Alex Jones debates the Free Talk Live guys on Immigration & Anarchy

[Fredom101]

Pretty good stuff, I thought Ian was really sharp, except when he gave Alex a concession and said that freedom through politics could work in NH. Alex was actually mostly calm except for one part when he was backed into a corner, and even was seeming to grasp some of Ian's market anarchism towards the end:

YouTube - Ian Freeman & Mark Edge Debate About Immigration & States Rights on Alex Jones Tv 1/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hySE0ViWvY) (Part 1/4, the rest are on the Alex Jones Channel)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ian and Mark, awesome as usual.

Those four tubes just reek of liberty. The sounds of freedom are dripping off the airwaves every time they speak. You can really feel the bold sense of empowerment being around like minded liberty activists. They have truly broken out of the Matrix.

Something like "I don't care if they drop a nuke on NH, I had a great time living the past three years."

"We just want to live like free people and that is what we are GOING to do!"

Priceless!

other 3 parts:

YouTube - Ian Freeman & Mark Edge Debate About Immigration & States Rights on Alex Jones Tv 2/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv1NGvfecT4&feature=channel)

YouTube - Ian Freeman & Mark Edge Debate About Immigration & States Rights on Alex Jones Tv 3/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr6-1NvQyrI&feature=channel)

YouTube - Ian Freeman & Mark Edge Debate About Immigration & States Rights on Alex Jones Tv 4/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoBDxnb1xgc&feature=channel)

[AGRP]

A nation without defined and protected borders is not a nation at all.

[Fredom101]

A nation without defined and protected borders is not a nation at all.

Exactly. The nation-state is also dying, and I'm okay with that. At some point the Sovereign Individual will rule and people will scratch their heads at how we could even have ever accepted government, just like we look at slavery now.

[brandon]

Thanks. I'll watch this tomorrow.

[Sentient Void]

With a truly just and fully 100% capitalist society - borders and nations will be obsolete.

[JamesButabi]

Ian and Mark have a solid, consistent message. They don't deviate principles and focus on promoting progress rather than proving conspiracies. They are a great example for all peaceful people looking to accomplish real results.

[Jace]

With a truly just and fully 100% capitalist society - borders and nations will be obsolete.

Sounds like a New World Order.

[tremendoustie]

Sounds like a New World Order.

The only alternative to lots of large gangs is not one giant gang.

There's also the possibility of abolishing the gangs.

[Jace]

The only alternative to lots of large gangs is not one giant gang.

There's also the possibility of abolishing the gangs.

Good luck with that.

[tremendoustie]

Good luck with that.

Thanks :)

We're both trying to shrink the gang in D.C ... perhaps I just plan to keep on trying to shrink it a bit longer ;). I don't like gangs, period.

[Kýrie eléison]

Thanks :)

We're both trying to shrink the gang in D.C ... perhaps I just plan to keep on trying to shrink it a bit longer ;). I don't like gangs, period.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Scooby-gang-1969.jpg

Haha. Good discussion, thanks for posting. =]

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ian is great. You guys do know the modern Social Democratic Nation-State would have been laughed at in 1500, right? You would have been called utopiasts, loons, never going to happen, etc. We evolve our societal systems as a species. Liberty is not utopia. What is utopia is the politician saying he can give everyone, and anyone everything they want, at no cost. That is utopic. Saying that no one has any legitimate authority to violate Natural Law, and my liberty, hardly counts as utopic.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

Answers all your most famous objections (From Hobbes, and Locke, too).

[Anti Federalist]

Pretty good stuff, I thought Ian was really sharp, except when he gave Alex a concession and said that freedom through politics could work in NH. Alex was actually mostly calm except for one part when he was backed into a corner, and even was seeming to grasp some of Ian's market anarchism towards the end:

YouTube - Ian Freeman & Mark Edge Debate About Immigration & States Rights on Alex Jones Tv 1/4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hySE0ViWvY) (Part 1/4, the rest are on the Alex Jones Channel)

Great interview, and a fan of all three men, but that freeze frame youtube picture made me LOL.

Looked too much like this V

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/blog/images/huh.jpg

[tremendoustie]

Great interview, and a fan of all three men

Yep ... I personally don't listen to Alex Jones much, nor do I agree with all of his opinions, but I recognize that he wakes a lot of people up, and does a great deal of good for liberty.



, but that freeze frame youtube picture made me LOL.

Looked too much like this V


Lol. Maybe Mark's long lost inbred second cousin.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Great interview, and a fan of all three men, but that freeze frame youtube picture made me LOL.

Looked too much like this V

I don't have anything against Alex but the contrast is obvious.

Alex: I want to wake people up.

Ian & Mark: Not only are we waking people up Alex, but we are also exercising civil disobedience because we ARE living free. Freedom is not optional or dependent on who else wakes up.

[tremendoustie]

I don't have anything against Alex but the contrast is obvious.

Alex: I want to wake people up.

Ian & Mark: Not only are we waking people up Alex, but we are also exercising civil disobedience because we ARE living free. Freedom is not optional or dependent on who else wakes up.

Suggesting real solutions is important, but the cause of liberty would be far worse off without Alex, I think that much is obvious.

[.Tom]

Great interview. I'm a huge FTL fan and hopefully one day Alex will wake up even further.

Maybe one day the market for bullshit conspiracy theory talk shows will dry up and he can switch over to a full head-on libertarian show.

[TruckinMike]

With a truly just and fully 100% capitalist society - borders and nations will be obsolete.

Yes and when that happens I'll start selling my flying pigs to southwest airlines. :eek:

I think Mark and Ian are a good mix-up from the standard AJ show. They articulate a side of freedom that many have never heard. However, AJ is right about the borders in the world we live in. Ultra Liberatarianism is fine for the classroom,and maybe fine way off in the future, but for now...

Secure the Borders!

TMike

[Nate]

Good luck with that.

Good luck trying to control your "nation state". Those work out sooooo well for advancing freedom.

Ah yes, "secure our borders", how? More men with uniforms & guns, what a unique idea for a solution to the immigration problem. Think of that all by yourself? I mean nobody ever tries the whole statist more guys with guns thing anymore. Good thing we have you here to help with the whole "freedom" thing. But at least we won't have those dirty "illegals" who cross a imaginary line created by statist thugs.

[ClayTrainor]

Ultra Liberatarianism is fine for the classroom,and maybe fine way off in the future, but for now...

Secure the Borders! The State is the Solution. Papers or GTFO!


This is what you really mean, right?

http://tenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/papers1.jpeg

[LibertyWorker]

Yes and when that happens I'll start selling my flying pigs to southwest airlines. :eek:

I think Mark and Ian are a good mix-up from the standard AJ show. They articulate a side of freedom that many have never heard. However, AJ is right about the borders in the world we live in. Ultra Liberatarianism is fine for the classroom,and maybe fine way off in the future, but for now...

Secure the Borders!

TMike


WOW... another slave that loves their own chains..... look he is even willing to put them on and lock them himself...... your master didn't even have to beat you or tax you or threaten you.

Your master trained you well.

[Jace]

This is what you really mean, right?

http://tenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/papers1.jpeg

Classic. Securing borders is equivalent to being a Nazi.

Anarchists are either subversives or useful idiots for the NWO.

How did the Ron Paul Forums get overrun by anarchists?

Ron Paul is for limited government and following the Constitution, not anarchism.

Reminds me of how subversives would attempt to undermine the antiwar America First Committee by dressing up like Nazis and attending their rallies. Then the newspapers would take pictures of these Nazis and write articles about how America Firsters supported Hitler.

Open borders are what the international bankers want. Obama, the SPLC, AIPAC and the ADL want open borders, too. Anyone who doesn't is to be smeared as a Nazi.

Nice tactic.

[catdd]

They are going to ruin his chances in 2012 if they continue to protest for open borders while calling themselves "Ron Paul supporters" when that is NOT his platform.
The republicans are already calling RP a RINO and the open border crowd are eating right out of their hands on this issue by siding with the Liberals.
We need to keep a lid on open borders and try getting the Presidency first because we have a long way to go before we can even seriously begin demanding such a major change.
Get drugs decriminalized, end the welfare state, end the fed and get the economy stabilized by getting RP or someone like him in power first.
Whoever it was protesting for open borders and calling themselves RP supporters has to stop.

[ClayTrainor]

Classic. Securing borders is equivalent to being a Nazi.


I realize now that posting that picture of the nazi's asking for documentation was a mistake, as it's almost always divisive to compare someones positions to the Nazi's. For that, I apologize.

However, State Documentation or "papers" are not required to have human rights. The idea of socialized/public borders is that all people within must be approved by the state, or else coercive action will be used against th em. Right now many advocates of smaller government are advocating the expansion of state power in order to further enforce these laws, and I think this is a mistake that history has already taught us about.




Anarchists are either subversives or useful idiots for the NWO.


Every single one of them?



How did the Ron Paul Forums get overrun by anarchists?


There's a healthy mix of many ideologies here, always has been. The anarchists have always had a fairly significant presence, but it does seem to be growing a lot in the last year or so. It's not just newcomers, it's some of the forum veterans who have changed their minds as well. I was as a Minarchist for my first few years here.



Ron Paul is for limited government and following the Constitution, not anarchism.


He has been known to advocate even more Liberty than the constitution offers.

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Civil Disobedience, Self-Government & More with Motorhome Diaries (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFYRHZpavX4#t=4m5s)

Ron Paul is a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, I'm not denying this. However Ron Paul also reads and is heavily influenced by guys like Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. He asked Tom Woods, who is an an-cap, to speak to congress. You shouldn't be surprised that the views of Ron Pauls influences are also reflected in this forum.




Open borders are what the international bankers want. Obama, the SPLC, AIPAC and the ADL want open borders, too. Anyone who doesn't is to be smeared as a Nazi.

Nice tactic.

More state power is what they want, and that's what you gotta give them to further enforce the borders.

[Sentient Void]

Okay, well first off - I never said anything about opening up the borders under our current government structure - let's get that straight. So you know, I'm actually with Alex Jones on that subject, that under the current system of welfare, you *cannot* have open borders. I think *MOST* other market anarchists on this board would actually agree with me as well on this. I do *not* think it's smart to just open the borders. However, in a just and 100% capitalist society (zero state), nations and borders will be irrelevant. There would just be those individual and group/business entities who own property, trading, buying/selling from eachother, etc.

At the same time, I believe the way to solve this problem of illegal immigration is with LESS government, *not* MORE. Using the state as a tool, particularly when it requires GROWTH of the state - is not the answer. The real answer to illegal immigration is to first reform, then abolish the welfare state. Remember - LESS government, NOT more.

If anything, the immigration problem will just be yet another 'crisis' that the government uses as an excuse to take away more liberties, and as in all cases and crises - the people usually beg for it. The state is not dumb, it knows how to get you to want to systematically support the destruction of your liberties. You're playing right into their hands if you think more government in any way is EVER the answer. The answer is *always* less government.

I can't speak for all anarcho-capitalists here, but I personally see the road to a truly just and free society, one that is purely capitalistic and respectful of property rights, as a gradualist approach. There is also much to be said about the 'agorist' or 'counter-economics' approach, as well - though it's not personally my approach, and I feel such an approach will be most effective when the violent power of the state is crippled through economic destabilization (even though things are bad, we're not quite there yet, but it's accomplishing this on it's own). For me at least, the idea is to minimize the state in all matters, maximize the free market and individual liberty the CORRECT way through privatization (privatize and split up public monopolies) and reduced regulation and taxes over time accordingly. Through showing the success and increased prosperity of liberty, you lead as example - and over time more will follow until we get to a minarchist state again, which can continue to be slowly broken down and privatized until there's nothing left but a purely an-cap society. I acknowledge the problems with attempting to minimize / reduce the state on it's own terms, but I feel through education, passion and the internet - this can be done, and so far has been very successful in only the last few years.

Do I see this as possible in our lifetimes? Probably not - but we have to start trying to move in that direction sometime. The first step is educating people, and the internet has been a VERY important piece to the puzzle of informing, educating and waking people up to the philosophy of liberty and the failure of the state.

