The Right to Travel

[PAF]

These sort of hyperbolic statements don't really serve to add to either side's argument, but I've heard this particular one and its variants so much that I pay it about as much attention as cries of "racist!" or "fascist!".

We're all statists. Hmm. Yeah, okay, alright. "Sounds legit" and all that.

And since when do you care about the Bill of Rights anyway? (maybe rhetorical)

Seriously, FedDeptEd/CommonCore needs to end. Before anything else.

Good grief.

 

[acptulsa]

These sort of hyperbolic statements don't really serve to add to either side's argument, but I've heard this particular one and its variants so much that I pay it about as much attention as cries of "racist!" or "fascist!".

We're all statists. Hmm. Yeah, okay, alright. "Sounds legit" and all that.

Well, yeah, he's over the top. That comes of frustration. But you said yourself that they prefer constitution-free zones to a secure border, and why.

There's a lot of parroting going on of the official controlled opposition position that these organized and supported caravans are happening to import potential Democratic voters. Even though the dirty little secret that many Hispanics, like Asians who escaped communism, don't necessarily vote for the socialists--despite Trump, for one, going way out of his way to alienate them--is becoming less of a secret.

Your own observation about constitution-free zones, however, points to a far, far more likely motivation (besides the obvious cheap illegal labor) for deliberately stirring this up. Put a stop to sponsoring caravans, providing benefits, and giving illegals an advantage in the job market, and that really can do what the military honestly cannot.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, yeah, he's over the top. That comes of frustration.

I'd hate to see how frustrated he gets with actual statists then. To tell the truth, we all spend to much time fighting each other here at RPF. But I've always said if you put two libertarians in a room, they'll fight to the death to determine who is the most pure.

 

[PAF]

I'd hate to see how frustrated he gets with actual statists then. To tell the truth, we all spend to much time fighting each other here at RPF. But I've always said if you put two libertarians in a room, they'll fight to the death to determine who is the most pure.

I'm not asking or expecting anybody to become Agorist/Anarchist/etc. What I do ask/expect is that people don't complain that the Bill of Rights [enshrined in your CONstitution] is being shredded when you don't abide by them yourself.

Defend and protect The Bill of Rights! "Yeah but Article such and such, it says so right there!!!"

 

[acptulsa]

I'd hate to see how frustrated he gets with actual statists then. To tell the truth, we all spend to much time fighting each other here at RPF. But I've always said if you put two libertarians in a room, they'll fight to the death to determine who is the most pure.

As if the group is unique in that respect. Communists do the same to socialists, Lutherans do it to Baptists, Pontiac guys do it to Chevy freaks (it's all GM to me; I've owned half a dozen cars that rode on torsion bars), and on and on. Being an enemy will get you killed only in time of war, but traitors are always in season.

At least he doesn't pat you on the head and ignore you, like he does Democrats. Clearly he thinks you're actually capable of reason.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If continued unchecked, this constitutionally aberrant treatment of the unpopular and politically powerless as if they were livestock will be repeated in another form.

You don't say? Come on Judge, you can’t sit on the back of the elephant in the room and not mention it. How many American citizens are being detained right now indefinitely in DC, with no due process, under cruel and unusual conditions? Is there any reason at all to hesitate to mention them?

Let me answer that final question. Of course there is a reason for everyone, especially high profile people, to not mention that elephant, lest they join those people in indefinite detention (after a 4am SWAT raid).

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not asking or expecting anybody to become Agorist/Anarchist/etc. What I do ask/expect is that people don't complain that the Bill of Rights [enshrined in your CONstitution] is being shredded when you don't abide by them yourself.

Defend and protect The Bill of Rights! "Yeah but Article such and such, it says so right there!!!"

And I've already explained why I think defending the actual border is the most practical way to do that. You disagree. Disagreement happens.

 

[69360]

I wish DeSantis did not do this. Specifically to Martha's Vinyard. To major cities that claim they are sanctuaries, sure I think that is fine. I do think they were used as pawns. That said, they signed a disclaimer in Spanish.

 

[PAF]

And I've already explained why I think defending the actual border is the most practical way to do that. You disagree. Disagreement happens.

Definition of practical: Should I let my offspring borrow my car, or should I drop offspring off along the way. Should I brew the coffee before or after my shower.

Incentivizing them to come in, while lining the pockets of the industrial complex, thereby restricting ones movement and the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not fit within my definition of practical.

Ah well, it's been happening for decades now. Who am I to preach to "We the People".

 

[acptulsa]

I do think they were used as pawns. That said, they signed a disclaimer in Spanish.

Some pawns are totally with the program. I'm sure more than a few immigrants really wish libs weren't such damned hypocrites.

 

[PAF]

I wish DeSantis did not do this. Specifically to Martha's Vinyard. To major cities that claim they are sanctuaries, sure I think that is fine. I do think they were used as pawns. That said, they signed a disclaimer in Spanish.

On the tax payer dime.

 

[nobody's_hero]

At least he doesn't pat you on the head and ignore you, like he does Democrats. Clearly he thinks you're actually capable of reason.

[MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] (mentioned because I don't want to talk about you as though you aren't here)
PAF is at least 95% correct, in theory, maybe more. I would say most of my arguments with him are over the methods to achieve what he wants to see happen, not that I disagree with his goals.

For example, I agree that ending the welfare state is a fantastic goal! (no sarcasm at all, if there's any doubt)

We argue, however, over whether inviting hundreds of thousands of fresh members to the welfare roster will help us get towards that goal. Practically speaking, that's what's happening with this 'immigration'. You might convince someone here that it's immoral to leech off the labor of others, and watch with pride of your efforts to change minds that they should give up food stamps, go out and get a job, improve their lot in life, gain financial independence. In the mean time, a dozen (or many more) have slipped over the border and taken their place.

