Ron Paul Gives Latino Voters Straight Talk, No Pandering.

[ctiger2]

Just think if pandering was made illegal. Newt would have nothing to say.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

IF PANDERING WAS MADE CRIMINAL.

ONLY POLITICIANS WOULD PANDER.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

LOL @ national socialists, always outing themselves when brown people come up.

America has a long tradition of Racially European people who have migrated over, failed to assimilate immediately, and have created tension and strife among the American people. It isn't about race, as much as it is about culture and preserving all things that make us apart of Western Civilization. This idea that America should stay American and people should immigrate in low numbers and legally is something that Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Grover Cleveland, John Tyler, Polk, writer Russell Kirk, Senator Robert Taft, Conservative William F.H. Buckley, and most fighters who fought in World War 2 for this country would agree with. Are they all National Socialists as well?

I think one must look at the illegal immigration issue from a practical, philosophically reasonable point of view. Relying on vague libertarian philosophical principles like the NAP isn't going to get us anywhere. Mexicans don't have any legitimate claim to the American southwest. The land was sold to us fairly, and Mexicans were the ones to start the war. We made it prosperous. Mexico would've ensured the exact opposite. The native americans who roamed the southwest prior to European migrations/invasions had little to do with the natives who Mexicans are largely descendants from.

 

[RiseAgainst]

America has a long tradition of Racially European people who have migrated over, failed to assimilate immediately, and have created tension and strife among the American people. It isn't about race, as much as it is about culture and preserving all things that make us apart of Western Civilization. This idea that America should stay American and people should immigrate in low numbers and legally is something that Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Grover Cleveland, John Tyler, Polk, writer Russell Kirk, Senator Robert Taft, Conservative William F.H. Buckley, and most fighters who fought in World War 2 for this country would agree with. Are they all National Socialists as well?

If you believe in a collective, if you believe in a national identity, if you believe that being born in a certain geographical region either gives you more or less rights than others, and if you are willing to use the force of a monopolistic government to impose your will on peaceful and innocent human beings, absolutely without a doubt.

Collectivism is the tool of the slave master, stop playing his game and start recognizing individuals.

 

[AuH20]

and that is different than this how? (probably NSFW, and I'm linking because I don't know how appropriate actually posting it would be, but it seems pretty similar to the one above to me...)

http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/racist-comic.jpg

I think you bring up an interesting distinction between the two. The ancestors of the current blacks currently living in the U.S. were brought to these shores against their will, via the Atlantic slave trade. They are American citizens through and through.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I think one must look at the illegal immigration issue from a practical, philosophically reasonable point of view. Relying on vague libertarian philosophical principles like the NAP private property rights isn't going to get us anywhere.

Mexicans don't have any legitimate claim to the American southwest.

No, "Mexicans" dont, and neither do "Americans". They're just abstract collectivist concepts.

If a peaceful individual rightfully obtains property and voluntarily works with other people who voluntarily pay them to sustain themselves they aren't infringing on anything but your feelings of partially "owning" everything within an arbitrarily defined statist communal border.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

I think you bring up an interesting distinction between the two. The ancestors of the current blacks currently living in the U.S. were brought to these shores against their will, via the Atlantic slave trade. They are American citizens through and through.

So if someone invades your rights by violently placing you some place you didn't choose to be and forcing you to work for cheap, disregarding your right to have property in your own body, it makes you a citizen (eventually after they realize it's wrong, oops, sorry guys!).

If someone invades your rights by arbitrarily declaring that you have no "right" to have voluntary relationships with employers, and disregards property rights, regardless of the fact that you may be a peaceful individual and have become part of a community, it makes you an "illegal" and they should violently place you some place you didn't choose to be.

Great.

 

[Watch]

Is there a "crisis" of illegal immigration? The total estimated number of those here illegally has actually been falling for the last two years- it has recently flattened out.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/02/nation/la-na-pew-immigration-20110202



Employment (not benefits) is the primary draw for most of them and when the economy tanked in 2008 the numbers dropped. When the economy picks up those numbers will probably start to rise again.