I may be a market-anarchist (understand, there are different types of anarchists out there, if you're thinking of the anarchists Glenn beck has been talking about, we don't follow that form), but I acknowledge the importance of minarchism / limited-government as a solid stepping stone to the ultimate ideal. Understand, most market anarchists / Anarcho-Capitalists started out as minarchists, including myself and many others on this board. However, once you take the philosophy of liberty to it's *logical* conclusion, you will end up as a market-anarchist, for a number of reasons. I suggest you check out the Philosophy subforum of these forums under 'off-topic' if you want to learn more - or some of us can suggest some books if you want to understand what we're talking about.

During the time of the founding fathers, or even the entire 20th century, it was very hard for individuals to inform themselves and learn about liberty and learn about what the govt and politicians are doing. Now, with ifnormation and commerce the way it is, with internet and social networks and the easability of spreading ideas - now is the best time in history to move in such a direction and really empower the market and individual rights.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I acknowledge the problems with attempting to minimize / reduce the state on it's own terms, but I feel through education, passion and the internet - this can be done, and so far has been very successful in only the last few years.

Do I see this as possible in our lifetimes? Probably not - but we have to start trying to move in that direction sometime. The first step is educating people, and the internet has been a VERY important piece to the puzzle of informing, educating and waking people up to the philosophy of liberty and the failure of the state.

Education without action is meaningless. Free markets are unlikely to move beyond theory without a working model. Stating it is not possible in our lifetimes defies the historical record of civil disobedience reaching critical mass.



I may be a market-anarchist, but I acknowledge the importance of minarchism / limited-government as a solid stepping stone to the ultimate ideal.

I don't acknowledge the importance of minarchism. Partnership did not work out well for the anti-federalists. Besides if you are going to risk it all for a pipe dream that requires eternal vigilance why aim for second best, monopoly, and coercion?



During the time of the founding fathers, or even the entire 20th century, it was very hard for individuals to inform themselves and learn about liberty and learn about what the govt and politicians are doing. Now, with ifnormation and commerce the way it is, with internet and social networks and the easability of spreading ideas - now is the best time in history to move in such a direction and really empower the market and individual rights.

It won't last. It is naive to think it will last. All evidence indicates the international community has set its sights on internet regulation, e-commerce regulation, and e-commerce taxation.

Bottom line is the world is in a state of economic unrest. If the opportunity before us is not capitalized on... international governance in commerce will dominate the world.

The window of opportunity has a shelf life directly linked to the economy. Pick a movement in the U.S. many have risen and have been marginalized to nothing. I am not saying it can't rise again but to think defeat will be anything but a major set back is a little out of touch with reality.

I think people ought to look in the mirror and decide if they really want the person they are looking at to be free from coercion. Do they have the stomach to boldly proceed in the interests of liberty?

To be free or not to be free. That is the question of these generations. Are the generations of liberty prepared to pledge among each other? I find it extremely arrogant to look at the history of the U.S. and think the government will drastically reduce itself in size and scope. That is just not going to happen. The only thing that will happen is policies will be redefined in order to adapt to the present circumstances but the overall goal will be the same.

This is not a pep talk about aggression. It is a pep talk about boldly and peacefully proceeding to the greatest extent possible in the interests of liberty to achieve critical mass. It would not however be without sacrifices or persecution.

People who are mentally and spiritually prepared to boldly proceed advancing the cause of liberty are around. They are waiting. They have been waiting. Consider the possibilities and potential outcomes of drafting a new declaration of independence for 2010.

[eOs]

Alex is spot on with this, these kids are thinking in terms of theory and utopias, not being realistic whatsoever. You can't have a completely free country with other giant government bodies floating around. They'll destroy you in 2 seconds.

[tremendoustie]

Let me say that I wonder why the OP used the term "anarchy", since none of the three persons concerned in this would describe themselves as such.

I'm really tired of this misleading word being thrown around. Everyone I talk to agrees it's a poor choice, yet I still see it time and time again.

[ClayTrainor]

Let me say that I wonder why the OP used the term "anarchy", since none of the three persons concerned in this would describe themselves as such.

Interesting. I feel that I have much to learn from the Free Talk Live guys.



I'm really tired of this misleading word being thrown around. Everyone I talk to agrees it's a poor choice, yet I still see it time and time again.
You're right. I need people like you to keep reminding me of my mistakes. Takes me awhile to fully realize stuff, sometimes. :)

[tremendoustie]

Alex is spot on with this, these kids are thinking in terms of theory and utopias, not being realistic whatsoever. You can't have a completely free country with other giant government bodies floating around. They'll destroy you in 2 seconds.

Your assumption is that fighting forces mustered and controlled by central governments, are more effective than independent citizen militias. It's absolutely false. I can go through the numbers again if you like. For a small fraction of the 350 billion americans spent on charity last year, you could buy an AK47 for one in every three adults, RPG-7s for one in every ten, and more than a million stinger SAMs. Plus, you've got the fact that in a free economy people would be far more wealthy, they'd be spending money every year on defense, and there's already more guns than people in the US. Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

[tremendoustie]

Interesting. I feel that I have much to learn from the Free Talk Live guys.

Yep, I don't agree with them on everything, but they seem to have a lot of good arguments and ideas.



You're right. I need people like you to keep reminding me of my mistakes.


Well, I wasn't trying to pick on you ;).



Takes me awhile to fully realize stuff, sometimes. :)

You and me both :o

[LibertyWorker]

Alex is spot on with this, these kids are thinking in terms of theory and utopias, not being realistic whatsoever. You can't have a completely free country with other giant government bodies floating around. They'll destroy you in 2 seconds.

You should feed that line to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.Because last time I looked pretty sure the United States is one of those "giant government bodies"

I forget have we been there two seconds or 10 years?

No government will ever be able to control people who are willing to fight and die not be controlled.

Americans are physically,mentally and emotionally retarded and that's why they've been enslaved.

[tremendoustie]

You should feed that line to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.Because last time I looked pretty sure the United States is one of those "giant government bodies"

I forget have we been there two seconds or 10 years?

No government will ever be able to control people who are willing to fight and die not be controlled.

And those are basically a bunch of dirt poor goat herders. Look at what they did to the vastly more powerful USSR.

If they had had equal funding, and equal personnel, it would have been an absolute slaughter.

As I say, central armies are the modern equivalent of lining up in nice little rows with red coats and taking turns.

[Sentient Void]

Education without action is meaningless. Free markets are unlikely to move beyond theory without a working model. Stating it is not possible in our lifetimes defies the historical record of civil disobedience reaching critical mass.

Well, obviously education without action is meaningless, and I advocate no such thing. But there's no question that it must *start* with education. Otherwise you have action without education - and that is surely dangerous. As I said, starting with the education of the masses through the internet and the RP campaign in '07 has accomplished in waking up a lottt of people to the philosophy of liberty. And as we've obviously seen, there's been more and more action, through the ballot box, protests, MSM increasingly embracing the diea (Stossel and FreedomWatch), and the states increasingly gettign in the way of federal authority (talk of nullification, new state constitutions, etc). So obviously, we've been making a LOT of headway. Plus, I'm not saying we won't accomplish ANY of it in our lifetimes - what I mean is that we may not achieve a 100% anarcho-capitalist society within our lifetime. Is it possible? Sure - is it probable? I don't know - there's a lotttt of work to be done in the fight against the state. I think achieving a truly just and market anarchist society may take multiple generations (I would love it to be sooner). But it started here and now - and it started with education.


I don't acknowledge the importance of minarchism. Partnership did not work out well for the anti-federalists. Besides if you are going to risk it all for a pipe dream that requires eternal vigilance why aim for second best, monopoly, and coercion?[quote]

That's fine, and you have your place in the liberty movement as an agorist (I'm assuming that's the approach you're advocating). If you can effectively pull it off and get others to as well, more power to you - I think that's wonderful. Personally, I don't think we're quite at that point yet to be able to effectively pull off agorist and counter-economic strategies, or at least i won't put in such risk just yet. A dead libertarian is a useless libertarian, particularly when the masses are still stuck in a lull where they believe everything the MSM and govt says. The state will exercise it's power as it has in the past against those who claim to be 'sovereign individuals', and especially gatherings of them in a community, and you will be marginalized and potentially eliminated if you exercise your right to defense. I feel we can do a lot more good by educating people first and infiltrating the state with the purpose of minimizing it, as we have been doing, as Ron Paul and other liberty candidates are doing.

Once again, I acknowledge the importance of minarchism as a means to an ends - that being a truly free and capitalist society.

[QUOTE=Live_Free_Or_Die;2749261]It won't last. It is naive to think it will last. All evidence indicates the international community has set its sights on internet regulation, e-commerce regulation, and e-commerce taxation.

I disagree - I don't think people will let the internet be touched. The Net neutrality act is definitely something to get a foot in the door and expand - as govt involvement always does... but even the supreme court recently ruled that the FCC has no authority on the internet and ISPs - when it tried to exercise such authority recently. Now they want the act passed - but I don't see it happening, especially with the current wave of anti-establishment and anti-incumbency representatives. The Real ID was shut down when it was being pushed, the superhighway in Texas was shut down due to public outrage, among other things. more and more people are embracing liberty and freedom because of the internet. Is it a risk that it might start being regulated? Sure... but so is getting shot in the face and having all of your accounts frozen if you are an overt agorist / 'sovereign individual' right now. I really think it's smart to continue much more under the radar (as in, not blatantly breaking the law and egging on the state), educate, and infiltrate.


Bottom line is the world is in a state of economic unrest. If the opportunity before us is not capitalized on... international governance in commerce will dominate the world.

You're not going to convert anywhere near enough of the sheeple to openly and brashly challenge the legitimacy of the state and become an agorist. Not going to happen. I think *that* is naive. The minimal percentage of such views will not stop such a thing to happen, if it were - especially if they decide to marginalize / eliminate you (as history has shown they will simply do without blinking). IMO, it is much more productive to mass-educate similar to how Ron Paul has with his campaign, and with liberty candidates getting into the echelons of govt more and more, then, they will not allow such things to happen. Just as all establishment politicians are shaking in their boots right now.


The window of opportunity has a shelf life directly linked to the economy. Pick a movement in the U.S. many have risen and have been marginalized to nothing. I am not saying it can't rise again but to think defeat will be anything but a major set back is a little out of touch with reality.

I hope you don't use the methodology of continuously telling people they are 'out of touch with reality' and 'naive' when trying to convert them, do you? I acknowledge your points and understand where you are coming from - but this method will turn more people off from listening to you than turn them on, regardless of whether you're right or wrong, and regardless of whether the person you're talking to realizes you're right or wrong. You win bees more with honey than you do with vinegar.


I think people ought to look in the mirror and decide if they really want the person they are looking at to be free from coercion. Do they have the stomach to boldly proceed in the interests of liberty?

Unfortunately, just believing you are a truly free and sovereign individual won't stop them from arresting you and shooting you if you resist. You simply can't be as productive in a jail cell or 6 feet under. I believe there are instances where you can covertly exercise your freedom... others are more counter-productive than productive - IMO.


I find it extremely arrogant to look at the history of the U.S. and think the government will drastically reduce itself in size and scope. That is just not going to happen. The only thing that will happen is policies will be redefined in order to adapt to the present circumstances but the overall goal will be the same.

It always starts with the people. We've gotten exactly the kind of government we asked for over the past 100 years, because we were not vigilant, we allowed the federal govt to own and propagandize public schools and other things, and lead us to believe it was there to help us, and we allowed this all to happen. It's our own fault. But we've never had anything like the internet as a tool before with it's unbelievably freeflow of any and all ideas quickly and easily among viral social networks. With access to such seemingly infinite amounts of information about liberty at the click of a button. Right now, because of the internet (or other things in the MSM, books, political movements etc that originated from major influences of the internet) in some way shape or form, the public is waking up and has been able to become increasingly vigilant of what the govt is doing, and backing this up with an increasing knowledge and passion for freedom, liberty and autonomy.

And the sad and unfortunate fact is - the internet is made possible by numerous small, medium, large, and VERY large businesses, ISPs and public utilities all of which operate as we see them because the govt allows autonomy. The only way we can protect our most valuable tool is to get into government and influence it from within and protect it. Losing this tool (or the govt being able to see/access/regulate data or control it) will be THE major setback to the liberty movement - and I sincerely believe that.


