PDA

View Full Version : Multiculturalism




Conza88
07-17-2008, 05:09 AM
Good, bad, ugly? :)

What are your thoughts?

Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEGJb5W5ks)

idiom
07-17-2008, 05:26 AM
Usually means everyone culture except certain ones the person proposing the policy doesn't like.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 05:29 AM
Culture is silly. You aren't entitled to anything because you are born into it... Your ancestors are irrelevant. History is irrelevant. At best, learning history can shape your ideology by allowing you insight on why some ideas work and others do not - and that only works if you're a pragmatist.

Celebrating culture is a fundamental difference between radical libertarians and true conservatives. At their core, radical libertarians are all humanitarians and globalists if they truly adhere to libertarian principles. Compare that to many conservatives, who like to cite the Constitution as a reason something ought to be or claim we need to keep legal immigrants out of OUR country. A libertarian would disagree and say that we are entitled to no more then any other man.

A libertarian can rationally honor no more relatives then those who cared for him/her.

idiom
07-17-2008, 06:01 AM
Which is why we are republicans :)

Libertarian purists are just silly.

Acala
07-17-2008, 06:12 AM
Without a culture of liberty, by which I mean a social habit of turning to liberty for answers to problems that arise, no Free Republic can survive. So I believe that developing a homogeneous culture of liberty is essentially. That is the opposite of multiculturalism - at least to the extent of political and social philosophy.

I also believe that culture holds people together. Trying to strengthen cultural differences creates fault lines in society that will break under pressure.

It seems to me that a people who live together in peace and freedom will naturally develop a common culture, although it may take a long time. Only government intervention can prevent this from happening.

So I guess I think multiculturalism as a goal is a mistake.

gilliganscorner
07-17-2008, 06:21 AM
Up in here in Canada, we are indoctrinated into the philosophy of a "cultural mosaic" where we are told the US is a "melting pot". A cultural mosaic is the analogy of a quilt. Lot's of patches of different colors/styles (groups) stitched together to make up a quilt (Canada). What I can tell you is that birds of a feather tend to flock together - and that is understandable. Commonalities tend to unite while possibly excluding others.

I am not sure why people take pride in where they are from. For example, I know people who display rabid pride in their country of origin (although they live and work here) during the World Cup or European soccer championships or other sports. I have Irish background, but I am no more interested in how the Irish soccer team plays than I am with Paraguay. People from Spain will cheer on their country of origin, but will be completely apathetic to a Canadian team, even though they made Canada their home

People taking pride in their country of origin's sports team is easy, as it requires no effort on their part to contribute to the success of their team.

I think the only thing that should matter is individual character. What is between your ears. It's who you are that counts, not where you are from. And that transcends white, black, yellow, brown, plaid....

Anyway, my two cents.

LibertyEagle
07-17-2008, 06:27 AM
Culture is silly. You aren't entitled to anything because you are born into it... Your ancestors are irrelevant. History is irrelevant. At best, learning history can shape your ideology by allowing you insight on why some ideas work and others do not - and that only works if you're a pragmatist.

History is silly? Really? :rolleyes: What's that old saying... oh yeah... if one does not understand history, they are doomed to repeat it. Are you saying history is irrelevant because the "inconvenient truth" is that other countries who have gone the "multicultural" route have regretted it? Or, am I missing your point?


Celebrating culture is a fundamental difference between radical libertarians and true conservatives.

Perhaps. Since I'm not a big L, Libertarian, I really don't know. Do these Libertarians believe in doing away with borders altogether?


At their core, radical libertarians are all humanitarians and globalists if they truly adhere to libertarian principles.

Are you saying they are "global citizens"? Do they believe in countries at all?


Compare that to many conservatives, who like to cite the Constitution as a reason something ought to be

Yeah, that nasty Constitution. :rolleyes:


or claim we need to keep legal immigrants out of OUR country.

Really? Because I have not seen conservatives say anything of the sort. Legal immigration is great; ILLEGAL immigration is not. Pretty easy.


A libertarian would disagree and say that we are entitled to no more then any other man.

A country without borders is no country at all. Until we get the nanny state disassembled, the reality is that we do not have the money to pay for Mexico's education and healthcare. If this is what radical Libertarians want, they will find many articles they will agree with over at the CFR's website (Council on Foreign Relations). :p


A libertarian can rationally honor no more relatives then those who cared for him/her.
I have no clue what you mean here.

Note: Wasn't there already a thread about this, Kludge? I think I remember one on this very subject.

The Perils of Multiculturalism
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/7-jbs-news-feed/1462-the-perils-of-multiculturalism

RockEnds
07-17-2008, 06:42 AM
Culture is silly. You aren't entitled to anything because you are born into it... Your ancestors are irrelevant. History is irrelevant. At best, learning history can shape your ideology by allowing you insight on why some ideas work and others do not - and that only works if you're a pragmatist.

Celebrating culture is a fundamental difference between radical libertarians and true conservatives. At their core, radical libertarians are all humanitarians and globalists if they truly adhere to libertarian principles. Compare that to many conservatives, who like to cite the Constitution as a reason something ought to be or claim we need to keep legal immigrants out of OUR country. A libertarian would disagree and say that we are entitled to no more then any other man.

A libertarian can rationally honor no more relatives then those who cared for him/her.

I couldn't disagree more.

Imagine coming into a state of self-awareness and having no idea who you are, where you came from, or how you came to be in your current situation. Then imagine someone very kindly explaining to you that you have no right to know because it's not important to anyone--except maybe you, of course.

I'm adopted. I had absolutely no clue who my people were until I was 21-years-old. I am keenly aware of the importance of cultural identity because I had none. Granted, I was given the cultural identity of my adopted family which conveniently turned out to be almost a carbon copy of my biological family, but since I had absolutely NO CLUE at the time who I was or where I came from, it really lacked a little something.

Ancestors are not irrelevant. History is not irrelevant. Cultural identity is not irrelevant. Their importance is especially noticeable when they have been stolen.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 06:55 AM
History is silly? Really? :rolleyes: What's that old saying... oh yeah... if one does not understand history, they are doomed to repeat it. Are you saying history is irrelevant because the "inconvenient truth" is that other countries who have gone the "multicultural" route have regretted it? Or, am I missing your point?

"if one does not understand history, they are doomed to repeat it." I specifically mentioned that point. My point was that people miss the point of both learning and teaching history. The only practical reason to learn history would be to learn what does and does not work.

If this movement has taught me anything though, it's that teaching people by fear is remarkably ineffective when the option exists to teach them through hope (Hint: I'm talking about Wayne's converts versus those who came because they believed in libertarian principles).




Perhaps. Since I'm not a big L, Libertarian, I really don't know. Do these Libertarians believe in doing away with borders altogether?

