Judge Napolitano "Immigration is a right."

[liberty2897]

Good interview. I happen to agree with everything The Judge had to say.

 

[dinosaur]

So cultural assimilation = justice

Please...tell me what the 1st amendment is again, I forgot what it was.

No borders = free speech? Why can't countries with diverse cultures exist, and have borders? Why is that a crime against justice?

 

[otherone]

Man, you have no idea. Do you realize Socrates spoke with a demon? It was allowed in Greek society during that time to do so. But Socrates heard a very clear voice in his head. It said to him to quit his life in the Athenian army and take up a life of philosophy. This so bothered him that, according to lore, he prayed for a whole day before obeying the voice. Do you realize Socrates wasn't even an elite? By elite, I mean he wasn't a trainer kind of teacher of the very rich as Aristotle was later on. Socrates wasn't even a professor like Plato. He didn't write and some question his reading ability. Yet, out of Socrates didn't come just laws, but a whole new order. He was a true Sage in this fashion.
Okay, so far we have someone who spoke to a demon. He wasn't an elite.
On top of this, he had absolutely no fear for his own life as a hoplite as the Spartans were so in awe of him that they spared his life. Okay, so think of a great serving kind of a philosopher, one who spoke with the clear voice of a demon in his head, and one who had no fear of death.
Would you consider this man rational?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Self-ownership as in one controls their person, and therefore owns it. This is a self-evident proposition that you cannot effectively deny.

Deductive reasoning predates Aristotle. Your association fallacies have previously been dismissed as logically invalid, and it is no different now. Your failure to argue your position on its own merit is noted.

What has also been noted is your willingness to acquiesce to State abuses of human rights so long as it benefits you.

Honest question - why are you on a board dedicated to liberty?

Do you own yourself? Are you sure? Are you connected with your ancestors? Do you consider being plugged in with our Founders in such a way to be bondage? First off, you don't own yourself as they already have you positioned standing on and arguing from an established platform. According to what Plato wrote in his numerous dialogues, Socrates never stood on such an established platform. Instead, he constantly narrowed towards knowing a higher quality truth. In his works, Aristotle clearly explained both Socrates use and development of inductive reasoning as well as Plato's own theory of the forms (the best principled statements). Inductive reasoning, theory of the Forms, and deductive reasoning are all truth engine dialectics.
Our Founders defined tyranny as that point in which the government and the people becomes corrupt. We should know this as being elemental. A Democratic Republic dissolves the position of emperor by establishing each sovereign state as its own nation. We are not an empire regardless of what the confused might claim. A thousand rulers a mile away can indeed rule less corrupt than one tyrant a thousand miles away. While the best government is going to be corrupt, it is absolutely necessary to have one. Therefore, a more perfect Union should be considered, at best, to be a necessary tyranny. The purpose for it isn't to implement laws mindlessly, but to further advance the established order. Failure to only maintain the order of a society results in a long standing dynasty.

 

[UMULAS]

You will have to clarify that for me. Violent crimes? Whites as a percentage? Anyway, the lawyers, judges with the backing of bankers are a bigger threat to me than any individual.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0325.pdf

For some reason I can't find anything more updated, maybe due to analyzing taking them forever I guess...

I'm not saying that there is a race that is "violent" or "evil", but there is more reason on why there is a higher ratio on minorities.

Lawyers, judges, and prison makers are the mother loads behind all this due to excessive costs which they receive.

Inner city hispanics and blacks = people viewing them as "thugs" = put to correctional jail and later legal transfers to other extended periods = $$$$$$$

If you want I can give you my speech on rehabilitation and the sources.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

And there you have it:

The problem lies in your being deceived by those who claim to be rational in place of the true one who was so rational that the whole order of Western Civilization ushered forth from him. I don't talk with demons. I do have a fear of losing my life. I don't spend my time walking to the market to ask questions of the worthless. Therefore, in comparison to the very model of rationality, I am irrational.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

Do you own yourself? Are you sure?

Yes. Yes, arguing with you reinforces the self-evident point. If I didn't own myself, then you could tell me to agree with you, and I would have to. However, I don't, and this makes self-ownership a priori.

Are you connected with your ancestors? Do you consider being plugged in with our Founders in such a way to be bondage?

Yes. Yes, social contracts represent bondage - even the good-intentioned ones.

First off, you don't own yourself as they already have you positioned standing on and arguing from an established platform. According to what Plato wrote in his numerous dialogues, Socrates never stood on such an established platform. Instead, he constantly narrowed towards knowing a higher quality truth. In his works, Aristotle clearly explained both Socrates use and development of inductive reasoning as well as Plato's own theory of the forms (the best principled statements). Inductive reasoning, theory of the Forms, and deductive reasoning are all truth engine dialectics.