As for fortifying the border, some 40% of those here illegally came here on a legal basis and overstayed- student, work, tourist or other visas. A more fortified border has no impact on those numbers.

http://www.aim.org/guest-column/alm...-s-legally-but-overstayed-visas-senators-say/


But I suppose we could build a bigger government bureaucracy to keep track of everybody in the country (legally and illegally so we know who is or isn't here legit) and check the papers on everyone and expell anyone who can't prove they belong here. And hire more military and police for the Department of Homeland Security to guard the borders and patrol our cities to procect us from these illegals. The Patriot Act probably allows that. Of course we would also have to raise your taxes to pay for this too. Papers please!

+rep

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

I don't subscribe to the Ayn Rand-like beliefs on Individualism and collectivism. Not all things that are collectivist are inherently bad. And I don't see why individualism is always necessarily a good thing. I'm more sympathetic towards the old Greco-Roman mentality. Where we come together to support our nation and people, instead of viewing ourselves strictly as individuals that just happen to reside in said nation. But also, keep a good sense of yourself, stay true to your religious, political, and moral philosophies. I hope this makes sense.

I believe the concept of America is well-defined, although in recent years our identity has become a tad blurry. Where now, according to the far left and more left-wing Libertarians, anyone that steps foot in the United States is American and we are nothing more than a geographical area. Truthfully speaking, we are a unique identity, and an important part of Western Civilization. It shouldn't be forgotten that America has done more to keep the world at peace than any other superpower that has ever existed. For example, Nazis no longer dominate Europe. Soviets no longer are in existence and weren't allowed to expand freely into Asia and Europe. Imperial Japan is long defeated pretty much solely due to American policy. It is true much of the peace we have brought to the world has been in our own self-interests, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Especially from an Objectivist point of view. We have still acted more generous to our enemies than any other civilization, even in comparison to other Western nations in recent years.

Now seeing how much good America has brought to the world, and the fact that America keeps the West in power, why would anyone want to bring harm to it? Even if one believe we are heading in the wrong direction, I still would never wish for the American government to fail. I use to be heavily into Anarcho-Capitalism about a year ago, until I realized these practical reasons for supporting this State. The only States that deserve death are authoritarian, tyrannical, Theocratic states. Another reason for dropping Anarchy as an ideology was my rejection of the Non-Aggression Principle. Basically, I think there is a certain amount of force and theft that is needed to run a nation. And that nothing is truly morally or ethically wrong, rather these are human made-up concepts. But I'm no philosopher and not sure if I can debate that at the moment.
Even though is more of an ad-hominem attack, I find that even the most strict adherents to the NAP don't actually follow it in real life. And the principle is too vague since things like property are somewhat hard to define. So if I step on a piece of your land I am aggressing against you? It just seems like a rule of thumb to me, and not something that should be taken too seriously.


America should own the southwest because our nation has legally purchased the land from Mexico. Not only that but our classical Liberal, Conservative, & Libertarian policies made states like California prosper. Everything that has happened out West has pretty much been our doing. Think of the manifest destiny, western expansion. Mexico contributed nothing that I know of, not even naming the place. Which was done by the Spanish conquerers. It is true it could be economically beneficial for illegal immigrants to enter freely but I don't think economics is the end all-be all of politics. What about sociology? What about culture? What about unforeseen consequences? What about Mexican-on-white or Mexican-on-black racism? How about voting and self-interests? Would Mexicans who care little about the American nation truly vote for the proper politicians? Or would it be Democratic schills? So you can see, it's not as simple as saying, "economics says x, so let's do x." Although, I have to say, I know of several economists in real life and they take the position that illegal immigration is harmful to America financially speaking. Mises & CATO came out and said otherwise, but we all know there's competing schools inside of economics and no single consensus.

 

[AuH20]

So if someone invades your rights by violently placing you some place you didn't choose to be and forcing you to work for cheap, disregarding your right to have property in your own body, it makes you a citizen (eventually after they realize it's wrong, oops, sorry guys!).

If someone invades your rights by arbitrarily declaring that you have no "right" to have voluntary relationships with employers, and disregards property rights, regardless of the fact that you may be a peaceful individual and have become part of a community, it makes you an "illegal" and they should violently place you some place you didn't choose to be.

Great.

You cannot see the world in the macro sense. Individuals form groups which in turn compose populations. Libertarians exhibit this blind spot frequently to their own detriment as well as their neighbors. If libertarians had their way on immigration policy, the tyranny of the majority we currently are saddled with, would be even more unbearable.

