No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
No, but the government of the US has a right to implement the official language of government.
What Verizon does with its answering machines is their business.
Keep up.
Should we Deport Her? College student never "broke the law" until now.
- Thread starter dannno
- Start date
No, but the government of the US has a right to implement the official language of government.
What Verizon does with its answering machines is their business.
Keep up.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
I have no problem with what you do with your property as long as it's supported by the Constitution.
When someone comes in here illegally, they are not obeying our laws. And the constitution allows us to do something about it.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
Anyway, I have wasted 45 min on here instead of studying. I will be back later.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
I don't even see why that's an issue. So what? They don't have authority over what language I speak. The makeup of languages and cultures within the nation's borders is none of their business. They have no right to make any laws regulating them.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
The Constitution allows you to come onto my property and kick someone out because you think they're not within the borders of your nation legally?
If that's the case, then that's a pretty major flaw in the Constitution isn't it. Wouldn't we be better off as a republic?
So long as they stay on your property and you provide for them and they are not using one ounce of govt resources or working illegally, I have no problem with that. I could care less what anyone does on their property so long as it doesn't "blow into my yard".
Last edited:
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
Then the federal government has no business restricting immigration. They just need to stop giving out "government resources." We're on the same page then. The payoff of this for the thread is that the girl shouldn't get deported, since deporting her would take government resources.
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
Indeed, you both are.
What we have here is Government flailing around creating a "problem" when in fact they benefit from it. Conflict is good.
We all already have proof of our citizenship status. We all already have seen advertising campaigns where a company tries to claim something is "made in America." We all hear the complaints about immigrants sopping up resources (though frankly our citizens do a good job of that, too).
1. Require citizenship for Government services. I'd like to see welfare go away, but it's not going to do so anytime soon. If we are going to pay for "welfare" then at least restrict it to citizens. Require a birth certificate or proof of citizenship from each person to receive aid. Check them during audits where you contact the issuing agency/hospital for confirmation of veracity. No e-verify, no special national ID, no SS #. There will be rare cases where someone has no access at all to their birth records, but that seems simple enough to resolve.
Schools are also a Government service. Again, I'd like to see Government out of education, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Public schools should not accept non-citizens. This is very easy to verify, just as above.
2. They took our jobs!!! I don't think every employer should be required to check citizenship. That gets us back into e-verify. I do think that large corporations should think long and hard about a competitor coming up with a "Made in America, by Americans, for Americans" campaign and destroying them. We already have wage and employee-rights laws that are also not going away soon, so don't give me crap about a wave of immigrants working for $2/hour in a factory setting here. There will be migrant workers working for very little, but we already have that, and those SHOULD be cash-only jobs that are really none of my business. If private people/companies want to employ illegals, go for it. They're also opening themselves up to liability and theft issues, because a dishonest employee with foreign citizenship and no documentation is going to be able to slip away with whatever they want.
3. Criminals. We hear anecdotes regarding the evil illegal driving drunk without a license and hitting the bus full of nuns and babies and puppies. It's depressing, but don't we already have laws? How is the guy being illegal the key part of that? Arrest them, take their prints, create a record, and deal with them as a criminal. Of course, I would like jails to pay for themselves...
4. Privatize. This is the part that tears a lot of "keep 'em out" people up. If I decide I want to take in 5 foreign kiddos without any documentation, who came across the border and were running wild until they sought help at my church, I should be able to. When I put them into a community school, I should be able to (but not in a public school). If I pay privately for them to go to college, I should be able to. What is happening there is that I am putting more money into different sectors of the economy than I normally would. Money is going in, circulating, and so on... but very little is being "taken out" of the pot. There is no welfare involved, here, just my private charity. Likewise maybe their mom (or dad) is with them and I employ them in some kind of odd job around my home. I should be able to. Not only are they providing a service, which I then pay for, but they are then going to spend that money in the community as well.
5. "Official" language. This has been batted around a lot in this thread. The fact is that the Government SHOULD have one language, so long as it's going to print anything. Right now the Government prints more than you would ever dream. It's awful. Print it in English and Spanish? Twice as much awful. Add Creole (yes, that's the third language of choice; call the Medicaid hotline sometime)? Thrice as awful. Do it all in English, and allow private companies to translate at their own cost as a community service. They can affix their logo to it, along with the Government logo, and distribute the translated publications. This also assures that each community's needs are met. Spanish might be useless in one neighborhood, while essential in another. Sometimes Vietnamese is going to be the most popular language. Sometimes you might even want a Braille publication.
6. Streamline the process. Cut out the red tape, and really look for people who want to come here, invest, make a difference.
What we have here is Government flailing around creating a "problem" when in fact they benefit from it. Conflict is good.
