, if each case is looked at separately, we would find ourselves splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades, if not their entire life, and who never lived for any length of time in Mexico. This would hardly be a Good Samaritan approach to the problem. It would be incompatible with human rights.
The toughest part of showing any compassion or tolerance to the illegal immigrants who are very much Americanized is the tremendous encouragement it gives for more immigrants to come illegally and avoid the wait and bureaucracy. Considering what they face at home, they see the risk of sneaking in as being minor compared to the risk of dying in poverty in Central America.

Some of the resentment by Americans is that many immigrants are “Americanized” rather quickly.

Most immigrants do not come for handouts; rather, they come for survival reasons and have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.

Many claim that illegal immigrants take American jobs. This is true, but most of the jobs they “take” are the ones unemployed Americans refuse at the wage offered. Rarely is this even minimum wage; it’s usually higher. It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than that toward a European illegal immigrant.

Immigration laws, out of practicality, can never be equally enforced on those who have been assimilated for five to ten or even twenty years as compared to those caught currently coming through our border states in the Southwest. On the immigration issue I have found no one with the wisdom of Solomon. My humble suggestions on what to do follow.


Restore our economy to a healthy free market with sound money and eliminate deficit-financed government. A vibrant economy will minimize the problems and produce a high demand for both domestic and immigrant labor.

Abolish the welfare state. The incentive to always take a job—at whatever wage available—must prevail. A healthy economy, absent Federal Reserve–induced recession or depression and inflation, will keep real wages high.

With free markets and private property, a need for immigrant labor becomes obvious. Make it legal and easy with a generous visitor work program.

Enforce the laws now on the books with more border guards; permit states to enforce the law; allow landowners to provide private property security assistance, just as we do every day throughout the United States, and to work with Federal Border Control authorities. Private landowners have a right to post No Trespassing signs on their property to achieve this.

Do not grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born in the United States, deliberately or accidentally.

Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants. The absurdity that South Texas schools are overburdened with Mexican children going back and forth over the border each day to our public school systems is resented by cash-strapped school districts.

Bilingualism should always be voluntary and not compelled by law.

Don’t punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, possibly with a counterfeit identification, strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the Constitution. Determining who is legal or not is a police and court function, not a responsibility of private business.

Same goes for the Catholic Church. When those who suffer the chaos of immigration and drug wars on the border are helped by the Church, the Church should never be seen as an accomplice to a crime. Let the Church show the compassion that’s required to pick up the pieces of a government-created mess.

End the drug war. The deteriorating economic conditions and the mess with immigration invite the violence of the drug lords and corrupt officials on both sides. It’s time to break up the coalition of the religious drug warriors and the drug dealers who fight any effort to decriminalize drugs. It’s time to treat all drugs the way we treat alcohol and cigarettes, substances that kill millions more than hard drugs do. The drug war is deadly and allows drug lords to make a lot more money than legalized drugs ever would. The drug war and the illegal immigration across our southern borders cannot be separated.

Immigrants who can’t be sent back due to the magnitude of the problem should not be given citizenship—no amnesty should be granted. Maybe a “green card” with an asterisk could be issued. This in-between status, keeping illegal immigrants in limbo, will be condemned by the welfare left as being too harsh and condemned by the confused right as being too generous. It will be said that it will create a class of second-class citizens. Yet it could be argued that it may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits—a much better option than deportation.

Those immigrants, legal or illegal, who incite violence or commit crimes of violence should be prosecuted under the law and lose their right to stay in this country.

The police should not be prohibited from determining an individual’s citizenship if the person is caught participating in a crime. This is far different from stopping anyone anytime and demanding the individual present documentation of a legal status. That invokes the principle of “reasonable cause,” not reasonable suspicion.

This solution is far from perfect, but solutions to government-induced problems are never easy. Since our economic problems have been the major contributing factor, all other solutions come up short. Maximum freedom for everyone is the best way to go in solving any of our problems.

Another concern I have with the immigration issue is that the strong border protection proponents are as interested in regulating our right to freely exit the country as they are in preventing illegal entry. No longer can we travel even to Canada or Mexico without a U.S. passport. Our government keeps tabs on our every move, which involves a lot more than looking for drug dealers, illegal immigrants, or stopping a potential terrorist.

Financial controls have been growing since the 1970s, and as the financial crisis worsens, not only will our coming and going be closely monitored, so will all our financial transactions.

Taking your money out of the country physically or electronically is strictly regulated by the eagle eyes of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, and, you would never guess, the IRS as well. Violations of currency transaction laws, even when not associated with any criminal activity, are severely punished. Expatriation is frowned upon. Currency controls—limits on all overseas transactions and purchases—are commonplace in a faltering economy with a falling currency, which we will have to deal with one day.

A tight border policy to keep certain people out is one thing, but tight border control to limit our ability to leave when we please is something else. America is already working on an electronic financial curtain, which I predict will steadily get worse. The leaders of neither the Republican nor the Democratic party can expect to protect our civil liberties when times get tough: Both support illegal wars; both support Patriot Act suppression of our privacy; both strongly endorse the multitrillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. Neither party will protect our right to vote with our feet and take our money with us. The right of a citizen to leave the country anytime with his wealth and without government interference is a sharp dividing line between a free society and a dictatorship.

We must be vigilant when the cry is for closed borders, since such a policy may turn out to be more harmful to us than those who come here illegally. The Patriot Act did great harm to the liberties of the American people, and that sacrifice has not made us safer. Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of “suspicion” is dangerous, even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a “threat,” without charges ever being made. The Real ID, supported by those demanding stricter control of our borders, was rejected by many because it was eventually seen as a step toward a national ID card.

There’s no reason to assume that any single group of hardworking Americans won’t accept the principles of a free society. That’s what most immigrants seek regardless of the color of their skin. Why shouldn’t they be open to the arguments of defending private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and especially a foreign policy designed for peace rather than perpetual war?