Another problem that tends to arise is their ignorance of human nature and cultures, in that life on this planet is significantly more complicated than simply the exercise of commerce and the defense of private property, especially in a democratized region like the United States. Hypothetically, you could take a current third world country and imbue it with the constitution of the U.S. circa 1776 and that would not guarantee that peace and prosperity would follow.

 

[RiseAgainst]

I don't subscribe to the Ayn Rand-like beliefs on Individualism and collectivism. Not all things that are collectivist are inherently bad.

I was unaware that Miss Rand was the first and only human in history do draw a distinction between individuals and collectives. (Yet more of your lumping people into collectives)

And I don't see why individualism is always necessarily a good thing.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Individualism is neither good, nor bad. Individualism is both good and bad. These labels you attempt to place upon a 'collective' of individuals rather than the individuals themselves. It seems you don't quite understand what individualism itself is. It is neither good, nor bad that we are discussing. Rather right or wrong, more aptly just or unjust. Human beings are individuals, a point no least proven by the fact that each of us bares an unmistakable and wholly unique set of DNA, fingerprints, etc. We do not belong to a collective. Individuals may take actions that are good, or they may take actions that are bad. But individualism, the philosophy of self ownership and the non-aggression principle are the only just and moral code for human interaction.

I'm more sympathetic towards the old Greco-Roman mentality. Where we come together to support our nation and people, instead of viewing ourselves strictly as individuals that just happen to reside in said nation. But also, keep a good sense of yourself, stay true to your religious, political, and moral philosophies. I hope this makes sense.

No one ever said that individuals cannot come together. It is in the brutal and violent force of monopolistic institutions betraying the individuals rights, inherently incorporated into the collectivist and nationalist mentality, where your ideal fails. A person born inside the geographical boundries laid out through the force of the monopolistic agency known as the United States government has no more rights than does another born outside of it, and a person born outside of it no less.

I believe the concept of America is well-defined, although in recent years our identity has become a tad blurry.

"Who controls the past now, controls the future. Who controls the present now, controls the past."

There is no 'concept of America', no 'national identity'. People from the mountains of Virginia have absolutely nothing in common with the people of Shrieveport Louisiana, who in turn have nothing in common with people from Madison Wisconson, who in turn have nothing in common with the people of Portland Oregon, etc. etc.

You are using force to create a collective that doesn't exist to fulfill some desire of your own.

Where now, according to the far left and more left-wing Libertarians, anyone that steps foot in the United States is American and we are nothing more than a geographical area.

A person who steps foot in the region of 'America' is an individual. The same individual they were before stepping foot in this region. It is you, the collectivist, who have assigned this region with some significant meaning above what it's natural state suggests. It is you, the collectivist, who have created an organization based on force which steals from the many to give to the few. It is you who have created this construct, against the nature of things, and now are caught in your own inexorable web of confusion.

Truthfully speaking, we are a unique identity, and an important part of Western Civilization.

B as in B, S as in S. 'We', as in the combined individuals of America, have as much in common with each other as the rest of the 6 Billion inhabitants do. That is to say that we are human beings at base, and both inwardly and outwardly are unique individuals.

It shouldn't be forgotten that America has done more to keep the world at peace than any other superpower that has ever existed.

If by 'keep the world at peace', you mean slaughter people around the globe, prop up brutal dictatorial regimes, and generally destroy the peace of the world for the benefit of a VERY small group of connected and powerful elite, then yes, you are absoluely right.

For example, Nazis no longer dominate Europe.

Nazi's only came into existence due to Western empirical influence after WWI. Not to mention that prior to our entering the war America, and American businesses were GIANT supporters of Nazi Germany. And don't give me the 'we saved the Jews' line either. First of all, we had no idea it was going on, and second of all, it was those 'bloody Commies' the Russians who liberated the jews from the concentration camps.

Soviets no longer are in existence and weren't allowed to expand freely into Asia and Europe.

Soviet Russia, as with all statist regimes, collapsed of it's own weight. America is no more responsible for the collapse of Soviet Russia is than is Burma, Antigua or Greece. Not to mention that in the course of America's interventions against Soviet Russia and Communism in general we directly killed or aided in the killin of hundreds of thousands through armed conflict, and countless millions more through the blocking of trade and other international interventions.

Imperial Japan is long defeated pretty much solely due to American policy.

Thanks in no small part to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civillians. Pat yourself on the back for all those dirty women and children your wonderful country killed on your behalf.