Libertarians are not always libertarians... For example, Joe is a libertine. I think most libertarians would agree with Bob Barr's (yes, I know I did...) view on immigration which is that we eliminate quotas. We'd check them for communicable diseases and committed crimes in their prior country and release them in the US (assuming they passed) with a flexible payment plan to pay for services rendered. As for a solution to those who failed to pass, I'd offer the solution that we chip the failures and monitor them to ensure they don't cross into the U.S., of course, I'm sure a few Libertarians or libertarians would disagree.


Are you saying they are "global citizens"? Do they believe in countries at all?

global citizens? Maybe... It depends how big they feel their community is. With voluntary funding, they could put money into whichever size gov't they find most efficient. Our government is already broken up into three convenient sets, and I see no reason to change it. Know that I don't speak on behalf of "they".


Yeah, that nasty Constitution. :rolleyes:

Basing a position on the Constitution is fine if you don't have time to explain the reasoning behind it like Dr. Paul, but to do otherwise is intellectually beneath ALMOST everyone who participates on these forums. It'd be like saying we should wear seatbelts because smarter people in congress declared it so.


Really? Because I have not seen conservatives say anything of the sort. Legal immigration is great; ILLEGAL immigration is not. Pretty easy.


Note: Wasn't there already a thread about this, Kludge? I think I remember one on this very subject.

No. We had a thread on immigration in which I was repeatedly told that eliminating immigration quotas would "overload our culture" by self-described conservatives.


A country without borders is no country at all. Until we get the nanny state disassembled, the reality is that we do not have the money to pay for Mexico's education and healthcare. If this is what radical Libertarians want, they will find many articles they will agree with over at the CFR's website (Council on Foreign Relations). :p

We as individuals should be paying for no one's healthcare if we don't want to. An American is no more or less valuable to me over a Mexican.


I have no clue what you mean here.

My ancestry brings me nothing. Family crests and pride is silly and just another form of the collective nationalism which is a scourge to rational thinking.

silverhandorder
07-17-2008, 06:57 AM
The video made a lot of sense. Some people criticizing it now are missing the point. What he is trying to say is that there are better cultures and there are worser cultures. No one is trying to prevent you from identifying with either one.

Culture does not mean you are entitled to anything, last I checked that was not the definition of what culture means.

Not to start a fight just to throw my thoughts into the mix.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 06:59 AM
I couldn't disagree more.

Imagine coming into a state of self-awareness and having no idea who you are, where you came from, or how you came to be in your current situation. Then imagine someone very kindly explaining to you that you have no right to know because it's not important to anyone--except maybe you, of course.

I'm adopted. I had absolutely no clue who my people were until I was 21-years-old. I am keenly aware of the importance of cultural identity because I had none. Granted, I was given the cultural identity of my adopted family which conveniently turned out to be almost a carbon copy of my biological family, but since I had absolutely NO CLUE at the time who I was or where I came from, it really lacked a little something.

Ancestors are not irrelevant. History is not irrelevant. Cultural identity is not irrelevant. Their importance is especially noticeable when they have been stolen.

If I'm catching the gist of what you're saying (and I'm fairly unsure that I am)... this is why I said libertarians are humanitarians. Society is morally obligated to protect your right to property. You are on your own for everything else.

It doesn't matter "who I am", only my individual ideas are important (to me at least ;) ).

RockEnds
07-17-2008, 07:02 AM
The video made a lot of sense. Some people criticizing it now are missing the point. What he is trying to say is that there are better cultures and there are worser cultures. No one is trying to prevent you from identifying with either one.

Culture does not mean you are entitled to anything, last I checked that was not the definition of what culture means.

Not to start a fight just to throw my thoughts into the mix.

The only clear point that the guy in the video made as far as I was concerned, is that Americans are rebel colonists.

RockEnds
07-17-2008, 07:07 AM
If I'm catching the gist of what you're saying (and I'm fairly unsure that I am)... this is why I said libertarians are humanitarians. Society is morally obligated to protect your right to property. You are on your own for everything else.

It doesn't matter "who I am", only my individual ideas are important (to me at least ;) ).

Something like that. Our individual cultural identity is a part of our individual property, although I personally have no faith in the ability of society to protect it. ;) But it is, like all other property, personal and individual. No one has the right to force their own culture upon another. In that sense, yes, only individual ideas are important.

LibertyEagle
07-17-2008, 07:18 AM
"if one does not understand history, they are doomed to repeat it." I specifically mentioned that point. My point was that people miss the point of both learning and teaching history. The only practical reason to learn history would be to learn what does and does not work.

If this movement has taught me anything though, it's that teaching people by fear is remarkably ineffective when the option exists to teach them through hope (Hint: I'm talking about Wayne's converts versus those who came because they believed in libertarian principles).

Geez, must we categorize principles, now? Because your post seems like an effort to divide libertarians and conservatives. Sorry, that's what it seems to me.


Libertarians are not always libertarians... For example, Joe is a libertine. I think most libertarians would agree with Bob Barr's (yes, I know I did...) view on immigration which is that we eliminate quotas. We'd check them for communicable diseases and committed crimes in their prior country and release them in the US (assuming they passed) with a flexible payment plan to pay for services rendered. As for a solution to those who failed to pass, I'd offer the solution that we chip the failures and monitor them to ensure they don't cross into the U.S., of course, I'm other a few Libertarians or libertarians would disagree.

If that's what Barr believes, that's another negative in his column.


global citizens? Maybe... It depends how big they feel their community is. With voluntary funding, they could put money into whichever size gov't they find most efficient. Our government is already broken up into three convenient sets, and I see no reason to change it. Know that I don't speak on behalf of "they".

Are you a world government advocate then?


Basing a position on the Constitution is fine if you don't have time to explain the reasoning behind it like Dr. Paul, but to do otherwise is intellectually beneath ALMOST everyone who participates on these forums. It'd be like saying we should wear seatbelts because smarter people in congress declared it so.

Perhaps it is my own misunderstanding. I thought one thing we all agreed on was the necessity of reinstating the Constitution. Am I mistaken?

Just Wow.


No. We had a thread on immigration in which I was repeatedly told that eliminating immigration quotas would "overload our culture" by self-described conservatives.

Well, I'll agree to that too. If you flood a given country all at one time (here the U.S.) with people largely from another culture, which does not have a history of Liberty, they will overwhelm the existing culture present in the country to which they are moving. Logic 101. Moreover, they will try to instate the only form of government they know. Regardless of the fact that it is the cause of the downfall of their own country.


We as individuals should be paying for no one's healthcare if we don't want to.
Agreed.


An American is no more or less valuable to me over a Mexican.
It depends on the context of which you are speaking.



My ancestry brings me nothing. Family crests and pride is silly and just another form of the collective nationalism which is a scourge to rational thinking.


No one is talking about family crests. The issue is liberty and learning why our founders chose the form of government they did for us, what it means, what our responsibility is, etc. Again, mass influx of people from other countries who do not have a history of liberty, will by nature want to repeat the same mistakes in their own country, that gave rise to the ohly government they know. Many people illegally entering the U.S. today, are not coming here because they want to become an American. So, when it's said this is dangerous to our culture, we're talking about dangerous to FREEDOM.

familydog
07-17-2008, 07:30 AM
Bad and ugly. No country that was "mulitcultural" has ever survived.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 07:46 AM
Geez, must we categorize principles, now? Because your post seems like an effort to divide libertarians and conservatives. Sorry, that's what it seems to me.