Some conservatives and Republicans, in my view, insult many minorities by appealing for their votes only by trying to outdo the Democrats with giveaway programs. Why shouldn’t a strong message of personal liberty, self-reliance, and economic opportunity be appealing to immigrants as well as lifelong citizens? With the total failure of the welfare state and our foreign policy, it will become more evident that the door is wide open for the solutions that a free society provides.
~~~

As you can see, there's a lot of nuance there.  There's a lot of back and forth.  A lot of 'there's this, but on the other hand that.'  The sentence that sums it up the best: *"On the immigration issue I have found no one with the wisdom of Solomon."*

The contrast is stark (to me) if you read it with the rest of the book.  If you're just going along, all the other topics take a pretty plumb-line libertarian stance, and the rationale for the stances is pure reason, libertarian-style.  The topic on immigration is less hard-core and less satisfying.  I was not really happy with it as an open-borders "the more the merrier" guy, but I also am not completely happy with it now as I look at immigration with a more skeptical eye.  It seems to be trying to stake out a middle-of-the-road path.

In any case, I do not think that a fair four-word summary of the above would be "government should do nothing."  Erowe does.

----------


## Ender

> In another thread, I felt that erowe was not representing Ron Paul's view in an accurate and unbiased way, so I posted this.  And if we're going to have a full range of libertarian thought on the matter, Ron Paul's views are certainly worthy of a hearing.  Here is his view as set forth in Liberty Defined:
> 
> *IMMIGRATION*
> 
> There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders. The Constitution, common sense, and the philosophy of freedom offer a principled alternative to these two rash options.
> 
> Its best to try to understand why immigration is such a hot-button issue for most Americans. There are many reasons why the politics of immigration are so emotionally charged. The most telling reason is related to economic concerns and violence; immigrants, it is said, take jobs from American working people; federal mandates require states to provide free medical and educational benefits to illegals; a weak economy exaggerates the economic consequences of legal and illegal immigration.
> 
> The political motivations are important contributing factors as well and are the concerns of many Americans. It is assumed that all immigrants, including illegals, will benefit liberals and Democrats at the voting booth. Evidence exists that some illegals do vote and they dont vote for Republicans. Illegals are counted in the census, creating a situation where they can statistically add up to several congressional districts. Texas, for instance, gained four new seats after the 2010 census was completed and this was, to a large degree, a reflection of our immigration policies.
> ...


This pretty much sums it up for me:




> Theres no reason to assume that any single group of hardworking Americans wont accept the principles of a free society. Thats what most immigrants seek regardless of the color of their skin. Why shouldnt they be open to the arguments of defending private property, free markets, sound money, right to life, low taxes, less war, protection of civil liberties, and especially a foreign policy designed for peace rather than perpetual war?


I don't think anyone is arguing Ron Paul's points- for me it is the ongoing racism on the forum that is maddening.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> In another thread, I felt that erowe was not representing Ron Paul's view in an accurate and unbiased way, so I posted this.  And if we're going to have a full range of libertarian thought on the matter, Ron Paul's views are certainly worthy of a hearing.  Here is his view as set forth in Liberty Defined:
> 
> *IMMIGRATION*
> There seem to be two extreme positions on immigration: completely closed borders and totally open borders. The Constitution, common sense, and the philosophy of freedom offer a principled alternative to these two rash options.
> 
> It’s best to try to understand why immigration is such a hot-button issue for most Americans. There are many reasons why the politics of immigration are so emotionally charged. The most telling reason is related to economic concerns and violence; immigrants, it is said, take jobs from American working people; federal mandates require states to provide free medical and educational benefits to illegals; a weak economy exaggerates the economic consequences of legal and illegal immigration.
> 
> The political motivations are important contributing factors as well and are the concerns of many Americans. It is assumed that all immigrants, including illegals, will benefit liberals and Democrats at the voting booth. Evidence exists that some illegals do vote and they don’t vote for Republicans. Illegals are counted in the census, creating a situation where they can statistically add up to several congressional districts. Texas, for instance, gained four new seats after the 2010 census was completed and this was, to a large degree, a reflection of our immigration policies.
> 
> ...



You do know they will not listen nor care, right?

Let it not be said that we tried to avoid what ever violence might come in the future and that did not fire the first shots.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

So I assume immigration sanity wins?

----------


## osan

Interesting discussion in places.

Here is my view on "nations" - any population that self-IDs as a "nation" does so based on some set of commonly accepted trait/qualities/characteristics.  Whether these are genetic or purely cultural seems rather irrelevant, generally speaking.  What is important is that SUFFICIENT basis exists for some _form of cohesion_.  I assert that the basis itself is also irrelevant.  What counts is that the people identify with one another in some manner.  There may be many and widely varying factors that might be included, some sharing a few with others but not the rest, while sharing different subsets with yet other members of the group.

In muslim nations, being a muslim appears to be the primary cohesive bonding element.  In Israel, it is being Jewish.  In America, it is... at least used to be, being a FREE MAN.  It didn't matter all that much what you chose to do.  What counted was that you shared the BASIC propositions of what it meant to be an American.  Once again, I do not have to share all of the perceived elements with you, nor you with another fellow.  But there MUST be some minimal overlapping agreement such that when I learn about you I am able to say "yeah, he's American alright."  Historically, one of the most readily convenient ways was to show your support for/love of our Constitution and everything for which it is supposed to stand.

Now that education has been destroyed, the minds of the young gone all to hell on the average, that prime unifying element has lost much of its power in the minds of a vast plurality of those living here.  Add to that all the crazy-stupid nonsense that has been going on since the filthy hippies were co-opted and turned to semi-retards, and it is no great surprise to see what the nation has since become.

We have allowed our common values to become clouded (at best) and largely destroyed by elements I could not in any good conscience assess as friendly toward us.  We are losing our cohesion at an alarming rate and in another generation we will have fallen into such mental chaos in terms of what we believe with respect to human relations that there will be no more America of which to speak, save in name only.

Now, some will misunderstand what I have written thus far, perhaps going so far as to misconstrue my words to imply that there must be some pervasive lock-step mentality at work, perhaps similar to that as arose in true hell-holes of the world like the Soviet Union and Red China.  This, of course, is not the case.  Lockstep, yes; but what does that mean?  People are so conditioned to fear such notions that they reflexively retreat into infantile retardation in terms of how their mental processes break down in the face of a perceived evil.  But this is a very bad way of responding.  The proper way is to ask the right questions such as "what do you mean by this lock-step element?  What defines it?  How broadly and deeply must it manifest and what is its character?"

In a nutshell, when the objectively and provably right set of values become the basis for all mental postures regarding the ways in which people relate to one another, the result becomes optimal freedom and prosperity for all.  The basic tenets of proper human relations are few, simple, correct, complete, and intuitively obvious.  They make clear what it means to be "equal" and how the truth of our mutual universal equality shapes the ways in which we see ourselves, others, and everyone's places in the world.

When the basic respect for oneself and his fellows is the underpinning of his worldview, founded in the equality of every man's claims to life, the avenues of possibility for the individual become expansively broad, the restrictions placed upon him vanishingly small.  The result is the freedom to pursue that which one wishes within the restraints of his valid capabilities to make things happen, here "valid" meaning that he commits no willful violation of his fellows and makes whole those whom he damages unintentionally.

That is the ideal to which Americans should be steering themselves.  Alas, they are mostly running in the opposite direction for all their legs will take them - but that's another discussion altogether.

As all this applies to immigration issues, it becomes clear that free men are well within their rights to choose whom to admit into the company of their territorial nations.  To allow hordes of outsiders (mental outsiders, not necessarily geographic ones) to wander willy nilly across physical borders is not sound, for it risks the overwhelming of the nation with large numbers of people who do not "get it" in terms of the fundamentals of what it means to be from Nation X.  This applies to any land.  Look at that which now threatens Sweden.  In their lust to prove to the world just how evolved they are, the Swedes now face literal annihilation at the hands of the muslim invaders that are flooding into their lands.  If this keeps up, Swedes as the world has known them for many centuries will cease to exist.  Whether that be a good thing or bad becomes a matter for Swedes to decide for themselves.  But if they do not want to be eradicated, there are practical measure they must take.  Failure to do so guarantees their destruction.

And so it is for any land.  So it was for North America when the European invaders flooded in, displacing the aboriginal people and often destroying them to the man.  This is what awaits Americans.  Therefore, if we do not want that to be the shared fate of our posterity, we must then make a decision and act in accord with the dictates that arise as requirements for attaining or maintaining a state of cultural existence.  It ain't rocket surgery.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic  nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is  akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave)  differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed  proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for  loyalty from all citizens. And *he looks up and down, not left and right*.


Trumpettes et alia, are illiterate peasants.

...disgusting.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Interesting discussion in places.
> 
> Here is my view on "nations" - any population that self-IDs as a "nation" does so based on some set of commonly accepted trait/qualities/characteristics.  Whether these are genetic or purely cultural seems rather irrelevant, generally speaking.  What is important is that SUFFICIENT basis exists for some _form of cohesion_.  I assert that the basis itself is also irrelevant.  What counts is that the people identify with one another in some manner.  There may be many and widely varying factors that might be included, some sharing a few with others but not the rest, while sharing different subsets with yet other members of the group.


Well the more then have in common the more cohesion they have, that is a fact.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/...munities/7614/
Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...FC832A9.f04t03
Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...FC832A9.f04t03
Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...ity/?page=full
Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract
Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2012.300787
Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.01138.x/full
Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/r...Hamm_Ethno.pdf
Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10....640-012-9619-6
Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/13025117...coming_ASR.pdf
Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publicat...versitysoc.pdf
Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/pub...nority-seniors
Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...st-segregated/
Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phe.../dp/0275927091
It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-fri...are-genes.html
Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57
There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

reply








> In muslim nations, being a muslim appears to be the primary cohesive bonding element.  In Israel, it is being Jewish.  In America, it is... at least used to be, being a FREE MAN.  It didn't matter all that much what you chose to do.  What counted was that you shared the BASIC propositions of what it meant to be an American.  Once again, I do not have to share all of the perceived elements with you, nor you with another fellow.  But there MUST be some minimal overlapping agreement such that when I learn about you I am able to say "yeah, he's American alright."  Historically, one of the most readily convenient ways was to show your support for/love of our Constitution and everything for which it is supposed to stand.


Well when you bring in people that do not value it and work to undermine it what do you think will happen?




> Now that education has been destroyed, the minds of the young gone all to hell on the average, that prime unifying element has lost much of its power in the minds of a vast plurality of those living here.  Add to that all the crazy-stupid nonsense that has been going on since the filthy hippies were co-opted and turned to semi-retards, and it is no great surprise to see what the nation has since become.


More reason for school vouchers/choice as well as reducing immigration from low IQ groups.





> We have allowed our common values to become clouded (at best) and largely destroyed by elements I could not in any good conscience assess as friendly toward us.  We are losing our cohesion at an alarming rate and in another generation we will have fallen into such mental chaos in terms of what we believe with respect to human relations that there will be no more America of which to speak, save in name only.


And that is by design as to ferment division as to gain finical/political gain from it.

Their is no reason why adding dis similar people into a nation and creating/exacerbate tension would work out. Diversity is a weakness. 




> Now, some will misunderstand what I have written thus far, perhaps going so far as to misconstrue my words to imply that there must be some pervasive lock-step mentality at work, perhaps similar to that as arose in true hell-holes of the world like the Soviet Union and Red China.  This, of course, is not the case.  Lockstep, yes; but what does that mean?  People are so conditioned to fear such notions that they reflexively retreat into infantile retardation in terms of how their mental processes break down in the face of a perceived evil.  But this is a very bad way of responding.  The proper way is to ask the right questions such as "what do you mean by this lock-step element?  What defines it?  How broadly and deeply must it manifest and what is its character?"


Great points.




> In a nutshell, when the objectively and provably right set of values become the basis for all mental postures regarding the ways in which people relate to one another, the result becomes optimal freedom and prosperity for all.  The basic tenets of proper human relations are few, simple, correct, complete, and intuitively obvious.  They make clear what it means to be "equal" and how the truth of our mutual universal equality shapes the ways in which we see ourselves, others, and everyone's places in the world.


Some would rather be equal in chains then unequal in freedom..




> When the basic respect for oneself and his fellows is the underpinning of his worldview, founded in the equality of every man's claims to life, the avenues of possibility for the individual become expansively broad, the restrictions placed upon him vanishingly small.  The result is the freedom to pursue that which one wishes within the restraints of his valid capabilities to make things happen, here "valid" meaning that he commits no willful violation of his fellows and makes whole those whom he damages unintentionally.
> 
> That is the ideal to which Americans should be steering themselves.  Alas, they are mostly running in the opposite direction for all their legs will take them - but that's another discussion altogether.


True we should be, free of any alien influence.




> As all this applies to immigration issues, it becomes clear that free men are well within their rights to choose whom to admit into the company of their territorial nations.  To allow hordes of outsiders (mental outsiders, not necessarily geographic ones) to wander willy nilly across physical borders is not sound, for it risks the overwhelming of the nation with large numbers of people who do not "get it" in terms of the fundamentals of what it means to be from Nation X.  This applies to any land.  Look at that which now threatens Sweden.  In their lust to prove to the world just how evolved they are, the Swedes now face literal annihilation at the hands of the muslim invaders that are flooding into their lands.  If this keeps up, Swedes as the world has known them for many centuries will cease to exist.  Whether that be a good thing or bad becomes a matter for Swedes to decide for themselves.  But if they do not want to be eradicated, there are practical measure they must take.  Failure to do so guarantees their destruction.


Who can deny that or the fall of Rome?





> And so it is for any land.  So it was for North America when the European invaders flooded in, displacing the aboriginal people and often destroying them to the man.  This is what awaits Americans.  Therefore, if we do not want that to be the shared fate of our posterity, we must then make a decision and act in accord with the dictates that arise as requirements for attaining or maintaining a state of cultural existence.  It ain't rocket surgery.



Some are self loathing, they think we Whites should be "punished" for "oppressing" other peoples. Those that have this few should be "physically removed" so to speak.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Trumpettes et alia, are illiterate peasants.
> 
> ...disgusting.


No, the 3rd world hordes that will vote Democratic if we do not deport them are.

More over wanting a majority white nation (or any other race nation) does not make a person a racist.

----------


## erowe1

> More over wanting a majority white nation (or any other race nation) does not make a person a racist.


Of course it does. More importantly it also makes them a statist.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No, the 3rd world hordes that will vote Democratic if we do not deport them are.
> 
> More over wanting a majority white nation (or any other race natiQon) does not make a person a racist.


^^^See, this bitch would have stormed the Tuileries.

...probably thinks Bastille Day is something to celebrate.

...i.e. doesn't get it.

Let me be more precise: is a bolshevik. 

...o, scuse me...

...he's a Bolshevik who also hates negroes.

----------


## kahless

> Of course it does. More importantly it also makes them a statist.


So Ron and Rand are statists now for wanting to defend our borders?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> So Ron and Rand are statists now for wanting to defend our borders?


$#@! you shill.

----------


## kahless

> $#@! you shill.


No, $#@! you for spreading lies about Rand and Ron. Rand and Ron are NOT for open borders. Stop misrepresenting your beliefs as their polices and go away.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No, $#@! you for spreading lies about Rand and Ron. Rand and Ron are NOT for open borders. Stop misrepresenting your beliefs as their polices and go away.


$#@! you shill.

...you Trump-$#@!s don't actually warrant words.

...being sub-human $#@!ing morons.

*Aren't you ashamed?*

----------


## osan

> Trumpettes et alia, are illiterate peasants.
> 
> ...disgusting.


This is a _gross_ over-simplification.  

One of my closest friends, a PhD chemist who designed ALL process control for Union Carbide, supports Trump.  You wish you knew what he has forgotten on a huge array of topics.  To label him an illiterate peasant does your credibility no favors.  I understand venting and will assume that that is what this is.  My only suggestion is to take some care, even when venting.  We all make the mistake, but it should be auto-discouraged with some uncompromising sternness.

For the record, I do no trust Trump, but I do have some appreciation for the astute manner in which he has picked up on and made hay with the real issues that are of concern to a great many Americans.  Would he make a good president?  Would any of them?  Does it matter with a hostile Congress?  Who can say.  But I would see him in the Oval Office before any of the others, save Rand Paul, if for no other reason than that he is something of an unknown quantity.  Whereas all the rest are painfully predictable in terms of what they would likely do as president, at least there appears to be some thin margin of expectation for something different with Trump.  Doesn't mean it would be good, but at this point I am bored with these tyrants to the point of wanting to squeeze my own head in a vise just to get my mind off these hopelessly, if dangerously mawkish dullards who appear to think themselves so clever.

I would also add that if you are going to take a swag at some group, you should at least give a nominally decent account as to why - and here I mean in terms of facts and reason and not "because I hate those cock-suckers", which is of no help whatsoever.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> This is a _gross_ over-simplification.  
> 
> One of my closest friends, a PhD chemist who designed ALL process control for Union Carbide, supports Trump.


Well, he should obviously not be allowed to vote.




> You wish you knew what he has forgotten on a huge array of topics.


I rather doubt that.




> To label him an illiterate peasant does your credibility no favors.


If he's pro-[anyone-but-Rand] he's an imbecile. 




> For the record, I do no trust Trump, but I do have some appreciation for the astute manner in which he has picked up on and made hay with the real issues that are of concern to a great many Americans.  Would he make a good president?  Would any of them?  Does it matter with a hostile Congress?  Who can say.  But I would see him in the Oval Office before any of the others, save Rand Paul, if for no other reason than that he is something of an unknown quantity.  Whereas all the rest are painfully predictable in terms of what they would likely do as president, at least there appears to be some thin margin of expectation for something different with Trump.  Doesn't mean it would be good, but at this point I am bored with these tyrants to the point of wanting to squeeze my own head in a vise just to get my mind off these hopelessly, if dangerously mawkish dullards who appear to think themselves so clever.
> 
> I would also add that if you are going to take a swag at some group, you should at least give a nominally decent account as to why - and here I mean in terms of facts and reason and not "because I hate those cock-suckers", which is of no help whatsoever.


Ordinarily, I would say this, because I'm polite. 

However, you kind of rant incoherently. 

Your mastery of English is doubtful. 

It vexes me that people think you're articulate.

Perhaps you should employ a thesaurus.

...you quite often use words whose meaning you clearly don't understand. 

Peasant

.
.
.
.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Of course it does. More importantly it also makes them a statist.


No, it does not. Becoming a minority in your nation has never been a great thing for any people/culture/race. History proves this but hey when you can not make a point, name call.

----------


## kahless

> ....For the record, I do no trust Trump, but I do have some appreciation for the astute manner in which he has picked up on and made hay with the real issues that are of concern to a great many Americans.  Would he make a good president?  Would any of them?  Does it matter with a hostile Congress?  Who can say.  But I would see him in the Oval Office before any of the others, save Rand Paul, if for no other reason than that he is something of an unknown quantity.  Whereas all the rest are painfully predictable in terms of what they would likely do as president, at least there appears to be some thin margin of expectation for something different with Trump.  Doesn't mean it would be good, but at this point I am bored with these tyrants to the point of wanting to squeeze my own head in a vise just to get my mind off these hopelessly, if dangerously mawkish dullards who appear to think themselves so clever.....


That is about where I am it with the added less likely to start WWIII and comes closest to Rand on immigration.  Evidently that makes a few people here unhinged which I believe is due to these folks would be far happier with Hillary, Jeb or Christie for which Trump is a threat to that prospect.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Well, he should obviously not be allowed to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> I rather doubt that.