It is true much of the peace we have brought to the world has been in our own self-interests, but I don't see why that is a bad thing. Especially from an Objectivist point of view. We have still acted more generous to our enemies than any other civilization, even in comparison to other Western nations in recent years.

You don't know a damn thing of which you speak. Go to the places we have been. Talk to the people who were there. We killed, destroyed, disrupted, displaced entire countries, entire regions of peoples. You sit in your comfy chair, reciting history written by the victor, championing his great victories. The truth of America, as with all states, is disgusting, torturous, murderous and vile.

......

The rest of your post is nothing but an ex post facto justification for your own blood lust. Your own rationalization for the violence you ask to be committed on your behalf, so that you may live the way you want to. You can advocate all the violence you want, the blood is on your hands.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

You cannot see the world in the macro sense. Individuals form groups which in turn compose populations. Libertarians exhibit this blind spot frequently to their own detriment as well as their neighbors. If libertarians had their way on immigration policy, the tyranny of the majority we currently are saddled with, would be even more unbearable.

The "world in the macro sense" you're talking about is inside your head. Those "groups" are concepts, and they're subjective to the individual. When you think of "society" or "Americans" it's not the same thing I'm thinking of. They don't exist in the physical world. They're labels that you put on an idea that represents real individual people in the world outside your head. It's a method for humans to process information. Those groups are not entities or actors, it's just our way of organizing the world in an attempt to understand and communicate ideas to others in a world too complex for humans to comprehend.

Your problem with the "tyranny of the majority" is a problem inherent with democracy. Democracy is precisely that, political force enacted by majority decree. Libertarianism rejects democracy in favor of property rights. Democracy is not liberty.

Another problem that tends to arise is their ignorance of human nature and cultures, in that life on this planet is significantly more complicated than simply the exercise of commerce and the defense of private property, especially in a democratized region like the United States. Hypothetically, you could take a current third world country and imbue it with the constitution of the U.S. circa 1776 and that would not guarantee that peace and prosperity would follow.

Economics is the study of human action. It's not about commerce, it's about the way humans interact with each other and the world around them. All humans act to further their subjective goals, cultural differences don't change that but they will affect what goals individuals may have. Property rights is the cornerstone of the free market, and liberty. Democracy is dictatorship of the majority. And of course you could give the US constitution to a country and it may not turn out the same way, it's just a piece of paper. It's meaningless without the concepts behind it, and if a society doesn't understand the concepts behind it which promoted liberty, and value concepts that are in line with free markets and liberty... they won't prosper, but will have some form of tyranny. The more they understand about the importance of property rights, and peaceful trade the more a society will be likely to prosper regardless of what a piece of paper says.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

I was unaware that Miss Rand was the first and only human in history do draw a distinction between individuals and collectives. (Yet more of your lumping people into collectives)

She wasn't. Ancient Humans have done it in a much more realistic, logical manner. But Ayn Rand's particular brand of individualism is the one that Libertarians have embraced and several posters on this thread agree with.

No one ever said that individuals cannot come together. It is in the brutal and violent force of monopolistic institutions betraying the individuals rights, inherently incorporated into the collectivist and nationalist mentality, where your ideal fails. A person born inside the geographical boundries laid out through the force of the monopolistic agency known as the United States government has no more rights than does another born outside of it, and a person born outside of it no less.

The fact is history has shown us that state-less societies never last that long. Anarchists, both Left & Right, never take into consideration some important factors. What about foreign powers intervening in an anarchic society? Such as spying, espionage, proxy wars, buying off PDA's or secretly creating PDA's that work in their interests, and immigrants from nations that have land claims on said nation. For example if America turned into AnCapistan overnight, many southwestern La Raza-type Mexicans would voluntarily form their own Private Defense Agencies and align with Mexico. If it's voluntary, nothing can be done to stop it. This is somewhat of a cliché, but Libertarianism truly has many parallels with Communism. Some of you work so hard to be free that you're actually risking the loss of freedoms without realizing it. Anarchist ideologies will do just that.

I agree Americans and non-Americans have no natural rights. However, legally Americans have a set of different rights than non-Americans. Someone borm in the United States has more legal rights than a North Korean or a Chinaman.

There is no 'concept of America', no 'national identity'. People from the mountains of Virginia have absolutely nothing in common with the people of Shrieveport Louisiana, who in turn have nothing in common with people from Madison Wisconson, who in turn have nothing in common with the people of Portland Oregon, etc. etc.

