German-Americans are anti-liberty. We should deport them!!!

[Dr. Dog]

There did used to be.

Were they pure enough by Lew Rockwell standards?

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[klamath]

Thanks for the recap. I'm not asking for that though. I'm aware of how you think for the most part and I disagree with it.

I'm asking what the foundation is for your belief. I disagree with PaleoLibertarian as well, and with numerous religious people on here, but at least Paleo and others are forthcoming with where they got their ideas from. I'm asking where you read what you read to come to your conclusions.

I think he came up with his freedom gene manifesto on his own as he is really proud of it. Probably has roots in the supper race ideas.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Were they pure enough by Lew Rockwell standards?

First, Lew Rockwell has gone off the libertarian reservation in my opinion. Lew went nuts for Trump and now he's trying to dredge up as many Rothbard quotes about immigration he can to justify his anti-freedom position. Then Tom Woods sits around like a yokel and parrots everything Lew says. Lew Rockwell is a Roman Catholic neoconfederate collectivist when it comes to race and immigration. Always has been.


When I got here in 2010, there were actual debates about the fundamental axioms of freedom. Someone like AmericanRacist would have been laughed off the board for the racist and collectivist he is. But now there doesn't seem to be much of a reaction from a liberty point of view.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you have the right to live and defend yourself? If not why not?

It means that individuals, and groups of individual (cultures, nations, races, etc) have the right to exist...

Scenario #1: Bob sees Jose pointing a gun at him, and so he shoots Jose.

Scenario #2: Bob sees Jose, a Mexican. Mexicans are more likely to commit murder than whites (though Jose has never threatened Bob). And so Bob shoot Jose.

...these scenarios are equivalent in your opinion?

...in both cases Bob's actions are justifiable as self-defense?

 

[fr33]

Full blooded German-American here. You can try it if you want. It would be a shitty job for those who tried.

I recently learned that some people in the land mass now known as Germany did own African slaves. It was disappointing. They weren't as bad as other prominent European nations but it did happen. I always felt proud that "we" didn't, but then I learned otherwise. That's what happens when you have "Kings". It seems to go against our pre-20th century history. Still if you are of German descent living in the US, you're more likely to have descended from slaves than to have descended from slave owners.

 

[Quark]

http://dna.ancestry.com/?s_kwcid=an...d=58712&o_lid=58712&o_sch=Paid+Search+–+Brand

http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/...002ng genome&gclid=CMHErreljskCFcdgfgodtk4AXQ

I turned out to have more Scottish/ English than I thought. I expected mostly German. Seems I got more from my Mother's side than my Father's side. One of my ancestors fought for the British during the Revolutionary War and was captured.

Actually already had a 23andme done back in 2010. It was an interest of mine at that the time (I was only 16.)

Nevertheless, for those who didn't realize, this is a parody of some other threads that have been popping up on the forum.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, that's very much an anti-liberty position. Liberty, through freedom of association, affords an in-nation person the right to invite anyone (pro-liberty or anti-liberty) into their property as a guest or renter/lessee. Liberty affords an in-nation person the right to employ anyone (pro-liberty or anti-liberty).

Ok, so you let us know when you have the means to transport someone from their source of origin to "your" property and keep them there; where you will be held 100% responsible for their well-being and actions.

 

[Quark]

Ok, so you let us know when you have the means to transport someone from their source of origin to "your" property and keep them there; where you will be held 100% responsible for their well-being and actions.

Would there not be commons for these people to traverse? Could they not negotiate with the property owners between where they currently are and where they are going? I know many libertarians like the idea that all property would be owned, but it would be pretty costly to own a lot of property without a large state, and it makes sense that there would be commons (albeit sparsely used ones.)

This is what Roderick Long has to say about common property:

Consider a village near a lake. It is common for the villagers to walk down to the lake to go fishing. In the early days of the community it's hard to get to the lake because of all the bushes and fallen branches in the way. But over time the way is cleared and a path forms – not through any coordinated efforts, but simply as a result of all the individuals walking by that way day after day. The cleared path is the product of labor – not any individual's labor, but all of them together. If one villager decided to take advantage of the now-created path by setting up a gate and charging tolls, he would be violating the collective property right that the villagers together have earned

 

[LibertyEagle]

That is how your world works, because you are a nationalist racist. That is not even how America works, because where is this "right" you speak of in the Bill of Rights?