We all already have proof of our citizenship status. We all already have seen advertising campaigns where a company tries to claim something is "made in America." We all hear the complaints about immigrants sopping up resources (though frankly our citizens do a good job of that, too).
1. Require citizenship for Government services. I'd like to see welfare go away, but it's not going to do so anytime soon. If we are going to pay for "welfare" then at least restrict it to citizens. Require a birth certificate or proof of citizenship from each person to receive aid. Check them during audits where you contact the issuing agency/hospital for confirmation of veracity. No e-verify, no special national ID, no SS #. There will be rare cases where someone has no access at all to their birth records, but that seems simple enough to resolve.
Schools are also a Government service. Again, I'd like to see Government out of education, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Public schools should not accept non-citizens. This is very easy to verify, just as above.
2. They took our jobs!!! I don't think every employer should be required to check citizenship. That gets us back into e-verify. I do think that large corporations should think long and hard about a competitor coming up with a "Made in America, by Americans, for Americans" campaign and destroying them. We already have wage and employee-rights laws that are also not going away soon, so don't give me crap about a wave of immigrants working for $2/hour in a factory setting here. There will be migrant workers working for very little, but we already have that, and those SHOULD be cash-only jobs that are really none of my business. If private people/companies want to employ illegals, go for it. They're also opening themselves up to liability and theft issues, because a dishonest employee with foreign citizenship and no documentation is going to be able to slip away with whatever they want.
3. Criminals. We hear anecdotes regarding the evil illegal driving drunk without a license and hitting the bus full of nuns and babies and puppies. It's depressing, but don't we already have laws? How is the guy being illegal the key part of that? Arrest them, take their prints, create a record, and deal with them as a criminal. Of course, I would like jails to pay for themselves...
4. Privatize. This is the part that tears a lot of "keep 'em out" people up. If I decide I want to take in 5 foreign kiddos without any documentation, who came across the border and were running wild until they sought help at my church, I should be able to. When I put them into a community school, I should be able to (but not in a public school). If I pay privately for them to go to college, I should be able to. What is happening there is that I am putting more money into different sectors of the economy than I normally would. Money is going in, circulating, and so on... but very little is being "taken out" of the pot. There is no welfare involved, here, just my private charity. Likewise maybe their mom (or dad) is with them and I employ them in some kind of odd job around my home. I should be able to. Not only are they providing a service, which I then pay for, but they are then going to spend that money in the community as well.
5. "Official" language. This has been batted around a lot in this thread. The fact is that the Government SHOULD have one language, so long as it's going to print anything. Right now the Government prints more than you would ever dream. It's awful. Print it in English and Spanish? Twice as much awful. Add Creole (yes, that's the third language of choice; call the Medicaid hotline sometime)? Thrice as awful. Do it all in English, and allow private companies to translate at their own cost as a community service. They can affix their logo to it, along with the Government logo, and distribute the translated publications. This also assures that each community's needs are met. Spanish might be useless in one neighborhood, while essential in another. Sometimes Vietnamese is going to be the most popular language. Sometimes you might even want a Braille publication.
6. Streamline the process. Cut out the red tape, and really look for people who want to come here, invest, make a difference.
I was giving you some credit, then you turn around and say something stupid like that, thanks for ruining what may have been an intelligent discussion.
Philosophy_of_Politics
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,075
I'm someone that believes additional penalties, or alternative penalties should be used. I believe deportation is a bit extreme. I believe punishment for violating the law should still happen. However, I apply the golden rule to this scenario.
RiseAgainst
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,080
The Binghamton Patriot = Nazi Scum
Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.
Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.
This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.
Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.
Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.
Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.
There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.
Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.
Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.
They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.
Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.
As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.
Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.
This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.
Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.
There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.
Here we go again, thanks Toby Keith. SIEG HEIL!!
Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.
Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.
LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.
And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?
Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!!
I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.
So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.
Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?
You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.
The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.
You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.
Peace
Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.
Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.
This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.
Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.
Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.
Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.
There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.
Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.
Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.
They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.
Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.
As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.
Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.
This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.
Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.
There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.
Here we go again, thanks Toby Keith. SIEG HEIL!!Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.
Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.
LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.
And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?
Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!!
I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.
So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.
Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?
You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.
The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.
You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.
Peace
That does seem to be a root problem.
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
Interesting. Do you believe in the philosophy of liberty, defined at it's core by the naturally observable right to self ownership, and the understanding of the Non-Agression Principle? Dr. Ron Paul does, as did his lifelong friend Murray Rothbard, among countless scores of others he references and recommends you read.
Actually, there is not, as much as you love it. The empirical, economical, philosophical and moral case has been put quite well to rest by literally thousands of years of philosophical understanding culminating in liberty's great renaissance in the works of Ludwig von Mises, and carried forward by his heir, and again lifelong friend of Dr. Paul, Murray Rothbard. Dr. Paul himself in his book Liberty Defined recommends reading "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe & "Abolish Government" by Lysander Spooner. Two wonderfully anti-state philosophers who completely understand the philosophy of liberty to it's truest extent from it's very base in the recognition of individual sovereignty through the principle of self-ownership.