People from Wisconsin, Oregon, Louisiana, and Virginia share a common ethnicity, culture, language, law, and religion. With few exceptions. Someone from California has more in common with a New Yorker than an Argentinian. If there were no national identity, then people wouldn't refer to themselves as Americans in a nationalist sense, but they choose to do voluntarily. If you ask an Iraqi if he has more in common with a Syrian or Canadian, he will say Syrian. If you ask an Englishman if he has more in common with a reindeer herder in the Urals of Russia or an American, he will say an American. Same language, similar culture, ethnicity, politics, law (anglo-saxon common law), and shared history. These are the things that define a people. Americans are a people no matter what way you slice it.

A person who steps foot in the region of 'America' is an individual. The same individual they were before stepping foot in this region. It is you, the collectivist, who have assigned this region with some significant meaning above what it's natural state suggests. It is you, the collectivist, who have created an organization based on force which steals from the many to give to the few. It is you who have created this construct, against the nature of things, and now are caught in your own inexorable web of confusion.

It is history that has assigned different regions with different nationalities. Ancient Greeks made a distinction between Hebrews and Persians, Latins & Etruscans. What did they look at? Languages, cultures, politics, and their government. This isn't some artificial social construct. Science is continually showing evidence that Humanity naturally views themselves in somewhat of a collectivist way. We have evolved from social, tribal animals after all. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities that we naturally put ourselves into groups. If the State were unnatural, then why has anarchy not prospered? Why has Greece, Rome, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Persians, etc.. stomp out any known anarchist society with ease? Even 'western' state-less areas like Iceland, Pennsylvania, and the Old West were easily taken.

B as in B, S as in S. 'We', as in the combined individuals of America, have as much in common with each other as the rest of the 6 Billion inhabitants do. That is to say that we are human beings at base, and both inwardly and outwardly are unique individuals.

There are random tribal people in China that don't even know how to speak Mandarin. Nevertheless English. New Guinea and the Amazon have remote tribes that have never contacted a civilized people. How on Earth could you have as much common with them as a fellow American? I feel a closer kinship with Americans and Western people because we all have a similar history. One based upon Greco-Roman foundations, infused with Christian principles. Why feel close to some random tribe in Siberia that doesn't even know of the Constitution or never heard of Jesus Christ? Americans share the same common law, Constitution, history, culture, and so forth. Can't say the same about some random guy living in Peru.

If by 'keep the world at peace', you mean slaughter people around the globe, prop up brutal dictatorial regimes, and generally destroy the peace of the world for the benefit of a VERY small group of connected and powerful elite, then yes, you are absolutely right.

America has promoted Democratic-Republicanism at every chance we got. The times we propped up dictatorships or allied with them are when we had no other choice. If the American government opposed every single dictatorship at once, we would have nowheres to move and would screw ourselves over royally. We would literally launch into another world war. It's possible we can reform Iran at the moment, this will be a major blow to Islamic fundamentalism. Persian people have been oppressed by the Islamic faith for far too long, and the Shah were not successful at eradicating Islamic extremism.

Some Christopher Hitchens videos worth watching:

Nazi's only came into existence due to Western empirical influence after WWI. Not to mention that prior to our entering the war America, and American businesses were GIANT supporters of Nazi Germany. And don't give me the 'we saved the Jews' line either. First of all, we had no idea it was going on, and second of all, it was those 'bloody Commies' the Russians who liberated the jews from the concentration camps.

That is a blow to Libertarianism if anything. If our State enforced an embargo on Nazi Germany earlier, then IBM and other American corporations wouldn't have given any support. One can't have it both ways. The Soviet Union lost more to the Nazis than anyone else, mainly due to their pathetic and laughable military leaders that had no clue what they were doing. They went by the logic, "We have more. Let's throw everything at them." Horrendous leadership on the Soviet end, if it weren't for the British & Americans Hitler would've conquered Moscow in no time. Ironically enough, Nazi Germany only killed 6 million in concentration camps, while the USSR killed up to 20 million. Thanks to American and Allies, we were able to hold onto much of Europe and prevented many from being killed, raped, maimed. It's lucky we stopped the Soviet scum when we did.

It's true World War 1 sparked World War 2. But it goes back to German nationalism. Whether or not America intervened in WW1, Germans were going to fulfill their nationalistic desires. Similar to the Japanese believing they had a natural right over Asia.

