Nick Freitas 2018 | Liberty Rising in Virginia

[thoughtomator]

And when you can produce evidence of a foreign invasion, you won't get any argument here.
Invasion has three definitions:

• an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
• the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
• entrance as if to take possession or overrun

There is no army, so it doesn't fit definition 1.
You cannot show a concerted effort to overrun, so it doesn't fit definition 3.
All you have is definition 2 - which means you consider these people a disease.
That's not at all surprising since it fits with all the other anti-immigration rhetoric: They don't have rights, they aren't citizens, they aren't people.

Just cut the $#@!ing foreplay and call for their extermination. It's what you really want. It gets rid of the ones that are here, and if that won't prove to be an effective deterrent to future immigration, nothing will.


Right, here we have the classic "if you don't like it you can leave" argument, but explicitly calling for us to move to Antarctica. Real solution-minded of you.

I do also love the implication that if we're not in favor of your particular brand of fascist government, we must be in favor of a form of government that demonstrably can't exist, because it presumes both total state control and also no state.
You guys do a pretty good job making me think I've gone insane, you know. I mean, one hallmark of insanity is recognizing something as real which isn't really... but the problem you have is that other people show up here periodically and agree with my assessment that you're talking nonsense, so either they got into the same blotter sheet as I did, or we're right, and you're not making any sense.


I know, I mean, I got my entire kitchen remodeled for under $5000, we can't have that happening!


You can't make a "we have to kick 20 million people out and secure thousands of miles of open border" argument and not explode the budget light years beyond the gigantic, uncontrollable problem we have right now.
You can't keep the government small because you are actively shilling for making it exponentially larger.

Invasion does not require a formal army. If they meant that they would have said so. They didn't, because they were quite aware of Indian attacks on the frontier.

The Constitution is also quite explicit about the duty of the feds to regulate immigration. No way to do that without enforcement against unregulated entry. We regulate to prevent the entry of disease, dependents, criminals, and enemies. Basic sovereignty 101 and if you aren't in favor of that you are a time wasting bullshit artist.

The rest of your arguments are dishonest nonsense and don't deserve to be responded to. Genuine truth seeking questions only please, to that alone I will engage.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He basically labeled Stewart a Nazi. Really low blows.

Liberty people eat their own worse than any other group.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Ever since the first time I watched the For Liberty documentary, I guess I've thought that people will join the movement because it just makes sense- the whole thing, the ideology, the grassroots, the values. And in my experience, people my age have been receptive, or at least tolerant and understanding. People older than me tend to laugh it off (don't steal- funny, right?) or shut me off. Obviously most people are not going to be converted on contact, but it's really all I know how to do. What am I doing wrong/missing and what is the answer?

If you are in favor of controlled immigration then you aren't missing anything, if you think anyone who wants to should be able to come here in unlimited numbers and gain citizenship and the right to vote then you are flying in the face of reality, unlimited immigrants will not assimilate into libertarian political philosophy before they turn the country communist, some percentage of people never will listen and it takes time to convert the rest.

The point is supposed to be to create and maintain a liberty nation and you can't do that if you are constantly overwhelmed with people whose native culture is totally ignorant about liberty.

 

[Swordsmyth]

And there is the problem. Free trade doesn't require "deals" or treaties that are 30,000 pages long. Free trade is the unrestricted ability for people to do commerce with whomever they like, so long as they aren't harming others. And tariffs = taxation which is always bad and should always be opposed.

You only control one side of the trade, if the other side tries to take advantage of your low tariffs and puts up high tariffs you need to get an agreement for them to not do so, the only way to get that agreement is to put up defensive tariffs and then negotiate for both sides to drop their tariffs.

 

[Swordsmyth]

And when you can produce evidence of a foreign invasion, you won't get any argument here.
Invasion has three definitions:

• an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.
• the entrance or advent of anything troublesome or harmful, as disease.
• entrance as if to take possession or overrun

There is no army, so it doesn't fit definition 1.

It does fit definition 1, 1 says "especially by an army" especially doesn't it has to be an army, it just means that if it is an army then it fits even more.

You cannot show a concerted effort to overrun, so it doesn't fit definition 3.

We most certainly can, the Demoncrats have stated their intention to change the demographics to create a permanent majority for them and the Mexicans have stated their intention to take the southwest back for Mexico.

All you have is definition 2 - which means you consider these people a disease.
That's not at all surprising since it fits with all the other anti-immigration rhetoric: They don't have rights, they aren't citizens, they aren't people.

Just cut the $#@!ing foreplay and call for their extermination. It's what you really want. It gets rid of the ones that are here, and if that won't prove to be an effective deterrent to future immigration, nothing will.

They are not the disease anymore than a TB patient is TB, but just like a TB patient they carry a disease, that disease of communism is far more dangerous and incurable than TB.
We don't call for their extermination and we don't need to, they can revel in their communism for all we care as long as they stay in their country and don't come here.

You can't make a "we have to kick 20 million people out and secure thousands of miles of open border" argument and not explode the budget light years beyond the gigantic, uncontrollable problem we have right now.
You can't keep the government small because you are actively shilling for making it exponentially larger.

That is nonsense, they will self deport if you start to have any decent level of enforcement and securing the border is easy if we bring the troops home and have them patrol it.