I argue that it seems practical to shut the door, at least momentarily, while you try to change as many minds already here as possible. However, this is a big 'no-no' to PAF. So we'd rather endlessly struggle to keep our heads above water, meaning we will most-assuredly never get rid of the welfare state or outnumber those who clamor for it.

So I would agree with him on the goal. Just not the method. And, IMO, his rigidity on the methods is probably why his goals will never be achieved.

 

[PAF]

[MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] (mentioned because I don't want to talk about you as though you aren't here)
PAF is at least 95% correct, in theory, maybe more. I would say most of my arguments with him are over the methods to achieve what he wants to see happen, not that I disagree with his goals.

For example, I agree that ending the welfare state is a fantastic goal! (no sarcasm at all, if there's any doubt)

We argue, however, over whether inviting hundreds of thousands of fresh members to the welfare roster will help us get towards that goal. Practically speaking, that's what's happening with this 'immigration'. You might convince someone here that it's immoral to leech off the labor of others, and watch with pride of your efforts to change minds that they should give up food stamps, go out and get a job, improve their lot in life, gain financial independence. In the mean time, a dozen (or many more) have slipped over the border and taken their place.

I argue that it seems practical to shut the door, at least momentarily, while you try to change as many minds already here as possible. However, this is a big 'no-no' to PAF. So we'd rather endlessly struggle to keep our heads above water, meaning we will most-assuredly never get rid of the welfare state or outnumber those who clamor for it.

So I would agree with him on the goal. Just not the method. And, IMO, his rigidity on the methods is probably why his goals will never be achieved.

Good points [MENTION=16095]nobody's_hero[/MENTION]

But just like there will be replacements who come here, you can best be assured that the lobbyists have replacements too. As long as either/both sides are funded, the problem will perpetuate. The only options that I see are:

1. Eliminate the lobby groups.

2. Defend/protect our individual Natural/Bill of Rights, which everybody is afforded.

Short of either of those, we are where are, and we will continue to be.

 

[acptulsa]

We argue, however, over whether inviting hundreds of thousands of fresh members to the welfare roster will help us get towards that goal.

Agreed all around. My only quibble is, I don't see him advocating for inviting anyone. I'm sure he dislikes sponsored caravans as much as welfare-type incentives. Or should I say, other welfare-type incentives.

As far as I'm concerned, that crap could and should be ended quickly enough that slamming the border shut isn't really necessary. But then, I also can't think of a better place for 85% of our standing army to serve out their current enlistments after they're pulled from Ukraine, Syria, Iraq...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

[MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION] (mentioned because I don't want to talk about you as though you aren't here)
PAF is at least 95% correct, in theory, maybe more. I would say most of my arguments with him are over the methods to achieve what he wants to see happen, not that I disagree with his goals.

For example, I agree that ending the welfare state is a fantastic goal! (no sarcasm at all, if there's any doubt)

We argue, however, over whether inviting hundreds of thousands of fresh members to the welfare roster will help us get towards that goal. Practically speaking, that's what's happening with this 'immigration'. You might convince someone here that it's immoral to leech off the labor of others, and watch with pride of your efforts to change minds that they should give up food stamps, go out and get a job, improve their lot in life, gain financial independence. In the mean time, a dozen (or many more) have slipped over the border and taken their place.

I argue that it seems practical to shut the door, at least momentarily, while you try to change as many minds already here as possible. However, this is a big 'no-no' to PAF. So we'd rather endlessly struggle to keep our heads above water, meaning we will most-assuredly never get rid of the welfare state or outnumber those who clamor for it.

So I would agree with him on the goal. Just not the method. And, IMO, his rigidity on the methods is probably why his goals will never be achieved.

Throughout human history, there have been ideals, principles and morals. They have been illustrated, expressed and described in parables, allegories, analogies, fables, etc. throughout the ages, often as moral lessons.

But here's the rub. They are often very specific and exist in isolation, in a vacuum. "Thou shalt not kill." That is a principle, a moral value and to many, a commandment. But it is incomplete without real world context. The interpretation of that value can vary greatly. The contexts and exceptions alone would fill a legal library.

Even the most basic principle can lead to other principles built upon that original principle. Eventually, those principles are applied in a real world situation, where they then interact with, and possibly conflict with other principles.

Thus, there can be endless debate about which principles are in play, which ones are valid (or adhered to), which ones conflict, which ones cancel other ones. The most generic end result of all of this is that many people dislike philosophy.

 

[69360]

Some pawns are totally with the program. I'm sure more than a few immigrants really wish libs weren't such damned hypocrites.

That was basically what Malcolm X said.

On the tax payer dime.

True, but how much do TX and FL save taxpayers long term?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Agreed all around. My only quibble is, I don't see him advocating for inviting anyone. I'm sure he dislikes sponsored caravans as much as welfare-type incentives. Or should I say, other welfare-type incentives.

As far as I'm concerned, that crap could and should be ended quickly enough that slamming the border shut isn't really necessary. But then, I also can't think of a better place for 85% of our standing army to serve out their current enlistments after they're pulled from Ukraine, Syria, Iraq...

An open door is an invitation and he argues for it constantly.

 

[Swordsmyth]

When the whole world is libertarian/American Constitutionalist we can have open borders.
Until that time Open borders only serves globalism and the destruction of liberty.

No amount of theorizing how the world should be in some alternate reality will change that and anyone who ignores that fact is an enemy either through self delusion or in disguise.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, actually, people bought hook line and sinker what the politicians fed to their livestock, repuGs AND demons. .Gov help me, save me, do something please!

When you sacrifice our Natural/Bill of Rights, even just one, you get exactly what you sow.

Nope. SOME people did that. Not nearly all. I know my parents fought it tooth and nail.