People who are mentally and spiritually prepared to boldly proceed advancing the cause of liberty are around. They are waiting. They have been waiting. Consider the possibilities and potential outcomes of drafting a new declaration of independence for 2010.

I know this, I believe it. I am part of the FSP myself and plan on moving to NH in time. NH *will* become the premier libertarian state and I will be a part of that. But such a methodology is that one I've been advocating - changing the govt from within, starting at the local level such as that in NH, for example. And across the US it has been happening with more liberty candidates getting increasing support. I simply disagree that openly challenging the state, at this point in time, is the best way to go about it, while the liberty movement is still, in fact, in it's infancy. it needs more time, and I think pushing this as the method too much so soon could result in it being killed in utero.

[Sentient Void]

Your assumption is that fighting forces mustered and controlled by central governments, are more effective than independent citizen militias. It's absolutely false. I can go through the numbers again if you like. For a small fraction of the 350 billion americans spent on charity last year, you could buy an AK47 for one in every three adults, RPG-7s for one in every ten, and more than a million stinger SAMs. Plus, you've got the fact that in a free economy people would be far more wealthy, they'd be spending money every year on defense, and there's already more guns than people in the US. Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Peace&Freedom]

And the sad and unfortunate fact is - the internet is made possible by numerous small, medium, large, and VERY large businesses, ISPs and public utilities all of which operate as we see them because the govt allows autonomy. The only way we can protect our most valuable tool is to get into government and influence it from within and protect it. Losing this tool (or the govt being able to see/access/regulate data or control it) will be THE major setback to the liberty movement - and I sincerely believe that.



It's very true that the internet can inform and mobilize an activist base faster and more efficiently than any other medium in history---but we still got an unending WOT, Iraq and Afghan war, and pending Iran war. We still got the bank bailout, Obamanation Care, the Patriot act, and McCain nominated while Paul (the king of the web politically from 2007 onwards) didn't win one primary.

We should appreciate the education device the internet brings to the 10%, but realize it's persuasiveness limited to that informed core. Demagoguery, payoff and fear-mongering remains the primary way to get the masses to support a cause. Until we can break the pro-state emotional manipulation of the mob or replace it with a 'benign manipulation' of our own, it may not matter if the internet gets censored/regulated---we're simply not reaching enough people using it to turn the national tide.

[Sentient Void]

It's very true that the internet can inform and mobilize an activist base faster and more efficiently than any other medium in history---but we still got an unending WOT, Iraq and Afghan war, and pending Iran war. We still got the bank bailout, Obamanation Care, the Patriot act, and McCain nominated while Paul (the king of the web politically from 2007 onwards) didn't win one primary.

We should appreciate the education device the internet brings to the 10%, but realize it's persuasiveness limited to that informed core. Demagoguery, payoff and fear-mongering remains the primary way to get the masses to support a cause. Until we can break the pro-state emotional manipulation of the mob or replace it with a 'benign manipulation' of our own, it may not matter if the internet gets censored/regulated---we're simply not reaching enough people using it to turn the national tide.

Oh, I completely agree with you on all counts. It's definitely limited, but I sincerely believe it's the most powerful tool in our toolbox, next to reason and truth itself. The vast majority of the developments in the liberty movement stemmed one way or another from the freedom and use of the internet. Those 10% who organize, communicate, and inform themselves and others on the internet are then able to change the minds of others and influence politics outside of the internet, and this is exactly how it's been done so far and why we've been able to gain so much ground. Also, more and more people are using the internet, and the trend shows continued growth. I think this can only enhance our effectiveness.

The things you mentioned happened anyways, despite the growing tension between the govt and it's constituents, so I acknowledge what your point is there. But with the bailout the vast majority didn't want it and called/emailed in saying so (mostly thanks to people organizing against it on the internet), and the state did it anyways. Lots of other stuff happened because there's still too many sheeple left in the US that need to be woken up (and this is what I mean when I say that the liberty movement is *still* in it's infancy), and are either too uninformed or apathetic to do anything about it. But my point is, is that the desire for true liberty has been growing, and the establishment is getting increasingly uneasy. I think because of the benefits stemming from the internet, people are learning that there is a better way than the state, even though there's many more to awaken and many more still who need further educating and reasoning. We're getting there. It's getting to the point now where the truth of the state is being exposed as a dictatorial entity that will do what it wants against the wishes of the people.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Jones is too much. He had to ruin another interview by bringing up the 911 crap again.

[LibertyWorker]

Jones is too much. He had to ruin another interview by bringing up the 911 crap again.

I agree with you 100%.

9/11 truth is what put him on the map.

9/11 truth is going to be his downfall. It's just an updated version of the JFK conspiracy cult.

[Jace]

Open borders are a tool of statists, internationalists and plutocrats, not liberty-minded people.

If you understand simple economic logic, you will see where they are coming from. The United States was a country with abundant land and natural resources, but with labor scarcity. This made labor here very expensive, and was why slavery developed in the South. The prosperous, innovative and hard-working family farmer gave way to the opulent lifestyles of plantation slave owners.

In the North, wealthy investors would send ships to Eastern and Southern Europe to recruit poor laborers to bring them to Northeastern cities. Large influxes of poor immigrants drove down labor costs in the cities, while driving up rents and prices. Through our history, when the people who were already here began to see their standard of living drop, they organized to resist the influx of newcomers. So we had waves of foreigners coming in, then a backlash that led to immigration restriction, until the negative effects were forgotten, and then the next wave began. Right now we are undergoing the biggest and longest immigration wave ever, and our living standards are dropping while wealth is concentrating in the hands of a small plutocracy.

Nations with surplus labor (China, India, Mexico, etc.) tend to be ruled by cliquish plutocracies, while having non-existent middle classes and demoralizing poverty.

One of the biggest proponents of open borders was John D. Rockefeller. In Ludlow, Colorado at the turn of the century, Rockefeller owned coal mines. The work was dangerous and difficult in the mines and it was hard to find miners willing to work for what he wanted to pay. He solved this problem by importing foreign labor. He imported Italians, and when they demanded higher wages, he imported Mexicans. When the Mexicans asked for more pay, he brought in Poles and Greeks. He would play these groups off each other and it worked great because they would compete against each other for work. The newest arrivals would work hard until they figured out they were being exploited, then another group would be brought in. The different groups couldn't effectively ask for higher pay and safe working conditions because they spoke different languages and had different customs and cultures, and were mistrustful of each other and of the native population. Finally, they realized that they were being paid less than what their labor was worth, and they demanded higher compensation for the difficult work they were doing. They organized and went on strike. Then Rockefeller called in the National Guard, which massacred 19 of them, including women and children, in what today is called the Ludlow Massacre.

Rockefeller was pro-immigration not from a humanitarian standpoint, but because he knew by importing impoverished and ignorant foreigners, he could drive down the market value of labor and drive out smaller operations to secure a monopoly. He used his profits to secure support of the state, which massacred his non-compliant and alien workforce.

Today, the plutocrats have opened up our borders because it serves their interests, which are keeping the cost of labor low while keeping prices and rents high. Silicon Valley was founded by American engineers, but if you go into any company in Silicon Valley today, you will see that American engineers have been driven out, replaced by Chinese and Indian-born engineers who are here on H1B visas, essentially indentured servants. Americans have been driven out of food service, construction and landscaping work here over the last 20 years, entirely replaced by foreign-born labor. Yet the cost of living keeps climbing. And the state keeps expanding.

We now have 300 million people in this country and a 9 percent unemployment rate -- 12 percent in California where immigrants make up a larger percentage of the population compared to most states. We are becoming a nation with a surplus of workers. We don't need any more people, but they will continue to come, whether there is a welfare state or not. China, India, Africa and Latin America have a surplus of poor, hungry people, and millions of them would move here in a heartbeat, even if it meant sleeping in doorways and eating out of trash cans.

We have to decide what type of society we want to be. Do we want to be a middle class nation where rich people pay workers a middle class wage? Of small business owners and homeowners? Or do we want to be a crowded, impoverished nation, like India, where workers are dependent and subservient to a small plutocracy, and grateful for the privilege of serving them. A nation of corporations and low-wage workers paying landlords rent?

[South Park Fan]

So closed-border advocates are claiming that increased competition on the labor market is a bad thing? One should realize that by having more immigrants reduce the cost of labor, that also reduces the cost of products for consumers, thus ending up as a net benefit for everyone.

[Jace]

Your assumption is that fighting forces mustered and controlled by central governments, are more effective than independent citizen militias. It's absolutely false.

...

Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

The American militias were effective at harassing the Redcoats, but were usually defeated in head-to-head fights. The Redcoats were also able to effectively hold cities.

It wasn't until George Washington's Continental Army, trained by the Prussian Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, was organized into an effective fighting force that the American revolutionaries began to make headway. Also, we had help from the French.

Iraq was basically organized into independent militias after the fall of its central government. All those Iraqi guerilla fighters are basically dead now, and we still occupy their country seven years later.

I know some people have Red Dawn fantasies, but that would be a worst case scenario after we were completely overrun.

Not saying that we need the huge military industrial complex that we have today, though. A Republic has an army to defend its borders. An Empire sends armies abroad.

[Jace]

So closed-border advocates are claiming that increased competition on the labor market is a bad thing? One should realize that by having more immigrants reduce the cost of labor, that also reduces the cost of products for consumers, thus ending up as a net benefit for everyone.

I'm not for closed borders. I think a rational immigration policy would be one where the immigration rate is set to a level below the birth rate. That way you can preserve local traditions and culture, not replace it. It would also lessen sprawl, traffic congestion and the welfare state. Also, in times of high unemployment, say over 5 percent, there should be a moratorium on all immigration. That way there won't be an increasing demand for more government services when higher and higher numbers of people are out of work and desperate.

Also, we should put up a tariff wall on nations that restrict American-made products from their home markets, and who use subsidies and currency manipulation to distort the free market and drive efficiently-run American companies out of business. Let their products in, but put a tariff on them to make their statist games less economically destructive.

[helmuth_hubener]

Classic. Securing borders is equivalent to being a Nazi.
Anarchists are either subversives or useful idiots for the NWO. Well, to subvert evil is to corrupt it for good, so I am certainly subversive in many ways. An idiot is something I do not aspire to be. To usefullness, though, I do; I have skills and I work hard, and I like to be useful, in life in general and in the fight for liberty in particular. So, perhaps you could more productively think of us as "useful subversives". We're on your team. We each have talents and knowledge that no one else may have. So rather than hating "anarchists", why not appreciate us as useful in your quest for liberty? We share that quest, even if we have some theoretical differences.



Open borders are what the international bankers want.The fact is, open borders are what the States had, for hundreds of years, until the first immigration act in 1875. Even then, it didn't get real strict until the '20s. And even then, immigrating was a cake walk in, say, 1950 compared to the tens of thousands of dollars and bushels of bureaucratic paperwork one must hand over to "legally" immigrate nowadays. Open borders are part and parcel of the whole quintessential American policy picture. I wish Ian and Mark would have said this when Alex claimed that no nation has ever survived with open borders, that it's just a pie-in-the-Star Trek-sky wild-eyed theory. Hello?!? 100% completely open borders worked great for America from the 1600s 'til 1875. If you're trying to restore the American tradition, to get back to "the good old days" and "the way thing oughtta be", free and unrestricted immigration is unquestionably, historically, a part of that. It worked. It's proven. During that time, in that place, arose a civilization that was one of the greatest bastion for Liberty the world has ever seen. I'd say open borders has a pretty decent track record in that regard, wouldn't you?

Now, to undermine my own above argument, I'm pretty sure that immigration control is mainly a 20th century innovation. It seems that all countries, not just the States, were open borders countries.

Do NWO cabal leaders want open U.S borders? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But you see, I don't imagine myself to be playing some elaborate and grandiose chess game with the International Bankers. Are men like Lew Rockwell and I just playing into their hands, useful idiots furthering their nefarious master plot? Ha, ha, and HA! Let us hope so! That would mean their master plot is pretty well and thoroughly stupid.


I'm actually with Alex Jones on that subject, that under the current system of welfare, you *cannot* have open borders. I think *MOST* other market anarchists on this board would actually agree with me as well on this. I do *not* think it's smart to just open the borders.
Ya know, the interesting thing is (Rand reference) we practically have open borders today, in a sense. I mean, 11 million or whatever is not exactly a small number. It does not appear to be a particularly insurmountable challenge to enter and reside in the States illegally today. The illegal immigrants I know are not criminal masterminds. So, it must be a fairly easy matter to cross the border, one any average adult could successfully complete. So, you claim a welfare state *cannot* have open borders. I claim that the American welfare states *can* and *do*.