This is among the more ludicrous statements I have ever heard uttered. An institution which by it's very nature destroys natural rights can in no rational, logical or empirical sense 'protect' natural rights. That which destroys X cannot possibly protect X. This isn't rocket science.
I'm not quite sure you do. Of course I'm far more sure you have, at best, an incredibly tentative grasp on the subject to begin with so it's hard for you to really establish an emotion towards something you don't even understand. Again, that which destroys X cannot possibly protect X.
Statists hate being confronted with the reality of that which they advocate. You have been conditioned so much so, that your own mind desparately needs the dialectic it has been served in order to soothe and absolve itself from the violent reality which it advocates. The funny thing is, when it suits the subject they can easily and triumphantly call this out in others. I'm sure that you have no problem seeing through a claim for yet more government intervention in the name of "it's for the children". You can see that the actions called for in this manner are detrimental to essential liberty, for the other the call of "it's for the children" soothes their mind and absolves them from the reality of the actual force and denial of liberties they advocate. Your claim here is no different.
Presumably the same as you, though certainly I have to question that at times.
Comprehension fail. Laws, rules, order, justice. The common calling card for the State to the intellectually weak. I have never advocated for a society with "no rules", though certainly through the veil of your indoctrination that can be difficult to see. You have been trained to inextricably link rules and order with a State with monopoly on violence. This is not the only option available, and in fact if your interest is in a just and moral society, if your interest is in the protection of individual rights and property, if your interest is anything other than lining the pockets of the well connected a State with monopoly on violence power is by far the least effective method of achieving these things.
There is no extrapolative function, no multiplier effect, no collective of rights. Rights belong to individuals alone, and no group or collective together can do anything other than each individual can do on his own. One person does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of another person. Likewise, 10,000 people do not have the right to infringe upon the right of one person.
Incorrect, the 'law' (as it stands in the US today) and borders are decreed by tyrants. However, we've also already been over this, establishment does not a sound argument make.
Of course it wouldn't be a national socialist retort without this gem. 'Murrica, love it or leave it boi! For those of us who reside in reality, and have use of the faculties we have been blessed with, we can easily see that the notion of not abandoning ones property, family and life do not, either implicitly or explicitly, confer any consent whatsoever. If you offer a slave an option of being a slave for his current master, X, or leaving to slavehood under a new master, Y, and he resigns himself to service under master X he has in no way consented to his slavery at base.
They are formed through violent agression and the absolute destruction of the individual rights of those unfortunate souls who happen to have been unlucky enough to reside within their new master's imaginary lines. They are mere constructs with the express purpose of concentrating the power of the few over the many.
Interesting, please tell me more about what I think. I would do nothing of the sort, nor have I ever in any remote way suggested so. As we have established from the very beginning, the very basis for the philosophy of liberty is the natural right of self-ownership. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not inclined to give you dissertation level discussion on this topic as I have neither the time nor space, and these principles are so basic to the understanding of liberty I have to continually question how so many so called "liberty" minded people have absolutely no grasp of them. That being said, and in as little detail as possible, a natural self-owner cannot ever be allowed to realize her self-ownership without the existence of private property. These boundaries, of natural self-owners property, are the only just and naturally observable borders. Within these 'borders' it naturally follows that rules of conduct will be set by the property owner.
As has been discussed, and again reinforced above, these 'borders' (imaginary lines) have no rational or just claim. They are not the result of natural self-owners expressing their private property, they are the result of tyranical bodies unjustly claiming a monopoly on violence within their imaginary lines by decree.
Now I know you are lying through your teeth, simply to suit your desired end. Up here in Minnesota I have a HELL of a lot more in common with the average Canadian than I do with the average New Mexican. All of this, of course, continues to miss the just of the point. I'm not sure why I have to repeat this so often to 'liberty' lovers, but rights belong to individuals, not collectives. Your grand desire for nationalism, collectivism, and a 'national identitiy and culture' is in direct opposition to individual liberty. It denies the individual his right of voluntary association, and the ability to express his association through private property and exchange.
This is downright laughable. Your understanding of property rights, much aparently like your understanding of the nature of rights themselves, is atrocious. When you cross onto a natural self-owners private property without his consent, you are absolutely and without question trespassing. This trespass is only realized because of the justness of the property owners claim to said property. If I wander on to your land, and then claim that you are on my property without my consent, no rational being could summate that you are in a state of trespass on my property. It is ONLY in the justness of the property claim that the trespass is validated. No such justness of claim exists for a body of tyrants and their imaginary lines. They have no claim to the land, and no just claim to trespass against it.