It is. I think there are differences that many people don't realize. I'm still futilely trying to protect the label of libertarian from libertarian-conservatives and libertarian-leaning liberals :(


If that's what Barr believes, that's another negative in his column.

That isn't an argument :p


Are you a world government advocate then?

I'm an individualist and a propertarian. If someone wants a world gov't to protect against aggression (and ONLY aggression), they can throw their money at it. I think a local government would be incomparably more efficient at solving the problem but recognize that multi-national crimes exist.


Perhaps it is my own misunderstanding. I thought one thing we all agreed on was the necessity of reinstating the Constitution. Am I mistaken?

Enforcing the Constitution is a significant but optional goal to accomplish a larger and necessary agenda. Government should be restrained on principle, not because a piece of paper ( :p ) says so.


Well, I'll agree to that too. If you flood a given country all at one time (here the U.S.) with people largely from another culture, which does not have a history of Liberty, they will overwhelm the existing culture present in the country to which they are moving. Logic 101. Moreover, they will try to instate the only form of government they know. Regardless of the fact that it is the cause of the downfall of their own country.

So then you'll agree with me that conservatives seek to deter potential legal immigrants from... immigrating?


It depends on the context of which you are speaking.

Assuming they both create the same amount of wealth or however it is you set a definite value on life...


*snip* Mass influx of people from other countries who do not have a history of liberty, will by nature want to repeat the same mistakes in their own country, that gave rise to the ohly government they know. Many people illegally entering the U.S. today, are not coming here because they want to become an American. So, when it's said this is dangerous to our culture, we're talking about dangerous to FREEDOM.

I don't believe we have the right to accomplish political or social goals by the means you describe. I don't believe anyone has the right to restrict a person's ability to immigrate based on an assumption.

silverhandorder
07-17-2008, 07:55 AM
The only clear point that the guy in the video made as far as I was concerned, is that Americans are rebel colonists.

I don't think you were listening to him talk then. To me he seems like a model libertarian. He does not force his point of view on anyone. He just says guys lets drop all the pretenses some cultures are better then others. Are you going to disagree with that?

edit:


I don't believe we have the right to accomplish political or social goals by the means you describe. I don't believe anyone has the right to restrict a person's ability to immigrate based on an assumption.

I would have to disagree, while we still own our nation we have every right to decide who we want in and who we don't want.

RockEnds
07-17-2008, 08:00 AM
I don't think you were listening to him talk then. To me he seems like a model libertarian. He does not force his point of view on anyone. He just says guys lets drop all the pretenses some cultures are better then others. Are you going to disagree with that?

Honestly, his point was lost every time he looked at the fellow sitting next to him and said something to the effect of, "except for you, the rebel colonist." I was getting the British arrogance vibes pretty heavy.

Edit: just my personal opinion, of course.

aravoth
07-17-2008, 08:09 AM
I like culture, in fact I just ate a culture, with strawberries in it. har har har.

silverhandorder
07-17-2008, 08:14 AM
Honestly, his point was lost every time he looked at the fellow sitting next to him and said something to the effect of, "except for you, the rebel colonist." I was getting the British arrogance vibes pretty heavy.

Edit: just my personal opinion, of course.

I always like British so these things go over my head :P. But yes he him self comes off rather assholish. I do like his message tho.

RockEnds
07-17-2008, 08:15 AM
I like culture, in fact I just ate a culture, with strawberries in it. har har har.

I like culture, too. And I don't think one culture is inherently superior to another. But I do think the guy in the video was talking out of both sides of his mouth. Maybe I watched too much British tv while I was in Germany. I just don't understand why they can't get over the whole colonial rebellion thing. Let it go!!!! :)

LibertyEagle
07-17-2008, 08:15 AM
It is. I think there are differences that many people don't realize. I'm still futilely trying to protect the label of libertarian from libertarian-conservatives and libertarian-leaning liberals :(

Well, at least you admit it.

But, trying to drive a wedge between Libertarians and Conservatives, doesn't seem to be a winning move.


That isn't an argument :p

No, it was a fact. :p


I'm an individualist and a propertarian. If someone wants a world gov't to protect against aggression (and ONLY aggression), they can throw their money at it. I think a local government would be incomparably more efficient at solving the problem but recognize that multi-national crimes exist.

So, bottom line, you'd be ok with a world government. Houston, we have a problem here.


Enforcing the Constitution is a significant but optional goal to accomplish a larger and necessary agenda. Government should be restrained on principle, not because a piece of paper ( :p ) says so.

I agree. It was also my understanding that most of us knew the principles that are embodied in the Constitution.


So then you'll agree with me that conservatives seek to deter potential legal immigrants from... immigrating?

No. If we have immigration laws, and people choose not to adhere to them, they are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Legal immigrants are ones who follow our immigration law.


Assuming they both create the same amount of wealth or however it is you set a definite value on life...
Are you saying you judge a person's value based on the amount of money they generate? Strange.

Personally, I could care less. What I care about is that we allow people to immigrate to our country who want to become Americans, learn our language and learn the history of our country's founding and the principles behind it. If they do not understand this, they will join the dumbed-down American slop who are voting for candidates who will finish destroying our country and stomping out our liberty.


I don't believe we have the right to accomplish political or social goals by the means you describe. I don't believe anyone has the right to restrict a person's ability to immigrate based on an assumption.

An assumption? Are you talking about what history teaches? Or our Constitution? Or, is it our country's borders that trouble you?

But yes, we have every right to decide who immigrates to this country.

Excerpt from article by Dr. Thomas E. Woods:

"Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind --ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21626

JosephTheLibertarian
07-17-2008, 08:18 AM
Good, bad, ugly? :)

What are your thoughts?

Mark Steyn on Multiculturalism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEGJb5W5ks)

I think we should have a free market of culture, but what the lefties are doing is subsidizing certain cultures, this is very ignorant and racist. I do, however, favor the American culture, I'm not too fond of the Mexican 'culture' of reproducing like cockroaches.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 08:36 AM
So, bottom line, you'd be ok with a world government. Houston, we have a problem here.

That's not an argument...


Are you saying you judge a person's value based on the amount of money they generate? Strange.

Are you going to continue blatantly ignoring half of what I type?


Personally, I could care less. What I care about is that we allow people to immigrate to our country who want to become Americans, learn our language and learn the history of our country's founding and the principles behind it. If they do not understand this, they will join the dumbed-down American slop who are voting for candidates who will finish destroying our country and stomping out our liberty.

Fine, give them an IQ test, force them to take a government-sponsored anti-authoritarian propaganda school (paid for by those seeking to immigrate, of course), but don't take away their ability to immigrate the the US!