> 
> 
> 
> If he's pro-[anyone-but-Rand] he's an imbecile. 
> ...



Aw...Someone cant make a point, its ok The ALT RIGHT rises.

----------


## otherone

> No, it does not. Becoming a minority in your nation has never been a great thing for any people/culture/race. History proves this but hey when you can not make a point, name call.


What, in your opinion, is the purpose of government?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> This is a _gross_ over-simplification.  
> 
> One of my closest friends, a PhD chemist who designed ALL process control for Union Carbide, supports Trump.  You wish you knew what he has forgotten on a huge array of topics.  To label him an illiterate peasant does your credibility no favors.  I understand venting and will assume that that is what this is.  My only suggestion is to take some care, even when venting.  We all make the mistake, but it should be auto-discouraged with some uncompromising sternness.
> 
> For the record, I do no trust Trump, but I do have some appreciation for the astute manner in which he has picked up on and made hay with the real issues that are of concern to a great many Americans.  Would he make a good president?  Would any of them?  Does it matter with a hostile Congress?  Who can say.  But I would see him in the Oval Office before any of the others, save Rand Paul, if for no other reason than that he is something of an unknown quantity.  Whereas all the rest are painfully predictable in terms of what they would likely do as president, at least there appears to be some thin margin of expectation for something different with Trump.  Doesn't mean it would be good, but at this point I am bored with these tyrants to the point of wanting to squeeze my own head in a vise just to get my mind off these hopelessly, if dangerously mawkish dullards who appear to think themselves so clever.
> 
> I would also add that if you are going to take a swag at some group, you should at least give a nominally decent account as to why - and here I mean in terms of facts and reason and not "because I hate those cock-suckers", which is of no help whatsoever.


It does not matter, to the Neo Cons/Establishment they are terrified at the backlash on the right after their 50 years of inaction/failure/incompetency. They have earned everything that is coming.

They can not stand the idea of pursing self interests and smashing the lies of egalitarianism. Ironic since Ayn Rand is a such a role model to them, or so they claim.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Aw...Someone cant make a point, its ok The ALT RIGHT rises.


Did you have a point random national socialist sack of $#@!?

....just because I'm arguing with Osan, doesn't mean anybody tolerates you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> What, in your opinion, is the purpose of government?


Article one section eight, strict interpretation, nothing more. Print the money, Defend the nation and its borders for outside invasion. Etc.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Did you have a point random national socialist sack of $#@!?
> 
> ....just because I'm arguing with Osan, doesn't mean anybody tolerates you.



Have no fear, the Alt Right is now here. Defend is your only victory.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Article one section eight, strict interpretation, nothing more. Print the money, Defend the nation and its borders for outside invasion. Etc.


...what?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Have no fear, the Alt Right is now here. Defend is your only victory.


LOL

...the "altright" is just a bunch of retarded hillbillies. 

Moldbug was the start and finish of it, and this is probably foreign to you.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> ...what?


Mint coinage.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> LOL
> 
> ...the "altright" is just a bunch of retarded hillbillies. 
> 
> Moldbug was the start and finish of it, and this is probably foreign to you.


Well we got rid of Cantor, Boner, and will soon have the White House.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Mint coinage.


Q. Are you opposed to democracy, or are you just a moronic backwoods racist?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Well we got rid of Cantor, Boner, and will soon have the White House.


...who is this "we"?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

To go back to the beginning: 




> Is IQ the ultimate determining factor for YOUR community, helmuth? Because I would rather moral compass. There are many that I know that would never be admitted to Mensa  but are the kindest, gentlest and most loving people I have ever met. And what if, in YOUR community, I as a landowner decided these were the _exact_ kind of people that I wanted to move in?


That was quite heart-rending.

...the trouble, is this is not sustainable. 

...I'm sure Helmuth would concur. 

What is to be done?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Q. Are you opposed to democracy, or are you just a moronic backwoods racist?



Yes, I see mob rule mix with the ability to vote themselves wealth it always end in with hell on Earth.






> ...who is this "we"?


Immigration Patriots/Alt Right members.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Yes, I see mob rule mix with the ability to vote themselves wealth it always end in with hell on Earth.


You probably don't like me much, as I've insulted you repeatedly, but...

read this

https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolutio00websuoft

----------


## r3volution 3.0



----------


## AmericanSpartan

> You probably don't like me much, as I've insulted you repeatedly, but...
> 
> read this
> 
> https://archive.org/details/frenchrevolutio00websuoft


No I dislike you because you are wrong a laughingly majority you the time.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> No I dislike you because you are wrong a laughingly majority you the time.


Well, that's almost a sentence.

...nonetheless, whatever our disagreement, really you ought to read the aforementioned book (free pdf). 

Someone of a reactionary persuasion would apprentice it.

It'll make you more of a reactionary, and a more intelligent one.

...or not, we'll see.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, that's almost a sentence.
> 
> ...nonetheless, whatever our disagreement, really you ought to read the aforementioned book (free pdf). 
> 
> Someone of a reactionary persuasion would apprentice it.
> 
> It'll make you more of a reactionary, and a more intelligent one.
> 
> ...or not, we'll see.


AmericanRacist must be drunk posting again.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> AmericanRacist must be drunk posting again.


...I'm confused.

What has this "AmericanRacist" got to do with me?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

...it should be fairly clear (I hope) that I'm not a racist.

The raison d'etre of this whole enterprise is to belt the idiot nationalists in the nose.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> ...I'm confused.
> 
> What has this "AmericanRacist" got to do with me?


That's my nickname for AmericanSpartan.   It seems to fit.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That's my nickname for AmericanSpartan.   It seems to fit.


Ah, yes, sounds about right.

He seemly mostly concerned about race.

Too bad.

...missing the big picture, I'd say.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> AmericanRacist must be drunk posting again.


Aw, you are relying on insults in place of facts as you can not make a point.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That's my nickname for AmericanSpartan.   It seems to fit.


So you are a leftist, great to see that you have to use the same losing tactics as them.




> Ah, yes, sounds about right.
> 
> He seemly mostly concerned about race.
> 
> Too bad.
> 
> ...missing the big picture, I'd say.


No, you fail to see many big pictures, sorry if you can not accept the fact that some cultures are more capable of understand/valuing and protecting freedom them others.

----------


## otherone

> Article one section eight, strict interpretation, nothing more. Print the money, Defend the nation and its borders for outside invasion. Etc.


Those are "powers" bestowed by the people.  What is the _purpose_ of government?  Not simply the American federal government.....ANY government.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Those are "powers" bestowed by the people.  What is the _purpose_ of government?  Not simply the American federal government.....ANY government.


To protect and defend the American people and our rights.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To protect and defend the *American people* and our rights.


Where do you see "American people" in the Bill of Rights?   Doesn't it say "all men"?

You don't even believe in the founding documents you say you are trying to defend...hahaha

----------


## otherone

> To protect and defend the American people and _our rights_.


_Who's_ Rights?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Where do you see "American people" in the Bill of Rights?   Doesn't it say "all men"?
> 
> You don't even believe in the founding documents you say you are trying to defend...hahaha


It was implied, also you forget they intend it for one group of people "for ourselves and our posterity" You might want to read the Entire Constitution.

Yes I do, maybe you should read it.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> _Who's_ Rights?


The rights of the American Citizenry.

----------


## otherone

> The rights of the American Citizenry.


Who determines who is an American citizen?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Who determines who is an American citizen?


Terms of naturalization/birth.

----------


## otherone

> Terms of naturalization/birth.


Who decides what those terms are?

----------


## William R

Bump

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Who decides what those terms are?


Oh here we go. The Government.

Now you are going to whine about hat and yes they have failed and should be doing a better job, Now unless you are an anarchist you have understand the state has a few tasks it is appointed to do, protecting our borders from invasion and restricting immigration is one of them.

----------


## otherone

> Oh here we go. The Government.
> 
> Now you are going to whine about hat and yes they have failed and should be doing a better job, Now unless you are an anarchist you have understand the state has a few tasks it is appointed to do, protecting our borders from invasion and restricting immigration is one of them.


That is correct .  The government decides who is a citizen.  As you believe only citizens have rights,  then necessarily the government is the source of those rights.
This is known as "Positive Rights".  They are called "positive" because an action has to come from an outside agency for the Right to be observed (ex. "I have the Right to live in a safe neighborhood" requires a police force) Positive Rights come from government, Negative Rights exist outside it, and require non-interference (ex: "I have a Right to protect myself"...don't take my gun away)  . 
The founding fathers knew that for men to be free, there must exist an authority above government...an authority that could step in and change government if it became Tyranny  (Think Jeffrey Lurie firing Chip Kelly).  That authority is the people (not citizens, remember), who are endowed automatically, by birth, with UNALIENABLE Rights.  It is the foundation of this nation you love so much.   You want to protect _this_ shared culture, then I'm on board with you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It was implied, also you forget they intend it for one group of people "for ourselves and our posterity" You might want to read the Entire Constitution.
> 
> Yes I do, maybe you should read it.


Haha....um...WHAT?

This statement, which refers all the way back to the creation, was only meant for American citizens? 

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
_

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That is correct .  The government decides who is a citizen.  As you believe only citizens have rights,  then necessarily the government is the source of those rights.
> This is known as "Positive Rights".  They are called "positive" because an action has to come from an outside agency for the Right to be observed (ex. "I have the Right to live in a safe neighborhood" requires a police force) Positive Rights come from government, Negative Rights exist outside it, and require non-interference (ex: "I have a Right to protect myself"...don't take my gun away)  . 
> The founding fathers knew that for men to be free, there must exist an authority above government...an authority that could step in and change government if it became Tyranny  (Think Jeffrey Lurie firing Chip Kelly).  That authority is the people (not citizens, remember), who are endowed automatically, by birth, with UNALIENABLE Rights.  It is the foundation of this nation you love so much.   You want to protect _this_ shared culture, then I'm on board with you.