[Jace]

One should realize that by having more immigrants reduce the cost of labor, that also reduces the cost of products for consumers, thus ending up as a net benefit for everyone.

Reducing the cost of labor results in fewer consumers. Corporate owners get a net benefit in the short run until work is devalued to the point no one can afford to consume. People live better in high wage countries, like Germany and Japan, than they do in low wage countries like India, China and Mexico.

Countries with high labor costs also tend to be more technologically innovative. Countries with low labor costs tend to stagnate technologically. China was hugely innovative during its early history, but evolved into a stagnant country of coolie laborers, that fell prey to smaller foreign invaders with better technology.

[tremendoustie]

I'm not for closed borders. I think a rational immigration policy would be one where the immigration rate is set to a level below the birth rate.


Once again, you have no right to dictate to a business or property owner who they may or may not hire, or admit.



That way you can preserve local traditions and culture, not replace it.


Aggressive violence is not an appropriate means to "preserve culture"



It would also lessen sprawl, traffic congestion and the welfare state.


So would kidnapping and deporting all residents of New York state, all black people, or all college professors.

That doesn't make it moral.



Also, in times of high unemployment, say over 5 percent, there should be a moratorium on all immigration.


Yes, all those who dare compete with you for a job should be kidnapped and dragged away from their home.



That way there won't be an increasing demand for more government services when higher and higher numbers of people are out of work and desperate.


That's economically ignorant -- sustained unemployment is caused by government distortions, not oversupply of labor. The law of scarcity implies infinite demand. Increasing availability of labor simply lowers wages and prices -- it does not cause unemployment.



Also, we should put up a tariff wall on nations that restrict American-made products from their home markets, and who use subsidies and currency manipulation to distort the free market and drive efficiently-run American companies out of business.


Tariffs do not create trade deficits -- debt based spending -- either personal or governmental does. If debt/savings is stable, a trade deficit is impossible. Tariffs do not favor a particular country's economy -- they damage the home country's economy as well, by reducing the possibility of specialization, which increases efficiency, and therefore wealth. The best policy, for any economy, is freedom.

I challenge you to concoct a scenario, with a clear and precise (numerical) description of industries, demand, and wages in each country, in which tariffs are beneficial. Please present it, I would be happy to show the flaw in your current thinking.



Let their products in, but put a tariff on them to make their statist games less economically destructive.

Yes, if one government steals people's stuff, the best solution is to have our government steal more of people's stuff.

[anaconda]

Exactly. The nation-state is also dying, and I'm okay with that. At some point the Sovereign Individual will rule and people will scratch their heads at how we could even have ever accepted government, just like we look at slavery now.


How will we all defend ourselves against aerial nuclear carpet bombing from a large high tech foreign nation state? Just curious. Will we not simply go the way of the Native Americans? Will local tribes volunteer gold to Lockheed to deliver an F-16 to their community? Will the tribe look to a leader to negotiate this? What powers will they entrust to this person?

[tremendoustie]

Reducing the cost of labor results in fewer consumers.

Actually, that's false. If I make 10 cents an hour and burritos cost 10 cents, or if I make 1 dollar an hour and burritos cost 1 dollar, there is no difference to me. It's just a change in units.



Corporate owners get a net benefit in the short run until work is devalued to the point no one can afford to consume.


That's economically nonsensical. If goods cannot be sold at a particular price, the price will drop until they can be sold.

If the cost of production is less than the market price, competition ensures that gap will be closed.



People live better in high wage countries, like Germany and Japan, than they do in low wage countries like India, China and Mexico.

What matters is not the units, but what can be bought with the units. One dollar can buy over 90 yen -- but yet Japan is a high wage country, because an hour of labor buys a great deal of goods.

Apart from government distortions, the reason for this is the efficiency of labor. If I work in a sweat shop making two shoes per hour, I will only be able to buy two shoes worth of goods -- that's all my labor is worth. If I work in a factory making 100 shoes an hour, my labor is far more valuable, and I will be able to obtain far more goods for it.

Supply of labor is irrelevant -- if you want to increase the standard of living, other than eliminating government distortions, maximize the effectiveness of labor.

In aggregate, the wealth of a country is what it produces, period. Ignore the movement of little green pieces of paper -- they're just used as an intermediary to trade goods. The more stuff you produce, the richer you are. It's that simple.




Countries with high labor costs also tend to be more technologically innovative. Countries with low labor costs tend to stagnate technologically.


You've got it backwards. In countries with high technology, labor is more valuable, because it is more productive.



China was hugely innovative during its early history, but evolved into a stagnant country of coolie laborers, that fell prey to smaller foreign invaders with better technology.

China has been severely hindered by governmental distortions of the market.

[Jace]

We're on your team. We each have talents and knowledge that no one else may have. So rather than hating "anarchists", why not appreciate us as useful in your quest for liberty? We share that quest, even if we have some theoretical differences.

I don't hate anarchists. But I don't think they are useful in the quest for liberty. Quite the contrary. I think the utopianism of anarchists is unrealistic and relies on a mistaken understanding of human nature. The Founding Fathers had a very realistic understanding of human nature and of power, and attempted to create a free society by setting up a system that limits and diffuses power.

Anarchists serve the goals of the globalists, who are opposed to personal liberty. Anyone who understands human nature can see that anarchism is pie-in-the-sky utopianism, just as communism was. Accepting anarchists into the liberty movement subverts liberty, as the globalists clearly understand. That's why they are so eager to tie anti-WTO protests to anarchists, because rock-throwing, mask wearing anarchists scare off the sheeple, who might otherwise be attracted to the very powerful and common-sense ideas that Ron Paul advocates for.


The fact is, open borders are what the States had, for hundreds of years, until the first immigration act in 1875. Open borders are part and parcel of the whole quintessential American policy picture.

This is historically incorrect. Throughout American history, Americans were about extending their borders and governmental system, usually at the expense of French, Indians, Spanish and Mexicans to the point of driving these groups out at the point of a bayonet. America was always about open borders between states, but not when it came to foreign nations, although we have had periods of lax immigration followed by immigration restriction.

[TruckinMike]

This is what you really mean, right?

http://tenpercent.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/papers1.jpeg



Did I say anything about asking for papers? No, I actually agree you verbal attack dog utopians when in comes to National ID or any ID for that matter. But AJ had it right about the world we live in --- and the fact that the illegals are Democracy loving/collectivist/marxists. They will vote, then eat you for dinner. That is the reality.

But I do see your point, gee whiz...

We could get rid of the Constitution, any semblance of the rule of law and let the cards fall where they may . Dog eat dog. Back to survival of the fittest. Until that is .... Until certain wealthy, power mad folks (dictators, elites of the world, etc) start tossing money around in your little utopia-ville and then begins to buy off groups of the "under privileged" -- all the while promising them a Utopia-ville of their own. After a generation of this division infusion, dissension will arise in the form of violence , and then you will then be sent off to the gulags to work for "the people" or end up dead.

I will note that your plan would work if the entire worlds population had the same philosophy. But it doesn't. I'm not against education of the masses. I just don't want the entire third world from south of the border heaped upon on me without understanding liberty. -- If you were wise and not just well read, you would agree with me.

But wise you are not.


TMike:cool:

[ClayTrainor]

Did I say anything about asking for papers? No,

So people should be able to cross the border without documentation, or id?



I actually agree you verbal attack dog utopians when in comes to National ID or any ID for that matter.


Than how do you plan on knowing who "legal" and "illegal" immigrants are? What kind of documentation do you support?

[tremendoustie]

How will we all defend ourselves against aerial nuclear carpet bombing from a large high tech foreign nation state? Just curious. Will we not simply go the way of the Native Americans?

Firstly, why on earth do you think someone would want to nuke carpet bomb the place? What would they have to gain? This scenario is farcical. There are lots of countries which would have no capability to prevent this, and yet they're not carpet bombed.

But, to answer your question, if that's a serious concern of people, they will fund a defense for it. I would contribute to a missile defense, if it were effective and efficient. I certainly believe in lots of SAMs, as defensive weapons. I'm not so keen on buying fighters, because I consider them an inefficent use of funds, but if you can convince people otherwise, you'll have them.

You'd only need around 5 bucks from each member of say, the NY city militia, to buy an F-16. As I say, I'd rather use the money to buy lots of SAMs, but what people use their money for is up to them.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Sounds like a New World Order.

No it doesn't.

[Jace]

Just so we are clear, the anarchists are okay with poor foreigners flooding into our neighborhoods because it drives labor costs down. They are okay with China subsidizing manufacturing and manipulating its currency to outcompete American producers, because it means we can buy cheap consumer goods, like $1800 HDTVs at Wal-Mart.

The anarchists are in agreement with Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Barack Obama and John McCain on these issues, but they are on our side in the cause of liberty, which will be achieved once all government in America is eradicated and we no longer have borders.

[tremendoustie]

I don't hate anarchists. But I don't think they are useful in the quest for liberty. Quite the contrary. I think the utopianism of anarchists is unrealistic and relies on a mistaken understanding of human nature. The Founding Fathers had a very realistic understanding of human nature and of power, and attempted to create a free society by setting up a system that limits and diffuses power.

Actually, that's exactly the opposite of what they did. They created one monopolistic organization with the supposed right to use aggressive violence, to force people to fund it against their will. If that's not concentrating power, I don't know what is.



Anarchists serve the goals of the globalists, who are opposed to personal liberty. Anyone who understands human nature can see that anarchism is pie-in-the-sky utopianism, just as communism was.


Actually, it's precisely because of human nature that governments are inevitably prone to abuse. Creating one central repository for all power ensures that the most power hungry will seek and obtain it. The creation of such an organization is like Christmas morning for every megalomaniac around.

Yes, there are evil, power hungry people. Creating a ready made organization for those evil, power hungry people to rule over others is insanity.

Who's more likely to seek office: The guy who wants to run everyone else's life and fiances, or your neighbor who just wants to live peaceably and be left alone? Who's more likely to obtain office: the guy who's willing to do or say anything to be elected, or the guy who is willing to say what he believes, even if it's unpopular, and refuses the help of special interests?

Just look at who occupies government today -- would you say those people are above, or below average on the moral decency scale? It's not even close.



Accepting anarchists into the liberty movement subverts liberty, as the globalists clearly understand. That's why they are so eager to tie anti-WTO protests to anarchists, because rock-throwing, mask wearing anarchists scare off the sheeple, who might otherwise be attracted to the very powerful and common-sense ideas that Ron Paul advocates for.

That's why "anarchist" is such a poor and misleading term for people who believe in non-agression and freedom. People think of mask wearing, rock throwing individuals -- which is the opposite of the sort of thing a voluntaryist believes in.

[South Park Fan]

Reducing the cost of labor results in fewer consumers. Corporate owners get a net benefit in the short run until work is devalued to the point no one can afford to consume. People live better in high wage countries, like Germany and Japan, than they do in low wage countries like India, China and Mexico.

Countries with high labor costs also tend to be more technologically innovative. Countries with low labor costs tend to stagnate technologically. China was hugely innovative during its early history, but evolved into a stagnant country of coolie laborers, that fell prey to smaller foreign invaders with better technology.

I've demonstrated the supply side of this, now I'll show you the demand side: If wages decrease due to increased competition from immigration, businesses will have to lower their prices in order to keep their customers. Thus, you have a deflationary effect, and real wages actually go up, even if they appear to go down.

[tremendoustie]

Just so we are clear, the anarchists are okay with poor foreigners flooding into our neighborhoods because it drives labor costs down.


Please stop using the term "anarchist" as it is extremely misleading.

I respect property rights. I don't presume to dictate to my neighbor who they can or cannot hire, or allow on their property, because it's not mine. You're apparently just fine with threatening violence against peaceful people, and desire for government to dictate to individuals and businesses who they may and may not trade with.

That's blatantly anti property rights, and anti freedom.



They are okay with China subsidizing manufacturing and manipulating its currency to outcompete American producers, because it means we can buy cheap consumer goods, like $1800 HDTVs at Wal-Mart.