An assumption? Are you talking about what history teaches? Or our Constitution? Or, is it our country's borders that trouble you?

But yes, we have every right to decide who immigrates to this country.


You continue to assume I'm some type of anarchist. This is not the case.



You're abusing history in the way all pragmatic authoritarians do.

Company selling a dangerous car? Ban them.
Failure of a major bank threatening to harm society? Cash infusion.
RFID chip will save lives? Mandate it.
Immigrants pose a threat to the "culture of liberty"? Restrict them.

Personal responsibility is key. It isn't the role of society to mandate how a person lives and what choices they make - its the role of the person in question. Government is the result of how these people choose their electors and we have no right to say who is allowed entry into because we think they may be authoritarian or "sheepish".

I happen to know a good number of immigrants, many grateful for the opportunity to be here. There are even first-generation immigrants in the LP!

JosephTheLibertarian
07-17-2008, 08:40 AM
That's not an argument...

It's a statement.


You continue to assume I'm some type of anarchist. This is not the case.

but...you told me that you were.


I happen to know a good number of immigrants, many grateful for the opportunity to be here. There are even first-generation immigrants in the LP!

I never met them.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 08:43 AM
My bedroom is haunted. Come and I'll show you.

Nothx.

aravoth
07-17-2008, 08:53 AM
I'm a 28 year old white male, do I have a cultural identity? According to the media that would just make me a quasi racist full of guilt, but I'm not a racist, and I feel no guilt. I'm sure someone out there is writing a crappy blog about "culture of the white man" or some crap. As if we're all alike. HEY!, I'm Irish you prejudicial pricks! And yes, my favorite dish is Shepard's pie, I drink way too much and fornicate with my wife as much as humanly possible. I'm a dirty, disrespectful, potato eater. And I don't give a shit about anyone but my family. Least of all someone else's culture, becuase to most people, I'm just white, an evil enslaver in charge of all the wrongs of the world. And that lumps me in the same category as the Dutch, THE DUTCH!

TOLERANCE IS ME NOT RIPPING A MULTICULTURIST ACTIVIST'S HEAD OFF.

What a fucking joke.

LibertyEagle
07-17-2008, 09:11 AM
That's not an argument...

Since you're not disagreeing, I guess it's true. You're for world government.


Are you going to continue blatantly ignoring half of what I type?
lol. I read it, you just don't like my answers.


Fine, give them an IQ test, force them to take a government-sponsored anti-authoritarian propaganda school (paid for by those seeking to immigrate, of course), but don't take away their ability to immigrate the the US!

:rolleyes:


You continue to assume I'm some type of anarchist. This is not the case.
You didn't answer the questions.


You're abusing history in the way all pragmatic authoritarians do.

lololol. :rolleyes:


Company selling a dangerous car? Ban them.
Nope.

Failure of a major bank threatening to harm society? Cash infusion.
Nope.

RFID chip will save lives? Mandate it.
Nope.

Immigrants pose a threat to the "culture of liberty"? Restrict them.
You betcha. And those we do let in, should be taught the foundation of liberty and what this country's founding was all about.


Personal responsibility is key. It isn't the role of society to mandate how a person lives and what choices they make - its the role of the person in question.
I agree that personal responsibility is key.


Government is the result of how these people choose their electors and we have no right to say who is allowed entry into because we think they may be authoritarian or "sheepish".

Sure we do.



I happen to know a good number of immigrants, many grateful for the opportunity to be here. There are even first-generation immigrants in the LP!

I know a number of immigrants also and many have a greater understanding of liberty than those who were born here. Of course, they immigrated legally and most came here so they would have an opportunity and also to live in what they believed to be the last bastion of liberty.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 09:27 AM
Since you're not disagreeing, I guess it's true. You're for world government.

Yes. You are implying that its bad. Why is this?


lol. I read it, you just don't like my answers.

You said I measure people by wealth. What I said was "Assuming they both create the same amount of wealth or however it is you set a definite value on life... " Either you were being dishonest or didn't bother reading my entire sentence...


You didn't answer the questions.

Assumption - Something taken as true without proof

Unless you can prove that every potential immigrant equates to "dumbed-down American slop", saying an immigrant will destroy our "culture of liberty" is an assumption. And to collect them into a group and say immigration will destroy our "culture of liberty" is no better.


I know a number of immigrants also and many have a greater understanding of liberty than those who were born here. Of course, they immigrated legally and most came here so they would have an opportunity and also to live in what they believed to be the last bastion of liberty.

We're not arguing about illegal immigrants, we're arguing about what should and should not be illegal immigration.

lucius
07-17-2008, 11:31 AM
...I don't believe we have the right to accomplish political or social goals by the means you describe...

What about using these means to 'accomplish political or social goals'?


From the time that this war began in 1947, the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, in cooperation with the CIA, began funding programs at major U.S. universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Columbia. They began with an emphasis on Russian studies, but by the mid-1960s these three foundations and the CIA had a near-monopoly on all international studies in the U.S.[Sigmund Diamond, Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of Universities with the Intelligence Community, 1945-1955 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 371 pages; David Horowitz, "Sinews of Empire," Ramparts, October 1969, pp. 32-42. ] This phenomenon, a big-money, top-down affair born out of strategic considerations, is the precursor of today's academic multiculturalism.

More "farming of the goyim", social engineering design to 'divide and conquer' without really changing the power structure at the top. Not much liberty in that message.

Daniel Brandt brings up a few (not all) salient points in his 'Multiculturalism and the Ruling Elite': http://www.namebase.org/news03.html

ps: I liked the video.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 11:34 AM
The jooz in the CIA propagandized the media so we should continue enforcing immigration quotas.

Okay.

lucius
07-17-2008, 11:39 AM
The jooz in the CIA propagandized the media so we should continue enforcing immigration quotas.

Okay.

Weak Kludge...you ignore the effects of large foundations & our intelligence community in shaping public opinion. You seem to be the poster child though. Don't worry that one world will sort it all out.

Kludge
07-17-2008, 12:05 PM
Weak Kludge...you ignore the effects of large foundations & our intelligence community in shaping public opinion. You seem to be the poster child though. Don't worry that one world will sort it all out.

When you quoted me, the argument was about immigration, not multiculturalism...

Akus
07-17-2008, 12:06 PM
multiculturalism is a code speak for chaos....

you can't enslave a person who knows his life's meaning is not to be a slave. That is because he has a set of views and values. This is bad, always. This is good, always. Until those unshakeables are shaken, you can't make a person servant.

Thus the "may be 2 + 2 isn't always 4" thought process veiled as "multiculturalism".

mediahasyou
07-17-2008, 01:04 PM
Coercion used to shape culture and
Forcing ideas on others....is intelectual sloth.

lucius
07-17-2008, 01:31 PM
When you quoted me, the argument was about immigration, not multiculturalism...

Unrestricted immigration is a part of this social engineering in 'multiculturalism' as well:

The Ford Foundation funded a seven-year-long study of immigration headed Dr. Robert Bach. a sociology professor at the State University of New York.