I own myself by virtue of arguing with you. The "established platform" I stand on is called "logic". It's the same means humans have adapted as a reasonable method of determining correct action before Greece ever existed.

The references to Greek philosophers are both red herring and association fallacies.

Our Founders defined tyranny as that point in which the government and the people becomes corrupt. We should know this as being elemental. A Democratic Republic dissolves the position of emperor by establishing each sovereign state as its own nation. We are not an empire regardless of what the confused might claim. A thousand rulers a mile away can indeed rule less corrupt than one tyrant a thousand miles away. While the best government is going to be corrupt, it is absolutely necessary to have one. Therefore, a more perfect Union should be considered, at best, to be a necessary tyranny. The purpose for it isn't to implement laws mindlessly, but to further advance the established order. Failure to only maintain the order of a society results in a long standing dynasty.

We're a Constitutional Republic.

Even if one accepts the proposition of a government as necessary, it does not implicate the necessity of a mandatory social contract that obligates those born within its territories. Q does not follow from P.

And there is no such thing as "necessary tyranny". Utter nonsense spouted from the mouths of sophists intent to acquiesce to human rights abuses committed by the State.

 

[UMULAS]

The problem lies in your being deceived by those who claim to be rational in place of the true one who was so rational that the whole order of Western Civilization ushered forth from him. I don't talk with demons. I do have a fear of losing my life. I don't spend my time walking to the market to ask questions of the worthless. Therefore, in comparison to the very model of rationality, I am irrational.

Just use Aristotle's syllogism and theory of existance of truth, very simple and you will be extremely reasonable.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Just use Aristotle's syllogism and theory of existance of truth, very simple and you will be extremely reasonable.

I don't mean to stumble you up any. In time, you will come to appreciate what I'm talking about here. You know, Jesus first learned the Old Testament as the law. It wasn't until He asked an old wretch a question that her answer caused Him to understand it spiritually as the Gospel. I'm referencing the verse when He asked her about the claim that she was feeding the dogs underneath the table while neglecting His children. In her answer to Him, she used herself as a metaphor from two points of view with one view from the master, the almighty, and the other from the dog, herself. This caused an immense ushering in of insight for the Lord which further caused Him to rejoice crying out, "Great is your faith!"
On another level, I've already provided an answer by narrowing down to our Founders using the American political spectrum. As the enthroned king on one end of the spectrum will always be considered rational and educated regardless, or else, the homeless prostitute on the other end of it will always be considered irrational and ignorant.
Think of it another way. What makes you what you are official is a bunch of lawyers. What made the lawyers official was the ordaining so by a king. What made the kings official was the blessing by Christ when He fulfilled the prophecies. Problem is, something to think about, Christ fulfilled the prophecies against His Will. After finishing up, he abandoned the temple and the law just about as abruptly as a person could do so.
In the end, the measure of our worth is only important regarding what increased the happiness of others.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Yes. Yes, arguing with you reinforces the self-evident point. If I didn't own myself, then you could tell me to agree with you, and I would have to. However, I don't, and this makes self-ownership a priori.



Yes. Yes, social contracts represent bondage - even the good-intentioned ones.



I own myself by virtue of arguing with you. The "established platform" I stand on is called "logic". It's the same means humans have adapted as a reasonable method of determining correct action before Greece ever existed.

The references to Greek philosophers are both red herring and association fallacies.



We're a Constitutional Republic.

Even if one accepts the proposition of a government as necessary, it does not implicate the necessity of a mandatory social contract that obligates those born within its territories. Q does not follow from P.

And there is no such thing as "necessary tyranny". Utter nonsense spouted from the mouths of sophists intent to acquiesce to human rights abuses committed by the State.

Mexico is a Constitutional Republic as they established their new nation by the old traditions of legal precedence having done so by using an established junta. This trick replaced the old order with the same old order. In contrast, our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law to replace the old order with a new one. They then established the U.S. Constitution implementing laws to advance the new order. In prior societies of old, laws were established to maintain an order in chaos. In the new order that our Founders established, laws are utilized to advance a new order which includes "all men."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Mexico is a Constitutional Republic as they established their new nation by the old traditions of legal precedence having done so by using an established junta. This trick replaced the old order with the same old order. In contrast, our Founders utilized the scientific method of natural law to replace the old order with a new one. They then established the U.S. Constitution implementing laws to advance the new order. In prior societies of old, laws were established to maintain an order in chaos. In the new order that our Founders established, laws are utilized to advance a new order which includes "all men."