I object to the behaviors of the Chineese government, because I think their actions harm the Chinese people, but I don't think the correct response is for our government to engage in those same abusive behaviors.

And again, you're speaking from economic ignorance. If other nations subsidize certain goods so that we can buy them very cheaply, it enables us to focus on producing other goods, which we can receive a higher price for -- it's called specialization. This enables us to be far more wealthy overall.



The anarchists are in agreement with Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Barack Obama and John McCain on these issues

That's such a dishonest, ignorant, and absurd smear, it's unbelievable. I oppose the Fed, fiat money, and just about every Obama or McCain position. I wrote in RP. If you really believe this, my apologies, and I'll try to correct your misconceptions, but it seems unbelievable to me that someone would believe a voluntaryist would be a fan of these men.

Please debate the actual issues at hand, on their merits.



but they are on our side in the cause of liberty, which will be achieved once all government in America is eradicated and we no longer have borders.

I support reducing the size of the government, and returning it to constitutional limitations. I think it's a valid and important goal. I just don't support the initiation of aggressive violence. It's that simple. I don't think governments or government employees are magically exempt from the rules for moral decency that we apply to everyday life.

[dmitchell]

Just so we are clear, the anarchists are okay with poor foreigners flooding into our neighborhoods because it drives labor costs down.

I am an anarchist*. I am OK with it because I realize that if A in my neighborhood wants to hire or rent to B, then I have no right to interfere**. I have no right to say to A that he isn't allowed to hire or rent to B. It's just none of my business. This is true no matter who B is, or where he comes from.

*Actually I am a voluntaryist. I don't really like to be called an anarchist because that label is associated with those idiots who dress in black, smash windows, protest capitalism at G8 meetings.

**There are some exceptions to this, like if B has a dangerous communicable disease. But you get the idea.

[anaconda]

why on earth do you think someone would want to nuke carpet bomb the place? What would they have to gain?

I was trying to make a point with using an extreme example. One of my points is that I am skeptical about whether a North American civilization would be able to defend itself by everyone simply owning their own firearms. Also, if contribution to defense is voluntary, is this not a formula for massive internal resentment for those that do not contribute? In terms of why a nation state might want to carpet bomb us: for the express purpose of conquering North America. The reasons would be for land and other resources, global hegemony, etc. The usual reasons that nation states attack one another.

[tremendoustie]

I was trying to make a point with using an extreme example.


Fair enough



One of my points is that I am skeptical about whether a North American civilization would be able to defend itself by everyone simply owning their own firearms.


I agree, I think organization is needed, and pooling of resources. I just think it's better done by voluntary association, rather than a forced extraction of wealth, and the hiring of a full time force under central command.

I'd fully expect militias to pool resources to buy more major weapons.



Also, if contribution to defense is voluntary, is this not a formula for massive internal resentment for those that do not contribute?


Certainly, and I don't think this is a bad thing -- social pressure can help people do the right thing. People mow their lawns, for example, often in part because they don't want the neighborhood to resent them.

I think it's likely that a person who does not participate in or contribute to the local militia in any way would be considered a bit of a moocher, and get negative social feedback -- perhaps people would even choose not to do business with them, if the situation were bad enough.



In terms of why a nation state might want to carpet bomb us: for the express purpose of conquering North America. The reasons would be for land and other resources, global hegemony, etc. The usual reasons that nation states attack one another.

Ah, ok. I guess carpet bombing makes a bit more sense than nuke carpet bombing ... radioactive land is hardly valuable.

Yeah, I'd want effective defense against bombing attacks, for sure. I don't think it'd be likely, but it's better to be prepared.

[dmitchell]

Also, if contribution to defense is voluntary, is this not a formula for massive internal resentment for those that do not contribute?
Because of free-riders? We already have free-riders; half of Americans are net tax recipients.

[tremendoustie]

Because of free-riders? We already have free-riders; half of Americans are net tax recipients.

Yes, I think we should work to end the delusion that this behavior by government is acceptable.

[Pennsylvania]

It would have been awesome if Jones could have stayed on the same topic for over 2 seconds...

chalk one up for the FTL guys

[anaconda]

I'm with Jones on this argument. The dude's logic that he won't act to resist or prevent being sprayed with lobotomy poison because he "had fun for the last 3 years" is very sheep like (albeit a principled and intelligent sheep), despite his protests that he is a free man.

Jone's approach of the citizenry of the many states invoking the U.S. Constitution to repel and neuter the Federal Beast is a rational solution and one that we are not only entitled to, but legally empowered to. These two fellows are so impatient to do the work of restoring the Republic that they are willing to go to FEMA camps and justify their sense of futility because they had fun for 3 years. How sad.

It is correct that laws can empower violence upon each other, but in this case Jones wishes to invoke the 10th Amendment to push back the violence from the Federal government. The FSP advocates argument against a Mao or Stalin-like takeover was inadequate, in my opinion, and entirely unconvincing.

[tremendoustie]

I'm with Jones on this argument. The dude's logic that he won't act to resist or prevent being sprayed with lobotomy poison because he "had fun for the last 3 years" is very sheep like, despite his protests that he is a free man.

I think he was being a bit silly.

What could he do?

I like Alex, but frankly he throws out these extreme scenarios with no realistic solutions. Yes, Alex, if the world is totally controlled by a massive cabal of people who are about to spray us with brain poison tomorrow, we're all F*ed. So? It's not like he has a solution to that scenario either -- because one doesn't exist.

We just need to do everything we can for liberty today -- and frankly, I haven't seen any group as dedicated and active as the activists in NH. If any of the things Alex says are true, we need to wake people up all the faster. We need action all the more. I think that's the point of the FTL folks. Being petrified by fear is hardly productive.

Edit: Ah, you expanded your post ... let me expand my reply


Jone's approach of the citizenry of the many states invoking the U.S. Constitution to repel and neuter the Federal Beast is a rational solution and one that we are not only entitled to, but legally empowered to.


How exactly does one "Invoke" the US constitution? Are you suggesting electoral politics? There are many very effective political activists in NH.



These two fellows are so impatient to do the work of restoring the Republic that they are willing to go to FEMA camps and justify their sense of futility because they had fun for 3 years. How sad.


Those two fellows are two of the least futile individuals in the entire liberty movement. They do many forms of extremely effective activism -- if you want to talk about futility, how about reforming the federal government through electoral politics? I'm glad for those who do it, because the educate people, but it doesn't even begin to compare to the impact of techniques like civil disobedience.



It is correct that laws can empower violence upon each other, but in this case Jones wishes to invoke the 10th Amendment to push back the violence from the Federal government. The FSP advocates argument against a Mao or Stalin-like takeover was inadequate, in my opinion, and entirely unconvincing.

Again, how exactly does one "invoke" the tenth amendment? Do you say some magical words and a magical shield pops up or something? You've got to elect people to state level positions, in order for them to make moves towards nullification. The movement in NH is actually electing people to state level positions, because there is a great enough concentration of activists.

[Jace]

I am an anarchist*. I am OK with it because I realize that if A in my neighborhood wants to hire or rent to B, then I have no right to interfere**. I have no right to say to A that he isn't allowed to hire or rent to B. It's just none of my business. This is true no matter who B is, or where he comes from.

*Actually I am a voluntaryist. I don't really like to be called an anarchist because that label is associated with those idiots who dress in black, smash windows, protest capitalism at G8 meetings.

**There are some exceptions to this, like if B has a dangerous communicable disease. But you get the idea.


What if you live in a suburban neighborhood of single-family homes, and your nice next-door neighbor went into foreclosure, so now the three-bedroom home on your court is being rented out to 20 day laborers? They sleep five in the garage, five in the living room and three in each bedroom and one guy sleeps in a hammock in the yard. They park their vehicles all around your court and in their front lawn, and they are in and out at all times of the day and night, and when your 8-year-old daughter walks past their place on the way to the bus stop they whistle at her. You're not a big fan of loud Mexican accordion music after midnight, and suddenly there's been a rash of taggings on people's garage doors.

You want to sell, but you can't because no one wants to live next door to that. You know these people are undocumented because the new jerk-off owner told you so straight up, and said, "What are you going to do about it, gringo?"

[tremendoustie]

What if you live in a suburban neighborhood of single-family homes, and your nice next-door neighbor went into foreclosure, so now the three-bedroom home on your court is being rented out to 20 day laborers? They sleep five in the garage, five in the living room and three in each bedroom and one guy sleeps in a hammock in the yard. They park their vehicles all around your court and in their front lawn, and they are in and out at all times of the day and night, and when your 8-year-old daughter walks past their place on the way to the bus stop they whistle at her. You're not a big fan of loud Mexican accordion music after midnight, and suddenly there's been a rash of taggings on people's garage doors.

You want to sell, but you can't because no one wants to live next door to that. You know these people are undocumented because the new jerk-off owner told you so straight up, and said, "What are you going to do about it, gringo?"

I would set up cameras to catch the taggers, and take them to court for restitution.

I would ask them to stop playing accordion after midnight, and if they would not compromise, I would take them to court for compensation for noise pollution.

I'd ask them to stop whistling at my daughter, and if they would not, I would ask her to take a different route, or drive her.

The rest doesn't bother me, but if it did, I'd set up a fence to block my view of their house.

You're discussing problems of unruly neighbors, not illegal immigrants. What would you do if they behaved in the same way, but were legal -- or citizens? Your whole scenario is irrelevant to the question of whether government should be able to dictate that people wade through their bureaucratic BS and send them lots of cash in order to live and work. I find your question bigoted, because it assumes that people from Mexico, or at least those from Mexico who have not done such paperwork, are likely to have all these negative characteristics, and that's absolutely false.

[Jace]

I would set up cameras to catch the taggers, and take them to court for restitution.

I would ask them to stop playing accordion after midnight, and if they would not compromise, I would take them to court for compensation for noise pollution.

I'd ask them to stop whistling at my daughter, and if they would not, I would ask her to take a different route, or drive her.

The rest doesn't bother me, but if it did, I'd set up a fence to block my view of their house.

You're discussing problems of unruly neighbors, not illegal immigrants. What would you do if they behaved in the same way, but were legal -- or citizens? Your whole scenario is irrelevant to the question of whether government should be able to dictate that people wade through their bureaucratic BS and send them lots of cash in order to live and work. I find your question bigoted, because it assumes that people from Mexico, or at least those from Mexico who have not done such paperwork, are likely to have all these negative characteristics, and that's absolutely false.

Well, you can call me whatever names you like, but California is experiencing a mass exodus of middle class families because of situations like this. I lived for nearly 18 years in Latin America and I'm very familar with the way things are done down there. Now I'm watching California transform from a nice place to live into a Latin American society, complete with extreme poverty, lack of respect for property rights, highly dysfunctional bureaucracy, ethnic gang warfare and corrupt politics.

That's the reality on the ground here. After Prop 187 was passed and then shot down by a leftist judge, California basically became a lost cause. Much of the middle class exodus landed in Arizona, and that's behind the anti-illegal alien backlash that's hitting a boiling point there. People move away but there are fewer and fewer places to escape to, unless you are a member of the $3 million or more club.

[TruckinMike]

So people should be able to cross the border without documentation, or id?



Than how do you plan on knowing who "legal" and "illegal" immigrants are? What kind of documentation do you support?

Proof of citizenship at the BORDER crossing ONLY (legal and illegal crossing areas only). ---- You could use an affidavit of citizenship and/or birth certificate with sworn testimony of others, etc. It would not even require a name (though that could get tricky.. but possible)-- And take that along with proof of citizenship/birthplace papers created by non-governmental/competing agencies that specialize in the authentication of birthplace/citizenship --- the border patrol could choose to use only agencies that have an honest and accurate track record. Take the agencies document (that you paid for) along with your affidavit/birth certificate etc. show it to the border patrol. Thus no need for "government papers". It wouldn't be perfect, but nothing is. --- And do not even allow the government to create list of names. Its none of their business whether you crossed 100 times last year.

Along with this, man the border(with competing agencies and volunteer groups), criminalize crossing illegally, legalize drugs, and end welfare. ;)

TMike

[Sentient Void]

I can see most of it has been covered by now, so I won't both getting into it any deeper. But trying to debate economics with a learned ancap is generally a losing battle, just as a heads up, Jace. It's obvious tremedoustie is up to par with his austrian economics.