COMPLETED IN 1993, The study found many difficulties with immigration, including a reduction in living standards, class polarization, and a widening income gap, but its conclusions were strange...rather than changing immigration policy, the Ford Foundation decided that problems should be solved by changing America. "The problem in America may not be diversity but homogeneity," Bach wrote.

'In Americans No More' (ISBN: 0871136503), Journalist Georgie Ann Geyer exposes Bach as a multiculturalist.

"There you had the 'new mentality' shorn of any shame," she wrote of Bach's conclusions, "in total and quite amazing candor! What now-INS ideologue Bach was saying is that America as we have known it--and Americans as we have known ourselves--must be changed. Not really to facilitate immigrants' progress but to facilitate the vision of America dreamed up by the activists and the Ford Foundations of the world." (p. 228)

Since joining the INS, Bach was involved in "Citizenship USA," the 1996 naturalization program which produced amnesty for 1 million, including many known criminals, the IDENT system just 'window dressing', and the decision to lessen the emphasis on identifying and deporting illegal aliens.

The Ford Foundation has been the major source of funding for Hispanic organizations in the United States. It was responsible for creating the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

Watch Bach here: 'Illegal Immigration - Ford Foundations role in subverting America's Immigration Laws'- http://www.metacafe.com/watch/621326/illegal_immigration_ford_foundations_role_in_subve rting_americ/


Dr. Robert Bach is an internationally recognized expert on immigration and border security issues. He recently served with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, on air passenger, cargo and other screening initiatives, and policy and privacy development and coordination. From 1994 to 2000, Dr. Bach was Executive Associate Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Programs at the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He worked extensively on border and international issues, including anti-smuggling/trafficking issues, and cooperated with state and local officials and communities. His recent publications include peer reviewed articles entitled “Global Mobility, Inequality and Security;” and “Western Hemispheric Integration and Migration in an Age of Terror.” Dr. Bach has been a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Inter-American Dialogue, and was a faculty member at the State University of New York at Binghamton from 1978 to 1997. He received his doctorate in sociology and demography from Duke University. ~Homeland Security Affairs: http://www.hsaj.org/?board

idiom
07-17-2008, 04:40 PM
Whatever happened to ethnic purity?

LibertyEagle
07-17-2008, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by LibertyEagle
Since you're not disagreeing, I guess it's true. You're for world government.


Yes. You are implying that its bad. Why is this?

Kludge, right now I am just speechless that you are for world government. :eek:

Right this minute, it would probably be better if someone else answered you on this.

This is very disheartening, to say the least. :(

JosephTheLibertarian
07-17-2008, 04:46 PM
Kludge, right now I am just speechless that you are for world government. :eek:

Right this minute, it would probably be better if someone else answered you on this.

This is very disheartening, to say the least. :(

Yup. All we can do now is sit back and ridicule kludge. Shameful. I knew he was a big statist, but I never knew he was THIS big of a statist! wow

Conza88
07-17-2008, 06:50 PM
Can I just add I laughed pretty hard in this thread... Hahha entertainment factor was great. Like getting high & watching little kids fight in the sand pit.

Hhahha -- yeaahh dunno where that came from. lmao. http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/9042/eektx4.gif

But regardless continue on :D

p.s I do think Kludge has lost his marbles recently.. what happened buddy? Still pissed at the stock market? ;) -> :D

johnliberty08
07-17-2008, 07:51 PM
This is a great article I read last week on the absurdities of the multiculturalism in the U.S. It's written by a foreigner, and it's about his travels in the American Northwest. He calls the region "Zinnlandia", after the cultural Marxist historian Howard Zinn.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3409



A Zinnlandian I met on this trip, a WASP physician endowed with the best education much money can buy, told me that he does not celebrate July 4th because the Declaration of Independence had been written by a slave owner and signed by other slave owners. He was just as hotly critical of the “racism” of Americans in dealing with the growing Muslim immigrant minority. The conversation unfolded over a bottle of Oregon Vino Pinko, with the likeness of a notorious Cuban mass murderer on the label.

Besides the pervasive lefty obtuseness as to the true nature of Che Guevara, there is one central paradox in this Zinnlandian, as there is in all of them. In the case of the good doctor, he donates his time and money to schools and clinics in Tanzania, where he has visited several times. And Tanzania, particularly Zanzibar, is a living memorial to the horrors of slave trafficking by Moslem Arabs and black Africans -- far larger and crueler than the slave trade that soiled the New World, preceding it by a thousand years, evident still in the 1960s, and ended only due to Western insistence.

So we have here a mind twisted into self-contradicting loops designed to screen out everything good about “us” and everything bad about “the other.” This particular dhimmi-in-training has managed not only to block out all the greatness and goodness of the American Founding Fathers, and the merits of the nation that they launched, but also to overlook that his favorite country, Tanzania, exemplifies the horrors he purports to abhor and that, unlike America, it has hardly any countervailing merits.

Behavioral psychology has names for various information perception and analysis biases, but at least fifteen of those would have to be added to encompass the depth and width of the Zinnlandian’s – let’s not beat around the bush – craziness. Take, among others, the Bias Blind Spot, add some Omission Bias and Selective Perception, leaven with white racial guilt propaganda. Whip that into a mixture of Belief Bias, Selective Memory, Bandwagon Effect, Déformation Professionnelle and Disconfirmation Bias. Pour the mixture into a pie shell made of Neglect of Probability, My Side Bias, Optimism Bias and Positive Outcome Bias, and bake for 30 years in an oven designed specifically by mainstream media and the educational system to make that kind of dough rise. Voilà!

RoamZero
07-17-2008, 08:35 PM
Without a good degree of nationalism, multiculturalism can be dangerous. It breeds collectivism and in turn churns out politicians that bend over backwards to such groups (if they are large enough) to stay in office. You can call it democracy in action but you get all sorts of unintended consequences when those politicians begin to lie and lose principle.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 02:08 AM
Kludge, right now I am just speechless that you are for world government. :eek:

Right this minute, it would probably be better if someone else answered you on this.

This is very disheartening, to say the least. :(

You support state government?

You terrible person.

Borders? Terrible.



I just want to earn enough wealth to pit small local tribes against each other...


I could make a.... KILLING. Bwahahahahahahaha.

Blacks Vs. Jooz #18

silverhandorder
07-18-2008, 07:13 AM
Well it depends on how we understand world government. I see sovereign countries talking to each other and trading as a good world government. You don't need to have a supreme entity over all other governments. Having separate countries responsible for them selves is a form of governance on a global level.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-18-2008, 07:17 AM
Well it depends on how we understand world government. I see sovereign countries talking to each other and trading as a good world government. You don't need to have a supreme entity over all other governments. Having separate countries responsible for them selves is a form of governance on a global level.

People that WANT world governent WANT power, don't you see? They can't give it up. kludge, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Kludge
07-18-2008, 07:21 AM
Well it depends on how we understand world government. I see sovereign countries talking to each other and trading as a good world government. You don't need to have a supreme entity over all other governments. Having separate countries responsible for them selves is a form of governance on a global level.