Everything that you have stated thus far is positively oozing with collectivism. You have outright rejected the conept of self-ownership and respect for a self-owners private property.
There is everything wrong with nationalism, as evidenced by your every utterance. Nationalism convinces an otherwise would be supporter of individual liberty such as yourself, to scream for the collective, to deny individuals their naturally observable rights. It whips you into a false frenzy of blind hatred and xenophobia, condemning the rights of every single human outside of your personally subscribed collective, all based on the geographic region you happened to drop out of your mother on.
Other than your, now constant, appeal to 'borders', what you are describing here is a nation, not a Nation or a State.
Lol, how classic. An appeal to emotion based on the blood of soldiers. Setting aside the sheer lunacy of this emotional appeal, I have to ask. Have you stuck your ass on the line? I have spilled my blood in that mud. I have had my life nearly taken from me, and forever altered on the battlefield. I could make the same ridiculous appeal to emotion here, and ask whether you have, and where you think you get the right to question me since I have spilled my blood, but this, much like all of your argumentative devices, serves only to attempt to derail the conversation away from any meaningful and intelligent debate on actual points. It is pure propaganda, but little else I have come to expect from you.
LMFAO, you really managed to put this in three separate times? Here's a quick sign that you're on shaky ground in even your own mind, if you have to appeal to emotion, and start shouting ad hominem and things like "then just leave", you would probably do well with some self reflection.
And here we get to the root of the issue. Apparently you do not believe that natural rights exist. Why do you support Ron Paul, one of the most ardent supporters of natural rights?
Huzzah! We are in COMPLETE agreement on something!!
I'm not sure you actually understand the DoI or Constitution at all. If you think that liberty is something that is "earned by those who have spilled blood in the fight against tyranny", and NOT a naturally evident right of ALL human beings, then you are in disagreement with the DoI and Constitution.
So, clearly then you are absolutely okay with the government we have, right? The Constitution either authorizes the government as we have it, or it is POWERLESS to stop it. The only one who is ignoring history is the statist, who somehow magically believes against the backdrop of history that if only the 'right people' were in power and if only we wrote the 'right words' on a piece of paper all of the thousands of years of mans history with the State would be suddenly turned on it's head. As history has shown you repeatedly and without contestation, this is delusional in the highest accord. The US Constitution was a BEAUTIFUL document in concept, the limited state envisioned by the founders a wonderful goal to aim for amidst the backdrop of Monarchy and feudalism. It was the greatest attempt Statism has ever had. And it resulted in the LARGEST State mankind has ever seen. Even if I were to be convinced to completely abandon the principle of self-ownership, which is required to hold a statist position, history would clearly tell me that your utopia is unachievable. IOW, in order to even begin to try and rationalize a "means justify the ends" stance, the means must actually ACHIEVE THE ENDS.
Without individual soveriegnty, without self-ownership, you have no rights. And I am living in a fantasy land?
You have little care for any rational discourse or objective discussion. You have set your mind, albeit helped along by indoctrination, and have closed it off to all other possibilities. When confronted with opposition you resort to fist pounding and temper tantrums, name calling and hyperbole. Instead of receiving new information, willing to understand and learn, even if in the end you still disagree, you plug your ears and shout LA LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs, then proceed to spew misconception, inference and regurgitated talking points offered to you by that which denies you your very liberty.
The saddest fact is that after a post filled with hollow talking points, appeals to emotion, strawmen, red herrings and outright ad hominem, the weak minded are right there to slap you on the back for your "smack down". It is times like these that I feel pity for the 'liberty' movement. Too many are more interested in affirming their own misconceived notions than with any pursuit of a rational and just understanding of the nature of what it is they seek.
You are free to respond in any manner you like, I care not for your conversational company any longer. You lack the ability to consider any position that questions your currently held position, you lack the ability to expand your understanding in any way. You are stuck on an ego driven ideological island, content with shouting whatever your flavor of the time is, regardless of it's realistic outcomes and how they may line up with what you profess to desire. Any opportunity for meaningful debate with you is long since passed, if ever such a time existed to begin with. If it feeds your ego to respons as you will, and declare your trouncing complete since I do not respond to your further regurgitated vile, you are welcome to it, it seems you need that comfort far more than I.
Peace
You are an anarchist
Her staying also consumed resources ... Try another approach to circumventing the law.
South of the border, she'd have already been locked up ... If you haven't done so, read Mexico's laws concerning illegal aliens.
In fact, read most any other nations laws regarding this subject, and you will find that our biggest problem is being to nice, when compared to other nations.
I thought we believed in freedom here, and I thought that was something we were proud of. Freedom to associate, freedom to travel.
How are the current policies racist ?
Be specific, please.
Freedom to establish our own republics and choose who may live there and participate in the political process?
Similar threads