Ok you just put words into my mouth. I believe in natural rights, goverment is the agent we create and control (at least in theory) to secure and protect them.

I see the importation of tens of millions of low IQed serf from the 3rd world as a threat to our way of life as they vote for anyone who offers them "free" stuff and the breed at a outrageous rate as we pay them to/import them.

To prevent our replacement/extermination we must reduce immigration overall and destroy the cultural Marxist that has infected our nation.

----------


## otherone

> Ok you just put words into my mouth. I believe in natural rights, goverment is the agent we create and control (at least in theory) to secure and protect them.


Do non-citizens have Rights?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Haha....um...WHAT?
> 
> This statement, which refers all the way back to the creation, was only meant for American citizens? 
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
> _


You do know the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, right?

And yes it was and is. 


*The US is a polity set up by anti-monarchical Englishmen to protect their traditional rights (the Rights of Englishmen) for themselves and their posterity.
It was not set up to propagate the freedoms of the constitution. It was not set up for the benefit of strangers and aliens. It was not set up for some inferred proposition, which I am willing to bet you could not explicitly state. It was set up to guarantee the blessings of liberty for the Founders, their fellow Americans, and their posterity as they explicitly said.

Any other assertion is tendentious nonsense.


*Not that only Anglos have such rights, but that only Anglos defend them, and we will lose them if we let non-Anglos in.

----------


## tod evans

> Ok you just put words into my mouth. I believe in natural rights, goverment is the agent we create and control (at least in theory) to secure and protect them.
> 
> I see the importation of tens of millions of low IQed serf from the 3rd world as a threat to our way of life as they vote for anyone who offers them "free" stuff and the breed at a outrageous rate as we pay them to/import them.
> 
> To prevent our replacement/extermination we must reduce immigration overall and destroy the cultural Marxist that has infected our nation.


Good grief man what a pathetic argument.

*"They're going to out breed my race and make me foot the bill."* is weak especially coming from a youngster who has gleened more from government than he's contributed.

Maybe try couching an argument along the lines of "Government is too big." or "Taxes are too high now." instead of outright bigotry.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Do non-citizens have Rights?


What kind of jurisdiction have on them?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment

Ideally few if any, and if in the nation illegal they have the right to be deported and not a damn thing less.

Should non citizens get welfare?

Should they get to vote or be counted in our census?

----------


## otherone

> What kind of jurisdiction have on them?
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment
> 
> Ideally few if any, and if in the nation illegal they have the right to be deported and not a damn thing less.
> 
> Should non citizens get welfare?
> 
> Should they get to vote or be counted in our census?


Welfare and suffrage are both positive Rights, so no to each.
Do non-citizens have negative Rights?

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Good grief man what a pathetic argument.
> 
> *"They're going to out breed my race and make me foot the bill."* is weak especially coming from a youngster who has gleened more from government than he's contributed.
> 
> Maybe try couching an argument along the lines of "Government is too big." or "Taxes are too high now." instead of outright bigotry.


Oh tod, sweet, innocent tod.

No, it is not, it is true,

As you understand Demographics is destiny, and in the end of universal suffrage, and since we live in a democracy the majority gets what it wants.

So if they become the majority they will get what they want.

What do they support, well lets take a look, shall we?

We are taking in people who are from the most primitive cultures, who have a serf like mentality, and are large unable to understand or have  the prerequisites for Liberty. These people are largely not assimilating and then we are even more of them.


Most immigrants come from countries where the government plays a larger role in the economy and society. Their support for expansive government is reinforced by liberal elites in immigrant communities and the liberal urban areas in which so many settle. 


Further, immigrants liberalism often reflects self-interest, as many benefit from affirmative action and welfare. Unfortunately, some immigrants are also attracted to the Democratic Partys support for identity- and grievance-based politics. 


He are some of their views.














They vote 8-2 for Democrats. 


Think your gun rights are safe?











So not only are you going to be stripped of being the majority but you will be stripped of the power of your vote, are replaced, have your property/wealth voted away, and then have your right and means to self defense stripped away from you as your are surrounded by the dregs of the 3rd world that were imported for no other reason then to displace and replace you...But you think we, those that are trying to stop this are the bad guys?

Sorry if you can not understand self defense, self preservation and the preservation of our nation, culture, country, future and the continuation of Liberty is not "bigotry", I have no idea why you value the love and adulation of those that would enslave or destroy more then those that are fighting for you.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes I do, maybe you should read it.


Which do you support? The DOI or the Constitution?

It looks to me like it's the Constitution.

----------


## erowe1

> No, it is not, it is true,


As long as there are people like you who want to preserve your race, how could it possibly be true? You and other like-minded whites can just make sure you have white children and pass on your ideology to them. It won't matter what other people like me who don't share your view do. Your race will still be preserved for as long as its members want it to be.

----------


## erowe1

> What kind of jurisdiction have on them?
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...14th-amendment
> 
> Ideally few if any, and if in the nation illegal they have the right to be deported and not a damn thing less.
> 
> Should non citizens get welfare?
> 
> Should they get to vote or be counted in our census?


Rights don't come from the Constitution. The come from the Creator. Do you think the Creator has one standard for people who happen to be in the swath of land in North America between 30 degrees and 65 degrees latitude, and another standard for everyone outside that swath of land?

----------


## tod evans

> Oh tod, sweet, innocent tod.
> 
> No, it is not, it is true,
> 
> As you understand Demographics is destiny, and in the end of universal suffrage, and since we live in a democracy the majority gets what it wants.
> 
> So if they become the majority they will get what they want.
> 
> What do they support, well lets take a look, shall we?
> ...


Asking for a government comprised of a plethora of races to protect you from those you consider inferior because you believe you're entitled to protection by right of birth and then trying to argue your point by attacking the very values the majority of governments employees hold dear really doesn't make sense...

Government as an entity, a voting entity, already comprises over 1/2 the population they don't have to, and aren't going to, respond to your cries.

They write and enforce the laws and you're going to pay for the privilege of supporting them for as long as you work on these lands, the only two options that will absolve you of this birthright burden is to (1)Become a part of said government. You'll still pay to play but you'll feel better about giving back wages instead of giving them up. Or (2) Become an anti-government outlaw...

You seem to like throwing around words like "self-defense" and "liberty" but in the same sentence you scream for a government comprised of the very vermin you want ostracized to protect your "rights" of  "self-defense" and "liberty"...That doesn't make sense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You do know the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, right?
> 
> And yes it was and is. 
> 
> 
> *The US is a polity set up by anti-monarchical Englishmen to protect their traditional rights (the Rights of Englishmen) for themselves and their posterity.
> It was not set up to propagate the freedoms of the constitution. It was not set up for the benefit of strangers and aliens. It was not set up for some inferred proposition, which I am willing to bet you could not explicitly state. It was set up to guarantee the blessings of liberty for the Founders, their fellow Americans, and their posterity as they explicitly said.
> 
> Any other assertion is tendentious nonsense.
> ...


So you stole that quote from some blogger named Gapeseed who posts on various anti-immigration websites.  And you should have read all the responses to him because he gets literally torn apart.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Which do you support? The DOI or the Constitution?
> 
> It looks to me like it's the Constitution.


Yeah, I do, how and why is that a bad thing?




> As long as there are people like you who want to preserve your race, how could it possibly be true? You and other like-minded whites can just make sure you have white children and pass on your ideology to them. It won't matter what other people like me who don't share your view do. Your race will still be preserved for as long as its members want it to be.


We can but we will be out number by the mass immigration of non whites, we will still be a minority in our own nation which is not now nor has it ever been nor will it ever be a "good thing".

Do you not understand how democracy/Mob Rule works? if the majority wants to take away something the minority has, they just do, and their is not a damn thing the minority can do about it in most cases.




> Rights don't come from the Constitution. The come from the Creator. Do you think the Creator has one standard for people who happen to be in the swath of land in North America between 30 degrees and 65 degrees latitude, and another standard for everyone outside that swath of land?


So people have the right to immigrate to America? They have the right to vote away my rights, wealth, future and that of my posterity and I have no right to stop this?

Those who understand and value Liberty will be free so long as they defend it. If you allow your rights/Liberty (and the prerequisites need to maintain it, nation, culture, morality, ethnic homogeneity, and their protection, armed citizenry, armed forces, border.) to be destroyed well you will no longer be free. 

Its not that only Anglos have such rights, but that only Anglos defend them, and we will lose them if we let non-Anglos in and displace/replace us.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

]


> Asking for a government comprised of a plethora of races to protect you from those you consider inferior because you believe you're entitled to protection by right of birth and then trying to argue your point by attacking the very values the majority of governments employees hold dear really doesn't make sense...


I am entitled to have my goverment, that I PAY FOR do what is it required to do, namely protect the nation from invasions, if it can not do that then it has broke then agreement of the social contract, and I want a refund of all funds as they have failed to uphold their side of the deal.

I know them to be a threat, how is flooding into a nation, displacing the natives and voting away their rights, and wealth anything but a threat?





> Government as an entity, a voting entity, already comprises over 1/2 the population they don't have to, and aren't going to, respond to your cries.


So why are you wanting to import more of them.






> They write and enforce the laws and you're going to pay for the privilege of supporting them for as long as you work on these lands, the only two options that will absolve you of this birthright burden is to (1)Become a part of said government. You'll still pay to play but you'll feel better about giving back wages instead of giving them up. Or (2) Become an anti-government outlaw...


Well we all know you are not going to lead by example on the latter.




> You seem to like throwing around words like "self-defense" and "liberty" but in the same sentence you scream for a government comprised of the very vermin you want ostracized to protect your "rights" of  "self-defense" and "liberty"...That doesn't make sense.


In normal times, evil would be fought with good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil...




> So you stole that quote from some blogger named Gapeseed who posts on various anti-immigration websites.  And you should have read all the responses to him because he gets literally torn apart.