Agreed, this is what I originally meant when I said libertarians are inherently globalists. I think everyone would agree that the larger the corporation/government, the more unruly it is.

When speaking of a global government, I say that while keeping in mind that the larger the area being governed the smaller the government's powers should be.

And when speaking of government, I am using the definition "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution.".

Does anyone here doubt that multi-national crimes take place? Aggression not in self-defense must be prosecuted with the ultimate goal of reparations or punishment as the goal, no matter where it takes place.

Would we trust the North Korean government to hand over our criminals were they to flee the country?

Obviously, this kind of global government is VERY far off, and would probably be toward the very end of the radical libertarian agenda. Much needs to change before this is even thought of being put in place.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 07:23 AM
People that WANT world governent WANT power, don't you see? They can't give it up. kludge, you should be ashamed of yourself!

:rolleyes: Libertine... Do you not realize the benefits government can give? Turning the judicial system over to a third party is exceptionally dangerous and incredibly irresponsible. Voluntary funding is preferable and hopefully will fully fund a public judicial system, but it must be funded - even if aggression occurs in the collection of its needed funds.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-18-2008, 07:33 AM
:rolleyes: Libertine... Do you not realize the benefits government can give? Turning the judicial system over to a third party is exceptionally dangerous and incredibly irresponsible. Voluntary funding is preferable and hopefully will fully fund a public judicial system, but it must be funded - even if aggression occurs in the collection of its needed funds.

statist...:rolleyes:

Dear former anarchist turned statist,

I never advocated support for market anarchy :) as long as people can opt out, it's ok. If you can force your people to pay with force, why bother relying on voluntary funding? Might as well go for the juggler.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 07:37 AM
If you can force your people to pay with force, why bother relying on voluntary funding? Might as well go for the juggler.

Jugglers piss me off. They must be taxed into poverty!

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 07:38 AM
What you are saying is very naive, Kludge. Nor, do I think it's a good depiction of libertarianism. Since before the League of Nations, there have been attempts to establish a global ruling body and this was not done by people who were seeking peace and harmony or to enable handing over international criminals. It has always been about power and control, as is the case with most governments. Tell me something, please. What in your eyes, is the reason why our own government was to have the majority of the powers with the states and the people? What was the reasoning behind it?

The same thing has been attempted by the United Nations and President after President of our own government have given the reason of their unconstitutional supporting of wars to enforce UN sanctions, as necessary to allow the vision of the UN Founders to come to fruition. Do you know what those goals ARE? While we're at it, what are the major differences between the UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution? Who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council and given their actions in their own countries, are you comfortable with ceding your liberty to their whims?

If we believe it a daunting task to get someone with Ron Paul's principles (and I say that, because there appear to be a whole lot of people who believe themselves to be liberty-minded individuals, but have absolutely no clue as to the history of this movement, even as far as Ron Paul is concerned, rendering the term liberty-minded absolutely worthless), elected to the U.S. Congress, how on earth do you think we would manage to get someone who understood liberty in a WORLD GOVERNMENT? That is why in fact that the majority of the power was to be kept very close to the people. So we could have a much greater impact upon it. That's why. My one vote has much more influence in a local election, than it does a federal, or a world election. Assuming of course that there were even elections at the world level. I also can sway the local voters with my activism, much easier at the local or state level, than I can the federal or global level.

World Communism may sound endearing to some, but I will have none of it.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 07:43 AM
What you are saying is very naive, Kludge. Nor, do I think it's a good depiction of libertarianism. Since before the League of Nations, there have been attempts to establish a global ruling body and this was not done by people who were seeking peace and harmony or to enable handing over international criminals. It has always been about power and control, as is the case with most governments. Tell me something, please. What in your eyes, is the reason why our own government was to have the majority of the powers with the states and the people? What was the reasoning behind it?

The same thing has been attempted by the United Nations and President after President of our own government have given the reason of their unconstitutional supporting of wars to enforce UN sanctions, as necessary to allow the vision of the UN Founders to come to fruition. Do you know what those goals ARE? While we're at it, what are the major differences between the UN Charter and the U.S. Constitution? Who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council and given their actions in their own countries, are you comfortable with ceding your liberty to their whims?

If we believe it a daunting task to get someone with Ron Paul's principles (and I say that, because there appear to be a whole lot of people who believe themselves to be liberty-minded individuals, but have absolutely no clue as to the history of this movement, even as far as Ron Paul is concerned, rendering the term liberty-minded absolutely worthless), elected to the U.S. Congress, how on earth do you think we would manage to get someone who understood liberty in a WORLD GOVERNMENT? That is why in fact that the majority of the power was to be kept very close to the people. So we could have a much greater impact upon it. That's why. My one vote has much more influence in a local election, than it does a federal, or a world election. Assuming of course that there were even elections at the world level. I also can sway the local voters with my activism, much easier at the local or state level, than I can the federal or global level.

World Communism may sound endearing to some, but I will have none of it.

Again, globalism is a goal once we fix America and lead by example. The libertarian vision of globalism is not possible in the world as we know it. I don't intend to see libertarian globalism before I die. The global government would act solely as a global prosecutor of aggression - or whatever non-aggressive services it can offer were it to have excess funding.

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 07:47 AM
Again, globalism is a goal once we fix America and lead by example. The libertarian vision of globalism is not possible in the world as we know it. I don't intend to see libertarian globalism before I die. The global government would act solely as a global prosecutor of aggression - or whatever non-aggressive services it can offer were it to have excess funding.

World communism may be YOUR goal, but it most certainly is NOT MINE. The idea that you somehow think that giving that much control to a small group of individuals, would not end up in total tyranny is unbelievable and most certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism. Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would support this goal? Because he has written throughout the years about the dangers of world government.

Frankly, I'm still in shock that you believe this.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-18-2008, 07:50 AM
World communism may be YOUR goal, but it most certainly is NOT MINE. The idea that you somehow think that giving that much control to a small group of individuals, would not end up in total tyranny is unbelievable and most certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism. Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would support this goal? Because he has written throughout the years about the dangers of world government.

Frankly, I'm still in shock that you believe this.

Do I ever shock you anymore?

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 07:51 AM
Do I ever shock you anymore?

lol. Not much. :p

Kludge
07-18-2008, 07:51 AM
World communism may be YOUR goal, but it most certainly is NOT MINE. The idea that you somehow think that giving that much control to a small group of individuals, would not end up in total tyranny is unbelievable and most certainly has nothing to do with libertarianism. Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul would support this goal? Because he has written throughout the years about the dangers of world government.

Frankly, I'm still in shock that you believe this.

You continue to call it communism. However, that would assume governments are given the privilege to grow from its original intention.

This allowance is the greatest flaw in the Constitution (and why it eventually needs to be replaced if the people are ever given the power) and every known government in the world. Governments need to be told what they CAN do instead of specific things they cannot. With those restrictions, the world government could not grow, nor could ours.