How the moderators allow this kind of blatant racism and statism on these boards I don't understand. There aren't even libertarians on this board anymore.

Hell, they allow you, Sola and your globalist claptrap.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Would there not be commons for these people to traverse? Could they not negotiate with the property owners between where they currently are and where they are going? I know many libertarians like the idea that all property would be owned, but it would be pretty costly to own a lot of property without a large state, and it makes sense that there would be commons (albeit sparsely used ones.)

This is what Roderick Long has to say about common property:

In your mind, is the common not owned by anyone, or any government?

 

[Quark]

In your mind, is the common not owned by anyone, or any government?

It is initially not owned by anyone. But if somebody homesteads it or multiple people homestead it then it is owned by that individual or individuals until it returns to its natural state (due to abandonment) at which point it can be homesteaded again.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is initially not owned by anyone. But if somebody homesteads it or multiple people homestead it then it is owned by that individual or individuals until it returns to its natural state (due to abandonment) at which point it can be homesteaded again.

Where do you believe such land exists?

 

[Quark]

Where do you believe such land exists?

Large parts of government claimed land were not homesteaded. It is why it is such a big issue when the government came in a while back to tell cattle ranches that they couldn't use the land for grazing. The government didn't homestead the land, so it shouldn't prevent others from doing so. Large portions of the west, which are "owned" by state and federal governments have not been homesteaded.

But also my other point was that these individuals could negotiate with each property owner, or somebody who owns a road could have a policy of allowing them through (so that they don't have to go through thousands of property owners.) In that scenario, each property owner has his/her own border and decides whether they could go through or not. There are also planes and helicopters.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Exactly. It is claimed by the government. How do you figure you can claim it for "commons"? And since it is federal land, that means I paid for it and no, you don't have my permission to move illegal aliens across it.

So, we're back to...

Let us know when you are able to transfer someone from their source of origin directly onto your property and keep them there, where you will assume 100% responsibility for their actions.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Let us know when you are able to transfer someone from their source of origin directly onto your property and keep them there, where you will assume 100% responsibility for their actions.

They are being forcibly transferred? To live on government land?

 

[Quark]

Exactly. It is claimed by the government. How do you figure you can claim it for "commons"?

Property Rights are not based on "claims" they are based on the labor theory of property and the homestead principle. This is classical liberalism 101.

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

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

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

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/locke/section4.rhtml

"Locke starts by stating that, whether by natural reason or the word of the Bible, the earth can be considered the property of people in common to use for their survival and benefit. He then posits a key question: if the earth and everything on it is the common property of humankind, how does one come upon individual property?

Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person--each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. He uses the simple example of picking an apple--the apple becomes mine when I pick it, because I have added my labor to it and made it my property. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general--each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative."

The government doesn't own that land because the people in government have not mixed their labor with the land or traded for it, and therefore it is in a state of commons (which is the natural state of land.)

 

[Indy Vidual]

Hey, wait a minute-

The Scots were the only white men the Indians trusted. They kept their word and wore a skirt. (Truth)

Scots rock:

 

[LibertyEagle]

Property Rights are not based on "claims" they are based on the labor theory of property and the homestead principle. This is classical liberalism 101.

The government doesn't own that land because the people in government have not mixed their labor with the land or traded for it, and therefore it is in a state of commons (which is the natural state of land.)

It belongs to the people who toiled to pay for it. Which includes me. You do not have permission to transfer illegal aliens.

So figure out how to get them to your property another way and keep them there. If you want illegal aliens so badly, it's the least you can do.

 

[Quark]

It belongs to the people who toiled to pay for it. Which includes me. You do not have permission to transfer illegal aliens.

So figure out how to get them to your property another way and keep them there.

Who did the government pay to own that land? The majority of the land was never owned by anyone, and then the government "claimed" it. They didn't pay for anything besides small disputes which probably ended in eminent domain and an undervaluation (in which the property right is still held by the person the property was stolen from.) If the land has no labor mixed into it, it is commonly owned. This is simple natural rights theory and classical liberalism, both of which the U.S legal system is heavily based on, and which most libertarians derive their views: minarchists, anarchists, and more alike. There is no other consistent or reasonable theory of property rights.