Its the net, unless you copyright it, its not yours, and I have chatted with him and he loves it when his work is spread and leftist are enraged.

Yes I did an none of the response really amounts to anything of value.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, I do, how and why is that a bad thing?


Because it's tyrannical. You would be much better off supporting the DOI instead. Of course, you can't support both.




> We can but we will be out number by the mass immigration of non whites, we will still be a minority in our own nation which is not now nor has it ever been nor will it ever be a "good thing".


So just consider your nation to be white people, then you'll never be outnumbered in it. Simple as that.




> Do you not understand how democracy/Mob Rule works? if the majority wants to take away something the minority has, they just do, and their is not a damn thing the minority can do about it in most cases.


I see you figured out a good answer to your question about how your support of the Constitution is a bad thing.




> So people have the right to immigrate to America?


Of course. You have no right to tell people where they can and can't get jobs or buy property. Those are arrangements between them and those with whom they do business, and no one else.




> They have the right to vote away my rights, wealth, future and that of my posterity and I have no right to stop this?


No. Nobody has any right to do that. And by the same token, you don't have the right to do that to them, or to me, as you propose doing.




> Those who understand and value Liberty will be free so long as they defend it.


I agree. When will you become one of these people?




> Its not that only Anglos have such rights, but that only Anglos defend them, and we will lose them if we let non-Anglos in and displace/replace us.


But your entire proposal is to violate my property rights. That's the opposite of defending them.

----------


## erowe1

> he loves it when his work is spread and leftist are enraged.


No he doesn't. He and you are leftists.

----------


## tod evans

> I am entitled to have my goverment, that I PAY FOR do what is it required to do, namely protect the nation from invasions, if it can not do that then it has broke then agreement of the social contract, and I want a refund of all funds as they have failed to uphold their side of the deal.


Take your complaint up with the government comprised of the very people you would have ostracized, you're only "entitled" to what government lets you have once you've given them your money.




> I know them to be a threat, how is flooding into a nation, displacing the natives and voting away their rights, and wealth anything but a threat?


Ask your government that question, you're the one crying for government to protect you from what government knows to be in your best interest.






> So why are you wanting to import more of them.


What in the world ever gave you the idea that I want to import anybody?

Certainly you're not implying that my failure to cry to government is tacit approval of their behavior.






> Well we all know you are not going to lead by example on the latter.


Son I've been bucking the sitting government since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye, the term "Outlaw" doesn't include those who would voluntarily empower government for a singular cause...





> In normal times, evil would be fought with good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil...


The only evil I've seen you call for ever is more and bigger government, you know that group of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural betters that you have deluded yourself into thinking you can influence...

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Because it's tyrannical. You would be much better off supporting the DOI instead. Of course, you can't support both.









> So just consider your nation to be white people, then you'll never be outnumbered in it. Simple as that.


No, we whites will still be out numbered and we will be out voted and our rights will be destroyed, look at California.




> I see you figured out a good answer to your question about how your support of the Constitution is a bad thing.



Yeah, that is why, not an influx of 3rd worlds/cultural maxism and state run education.




> Of course. You have no right to tell people where they can and can't get jobs or buy property. Those are arrangements between them and those with whom they do business, and no one else.


Seeing how I have to pay for the services they use and do not pay for and they reduce the power of my vote, I do.





> No. Nobody has any right to do that. And by the same token, you don't have the right to do that to them, or to me, as you propose doing.


Repeating a lie does not make it true.




> I agree. When will you become one of these people?


I am, as I am protecting it from being destroyed via the invasion of the 3rd world.





> But your entire proposal is to violate my property rights. That's the opposite of defending them.



You violated my property rights by forcing me to pay for the services of illegals/immigrates.




> No he doesn't. He and you are leftists.


You clearly do not know what a leftist is.





> Take your complaint up with the government comprised of the very people you would have ostracized, you're only "entitled" to what government lets you have once you've given them your money.


Once again why import people that support a bigger goverment.






> What in the world ever gave you the idea that I want to import anybody?


You support mass immigration/open borders that is the end result.





> Son I've been bucking the sitting government since before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye, the term "Outlaw" doesn't include those who would voluntarily empower government for a singular cause...


Well what have you achieved? Any results?






> The only evil I've seen you call for ever is more and bigger government, you know that group of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural betters that you have deluded yourself into thinking you can influence...


No, we can force them into acting for no other reason then their fear of losing their power/appearance of legitimacy. If you can not protect the nation, what good is a government if it can not even do that.

They are not our betters, not be  along short.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> then it has broken their agreement of the social contract, *and I want a refund of all funds*


 Don't we all, Spartan.  Don't we all.

----------


## tod evans

> *You support mass immigration/open borders* that is the end result.


And you my dear are full of $#@!.

Now go out and play with the other children.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> Don't we all, Spartan.  Don't we all.


Who does not. The state has a hand full of jobs, if it can not protect us from an invasion (which is what mass immigration is) then the contract is null and void as they have failed on their part and we are to stop paying funds, have all said funds returned, and to find a means to repeal said invasion.

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> And you my dear are full of $#@!.
> 
> Now go out and play with the other children.


Oh I do, I play with right minded friends at the range all the time.

----------


## tod evans

> Oh I do, I play with right minded friends at the range all the time.


That's what I thought, a $#@!ing monkey from the concrete jungle..

It's no wonder you feel compelled to attribute positions not in evidence to those who would question your authenticity..

I see an urban hipster.........

Gun "ranges" are for cops and city dwellers......

----------


## AmericanSpartan

> That's what I thought, a $#@!ing monkey from the concrete jungle..
> 
> It's no wonder you feel compelled to attribute positions not in evidence to those who would question your authenticity..
> 
> I see an urban hipster.........
> 
> 
> Gun "ranges" are for cops and city dwellers......



Not a hipster and I spend a great deal of time in the country, also any range is called a range you moron. 

Please keep changing the subject.

----------


## tod evans

> Not a hipster and I spend a great deal of time in the country, also any range is called a range you moron. 
> 
> Please keep changing the subject.


The subject was you attributing positions not in evidence to those who would question your authenticity.

Which you have again failed to address....

Too much pollution in your air?

How well do your skin tight pink pants that aren't "hipster" go over at the range? Any better when you get adventurous and take a foray into "The Country"?

----------


## H_H

Old Helmuth [This is a literal quote from myself, some years ago, with a few redactions]:




> A different poster:
> But since you seem to be well  versed in this subject, why is it that EVERY country I can think of, has  some sort of immigration policy? You can't just drive into China,  Russia, The Sudan, Ethiopia, Sweden, Afghanistan, can you? Don't all  counties have laws regarding immigration? Or am I misinformed on this?


This  is a good question [poster] brings up.  Does every country on earth have  some sort of immigration policy -- that is, laws restricting  immigration?  Or are there, in fact, countries you can "just drive  into"?

There are many blocks of countries allowing free or virtually free immigration between themselves.  Notably, in mainland *Europe* one  can drive to and fro with no notice of borders whatsoever other than  perhaps a sign welcoming you, much like passing between states in the  USA, and in *South America* the Mercosur  Agreement allows free transit and trade (and relatively free  immigration) throughout most of the continent.  Argentina in particular  allows free immigration.  The government of *Argentina* welcomes  the whole world to come there if they want, no hassles, no quotas, no  restrictions.  My Dad is in Brazil as we speak, and will be living there  for much of the next couple years, doing some work down there.  My Mom will be  going too, and probably my brother.  I could go too with virtually no  difficulty.  All the (fairly minimal) hassle would be on the US side,  getting permission to leave (passport), not on the Brazil side.

As pointed out by another poster, the* United Arab Emirates*, including *Abu Dhabi* and *Dubai*,  allow and encourage free and open immigration.  Dubai's been built by  millions of Bangladeshi laborers, to the benefit of all.  *Qatar* seems to have fairly free immigration as well.

So,  we are full of present-day examples of countries with unrestricted  immigration doing well.  These are not anarchies, they are just normal  nation-states that happen to allow unrestricted immigration, either from  a certain set of other nation-states, or from the whole world.

As  far as examples from the broader swath of total human experience,  bringing in the past, that is, rather than our tiny snapshot of time  that is the present, the examples of countries with unrestricted  immigration would be: *basically every decent country in western civilization, when not at war*.  So, that's rather a lot of precedent for success.

Significantly for us Americans, *the USA* has had unrestricted (legally) immigration for the majority of its existence.

There  are theoretical and practical points to be made on both sides of the  immigration-restriction question, but often those on the  free-immigration side focus on the theory while the  restrictions-on-immigration side focuses on the practical.  That is why  I'm trying to, myself, focus on the practical side this time.  There is a  good practical argument to be made for unrestricted immigration.  It  has a good track record, centuries of success to back it up.  

Restrictive  immigration policy is an innovation, a new thing, which came about only  recently along with the rise of the total states in the 20th century.  I  would claim that this radical idea, along with so many other of the  totalitarian innovations, has not proved very successful.

----------


## H_H

> This  is a good question [poster] brings up.  Does every country on earth have  some sort of immigration policy -- that is, laws restricting  immigration?  Or are there, in fact, countries you can "just drive  into"?
> 
> There are many blocks of countries allowing free or virtually free immigration between themselves.  Notably, in mainland *Europe* one  can drive to and fro with no notice of borders whatsoever other than  perhaps a sign welcoming you, much like passing between states in the  USA, and in *South America* the Mercosur  Agreement allows free transit and trade (and relatively free  immigration) throughout most of the continent.  Argentina in particular  allows free immigration.  The government of *Argentina* welcomes  the whole world to come there if they want, no hassles, no quotas, no  restrictions.  My Dad is in Brazil as we speak, and will be living there  for much of the next couple years, doing some work down there.  My Mom will be  going too, and probably my brother.  I could go too with virtually no  difficulty.  All the (fairly minimal) hassle would be on the US side,  getting permission to leave (passport), not on the Brazil side.
> 