Soviet Russia, as with all statist regimes, collapsed of it's own weight. America is no more responsible for the collapse of Soviet Russia is than is Burma, Antigua or Greece. Not to mention that in the course of America's interventions against Soviet Russia and Communism in general we directly killed or aided in the killing of hundreds of thousands through armed conflict, and countless millions more through the blocking of trade and other international interventions.

I agree the USSR collapsed due to it's poor Socialistic economics. However, American intervention especially after the War has prevented needless lives from being raped and murdered by Soviet scumbags. If the USSR were allowed unchecked to conquer more countries and capture resources, we could have seen the USSR's lifespan extended by a few decades.

Thanks in no small part to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Pat yourself on the back for all those dirty women and children your wonderful country killed on your behalf.

Imperial Japan has committed some of the most heinous war crimes known to mankind. Child prostitution backed by the State. Underage sex was rampant. Rape. Murder. Torture. Ethnic genocide was prominent. It was literally an empire built on rape and torture. Speaking of our conversation earlier on whether or not Americans feel a closer connection to a fellow American or a Chinaman.. this is a perfect example of Western mentality vs. an Eastern mentality. Japs were not Westerners and the way they fought sure showed it. Gladly, due to American intervention, we have transformed Japan into a radically different country. We couldn't have properly predicted the effect of the atom bomb, but it was sure better than letting anymore Americans die. After defeating Japan, we rebuilt it and turned it into a first world economy. The first people to send medical supplies and donations to Japan after the war came from my very state of Massachusetts. Yet much of the world still does not appreciate this. Could you imagine if the British, Romans, or Greeks defeated the Japs? They would be lucky to still have a nation.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

You don't know a damn thing of which you speak. Go to the places we have been. Talk to the people who were there. We killed, destroyed, disrupted, displaced entire countries, entire regions of peoples. You sit in your comfy chair, reciting history written by the victor, championing his great victories. The truth of America, as with all states, is disgusting, torturous, murderous and vile.

Which places? The most anti-american people in the world are people who solely exist due to American presence in the world. I'm referring to the French, South Koreans, Scandinavians and other whiners that oppose anyone on top. The people we have liberated recently, such as the Albanians, are more than appreciative of our involvement. We did save them from ethnic-genocide after all.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

She wasn't. Ancient Humans have done it in a much more realistic, logical manner. But Ayn Rand's particular brand of individualism is the one that Libertarians have embraced and several posters on this thread agree with.

Why do you think that's the case? You brought up Rand because you saw people talking about individualism and collectivism and apparently there's a strong association with those concepts to you, this thread had pretty much nothing to do with Rand until you introduced her to it. You were trying to fit the people you were talking to into some conceptual stereotype, just like you did above. You just grouped us into "Libertarians" in your head and decided "we" value "Randian Individualism".

Like I said earlier:

Those "groups" are concepts, and they're subjective to the individual. When you think of "society" or "Americans" it's not the same thing I'm thinking of. They don't exist in the physical world. They're labels that you put on an idea that represents real individual people in the world outside your head. It's a method for humans to process information. Those groups are not entities or actors, it's just our way of organizing the world in an attempt to understand and communicate ideas to others in a world too complex for humans to comprehend.

The fact is history has shown us that state-less societies never last that long. Anarchists, both Left & Right, never take into consideration some important factors. What about foreign powers intervening in an anarchic society? Such as spying, espionage, proxy wars, buying off PDA's or secretly creating PDA's that work in their interests, and immigrants from nations that have land claims on said nation. For example if America turned into AnCapistan overnight, many southwestern La Raza-type Mexicans would voluntarily form their own Private Defense Agencies and align with Mexico. If it's voluntary, nothing can be done to stop it. This is somewhat of a cliché, but Libertarianism truly has many parallels with Communism. Some of you work so hard to be free that you're actually risking the loss of freedoms without realizing it. Anarchist ideologies will do just that.

This is a lengthy discussion outside the scope of this thread that I don't want to get into here, but humans have been stateless for the vast majority of their existence. Iceland existed with a stateless legal order longer than the US has been around. And everything you mentioned has been addressed many times over, it just shows that you need to look for the answers to those questions rather than making assumptions.