I don't know where you got your ideas of economics, but they sound like the typical spoken fallacies of a Keynesian to me. Which is strange, because I'm pretty sure that even the Keynesians understand that protectionism is *never* good, for *anyone*, no matter what, economically nor morally.

I don't know exactly what you're trying to do here, but it's obvious you're trying to point ancaps / voluntaryists, etc as something they're not. So you're being either ignorant or malicious. Please stop. Thanks.

[helmuth_hubener]

I don't hate anarchists. But I don't think they are useful in the quest for liberty. Quite the contrary. I think the utopianism of anarchists is unrealistic and relies on a mistaken understanding of human nature. The Founding Fathers had a very realistic understanding of human nature and of power, and attempted to create a free society by setting up a system that limits and diffuses power. . Would you be so kind as to give an example of a belief I hold about human nature which is mistaken? E.g.: "You believe people most people are dishonest", or "you believe humans have an altruistic nature". Then, I can tell you whether I actually do believe in the specific fallacious view of human nature you thought I believed in.

I rather think that anarcho-capitalism, and the entire liberal tradition, in fact, (of which we're a part) has a very realistic treatment of human nature. This liberal view of human nature has proven very fruitful and successful, in fact, over the last few hundred years. Little things like iPods, skyscrapers, cheap paperback books, and mangoes for sale in Montana in March, we owe to the liberal insight on human nature, and the formulation of natural law built around that central insight.


Anarchists serve the goals of the globalists, who are opposed to personal liberty. Anyone who understands human nature can see that anarchism is pie-in-the-sky utopianism, just as communism was. Accepting anarchists into the liberty movement subverts liberty, as the globalists clearly understand. That's why they are so eager to tie anti-WTO protests to anarchists, because rock-throwing, mask wearing anarchists scare off the sheeple, who might otherwise be attracted to the very powerful and common-sense ideas that Ron Paul advocates for.
OK, first off there are two very distinct types of people that might call themselves anarchists. The first and larger group are the original anarchists who want to abolish private property. The other strain wants to strengthen private property extremely, making it absolute and inviolable -- to make respect for private property the foundational rule of all society. You can see, these are actually opposite to each other. The two groups have very little to do with each other, other than the shared name.

Second off, read www.lewrockwell.com every day for a month and then tell me if you think he is "serving the goals of the globalists". If he's serving the goals of the globalists, you might as well say Alex Jones is serving the goals of the globalists. Maybe we're all serving the goals of the globalists! <phear>


This is historically incorrect. And then you prove to me that it's incorrect by pointing out that... America has fought aggressive wars? Sorry, does not compute. Find a single immigration law before 1875. You can't -- there were none! People just came! They just got on a boat / a horse / a train and came! That's it! No quotas, no check-points, no Ellis Island, nothing. These things didn't come and go, they *did* *not* *exist*.

One could make a case, in fact, that there is no Constitutional authorization for immigration laws, only for naturalization laws. And I would agree with such a case.

[helmuth_hubener]

I was trying to make a point with using an extreme example. One of my points is that I am skeptical about whether a North American civilization would be able to defend itself by everyone simply owning their own firearms. Also, if contribution to defense is voluntary, is this not a formula for massive internal resentment for those that do not contribute? In terms of why a nation state might want to carpet bomb us: for the express purpose of conquering North America. The reasons would be for land and other resources, global hegemony, etc. The usual reasons that nation states attack one another. Good points. Thanks for being intelligent.

Recommended: Chaos Theory, Essay Two: Private Defense.

Listen here: http://mises.org/media/4418

Read here: http://mises.org/resources/3088/Chaos-Theory

[anaconda]

Good points. Thanks for being intelligent.

Recommended: Chaos Theory, Essay Two: Private Defense.

Listen here: http://mises.org/media/4418

Read here: http://mises.org/resources/3088/Chaos-Theory

Thanks for the links. I will take a look for sure.

[Jace]

I would set up cameras to catch the taggers, and take them to court for restitution.

I would ask them to stop playing accordion after midnight, and if they would not compromise, I would take them to court for compensation for noise pollution.
I'd ask them to stop whistling at my daughter, and if they would not, I would ask her to take a different route, or drive her.

The rest doesn't bother me, but if it did, I'd set up a fence to block my view of their house.

You're discussing problems of unruly neighbors, not illegal immigrants. What would you do if they behaved in the same way, but were legal -- or citizens? Your whole scenario is irrelevant to the question of whether government should be able to dictate that people wade through their bureaucratic BS and send them lots of cash in order to live and work. I find your question bigoted, because it assumes that people from Mexico, or at least those from Mexico who have not done such paperwork, are likely to have all these negative characteristics, and that's absolutely false.

I was just thinking this problem about unruly neighbors and we would have solved it in the same way, by trying to talk to our neighbor, then deferring to the courts and changing our behaviors. I wouldn't take them to court, though, to demand compensation for playing the music too loud after midnight. I would have just called the cops to go over there and cite them for violating the city's noise ordinance. Maybe that makes me a Nazi, though. I don't know. I actually have had the cops tell me to turn the music down after a few too many beers with friends to the annoyance of my neighbors. It's also against city ordinances where I live to rent out your garage to boarders, although it is being done around here. So again, I would just call the city's code enforcement department.

What you are seeing in the neighborhoods where I live is people are spending a lot of money to put in surveillance cameras around their homes to protect them from taggers (unsuccessfully) and spending upwards of $40 a month on alarm systems. This was rare 30 years ago. My grandparents used to sleep with the front door open so the breeze could blow through the screen door. No one does that around here anymore, unless they have those metal security doors.

You are also seeing wrought-iron fences being put in around here with the spear-like tips on the top, and in some of the formerly working class neighborhoods, you'll even see shards of glass cemented into the tops of walls just like down in Mexico.

The wealthier areas have begun gating themselves off, and some pay full-time security services to patrol the streets. So people are paying extra for all this private security, plus we pay for large police departments, grafitti task forces, midnight basketball for gangbangers, etc. A lot of the parcel taxes you see during local elections are put on the ballot with the promise of more social services, like bilingual teachers in the schools and parent education classes in Spanish for single moms. Renters vote for these things thinking they are sticking it to homeowners, even though the apartment building owners just take it out of them by raising rents.

By the way, I am the farthest thing from a Keynesian. As was said, Keynes did not support tariffs. But I have pointed out that Japan, China and Korea have undergone spectacular economic growth and rising living standards by restricting imports and promoting exports through government intervention. They have done this by basically free-riding off the open American market. These Asian nations that we are offshoring our productive capacity to do not share our values of individualism, but instead have strong collectivist cultural inclinations. I advocate protecting the American free enterprise system from foreign mercantilists, just like the Founding Fathers did. And I believe opening our borders to mass immigration is resulting in less liberty here, not more, as we are seeing in California, which was a prosperous and freer place a generation ago when immigration was less of an issue. Open borders and mass immigration serve the goals of the globalists, who want to break down American sovereignty to ease us into a North American Union, just like the Europeans went along with the EU.

Here's another word problem that I'd like to know the anarchist, or voluntaryist solution. This is actually a common occurence where I live:

You are driving across an intersection because you have the green light and you are T-boned by another vehicle running the red. The car that you rely on to get to work is totaled and you lose a week of work because you were hospitalized, spending $4,000 because that's your health insurance deductible. The person that hit you is unlicensed and uninsured. There is no question that he is at fault. However, he has no assets, no reported income, and no identification, and there is no way to recover your losses from him. He was arrested before for a DUI under a different alias and jumped bail, and the courts know this because they have his fingerprints on file. What should happen to this person who destroyed your car and caused you bodily injury?

[PreDeadMan]

Alex Jones gives doomsday scenarios with no action to stop anything.... Mark and Ian were presenting ideas of civil disobedience and actually doing something instead of scaring people with these doomsday things "we're all going to die, they are poisoning us!! " Alex Jones sure he may wake people up to some things but....... it seems there's no follow through to the sinister things he says just shocking people with things he says.

[dmitchell]

What if you live in a suburban neighborhood of single-family homes, and your nice next-door neighbor went into foreclosure, so now the three-bedroom home on your court is being rented out to 20 day laborers? They sleep five in the garage, five in the living room and three in each bedroom and one guy sleeps in a hammock in the yard. They park their vehicles all around your court and in their front lawn, and they are in and out at all times of the day and night, and when your 8-year-old daughter walks past their place on the way to the bus stop they whistle at her. You're not a big fan of loud Mexican accordion music after midnight, and suddenly there's been a rash of taggings on people's garage doors.

You want to sell, but you can't because no one wants to live next door to that. You know these people are undocumented because the new jerk-off owner told you so straight up, and said, "What are you going to do about it, gringo?"

Like someone already said, this really has nothing to do with immigrant status. But I will add a couple of additional observations. First, while you own your home, you don't own the market value of your home. You don't have a property right in how other people subjectively value your home; if someone reduces the market value of your home, whether by allowing his own home to fall into disrepair or by upgrading his own home so that yours is relatively less attractive, he hasn't violated your property rights. Second, you may be able to claim some kind of easement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement) against your neighbor's property that would prevent some of these behaviors; probably at least the right to pass by unmolested would qualify. Finally, a homeowner association established by the neighborhood builder offers a voluntary way of dealing with unruly and disruptive neighbors, since the terms of your home purchase would contractually obligate you to obey neighborhood rules.

[RokiLothbard]

There are self-proclaimed anarchists who are not for open boders, within the context of our current system. So, Jace, the most counterproductive thing I see here is your ignorant and insulting tone.

[Jace]

Like someone already said, this really has nothing to do with immigrant status. But I will add a couple of additional observations. First, while you own your home, you don't own the market value of your home. You don't have a property right in how other people subjectively value your home; if someone reduces the market value of your home, whether by allowing his own home to fall into disrepair or by upgrading his own home so that yours is relatively less attractive, he hasn't violated your property rights. Second, you may be able to claim some kind of easement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement) against your neighbor's property that would prevent some of these behaviors; probably at least the right to pass by unmolested would qualify. Finally, a homeowner association established by the neighborhood builder offers a voluntary way of dealing with unruly and disruptive neighbors, since the terms of your home purchase would contractually obligate you to obey neighborhood rules.

Who do I claim the easement with and who enforces it?

[Jace]

There are self-proclaimed anarchists who are not for open boders, within the context of our current system. So, Jace, the most counterproductive thing I see here is your ignorant and insulting tone.

What I am arguing against is open borders, which is what some of the people on this thread are arguing for. Open borders happen to be a main goal of organizations such as the CFR, the SPLC, the ACLU, the mainstream media, etc. who have been enemies of Ron Paul from the start.

I don't mean to sound ignorant and insulting, but I've found that whenever people point out that there are negative effects to unilaterally opening up our borders, then the insults and attacks come heavy and hard. It didn't take long for one poster to compare defending America's borders to being a Nazi.

That's a common tactic. Shut down debate and turn it into heated mud-slinging session. Words like bigot, xenophobe and racist are commonly thrown at anyone who points out that there are definite economic, social, political and cultural consequences to opening up the borders. I think the globalists know very well what these consequences are, and anarchists are useful to them in muddying up the debate and pushing people out of the liberty movement.

Ron Paul is not for open borders. He is for limited government, non-intervention abroad and restoring the Constitution. These are powerful values that are traditional American values. This is a Ron Paul site, not an anarchist one.

[dmitchell]

Who do I claim the easement with and who enforces it?
That depends on the details of the legal system that is in place and the contractual obligations of the parties in the dispute. I may be willing to offer a few opinions on how it might work, if you want, but since I am not a politician or a statist I am not so arrogant to claim that I know exactly how everything should work in the world. (Ever notice how politicians claim to be the all-singing, all-dancing experts on health care, war, defense, the economy, and everything in between?) In fact once you realize that no one knows exactly how everything should work, then you are already four-fifths of the way to anarchism.

[RokiLothbard]

Jace, have you read any Hans-Hermann Hoppe? If you are actually more interested in talking about borders and immigration than bashing ancaps, you may find his views interesting.