> As pointed out by another poster, the* United Arab Emirates*, including *Abu Dhabi* and *Dubai*,  allow and encourage free and open immigration.  Dubai's been built by  millions of Bangladeshi laborers, to the benefit of all.  *Qatar* seems to have fairly free immigration as well.
> 
> So,  we are full of present-day examples of countries with unrestricted  immigration doing well.  These are not anarchies, they are just normal  nation-states that happen to allow unrestricted immigration, either from  a certain set of other nation-states, or from the whole world.
> 
> As  far as examples from the broader swath of total human experience,  bringing in the past, that is, rather than our tiny snapshot of time  that is the present, the examples of countries with unrestricted  immigration would be: *basically every decent country in western civilization, when not at war*.  So, that's rather a lot of precedent for success.
> ...


OK, I appreciate the attention to the practical side of things.  Reality is too often neglected in favor or elegant theorums (theori?).  Let's take these examples you have presented:

*Europe*: How is that working out for them lately?  Has this policy been causing some discomfort and upheaval lately?
*South America*: Well, I don't know that Mercosur is causing many problems for them, at least not that I've heard of.  Not like Europe.  So good for them.
*Argentina*: They were basically open-borders, yes, but have they continued this policy?  I'm not sure.  Plus, they have been having major economic and corruption problems and so not many people want to come there.  I don't think their net immigration numbers are positive (flowing in) for the past two decades.
*United Arab Emirates* and *Qatar*: They allow you to visit, but not to become a citizen.  So, a lot different than the USA's situation.  This permitting of people to come in and live but not own property or have any rights creates a two-tiered society, which is probably highly undesirable from a long (or even medium) term point of view.  It only works if you're planning on sending the second-class underclass home packing after you're done using them.  So it's a short-term exploitation play.
*Historically, every decent country in western civilization, when not at war:* Hmm, probably true to an extent, but only an extent.  The loci of power were much more at the feudal lord level for most of Western Civ's history.  So sure, nation-states weren't restricting immigration, because they didn't exist yet.  The monarchies weren't restricting immigration, because the monarchs were not in charge of a whole lot (by a modern's scale).  But did the feudal lords exert any say regarding who could and who could not come and farm on their green, rolling estate?  Just a little?  You bet your mud-digging stick they did!  Total and absolute dictatorial immigration control!  That was the rule, throughout Western Civilization.
*The US of A:* Noice!  You save your knock-out punch for last!  Indeed you could saw there were few restrictions, in some senses, in the 1800s USA.  However, in other senses, there were quite a lot of restrictions.

The main thing I'd like to ask is this:

OK, maybe some countries allow lots of immigration into them, or even have no legal restriction on it whatsoever.  But, here is the important thing: *does that policy help them?*  Or does it hurt them?

_That_ would be the important thing to figure out, logically speaking, yes?  You can say "The UAE is a horrible, inhospitable desert" and "The 1800s USA had a lot of dysentery" but that does not prove that inhospitable deserts are the ideal place to build good societies (if, indeed the UAE is a good society.  Doubtful.) nor that Dysentery Is What Built This Country and What America is All About!

----------


## Swordsmyth

> OK, I appreciate the attention to the practical side of things.  Reality is too often neglected in favor or elegant theorums (theori?).  Let's take these examples you have presented:
> 
> *Europe*: How is that working out for them lately?  Has this policy been causing some discomfort and upheaval lately?
> *South America*: Well, I don't know that Mercosur is causing many problems for them, at least not that I've heard of.  Not like Europe.  So good for them.
> *Argentina*: They were basically open-borders, yes, but have they continued this policy?  I'm not sure.  Plus, they have been having major economic and corruption problems and so not many people want to come there.  I don't think their net immigration numbers are positive (flowing in) for the past two decades.
> *United Arab Emirates* and *Qatar*: They allow you to visit, but not to become a citizen.  So, a lot different than the USA's situation.  This permitting of people to come in and live but not own property or have any rights creates a two-tiered society, which is probably highly undesirable from a long (or even medium) term point of view.  It only works if you're planning on sending the second-class underclass home packing after you're done using them.  So it's a short-term exploitation play.
> *Historically, every decent country in western civilization, when not at war:* Hmm, probably true to an extent, but only an extent.  The loci of power were much more at the feudal lord level for most of Western Civ's history.  So sure, nation-states weren't restricting immigration, because they didn't exist yet.  The monarchies weren't restricting immigration, because the monarchs were not in charge of a whole lot (by a modern's scale).  But did the feudal lords exert any say regarding who could and who could not come and farm on their green, rolling estate?  Just a little?  You bet your mud-digging stick they did!  Total and absolute dictatorial immigration control!  That was the rule, throughout Western Civilization.
> *The US of A:* Noice!  You save your knock-out punch for last!  Indeed you could saw there were few restrictions, in some senses, in the 1800s USA.  However, in other senses, there were quite a lot of restrictions.
> 
> ...


The less free a society is the less it has to fear from unrestricted immigration, America is freer than the rest of the world so if they all flood in here we will be dragged down to their level, in addition the freer a society is the more prosperous it will become and that will attract more people, potentially more than can be assimilated.

----------


## TheCount

> As pointed out by another poster, the* United Arab Emirates*, including *Abu Dhabi* and *Dubai*,  allow and encourage free and open immigration.  Dubai's been built by  millions of Bangladeshi laborers, to the benefit of all.  *Qatar* seems to have fairly free immigration as well.




This is the complete opposite of reality.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

How many people are logged in at Stormfront at any one time, I wonder. 

Is it not very many? 

I would assume that it's at least a good order of magnitude more than here.

----------


## TheCount

> How many people are logged in at Stormfront at any one time, I wonder. 
> 
> Is it not very many? 
> 
> I would assume that it's at least a good order of magnitude more than here.


Not quite an order of magnitude.  5x-ish.  And more than a couple logged in to both sites simultaneously.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> And more than a couple logged in to both sites simultaneously.


Don't you log in to Democratic Underground?  You voted for Hillary Clinton, right?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Don't you log in to Democratic Underground?  You voted for Hillary Clinton, right?


Didn't you create a bunch of fake DU accounts for people?

I seem to recall people talking about that.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> Didn't you create a bunch of fake DU accounts for people?


Yep.  And it was hilarious to watch the paid, DU trolls here whine when someone finally started to shove their own game back in their faces.

----------


## Son_of_Liberty90

> Oh tod, sweet, innocent tod.
> 
> No, it is not, it is true,
> 
> As you understand Demographics is destiny, and in the end of universal suffrage, and since we live in a democracy the majority gets what it wants.
> 
> So if they become the majority they will get what they want.
> 
> What do they support, well lets take a look, shall we?
> ...


This is the kicker

----------


## TheCount

Bump

----------


## H_H

> This is the complete opposite of reality.


Hey, I, Old Helmuth, was just going along with another poster's assertion, and this was many years ago.  What's the reality then?  Could you tell us?  Are you saying it's really hard to get in?  Visas hard to come by?  That is not my experience.  I myself have been to the dry and oily peninsula.  But that's just a sample of one.  So enlighten us.

And fact is that it is hundreds of thousands/millions of immigrants from south Asia who did(/are doing assuming it's still under construction) the grunt construction work for Dubai etc.  Are you not considering them "immigrants" for some esoteric reason of your own?  If so, please share.

Anyway, the point was, these are countries with huge numbers of fairly low-skill immigrants flooding in -- in fact brought in intentionally, by policy -- and yet their economies are doing pretty good.  They are nice countries to live.  They are getting better and better, in fact, in tandem with more and more immigration.  So what's the problem?  How are you going to say there's a problem with mass immigration?

----------


## TheCount

> Hey, I, Old Helmuth, was just going along with another poster's assertion, and this was many years ago. *What's the reality then?* Could you tell us?  Are you saying it's really hard to get in?  *Visas hard to come by?  That is not my experience.  I myself have been to the dry and oily peninsula.*  But that's just a sample of one.  So enlighten us.
> 
> And fact is that it is hundreds of thousands/millions of immigrants from south Asia who did(/are doing assuming it's still under construction) the grunt construction work for Dubai etc. Are you not considering them "immigrants" for some esoteric reason of your own? If so, please share.
> 
> Anyway, the point was, these are countries with huge numbers of fairly low-skill immigrants flooding in -- in fact brought in intentionally, by policy -- and yet their economies are doing pretty good. They are nice countries to live. They are getting better and better, in fact, in tandem with more and more immigration. So what's the problem? How are you going to say there's a problem with mass immigration?


The UAE has neither free nor open immigration. The reason that you did not have any problem getting a tourist visa is because policies vary based upon the nationality of the person seeking the visa and because tourism is not immigration.

----------


## H_H

> The UAE has neither free nor open immigration.


Uhh, if the emirates have closed immigration as you say, wouldn’t that make it impossible for a million Bangladeshis to be there? I don’t get it. What are you saying? The only thing that comes to mind is that, as I postulated, you may have some esoteric definition of immigration such that these Bangladeshis are excluded.


Most people’s definition of “closed,” though, does not mean “letting tons of foreigners in.” That sounds more like a wide-open door than a closed one.


But again, I don’t know much about the situation and am happy to be enlightened by you and then enhance my opinion accordingly.

(edit: Just fixed the color, that's all)

----------


## tod evans

Interesting perspective;

----------


## TheCount

> Uhh,* if the emirates have closed immigration* as you say, wouldn’t that make it impossible for a million Bangladeshis to be there? I don’t get it. What are you saying? The only thing that comes to mind is that, as I postulated, you may have some esoteric definition of immigration such that these Bangladeshis are excluded.
> 
> 
> Most people’s definition of “closed,” though, does not mean “letting tons of foreigners in.” That sounds more like a wide-open door than a closed one.
> 
> 
> But again, I don’t know much about the situation and am happy to be enlightened by you and then enhance my opinion accordingly.


There is a gradient of options between "free and open" and "closed."

----------


## Swordsmyth

> There is a gradient of options between "free and open" and "closed."


I'm glad you recognize that.

----------


## Danke

> Interesting perspective;


I always knew the savages justly earned that moniker.

They should be thankful we gave them central heating and Casinos.

----------


## TheCount

> I'm glad you recognize that.


Whenever you feel like it, find a post of me advocating either.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Whenever you feel like it, find a post of me advocating either.


You rarely commit to an absolute open borders position but you accuse anyone who want's tighter controls of wanting absolutely closed borders.

----------


## H_H

> There is a gradient of options between "free and open" and "closed."


Wow. All that. And then it turns out to be just an autistic grammar/usage post. Sigh. It even so happens I actually used the word fairly. Guess that didnt help ya. I know its hard to understand spectrums when youre on the spectrum, but boy. Wow. This was ridiculous. 

So thank you, TheCount, for pointing out the shocking revelation that the UAE is not ancapistan and has some sort of regulations and laws regarding immigration. Fact Check!!1!, lol. Nice work, dude. Fact check accomplished.