People from Wisconsin, Oregon, Louisiana, and Virginia share a common ethnicity, culture, language, law, and religion. With few exceptions. Someone from California has more in common with a New Yorker than an Argentinian. If there were no national identity, then people wouldn't refer to themselves as Americans in a nationalist sense, but they choose to do voluntarily. If you ask an Iraqi if he has more in common with a Syrian or Canadian, he will say Syrian. If you ask an Englishman if he has more in common with a reindeer herder in the Urals of Russia or an American, he will say an American. Same language, similar culture, ethnicity, politics, law (anglo-saxon common law), and shared history. These are the things that define a people. Americans are a people no matter what way you slice it.

Those are the things that people use to define themselves and each other and their relationships. They're not objective entities. They're concepts that are subjective to the individuals imagining them. When you think "I'm an American" and someone else think's "I'm an American" they have a different concept for what "American" is in their head. It's just shorthand for organizing individuals in your brain. There is no objective "National Identity". When you say the "National Identity" gets fuzzy that's all in your head.

It is history that has assigned different regions with different nationalities. Ancient Greeks made a distinction between Hebrews and Persians, Latins & Etruscans. What did they look at? Languages, cultures, politics, and their government. This isn't some artificial social construct. Science is continually showing evidence that Humanity naturally views themselves in somewhat of a collectivist way. We have evolved from social, tribal animals after all. It isn't out of the realm of possibilities that we naturally put ourselves into groups. If the State were unnatural, then why has anarchy not prospered? Why has Greece, Rome, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Persians, etc.. stomp out any known anarchist society with ease? Even 'western' state-less areas like Iceland, Pennsylvania, and the Old West were easily taken.

No one is saying people don't organize others into groups or self identify with groups in their head. What we're saying is that these are subjective concepts that people use to understand and communicate about the complex world around them, and that it's a crude way of compressing information that can conflict with reality and distort your perceptive. You're doing it right now when you combine the "Libertarians" into a single group and start making assumptions about their associations with Ayn Rand.

 

[NidStyles]

Imperial Japan has committed some of the most heinous war crimes known to mankind. Child prostitution backed by the State. Underage sex was rampant. Rape. Murder. Torture. Ethnic genocide was prominent. It was literally an empire built on rape and torture. Speaking of our conversation earlier on whether or not Americans feel a closer connection to a fellow American or a Chinaman.. this is a perfect example of Western mentality vs. an Eastern mentality. Japs were not Westerners and the way they fought sure showed it. Gladly, due to American intervention, we have transformed Japan into a radically different country.

This is Statist propaganda written purely by the victors. Japan was doing the same thing everyone else was at that time. Did they commit rape and murder during their war path, sure. So did the US when it invaded the Philippines in 1908. Don't believe me, go there and check out the museums. "Comfort Women" might have been a Japanese custom, but it was started by the Americans there. What they have now is a market of Prostitution that caters directly to western and foreign visitors. It's the same way in every country that Japan invaded, "Comfort Women" were already there. It's just that culturally the Japanese are were far more open about it.

There's no such thing as a "Chinaman" either. China has over 20 distinctive cultures.

Which places? The most anti-american people in the world are people who solely exist due to American presence in the world. I'm referring to the French, South Koreans, Scandinavians and other whiners that oppose anyone on top. The people we have liberated recently, such as the Albanians, are more than appreciative of our involvement. We did save them from ethnic-genocide after all.

Nonsense, and you have no way of proving any of this nonsense.

 

[Delivered4000]

Enforcing a border is not domestic police work - it's national defense. In fact, there is no more pure expression of national defense than troops defending borders.

Yea but defending them against what? People trying to make a better life for themselves? Or foreign enemies that want to invade and control land and natural resources (Much like the US is doing abroad, ironically)

 

[Southron]

Yea but defending them against what? People trying to make a better life for themselves? Or foreign enemies that want to invade and control land and natural resources (Much like the US is doing abroad, ironically)

Foreign nationals trespassing on private property of US citizens?

 

[Enforcer]

But you are justifying them breaking our laws. Regardless of the economic consequences, they are breaking our laws and they KNOW it. This is a problem in itself.

A lot of people on these forums are quick to criticize our foreign policy (rightfully so) because we go into all these nations illegally. Yet, a lot of people are okay with individuals breaking our laws and coming into our country without paperwork. This is an invasion, no matter how you look at it.