[Jace]

That depends on the details of the legal system that is in place and the contractual obligations of the parties in the dispute. I may be willing to offer a few opinions on how it might work, but since I am not a politician I am not so arrogant to claim that I know exactly how everything should work in the world. In fact once you realize that no one knows exactly how everything should work, then you are already nine-tenths of the way to becoming an anarchist.

I know how it works now. I ask my neighbor to turn the music down if it's too loud, and then I call the cops if they don't. And I call code enforcement at city hall if too many guys are living in the garage next door and it annoys me, or if they are not cleaning their pool and the mosquitoes are getting thick in my backyard.

If the liberty movement becomes dominated by people whose goal is eliminating the border patrol, police departments and city hall, then instead of continuing to grow as it is now, it will become a fringe movement for utopian dreamers.

Now, the cops and public sector unions around here have gotten out of control and have managed to drive up their salaries and benefits so high that it's bankrupting cities, and normal people are getting fed up and attending city council meetings and threatening to run the mayor and council out on a rail for feeding too many pigs at the trough at the expense of homeowners and local businesses. Those angry people are open to limited government, but would balk at anarchism. Grafitti has become a problem and the streets aren't as safe for their kids as they used to be.

[eOs]

Your assumption is that fighting forces mustered and controlled by central governments, are more effective than independent citizen militias. It's absolutely false. I can go through the numbers again if you like. For a small fraction of the 350 billion americans spent on charity last year, you could buy an AK47 for one in every three adults, RPG-7s for one in every ten, and more than a million stinger SAMs. Plus, you've got the fact that in a free economy people would be far more wealthy, they'd be spending money every year on defense, and there's already more guns than people in the US. Then, you've got the tactical advantages created by independent militias, which are capable of rapid, creative action, and are nearly impervious to intelligence efforts. Oh, and these militias include 50-100 million people.

Invading under these circumstances would be absolute suicide.

Your assumption is that individuals in a truly free society are going to have the centralized power and coordination to launch nuclear weapons, stinger missiles, implant missile defense systems, etc, etc, etc. Decentralization is good, but in terms of national security, I don't care how many Ak47's you got.

[helmuth_hubener]

Jace, let me first say I do not think you have been ignorant or insulting. FWIW.


Let me give you some random thoughts and replies.


Here's another word problem that I'd like to know the anarchist, or voluntaryist solution. This is actually a common occurence where I live:

You are driving across an intersection because you have the green light and you are T-boned by another vehicle running the red. The car that you rely on to get to work is totaled and you lose a week of work because you were hospitalized, spending $4,000 because that's your health insurance deductible. The person that hit you is unlicensed and uninsured. There is no question that he is at fault. However, he has no assets, no reported income, and no identification, and there is no way to recover your losses from him. He was arrested before for a DUI under a different alias and jumped bail, and the courts know this because they have his fingerprints on file. What should happen to this person who destroyed your car and caused you bodily injury? In an an-cap world, somebody owns the road.... Actually, never mind, let's keep this simple. In simplest terms, the situation us this: a man caused you damages and there's no way to get him to compensate you. No, let's strip it down further: the problem is that a man caused you damages. That's it. That's the problem. The solution is to make him compensate you.

There are ways to extract compensation from people, even under the current system. Collection agencies and detectives specialize in this sort of thing. In an an-cap society, the market for collection, retribution, compensation, will be far larger, stronger, more mature and more sophisticated. The specifics of how he is made to pay you back will depend upon the society's culture and upon what entrepreneurs determine is most effective. Indentured servitude comes to mind as a likely solution. Perhaps just shunning or exile. You may be able to come up with even better ideas. In any case, extracting retribution on behalf of victims is not a problem unique to an-cap, but a problem for any justice system. A free-market justice system, which is what an-cap is, would solve the problem exceptionally well, we can predict, because competitive pressures will drive innovation to improve results while lowering costs.

On immigration stuff:

I have no reason to doubt your description of your town. Mexicans have apparently brought down the quality of life considerably. You should be able to protect yourself from that. Absolutely. You should not have to just sit and watch impotently as your culture decays around you. An-cap gives you the tools to protect your values and your hometown, in a lot more effective way than the current system. Hey, anything would be more effective than the current system, right?, which is totally ineffective, which is completely failing! The an-cap way is voluntary, true, everything must be voluntary, so that hamstrings you a bit there, makes you have to work for it -- no coercive shortcuts -- but the work is worth it because at least real solutions are possible, unlike the situation today which just doesn't work at all. You can look out on your neighborhood and see: it doesn't work! An-cap at least gives you a viable path to your goal that could conceivably work. Read Hans Herman-Hoppe for details.

In a way, an-caps are the most closed-border people around! We want every square inch of land and water to be private, and every plot of that private property to be sovereign territory, and the boundary of every one of those plots an inviolable wall(legally), subject to whatever arbitrary border controls the owner wishes.

TruckinMike, your proposal sounds like it would be an improvement.

[Jace]

Jace, let me first say I do not think you have been ignorant or insulting. FWIW.


Let me give you some random thoughts and replies.
In an an-cap world, somebody owns the road.... Actually, never mind, let's keep this simple. In simplest terms, the situation us this: a man caused you damages and there's no way to get him to compensate you. No, let's strip it down further: the problem is that a man caused you damages. That's it. That's the problem. The solution is to make him compensate you.

There are ways to extract compensation from people, even under the current system. Collection agencies and detectives specialize in this sort of thing. In an an-cap society, the market for collection, retribution, compensation, will be far larger, stronger, more mature and more sophisticated. The specifics of how he is made to pay you back will depend upon the society's culture and upon what entrepreneurs determine is most effective. Indentured servitude comes to mind as a likely solution. Perhaps just shunning or exile. You may be able to come up with even better ideas. In any case, extracting retribution on behalf of victims is not a problem unique to an-cap, but a problem for any justice system. A free-market justice system, which is what an-cap is, would solve the problem exceptionally well, we can predict, because competitive pressures will drive innovation to improve results while lowering costs.

On immigration stuff:

I have no reason to doubt your description of your town. Mexicans have apparently brought down the quality of life considerably. You should be able to protect yourself from that. Absolutely. You should not have to just sit and watch impotently as your culture decays around you. An-cap gives you the tools to protect your values and your hometown, in a lot more effective way than the current system. Hey, anything would be more effective than the current system, right?, which is totally ineffective, which is completely failing! The an-cap way is voluntary, true, everything must be voluntary, so that hamstrings you a bit there, makes you have to work for it -- no coercive shortcuts -- but the work is worth it because at least real solutions are possible, unlike the situation today which just doesn't work at all. You can look out on your neighborhood and see: it doesn't work! An-cap at least gives you a viable path to your goal that could conceivably work. Read Hans Herman-Hoppe for details.

In a way, an-caps are the most closed-border people around! We want every square inch of land and water to be private, and every plot of that private property to be sovereign territory, and the boundary of every one of those plots an inviolable wall(legally), subject to whatever arbitrary border controls the owner wishes.

TruckinMike, your proposal sounds like it would be an improvement.

Do I understand you correctly that if I am hit by an unlicensed, uninsured driver, I am to hire a collection agency to extract compensation, and if it is unable to do so, this person is to become an indentured servant of mine? Or he is to be shunned or exiled?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Your assumption is that individuals in a truly free society are going to have the centralized power and coordination to launch nuclear weapons, stinger missiles, implant missile defense systems, etc, etc, etc. Decentralization is good, but in terms of national security, I don't care how many Ak47's you got.

The assumption is a free market society is going to be the wealthiest society and the strongest bidder.

The assumption is a free market society is going to disarm holders of nuclear technology.

[FSP-Rebel]

FTL FTW! Anarchy

[eOs]

The assumption is a free market society is going to be the wealthiest society and the strongest bidder.

The assumption is a free market society is going to disarm holders of nuclear technology.

Doesn't always play out that way, in theory my friend, in theory. You keep assuming and dreaming though, you wanna go disarm Russia with me? You and me? Whatdya say?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Doesn't always play out that way, in theory my friend, in theory. You keep assuming and dreaming though, you wanna go disarm Russia with me? You and me? Whatdya say?

Let's do it. I have absolutely no moral dilemas what so ever planning, executing, or taking personal risk for such an objective. I do not have the ability to fund it because I am to busy executing a poverty based tax theft avoidance strategy. Do you have sources of funding lined up?

[teacherone]

The "human nature" argument against anarchy is total fail.

So... humans are irrational, violent, greedy and therefor must be controlled by a government...made up of irrational, violent, and greedy men who also control all the guns.

Right...makes perfect sense ;)

[Stary Hickory]

The "human nature" argument against anarchy is total fail.

So... humans are irrational, violent, greedy and therefor must be controlled by a government...made up of irrational, violent, and greedy men who also control all the guns.

Right...makes perfect sense ;)

It's not total fail at all. It's obvious how violent people can be just look around you. The state instituions of violence were built by people and populated by people. If you have a power vacum there will be those who will use force and coercion to exploit this.

The constant struggle against those that use agressive violence has been an eternal thing. Good government consists of those people and those ideals that seek to defend against aggressive violence. It merely is a response to the violent nature of some individuals of society.

These people tend to always seek power, the power to use force on others for personal gain. So they eventually corrupt and takeover the very government instituions erected to defend against these people in the first place. It's easier to lie,bribe, and use propaganda to attain force...in fact when there is an effective barrier (such as "good government) that prevents these people from acting out violently then the only option left to them is to corrupt and take over the existing structure.

Anarchists are naive because they cannot see that this is an eternal struggle. I would love to live in a society where people did not use violence for their own ends, but until man changes in a fundamental way we simply have to accept that organized resistance is necessary.

Simply having no institutions of organized resistance will not do it. The predators exist and will cause all sorts of misery. There is no magical answer, the strugle continues. We must push back, and try to elimintate the scope of government back to defense of liberty and property and nothing more.

[constituent]

Classic. Securing borders is equivalent to being a Nazi.

Anarchists are either subversives or useful idiots for the NWO..

I love it when someone gets all hopping mad at people who point out very real parallels so they then go off into lalaland conspiracyville
and accuse their opposition of being pawns in their ridiculous (imaginary) games. lolwut?

Weren't you just upset that people compared your position to the Nazisi? Now you're accusing them of being part of the Alex Jones New
World Order conspiracy?

Get real.



Open borders are what the international bankers want. Obama, the SPLC, AIPAC and the ADL want open borders, too. Anyone who doesn't is to be smeared as a Nazi.
.

lol, all in one sentence that time!

[helmuth_hubener]

Do I understand you correctly that if I am hit by an unlicensed, uninsured driver, I am to hire a collection agency to extract compensation, and if it is unable to do so, this person is to become an indentured servant of mine? Or he is to be shunned or exiled? Yep, basically. That's basically what you can do under the current system, BTW.

Now, in an-cap you probably wouldn't have to hire the agency -- since you're insured, your insurance company already has that worked out.

Really, I think you're going to have to explain why you think this scenario would be problematic for an-cap because I'm not seeing it. The issue is: how does one extract resources from someone with no assets. One way is through labor. I just thought of another one: force the guy to donate a kidney. In any case, it's not as if the state is adept at doing this. Compensation to the victim is pretty much the last thing on the state's to-do list, if it's there at all.

[constituent]

I'm not for closed borders. I think a rational immigration policy would be one where the immigration rate is set to a level below the birth rate.

Of course you are. How else do you plan to enforce your immigration to birth rate ratio?

Also, I haven't really noticed you on here advocating an end to passports and customs reporting requirements for citizens. How is that anything other than closed borders?

Your thoughts on these issues are much appreciated. :)

[Theocrat]

The "human nature" argument against anarchy is total fail.

So... humans are irrational, violent, greedy and therefor must be controlled by a government...made up of irrational, violent, and greedy men who also control all the guns.

Right...makes perfect sense ;)

Well, when you phrase the argument in those terms, without mentioning the necessity of salvation from God, the importance of individual self-government and moral living, and the education of a right understanding on the nature of civil governments, then it's easy to see how the "human nature" argument doesn't work.

So it becomes apparent that your argument is a straw man, then. Try again.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, when you phrase the argument in those terms, without mentioning the necessity of salvation from God, the importance of individual self-government and moral living, and the education of a right understanding on the nature of civil governments, then it's easy to see how the "human nature" argument doesn't work.

