Rand on immigration w/Norquist-Bloomberg 6/11

[r3volution 3.0]

So if 100 million Chinese Communists "immigrated" and committed crimes like assassination, genocide and coup d'etat; that would be perfectly okay with you. Got it.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

A minimal state is that which is no larger, and no smaller than that needed to defend and protect basic individual rights. A state encompassing a larger territory or population than another will express that "minimal" status in a statistically larger way than a state with a smaller geography or population. The US is always going to be a 'larger' state than that of Luxembourg, on that basis, while both could still be defined as 'minimal' if they were no larger than as described above. So a larger bureaucracy to support the border protection function is consistent with a minimal state, so long as it is no larger than needed to perform its function.

Under this working definition, arguments can be made for unemployment insurance, welfare, social security, and all manner of safety net programs and still meet the 'minimal state for protecting individual liberty' requirement. It's on you to explain why socialism is bad for safety nets, but awesome for military, courts, police, and apparently, immigration controls.

 

[erowe1]

So if 100 million Chinese Communists "immigrated" and committed crimes like assassination, genocide and coup d'etat; that would be perfectly okay with you. Got it.

Not the genocide part.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Under this working definition, arguments can be made for unemployment insurance, welfare, social security, and all manner of safety net programs and still meet the 'minimal state for protecting individual liberty' requirement. It's on you to explain why socialism is bad for safety nets, but awesome for military, courts, police, and apparently, immigration controls.

100% wrong. Safety net programs intend to solve a (quality of life) problem but are not innately about defending liberty, the prime criteria for a valid government power, so whatever arguments made for them would not be libertarian arguments. Unemployment insurance, welfare, social security, and all manner of safety net programs do NOT relate to protecting basic individual rights, and it's on you to justify how they possibly could. Meanwhile, the military (during war), courts, police, immigration (as part of border) controls are not innately socialist, as each of the later DO fall under protecting basic rights in a minimal state. My merely saying a population of hundreds of millions will proportionately require a bigger court system than a court system of a state with only a million in it, while still falling under a minimum state, was a comment about simple logistics, not selective socialism.

It is the no-controls, open borders side that is not comprehending that it is their position leads to bigger/maximum government or socialism, as the state becomes tasked to support both the native population, and the incoming aggressor population that demands American resources without contractually becoming Americans. Please note the below video, which points out the problems of current legal immigration policy, in stark numbers, without even taking in the factor of illegal immigrants. If there is already a logistical issue that will tend to lead to more socialism under the current legal process, that factor will be even more expressed, even more deeply in the form of bigger government, when the immigrants not following that process are considered:

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

100% wrong. Safety net programs intend to solve a (quality of life) problem but are not innately about defending liberty, the prime criteria for a valid government power, so whatever arguments made for them would not be libertarian arguments. Unemployment insurance, welfare, social security, and all manner of safety net programs do NOT relate to protecting basic individual rights, and it's on you to justify how they possibly could. Meanwhile, the military (during war), courts, police, immigration (as part of border) controls are not innately socialist, as each of the later DO fall under protecting basic rights in a minimal state. My merely saying a population of hundreds of millions will proportionately require a bigger court system than a court system of a state with only a million in it, while still falling under a minimum state, was a comment about simple logistics, not selective socialism.

It is the no-controls, open borders side that is not comprehending that it is their position leads to bigger/maximum government or socialism, as the state becomes tasked to support both the native population, and the incoming aggressor population that demands American resources without contractually becoming Americans. Please note the below video, which points out the problems of current legal immigration policy, in stark numbers, without even taking in the factor of illegal immigrants. If there is already a logistical issue that will tend to lead to more socialism under the current legal process, that factor will be even more expressed, even more deeply in the form of bigger government, when the immigrants not following that process are considered:

I don't advocate for socialism, so it's not on me to explain why I think safety nets are great (without being too redundant, asking me to explain why safety nets are dandy when I don't advocate for them is... strange). Government military, police, courts, government anything is bonafide socialism. It doesn't become something else because you think it is essential to whatever it is you want to achieve.

This back and forth will go nowhere unless you accept the definition of socialism as being true.