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 08:11 AM
You continue to call it communism.
Because that is what it is.


However, that would assume governments are given the privilege to grow from its original intention.

They ALWAYS do, Kludge. That's the point.


This allowance is the greatest flaw in the Constitution (and why it eventually needs to be replaced if the people are ever given the power) and every known government in the world.
People "given" the power? What do you mean here? Do you think the federal government is just going to all of a sudden adhere to the Constitution, or are you saying that we should have Democracy (mob rule)?


Governments need to be told what they CAN do instead of specific things they cannot.
Have you forgotten the enumerated powers in the Constitution and also the 10th Amendment?


With those restrictions, the world government could not grow, nor could ours.

Do you honestly believe this? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some people will ALWAYS try to get more power, Kludge. That is why our Founders warned us that we would not be able to keep our Republic unless we were vigilant. No piece of paper is going to guarantee compliance. We see that every single day. The recently passed FISA bill is unconstitutional as all heck, but they did it anyway. It clearly is against the 4th amendment. I called my own Senators about it and an aide for one actually told me that it was justified due to what he called the "necessary and proper clause" in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

It says...
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So basically, this Senator is saying that if they don't agree with the Constitution, the Congress can just ignore it and do any damn thing they want. Clearly, this is not what this statement says, nor does it give the Congress any new powers, much less permit them to ignore the Constitution. Our government is running wild right now.

Our Founders DID try to constrain the federal government and there probably needs to be an Amendment or two to tighten up a couple of things, but the bottom line is that we the people can't sit on the sidelines and expect ANY document to do our jobs for us of being involved in our own government, reading and understanding what they're legislating and taking action to kick them out of office if they stray outside of their oath of office. The reality is that we got fat and sassy and fell asleep while our country was looted and our government was sold to the highest bidder.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
- George Washington

“Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
- Thomas Jefferson

Now, how exactly do you think it would be a more successful venture to have world government? :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 08:31 AM
The libertarian vision of globalism is not possible in the world as we know it. I don't intend to see libertarian globalism before I die. The global government would act solely as a global prosecutor of aggression - or whatever non-aggressive services it can offer were it to have excess funding.

Kludge, I seriously do not think you are accurately representing libertarianism. I have never known libertarianism to include world government as its goal. In fact, just the opposite.

Anyone else?

Kludge
07-18-2008, 08:39 AM
Why do you continue to defend states? I've questioned it a few times but you've evaded it.

The 10th amendment simply moves the power to states, another GOVERNMENT (whether you admit it or not).

The Constitution is a failure. Collectively, people have proven themselves incapable of keeping government in check. Maybe it is time for the tree of liberty to be watered to fix the mistakes of our founders since the Constitution gave looters so much power.


I do believe the global government can be kept in check if we had a supreme law and government system that was better thought-out. I'd imagine humanity is, relatively, still very early in their existence. Natural selection weeds out incompetence until we reach perfection. Maybe I'm full of myself, but I think it's time we take another shot at it in order to form a more perfect society. Our government is failing, and incompetence is the cause - with ourselves and the founders as the culprits behind it.

JosephTheLibertarian
07-18-2008, 08:40 AM
Kludge, I seriously do not think you are accurately representing libertarianism. I have never known libertarianism to include world government as its goal. In fact, just the opposite.

Anyone else?

I agree with you ;)

Kludge
07-18-2008, 08:41 AM
I agree with you ;)

LE's lucky day, eh?

Kludge
07-18-2008, 08:42 AM
Kludge, I seriously do not think you are accurately representing libertarianism. I have never known libertarianism to include world government as its goal. In fact, just the opposite.

Anyone else?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Pro-globalization_.28globalism.29

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 09:02 AM
Why do you continue to defend states? I've questioned it a few times but you've evaded it.

Why do you continue to defend states? You're advocating a massive super state that has control over everyone on the planet. Why?


The 10th amendment simply moves the power to states, another GOVERNMENT (whether you admit it or not).

Yes, I realize that. I personally do believe that we need some government, but very close to the people. So that the people can control it.


The Constitution is a failure.
No. The failure lies with US. We fell asleep and didn't do our jobs of being vigilant.


Collectively, people have proven themselves incapable of keeping government in check.
Yet, you seem to think a world government would work. :rolleyes:


Maybe it is time for the tree of liberty to be watered to fix the mistakes of our founders since the Constitution gave looters so much power.

If you read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, it is clear that the intent of the Founders is not being followed. That is one of the reasons why you used to see so many people on here talking about our government's unconstitutional actions.


I do believe the global government can be kept in check if we had a supreme law and government system that was better thought-out.

If we can't even keep a national government in check, how on earth do you think we could keep a global government in check?


I'd imagine humanity is, relatively, still very early in their existence. Natural selection weeds out incompetence until we reach perfection. Maybe I'm full of myself, but I think it's time we take another shot at it in order to form a more perfect society.
People have had that agenda for a long time and the people behind it have not been well-meaning. Our Constitution is not perfect, but if we throw it to the wind and have a Constitutional Convention, everything is up for grabs. Every one of our rights; even the premise that we OWN our rights, that they do not come from government.


Our government is failing, and incompetence is the cause - with ourselves and the founders as the culprits behind it.

Our Founders were not perfect, but the Constitution is not the main problem. It is the fact that we sat on our butts while our government ignored it. The Constitution by far laid out the best form of government the world has ever known. Our country was not successful out of pure luck. It was the freedom that was laid out in the Constitution, that enabled capitalism and individual liberty to prosper.

It's time we held our public servants accountable. Which I believe is why many in this movement had the mantra of "reinstate the Constitution".

Kludge
07-18-2008, 09:05 AM
Last word.

LibertyEagle
07-18-2008, 09:26 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Pro-globalization_.28globalism.29

You are referring to Jeffrey Sachs it seems, where he said:

" —Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty, 2005

Libertarians and proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say that higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are ends in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism. [13]"

Globalism, in the sense of free market trading with countries around the world, is not at all the same thing as promoting global governance. Ron Paul himself advocates trading with the rest of the world, but he is a staunch opponent of global government.

But, since you brought up Mr. Sachs, let's take a closer look at him.


Fortunately, the UN could call on Jeffrey D.Sachs,special adviser on the Millennium Development Goals to Secretary-General Kofi Annan and author of The End of Poverty. He’s also director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0605tooley.pdf


I was reminded of this tragically comic event as I read Jeffery Sachs’s The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time,a purported “blueprint”to solve global poverty. In clear, concise, and at times convincing prose, Sachs shames the world for not doing more to promote development in poor countries and argues for an increase in foreign aid to jump-start the growth process. His obdurate faith in foreign aid contradicts the majority of empirical evidence gathered over foreign aid’s 60-year modern history. Undeterred, Sachs forges ahead with a
flawed strategy.