Also, think about how dangerous that is to our citizens, states, and country as a whole.

There is NO LAW MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO ENTER OR BE IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PAPERS.

The closest you come to having a crime involving immigration is 8 USC 1325 which is about IMPROPER ENTRY. That law, in and of itself, is a civil law, not a criminal one. In the instances where 8 USC 1325 mentions crimes, it has to reference Title 18 of the United States Code that deals with criminal law.

The reality is, approximately 75 percent of the people in the United States without papers have obtained a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the unconstitutional income taxes. They pay more than $7 BILLION DOLLARS per year into Socialist Security alone... and that's money they cannot ever draw out. So, let's start looking at both sides of the ledger sheet here.

All we ever hear is what the foreigner "costs" while ignoring what they contribute. We try to justify stealing from them on the basis that they aren't citizens, but there is no law in a free nation that should ever require one to become a citizen in order to exercise unalienable Rights. Xenophobes are obsessed with the income tax when half of AMERICANS do not pay any income tax! To claim that the undocumented foreigner doesn't pay taxes and is a drain on our system is a freaking lie. They pay the same federal taxes on beer, wine, cigarettes, and gasoline (and with state taxes gasoline can have as much as 60 cents a gallon TAX on it.) Foreigners rent houses and the landlord must charge enough in that equation to pay property taxes. When the foreigner buys a home, they have to pay the same taxes as you. When they go to the store, they cannot look at the cashier and say, "Hey, I'm an illegal alien, ese, so you cannot charge me sales taxes."

No, no no, guys. It don't work that way. Now watch some xenophobe agree that they do pay taxes, but try to make the argument that most federal taxes are income taxes. If that were true, government would have zero money to pay Socialist Security since half of Americans are not paying into the system already.

Let's go to the issue of entitlements. That was made illegal for any undocumented foreigner to receive those back in 1996. We have endured the so - called "Patriot Act" and the National ID / REAL ID Act to address those issues. How many more laws do you want? The white supremacist founded FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) claims that people they call "illegal aliens" cost us $100 Billion Dollars a year, yet they fail to tell us how much the immigrants donate by way of taxes, fees, permits, licenses, etc. Adding insult to injury, we already created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security to deal with immigration control and border enforcement at a price tag of $968 BILLION DOLLARS a year. So, what problem were the xenophobes trying to solve again? We've lost our Liberties and Freedoms over this. The short list includes, but is not limited to:

The so - called "Patriot Act"
National ID / REAL ID Act
Warrant less searches
The repeal of innocent until proven guilty
Evisceration of the Fourth Amendment

Create a freaking Guest Worker program and be done with this before we are living in a National Socialist Police State.

 

[WilliamC]

Why is this so confusing?

As long as there are Nations there will be national borders.

As long as there are governments there will be collectives.

For the anarchists here, hey, if we can get to some sort of global utopian awakening vis-a-vis John Lennon and all sing 'Imagine' and give up all sense of identity, then I'm probably closer than you are.

But human nature and evolution are responsible for territoriality, and until we transcend ourselves and give up Nations and Governments then there will always be borders and border control of who crosses them.

That's what countries do.

Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

 

[Enforcer]

Why is this so confusing?

As long as there are Nations there will be national borders.

As long as there are governments there will be collectives.

For the anarchists here, hey, if we can get to some sort of global utopian awakening vis-a-vis John Lennon and all sing 'Imagine' and give up all sense of identity, then I'm probably closer than you are.

But human nature and evolution are responsible for territoriality, and until we transcend ourselves and give up Nations and Governments then there will always be borders and border control of who crosses them.

That's what countries do.

Now as for how illegal foreign citizens are treated once they somehow come to the attention of a law enforcement agency within the country that they are not supposed to be in is a different question.

I am in no way arguing that an illegal immigrant should be treated like a violent felon or even a criminal unless they, while in the USA, actually break criminal laws that apply to citizens.

As I said in my previous post, the vast majority of the problems of immigration, legal or illegal, are created by the foreign and domestic policies of the Federal Government.

Until those policies are addressed and changed, then there is no peaceful way to deal with the problem of gang violence along the Southwest border, and 'illegal immigration' will simply be used as yet another wedge issue to drive apart those of us who should be agreeing that the problem is government, not people.

Still can't come to grips with the fact that people are not "illegal" can you? Even if such a crime existed, one is innocent until proven guilty.