Do you see, guys?  Can you blame me?  Seriously.

----------


## TheCount

> Wow. All that. And then it turns out to be just an autistic grammar/usage post. Sigh. It even so happens I actually used the word fairly. Guess that didnt help ya. I know its hard to understand spectrums when youre on the spectrum, but boy. Wow. This was ridiculous. 
> 
> So thank you, TheCount, for pointing out the shocking revelation that the UAE is not ancapistan and has some sort of regulations and laws regarding immigration. Fact Check!!1!, lol. Nice work, dude. Fact check accomplished.
> 
> Do you see, guys?  Can you blame me?  Seriously.


The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 2 characters.

----------


## TheCount

> You rarely commit to an absolute open borders position but you accuse anyone who want's tighter controls of wanting absolutely closed borders.


What are 'tighter controls?'

----------


## Swordsmyth

> What are 'tighter controls?'


What is the meaning of "What"?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Having come across this, I was suddenly shocked and awed to see American Spartan: true Americun.

----------


## TheCount

> What is the meaning of "What"?


Exactly.

This isn't a policy prescription, it's an emotional kneejerk.

----------


## timosman

> Exactly.
> 
> This isn't a policy prescription, it's an emotional kneejerk.


What's your policy prescription? Does your policy have potential for abuse? How big?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Exactly.
> 
> This isn't a policy prescription, it's an emotional kneejerk.


You do specialize in that.

----------


## H_H

> Indeed you could saw there were few restrictions, in some senses, in the 1800s USA. However, in other senses, there were quite a lot of restrictions.


So, continuing my charming conversation with myself, I will expand on this.  In what sense was migration into the USA restricted in the 1800s?


I will give you a hint: it was the same sense in which migration into Every Place Everywhere was restricted in the Every Century Ever.


Namely: By Reality!


In the past, it was extremely difficult to move your residence from one country to another.  Abraham did not leave Ur lightly.


So, reality itself kept migration to a fairly low level, through such policy measures as:


Strong human emotional need to stay in your community, with your people whom you know and love 
Even stronger survival need to stay put in said community
General impoverishment and lack of resources
Lack of transportation technology
Lack of disposable income to avail yourself of even what transportation tech did exist
Lack of any crazy, decadent people who are going to be at all welcoming to strangers, much less dole out their treasure to you
And last but not least: LARGE ATLANTIC OCEANS

----------


## H_H

> So, continuing my charming conversation with myself, I will expand on this.  In what sense was migration into the USA restricted in the 1800s?
> 
> 
> I will give you a hint: it was the same sense in which migration into Every Place Everywhere was restricted in the Every Century Ever.
> 
> 
> Namely: By Reality!
> 
> 
> ...


So what's your point?  I think we were all well aware of these factual points you are making in your little history lesson.

----------


## H_H

> So what's your point?  I think we were all well aware of these factual points you are making in your little history lesson.


The point is thus:

You were using Western history to say that the norm was unrestricted migration, and that worked great (see: all the great stuff Western Civilization has done).

I am saying: OK, there was less legislation regarding immigration, but that does not mean there was more immigration.  Investigating, we find there was, in fact, a great, great deal _less_ immigration going on.

It just wasn't a problem.  No issue.

Half the population of olde Burgundy would never have considered mass-transplanting themselves to olde Cambria, as half of Syria seems to have plunked comfy in Europe.

Would never, that is, unless it was fertile, desirable land and they were *invaders*.

You see, "mass migration" has existed in history -- tiny fractions of the "mass" and over much longer periods of time than what's going on now in the USA, but it existed -- but it was seen clearly as something done to the advantage of invaders, because they _could_, and you couldn't stop them, not something done for the moral or economic benefit of you, the invadee.  The invader gets to spread and thrive, and the invadee gets wiped out.  They die.

I am saying that nothing is different today.  The laws of physics and reality are still the same.  Only one body can occupy a given space at a given time.  It could be you, and your family.  It could be some other group.  You decide.  

So seriously: which would you prefer?

----------


## oyarde

someone bailed out Helmuth .

----------


## H_H

> It could be you, and your family. It could be some other group. You decide. 
> 
> 
> So seriously: which would you prefer?


I prefer _Liberty!_  How about that?  Is that allowed?  I prefer treating all men with dignity and according all men their equal, God-given rights.  Not all this brain-dead, chest-thumping "Us vs. Them" mentality that you're promoting.


What happened to you, New Helmuth?  How could you forget about liberty and become a barbarian?  I love liberty with all my heart.  Indeed, it is my only political value.  I don't think anything could happen to me that would change that, that would make me betray freedom, which I hold so dear.  Nay, never!  I am an Eternal Warrior for FREEDOM!


You have betrayed the cause of liberty!  You have betrayed me, your past self!


Is this really the future I have to look forward to?  How could this have happened?

----------


## H_H

> How could this have happened?


Say it isn't so!


Well, Old Helmuth, here's the thing: maybe it didn't happen.  See, you, like most political thinkers, are far too emotionally-driven for your own good.  You cripple your ability to come to good conclusions if you let your emotions climb up out of the back seat and grab the steering wheel.  So anyway, you got so triggered you have jumped to this massive, existential conclusion about me and how evil I am without actually having sufficient facts to back it up.


Did I say I had abandoned my love of liberty?


Did I myself say that I had become a brain-dead chest-thumper?


No, I did not say these things.  In point of fact I have had no zippyjuanesque brain damaging injury, I am today significantly smarter than I was when I was you, and I still possess a strong emotional commitment to liberty.


So, back to my question that you were trying to distract yourself from:  If you had to choose whether your land would be for your family, or for some other family, which would you choose?

----------


## PAF

https://youtu.be/-fIBpTp5UKE

----------


## H_H

> Well, Old Helmuth, here's the thing: maybe it didn't happen.


Uhh, OK....





> In point of fact I have had no zippyjuanesque brain damaging injury,


I don't know who that is.



> I am today significantly smarter than I was when I was you, and I still possess a strong emotional commitment to liberty.


Well, I'm glad to hear you're still such a genius and Number 1 Fanboy of Liberty, though I don't see how that could be true, if you're now for restricting people's freedom of motion.




> So, back to my question that you were trying to distract yourself from: If you had to choose whether your land would be for your family, or for some other family, which would you choose?


It's not a valid question.  Under a free market there is enough bounty for everyone to go around.  There is plenty of raw "space" in the USA for anyone who might want to come -- acres apon acres of empty land.  And we could always build vertical, too.  With the incredible prosperity that would be unleashed under anarchocapitalism, there's just no practical limit!

----------


## timosman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2JrjBRz940

----------


## H_H

> I don't know who that is.


  Count yourself lucky.




> Under a free market there is enough bounty for everyone to go around.... With the incredible prosperity that would be unleashed under anarchocapitalism, there's just no practical limit!


You are conflating two things: unfettered anarchocapitalism, and extreme levels of incoming human dross.


One can be in favor of one and not the other.


Anarchocapitalists, and libertarians in general, are often accused of being detached from any practical considerations of reality. I know this is not true of you, because I was you. So let's look at things practically. How could anarchocapitalism possibly be stable and workable? Ideology. The people in the ancap place need to overwhelmingly believe in it, and actively, vigilantly do things in order to prevent it from devolving into tyranny again (such as refuse to allow any protection agency significant market share, keeping the market fragmented and healthy, by everyone actively seeking out smaller companies to contract with and switching if their current one grows too big. Even more importantly, make it impossible for any intelligence/surveillance operations to be conducted, ever.).


So there's a practical human element needed. We could not just overnight implement ancap on the existing US population. It would not work, because they don't believe in it. The foundation of any large and advanced political system is essentially belief.


So you have to have the right people, because not just anyone will believe in ancap. Also, not all peoples are intellectually capable of implementing ancap. Blank-slatists are wrong.


Anyway, I'm going on and on and probably nobody cares. Let's sum this up and give the right answer.

----------


## H_H

The point of a political system is to make a good life possible for you and your great-great-grandkids.

It is not any kind of ideological goal.  Those are, in the end, properly analyzed, fake and retarded.

The sane goal is the good life.  A country full of good, healthy people, achieving awesome, amazing things, and living meaningful lives.  That is the goal.

Any ideological quality is a means to an end.  Freedom is the goal?  Freedom to do what?  Would you be happy in a country with total "freedom" where everyone was using that freedom to do things you find horrible, disgusting, ugly, self-destructive, and stupid?  No, that would be a dystopia.  The underlying political structures don't really matter, what matters is the behavior of humans around you.  We love liberty because we envision it leading to a bright, exciting future.  If we envisioned it leading to an abyss with everyone bombed out on fentanyl, scratching in dirt with sticks, and engaging in mutually-voluntary cannibalism, we would not favor that.

The *ideas* are just a *vehicle* to get us to the *reality* to which we want to go.

Thus, the issue of immigration becomes easy to answer.  We should do what would be best for creating a high-quality country where we can live good quality lives.

That clearly does not involve importing in floods of people from backwards, impoverished countries.  These people have shown what they are capable of back in their home countries.  That's what they can build.  We don't want it?  Don't let them in.

At the current time, for the US and the rest of the West, the thing that would make the most sense would be to just close the doors.  No new immigration.  Read my lips and all that.  Just hit the pause button.  There is no demonstrated benefit, instead tons of harm.  So it's the most obvious thing in the world that we should stop hurting ourselves and our countries and our futures and just shut it down.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If we envisioned it leading to an abyss with everyone bombed out on fentanyl, scratching in dirt with sticks, and engaging in mutually-voluntary cannibalism, we would not favor that.


Some would.

----------


## H_H

> Some would.


None would.

Unless they enjoy fentanyl and think it's a good thing, or dream of using ancient agricultural processes with heirloom seeds in wholesome organic farmsteads, or the gender unicorn has made them a cis-que'er-cannibalexual. And if so, it makes no difference to my point, just change the dystopia in order to fit their idea of ultimate misery.

No one will accept dystopia in exchange for getting their abstract ideology implemented.

No one.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> None would.
> 
> Unless they enjoy fentanyl and think it's a good thing, or believe in using ancient agricultural processes with heirloom seeds in wholesome organic farmsteads, or want to do cannibalism.  If so, it makes no difference, just change the dystopia in order to fit their idea of ultimate misery.
> 
> No one will accept dystopia in exchange for getting their ideological ideas implemented.
> 
> No one.


I'm talking about rebels for the sake of it, it's a mental illness.

----------


## timosman

Is HH arguing with himself?

----------


## H_H

> Is HH arguing with himself?


And right after a post about mental illness you have to post this?!






For the record, I won.

----------


## timosman

https://twitter.com/RepStevenSmith/s...59100012433408

----------