The Constitution was a reversion to the Old Order. Tyranny in different stripes.

 

[purplechoe]

Here's the actual clip...



I agree with the judge as well as Ron Paul on this one. Although Ron took a more anti-amnesty position in 2008, he pretty much would agree with everything the judge said. The reason Ron took that position was because we were going through tough times economically and he didn't like the idea of them sucking of the tit of the government. That was also the only time that I think I ever saw Ron pandering the to conservative right on any issue as far as I remember, even though at heart he felt different.

With that said I also understand those who oppose it, there are no winners in this one. The reason I sympathies is that it seems to me that a lot of immigrants in recent times don't bother to assimilate like those in the past and instead create their own communities, be they Hispanic, Polish, Russian, etc...

But just be careful if you wish there was some kind of wall built to keep the Mexicans out. The same wall can be used to keep you in.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

In a free society, from whom could you buy land? Is there someone out there who owns it to begin with and can sell it to you?

I am surprised you are asking this question. Don't you believe in homesteading?

All property starts out unowned. Even our own bodies perhaps, one could say. Then we homestead it. We claim it, we start using it, we call it ours. Other people respect our claim. We reciprocally respect their claims. We buy and sell with each other. Thus we live in peace, with lots of individuals and lots of goods and clear boundaries delineating which individuals have the right to control which goods.

 

[misean]

The Constitution was a reversion to the Old Order. Tyranny in different stripes.

What Old Order was that? What country was more free in the history of the world than America right after its founding? Pretty retarded to call a Constitutional America tyranny.

 

[torchbearer]

I am surprised you are asking this question. Don't you believe in homesteading?

All property starts out unowned. Even our own bodies perhaps, one could say. Then we homestead it. We claim it, we start using it, we call it ours. Other people respect our claim. We reciprocally respect their claims. We buy and sell with each other. Thus we live in peace, with lots of individuals and lots of goods and clear boundaries delineating which individuals have the right to control which goods.

most people skip philosophy class as bullshit, but this really is the basics to liberty.

 

[torchbearer]

What Old Order was that? What country was more free in the history of the world than America right after its founding? Pretty retarded to call a Constitutional America tyranny.

it may seem strange, but that is a minarchist vs. anarchist debate actually.
i wish we lived in a time that was the biggest debate of our time.
the left and right was anarch and minarchs. that would be the goal. because even in anarchy you would have small groups of voluntary minarchist who understand the idea of an area of protection for right via contract, though we won't make the mistake of making it assumed for all.
each year, the people would have to agree to the contract again. otherwise, no government.
that way, the only government that exist will be those of consent for that year. one year charters.
so many ways to slice it.
anyway- back to 'dey tuk ur jubz!'

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Constitution was a reversion to the Old Order. Tyranny in different stripes.

This would have been the case if our Founders had used the same old method other than Natural Law.

 

[misean]

it may seem strange, but that is a minarchist vs. anarchist debate actually.
i wish we lived in a time that was the biggest debate of our time.
the left and right was anarch and minarchs. that would be the goal. because even in anarchy you would have small groups of voluntary minarchist who understand the idea of an area of protection for right via contract, though we won't make the mistake of making it assumed for all.
each year, the people would have to agree to the contract again. otherwise, no government.
that way, the only government that exist will be those of consent for that year. one year charters.
so many ways to slice it.
anyway- back to 'dey tuk ur jubz!'

I was just rereading Human Action this weekend. Mises was not charitable toward the anarchy argument. I also remember Hayek saying something to the effect how inefficient anarchy is, even less so than government. He said it becomes difficult to get large groups of people to cooperate and you don't get any type of economy of scale.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What Old Order was that? What country was more free in the history of the world than America right after its founding? Pretty retarded to call a Constitutional America tyranny.

We aren't a Constitutional government. The difference came in our divorce from the old order with this being achieved by way of The Declaration of Independence. According to the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans, our new nation wouldn't have been justified under God's judgement as the king was the rightful ruler. But our Founders utilized the science of natural law to establish a new natural law of self evident and unalienable truths. In utilizing such, they proved the king wasn't a rightful king at all, but a tyrant. As with all natural laws, they had to submit both a conclusion, and an analysis of that conclusion.
As the first part of the conclusion was all inclusive declaring "all men" as being born equally endowed with the same exact business agendas for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the second part of it was an analysis showing just proof that the king was not fit to be a king. Therefore, he was divorced justifiably as a tyrant.

 

[Wesker1982]

Mises was not charitable toward the anarchy argument.

See: http://mises.org/daily/6226/Mises-on-Secession

About the OP, no surprise. The Judge is a voluntaryist.