Sachs uses as his blueprint the United Nations Millennium Project, which, among other things, seeks to halve the number of individuals living on less than $1 a
day and reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate for those under 5 by 2015.Ambitious stuff,no doubt.After a couple of hundred pages of autobiographical ruminations, Sachs finally outlines his course for reaching these goals:
money, money, money. Rich countries, writes Sachs, have consistently shorted the developing world in foreign aid.Accordingly, he called on the U.S. government
and their Western counterparts to increase “Official Development Assistance” to 0.44 percent of GDP in 2006 and to 0.54 percent by 2015. Approximately $7
billion needs to be spent by 2015 on scientific research to address climate change,energy production,and health care in poor countries, Sachs writes.
For people familiar with the history of foreign aid, this simply sounds like more of the same failed policy that development “experts” have been pushing for
decades.

For more of the book review:
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/0703bookreviews.pdf

He sure doesn't sound like a libertarian to me? Anyone else?

H Roark
07-18-2008, 01:49 PM
Multiculturalism is bad and ugly. Multiculturalism is just another Newspeak word, it actually produces the exact opposite of what it supposedly means. Globalists love pushing this fairytale idea where a person embraces everybody else's culture while simultaneously honoring there own, even though these said cultures are incompatible or at odds with one another. Culture is subjective.

The reason why the media, government and big business sector push for multiculturalism is because once you have a population of multipile cultures intermarrying and making concessions one another's culture; it starts to break down the integrity of said cultures. As the population begins to become more homogenous, what you are left with is a culture of consumerism, where the lowest common denominator between people is simply a love of money or material possesions.

HOLLYWOOD
07-18-2008, 02:13 PM
OLIGARCHY = GLOBALIST


oligarchy is "a government in which power is in the hands of a few." To those who have been educated to believe in the ideal of a democratic government, i.e., one that ostensibly spreads the power around even to the smallest "little person," the idea of an oligarchy seems abhorrent and straight out of the Dark Ages.

After all, "all men are created equal," so how dare anyone else attempt to dictate how someone should or shouldn't lead his or her life? Ideally, citizens of a democracy would never allow a handful of individuals dictate policy for the rest.

Yet, what is held on this planet at this time to be a democratic government is, upon inspection, in reality an oligarchy, with a small percentage of citizens establishing and enforcing policy. Although many citizens of so-called democratic societies may believe they are living under a majority rule, they truly are not. In fact, in large communities, this direct democracy would be impossible, even with the best voting techniques and technology, because every day there are hundreds of decisions that governing bodies face without the input of the "common people."

Ever investigate Ted 'RACIST' Kennedy's legislations? 40 years of polarizations, segregations, determinations, and isolations, of peoples stature and ethnicities.

Lord Xar
07-18-2008, 02:58 PM
You support state government?

You terrible person.

Borders? Terrible.



I just want to earn enough wealth to pit small local tribes against each other...


I could make a.... KILLING. Bwahahahahahahaha.

Blacks Vs. Jooz #18

Kluge, your being silly and shortsighted. Your desire for one global government is corruption in its extreme. Such a monstrosity would never ever be liable to the will of the people, not ever have any intent to be a benevolent entity. It would be a taskmaster in which the people would be become slaves, and completely loose autonomy. Imho.

The globalists and one-world government types have hijacked the republican party and are now trying to make inroads into the libertarian party - as they see that as where americans are running scared from the power hungry globalists. So, the libertarian message will eventually be convoluted and hijacked. They will preach "open borders" and such -- but its all a waste of time. Ignore them, soon they will go away.

lasenorita
07-18-2008, 03:41 PM
Multiculturalism is bad and ugly.

<snip />

Globalists love pushing this fairytale idea where a person embraces everybody else's culture while simultaneously honoring there own, even though these said cultures are incompatible or at odds with one another.


I wonder ...do you base your analysis on observations of persons who have lived in a truly multicultural environment or on your own ideas of what multicultural individuals experience? :confused:


Yes, it's hard to fully integrate one culture with another -- improbable, really. However, it's not impossible to integrate elements of one culture to another and create a third culture. This is most successfully achieved by those who have actually grown up and immersed themselves in a totally different environment.

Multiculturalism does not necessarily imply that one lacks culture. :rolleyes: We're not all uncouth individuals who are wantonly guided by love for money and material possessions. Multiculturalism has its many blessings, but its biggest challenge, imho, is that it deprives from one the sense of rooted identity and cultural stability. I dare say that third culture-peoples usually have a stronger motivation to study and observe the traditions and proper interactions in order to better adapt to their surroundings. And yes, preserving the integrity of cultures is an honorable idea, but not very pragmatic. Peoples and values change -- what was accepted as correct societal behavior years ago now seems foreign and strange.


Having said all that, I can understand why you would think that real cultural diversity is impossible to achieve. A person who is so rooted to their traditions will find it very difficult to empathize with one that is so different from their own. It takes a whole lot of tolerance and human compassion to even get along with another person -- let alone another culture! :)

nbhadja
07-18-2008, 04:18 PM
Kludge, you acknowledge that the US gov has failed yet you want a global government?? Government ALWAYS fails.

mconder
07-18-2008, 04:22 PM
Some cultures are superior to others. Some succeed and others fail. We should try to understand the cultures that have succeeded and what specific elements lead to their success and leave the rest for time to quickly forget.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Some cultures are better than others. Some succeed and others fail. We should try to understand the cultures that have succeeded and what specific elements lead to their success and leave the rest for time to quickly forget.

Europe is successful. Africa is a disheartening war-zone supported by U.N. aid - what's left after corruption anyways.

The difference? Race. White people are superior, just look at the experimental data.


:p

H Roark
07-18-2008, 04:45 PM
I wonder ...do you base your analysis on observations of persons who have lived in a truly multicultural environment or on your own ideas of what multicultural individuals experience? :confused:

I live in Los Angeles county, my analysis is based on observations. There is no trust among people here thanks to the effects of multiculturalism.


Yes, it's hard to fully integrate one culture with another -- improbable, really. However, it's not impossible to integrate elements of one culture to another and create a third culture. This is most successfully achieved by those who have actually grown up and immersed themselves in a totally different environment.

You're right about this, and with the integration of elements from one culture you inevitably lose elements from the original culture. This "third culture" you speak of is never mentioned.

Remember that American culture is also another culture that has been homogenized as well.

Lord Xar
07-18-2008, 06:01 PM
I live in Los Angeles county, my analysis is based on observations. There is no trust among people here thanks to the effects of multiculturalism.

10000% truth. Same with me. this "multiculturism" breeds balkanization and nothing but problems.



You're right about this, and with the integration of elements from one culture you inevitably lose elements from the original culture. This "third culture" you speak of is never mentioned. Hmmm I never remembed seeing a poster exclaiming "Celebrate Your Third Culture" in the break room at work?

Remember that American culture is also another culture that has been homogenized as well.

Yeah, but we are overwhelmed by tens of millions of those with another culture and another agenda. There is NO assimiliation and almost no association. The burden of inclusion has been placed on the majority, so much so - its becoming the minority.