 

[Matt Collins]

Matt, a protection of the states from foreign invasion is written in black and white as a fundamental duty of this government.

Ron voted for border security measures himself, as a Congressman. I'm pretty sure if I checked the others all but perhaps Amash would be similarly on the record as voting in support of such measures. On the record, these are, or were while in office, nationalist libertarians.

You are confused. Having secure borders, whether open or not, does not equate to the same thing as "nationalism"

It is grossly irresponsible to expose Americans to the real risks and extreme costs that come from large scale third world immigration.

Maybe, maybe not. The jury is out on that. In some ways open borders are very beneficial, and in other ways they could be potentially damaging. There are two sides to that issue which is not settled.

I personally lean more towards tight immigration restrictions, but I also realize that the government's job isn't to set the price and supply curves for labor.

 

[Matt Collins]

You only control one side of the trade, if the other side tries to take advantage of your low tariffs and puts up high tariffs you need to get an agreement for them to not do so, the only way to get that agreement is to put up defensive tariffs and then negotiate for both sides to drop their tariffs.

Or how about "in a free society none of this is the government's job"

 

[Swordsmyth]

Or how about "in a free society none of this is the government's job"

Protecting the citizens against foreign predation is government's job.

 

[thoughtomator]

You are confused. Having secure borders, whether open or not, does not equate to the same thing as "nationalism"





Maybe, maybe not. The jury is out on that. In some ways open borders are very beneficial, and in other ways they could be potentially damaging. There are two sides to that issue which is not settled.

I personally lean more towards tight immigration restrictions, but I also realize that the government's job isn't to set the price and supply curves for labor.

If you cannot find it in your brain or heart to prefer your countrymen over any arbitrary foreign national who shows up, it's time to leave the United States. What is to come will not be comfortable for you or anyone else who can't bring yourself to align with the principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[Matt Collins]

Protecting the citizens against foreign predation is government's job.

Only militarily. The government has no authority to have anything to do with the economy really, other than coining money and determining weights and measures.


Besides there are few things the government can do that are more anti-freedom than tell me who I can and cannot do business with, or raising my taxes, or penalizing me for doing business with certain people.

 

[Matt Collins]

If you cannot find it in your brain or heart to prefer your countrymen over any arbitrary foreign national who shows up,

False dichotomy, Hobson's choice.

But not only that, all people are equal in the eyes of the law, since all people have natural rights.

What is to come will not be comfortable for you or anyone else who can't bring yourself to align with the principles enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.

What kind of crack are you smoking? What are you even talking about?

 

[thoughtomator]

False dichotomy, Hobson's choice.

But not only that, all people are equal in the eyes of the law, since all people have natural rights.


What kind of crack are you smoking? What are you even talking about?

I'm saying we the people intend to exercise our sovereign power to secure our border as a means to securing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And you will not stop us. If you try, you'll be steamrolled just like everyone else and it will not be pleasant at all.

Get on board or get out of the way, those are the only options on the table for the forseeable future.

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm saying we the people intend to exercise our sovereign power to secure our border as a means to securing our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And you will not stop us. If you try, you'll be steamrolled just like everyone else and it will not be pleasant at all.

Get on board or get out of the way, those are the only options on the table for the forseeable future.

You're smoking some serious crack. I highly suggest you get a mental evaluation at your earliest convenience:







and PS - no one said anything about unsecured borders.

 

[thoughtomator]

You're smoking some serious crack. I highly suggest you get a mental evaluation at your earliest convenience:







and PS - no one said anything about unsecured borders.

It's called the will of the people, Matt, and if you understood that better you may have been somewhat successful at your career.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Only militarily. The government has no authority to have anything to do with the economy really, other than coining money and determining weights and measures.


Besides there are few things the government can do that are more anti-freedom than tell me who I can and cannot do business with, or raising my taxes, or penalizing me for doing business with certain people.

So you would be happy to be conquered by a hostile foreign power as long as it was economic warfare that was used?

 

[Swordsmyth]

False dichotomy, Hobson's choice.

But not only that, all people are equal in the eyes of the law, since all people have natural rights.

But they don't all have citizenship rights in America.
If you think the foreigners are going to treat you as an equal and look out for your interests as much as they do their fellow citizens/subjects you are sadly mistaken, even those that don't actively plot against you seek their own interests and their shared interests with their peers ahead of yours.

 

[Matt Collins]

It's called the will of the people

Seeing as the US is not monolithic or homogeneous that concept only really exists in abstract. And since we are not a democracy, but a Republic, the "will of the people" only extends so far as to not violate the rights of other individuals.

 

[Matt Collins]

So you would be happy to be conquered by a hostile foreign power as long as it was economic warfare that was used?

In a free market it is almost impossible to wage economic "warfare".

 

[Matt Collins]

But they don't all have citizenship rights in America.

Citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege. Government cannot grant rights.

If you are born here then you are granted certain privileges, including the privilege of voting. If you move here and become a citizen then you get those privileges too.


But individual rights still exist whether or not one is a citizen.

even those that don't actively plot against you seek their own interests and their shared interests with their peers ahead of yours.

Every human seeks their own interests regardless of national origins. Not sure what your point is.

 

[Swordsmyth]

In a free market it is almost impossible to wage economic "warfare".

The world is not a free market, if you are claiming it is impossible to wage economic warfare against a free market then you are just wrong.