So it becomes apparent that your argument is a straw man.

There's nothing moral in the State. It legitimizes and proffers authority to such things as -- Murder, Theft, Racketeering, Corruption, Embezzling, Fraud, and a host of other things. You can't have a "moral" society when everyone has it in their heads these things are legitimate. Be consistent at least Theo. Damn.

[Theocrat]

There's nothing moral in the State. It legitimizes and proffers authority to such things as -- Murder, Theft, Racketeering, Corruption, Embezzling, Fraud, and a host of other things. You can't have a "moral" society when everyone has it in their heads these things are legitimate. Be consistent at least Theo. Damn.

No, AED. It's people in the government who do those things, using their powers unlawfully to legitimize those immoral acts. I don't know why it's so difficult for you anarchists to understand that.

Just because a person uses a gun to murder innocent people, does that make the gun evil? Of course not. But anarchists won't offer that same reasoning for the legitimacy of a proper civil government. So, if you wish to be consistent, AED, then you must be against gun ownership.

[helmuth_hubener]

Simply having no institutions of organized resistance will not do it Why would you think an-caps believe in having no institutions of organized resistance? If you think we believe that, no wonder you think we're naive! An-cap would have tons of institutions to defend against violence and aggression of any kind -- strong, well-funded, heavily-armed institutions, under the umbrella of the various insuance companies indemnifying their customers against aggression.

[helmuth_hubener]

No, AED. It's people in the government who do those things, using their powers unlawfully to legitimize those immoral acts. I don't know why it's so difficult for you anarchists to understand that.

Just because a person uses a gun to murder innocent people, does that make the gun evil? Of course not. But anarchists won't offer that same reasoning for the legitimacy of a proper civil government. So, if you wish to be consistent, AED, then you must be against gun ownership.
Right, Theocrat, it's all just people. People are people arepeople, whether they're wearing shiny badges or not. An-cap says the same moral principles apply to all people, with and without badges.

AED's point is that the state, by nature, by the fact of being a state, commits these crimes. A government that doesn't tax, conscript, nor punish victimless crimes, cannot be a state by my understanding of the definition of state. It has to at least tax. So, if by "proper civil gov't" you mean a gov't that doesn't do these things, then we already agree. You might call it "proper civil gov't" and I might call it "the stateless society", but we both want the same thing, and just call it by different names.

[constituent]

Jone's approach of the citizenry of the many states invoking the U.S. Constitution to repel and neuter the Federal Beast is a rational solution and one that we are not only entitled to, but legally empowered to.

I'm not really sure how Alex Jones gets away with pimping the constitution and his federal immigration regime all at the same time. :o :confused:

[Fredom101]

No, AED. It's people in the government who do those things, using their powers unlawfully to legitimize those immoral acts. I don't know why it's so difficult for you anarchists to understand that.

Just because a person uses a gun to murder innocent people, does that make the gun evil? Of course not. But anarchists won't offer that same reasoning for the legitimacy of a proper civil government. So, if you wish to be consistent, AED, then you must be against gun ownership.

Guns do not have consciousness, so this isn't even close to being a fair comparison.

[helmuth_hubener]

Institutional concepts don't have consciousness either.

[dmitchell]

Your assumption is that individuals in a truly free society are going to have the centralized power and coordination to launch nuclear weapons, stinger missiles, implant missile defense systems, etc, etc, etc. Decentralization is good, but in terms of national security, I don't care how many Ak47's you got.

I'm guessing that individuals in a stateless society would not even possess, let alone use, nuclear weapons. I mean, if I'm willing to use nuclear weapons, how am I any better than mass-murderer Harry Truman? It would be a total negation of my ethics.

[Stary Hickory]

Why would you think an-caps believe in having no institutions of organized resistance? If you think we believe that, no wonder you think we're naive! An-cap would have tons of institutions to defend against violence and aggression of any kind -- strong, well-funded, heavily-armed institutions, under the umbrella of the various insuance companies indemnifying their customers against aggression.

Well then your instituitons would constitute government. And they would be subject to the same elements of corruption. You want that these entities of force will never turn on liberty and freedom, but they can and will. The battle will go on regardless.

I am for as little government as humanly possible. Only violent action in response to violent aggression is justified. Breaking the governments up into multiple entities would be ok, however the same bad elements will consolidate and try to use force and violence again. The world is a history of such occurences.

[RyanRSheets]

A nation without defined and protected borders is not a nation at all.

Nations are the foundation of war and tyranny. I hope that one day there will be no nations.

[RyanRSheets]

Just because a person uses a gun to murder innocent people, does that make the gun evil? Of course not. But anarchists won't offer that same reasoning for the legitimacy of a proper civil government. So, if you wish to be consistent, AED, then you must be against gun ownership.

Proper civil government could never exist in such a massive, disorganized form as a nation. Proper civil government is a small collective, local in scale and voluntarily funded every step of the way. Perhaps there is some legitimacy to the idea of a bunch of small collectives allying and utilizing their militias to ward off a common threat, but there certainly is not legitimacy to a defined supercollective or a standing army.

[RyanRSheets]

Sounds like a New World Order.

How, exactly? The New World Order is globalist, Capitalism is localist to the max. Capitalism is two people trading on their own terms, New World Order is everyone adhering to the same terms. Unless you're just using New World Order meaning something else, I think you're very, very wrong.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Well then your instituitons would constitute government. And they would be subject to the same elements of corruption. You want that these entities of force will never turn on liberty and freedom, but they can and will. The battle will go on regardless.

I am for as little government as humanly possible. Only violent action in response to violent aggression is justified. Breaking the governments up into multiple entities would be ok, however the same bad elements will consolidate and try to use force and violence again. The world is a history of such occurences.

No kidding they would resemble government. No kidding they would subject to corruption. No kidding they could turn on liberty. But in an An/Cap society they would have to compete in the market and would no longer be funded after a certain point of corruption and will have to steal in order to survive. Then they would have to deal with a society that firmly believes in liberty and the other PDA's.

Some of the minarchists really piss me off (and I am not singling anyone out here just venting a general statement of disgust). They talk about the constitution but they deviate from it on a dime for whatever the emotional convenience of the day is. There are libertarians that have more understanding about the constitution than self labeled constitutionalists. So not only do these folks not know jack about austrian economics or voluntaryism, they hardly know jack about the things they supposedly advocate. And these folks wonder why libertarians don't trust them. :rolleyes:

Getting back to the world is a history of such occurrences.... well ya. But if eternal vigilance is defined as preserving a majority of force wouldn't that be a lot easier without government? Let's look at the past 230 years and see if we have an intelligent answer to that question....

[Stary Hickory]

No kidding they would resemble government. No kidding they would subject to corruption. No kidding they could turn on liberty. But in an An/Cap society they would have to compete in the market and would no longer be funded after a certain point of corruption and will have to steal in order to survive. Then they would have to deal with a society that firmly believes in liberty and the other PDA's.

Some of the minarchists really piss me off (and I am not singling anyone out here just venting a general statement of disgust). They talk about the constitution but they deviate from it on a dime for whatever the emotional convenience of the day is. There are libertarians that have more understanding about the constitution than self labeled constitutionalists. So not only do these folks not know jack about austrian economics or voluntaryism, they hardly know jack about the things they supposedly advocate. And these folks wonder why libertarians don't trust them. :rolleyes:

Getting back to the world is a history of such occurrences.... well ya. But if eternal vigilance is defined as preserving a majority of force wouldn't that be a lot easier without government? Let's look at the past 230 years and see if we have an intelligent answer to that question....

Well you still make no sense. Every government nowadays "competes". There is always competition amongst aggressors. You are basically saying if men were not the way they are then this would be possible. You assume a defunct government or political power would be defunded? This is not the case. As long as people perceive a benefit in supporting a government then they will continue to exist.

Then men who form these oppressive enities are volunteers the population who supports them do so voluntarily because they see gain in it. Those that are being exploited and understand this are few in number and cannot resist in any meaningful way. Only when those being exploited becomes significant or the government lies become apparent can a government be reduce/eliminated/reformed.

If you go back in time, there were competeing governments all over the place. Tribes and small nations. Competing governments did not save them, they were assimilated and controlled. And facing ever growing threats from aggression many joined and formed nations. This process will continue, Anarchists make no sense because they lack this insight. They want a utopian anarchist world. The problem is they want to populate it with imperfect humans.

I don't see much difference between a utopian anarchist world and a utopian socialist world. Both assume that mankind will stop behaving in a manner that it has for thousands and thousands of years. I think that a anarchist greater freedom world is a good goal, but do not decieve yourself into believeing it can ever happen.

People must simply be ready to fight to keep their freedoms and porperty at all times. Only this kind of vigillance can stop aggressors. Government is defined as a institution of force used to control and alter human actions. Every kind of insitution like it can be used for good purposes and evil ones.

Remember the world stared in anarchy. It evolved this way for a good reason. Until you eliminate the cause for this evololution of aggressive insitutions expect nothing more than a struggle to prevent those from using force in society. Anarchism is simply a "what if" scenario...what if men were enlightned and peaceful, what if men chose volunteerism and not aggressive acts of force on others.

Better to be realistic and work towards a more free world than to demand the impossible. You would come much closer to attaining the world you want to live in..

[Fredom101]

Anyone who is advocating government as the solution here is advocating central planning. Central planning is a dismal failure, as we have seen. Time to be open to the idea that things could be a LOT better around here if bureaucrats were not able to run a huge part of our lives.

[Sentient Void]

Well you still make no sense. Every government nowadays "competes". There is always competition amongst aggressors. You are basically saying if men were not the way they are then this would be possible. You assume a defunct government or political power would be defunded? This is not the case. As long as people perceive a benefit in supporting a government then they will continue to exist.

Then men who form these oppressive enities are volunteers the population who supports them do so voluntarily because they see gain in it. Those that are being exploited and understand this are few in number and cannot resist in any meaningful way. Only when those being exploited becomes significant or the government lies become apparent can a government be reduce/eliminated/reformed.

If you go back in time, there were competeing governments all over the place. Tribes and small nations. Competing governments did not save them, they were assimilated and controlled. And facing ever growing threats from aggression many joined and formed nations. This process will continue, Anarchists make no sense because they lack this insight. They want a utopian anarchist world. The problem is they want to populate it with imperfect humans.

I don't see much difference between a utopian anarchist world and a utopian socialist world. Both assume that mankind will stop behaving in a manner that it has for thousands and thousands of years. I think that a anarchist greater freedom world is a good goal, but do not decieve yourself into believeing it can ever happen.

People must simply be ready to fight to keep their freedoms and porperty at all times. Only this kind of vigillance can stop aggressors. Government is defined as a institution of force used to control and alter human actions. Every kind of insitution like it can be used for good purposes and evil ones.

Remember the world stared in anarchy. It evolved this way for a good reason. Until you eliminate the cause for this evololution of aggressive insitutions expect nothing more than a struggle to prevent those from using force in society. Anarchism is simply a "what if" scenario...what if men were enlightned and peaceful, what if men chose volunteerism and not aggressive acts of force on others.

Better to be realistic and work towards a more free world than to demand the impossible. You would come much closer to attaining the world you want to live in..

Stary, I can tell you're not quite familiar with Murray Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism and how the PDA (Private Defense Agency) system would work and was referenced by Live_Free_or_Die, since you've made some assumptions about PDA's that are incorrect.

Ancaps aren't talking about competing governments within an ancap society. understand - PDA's are not governments. PDA's are more like insurance companies that take on the protective role of government through risk assessment and according rates, and hire police (which would compete for business from PDA's and individuals/corporate entities) for protection of private property, dispute resolution, and perhaps courts, law (which would also be hired by PDA's and other corporate entities) etc. They are run as a business, and numerous PDA's would compete for business just as any businesses/insurance companies do in the marketplace right now (but within a truly free market). Some individuals would sign up for one PDA, others for another one, depending on their performance, cost and track record, lack of corruption, etc.

That's a quick drill down. I'm not going to explain how every situation would work out and all the details of PDAs, but if you are truly interested in understanding the ancap position, I suggest you read 'For a New Liberty' by Murray Rothbard to get you started.

Here's a PDF if you like:

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

Now, if you're saying that such PDA's would devolve into ultra-minimum states, then potentially to minarchist states, and eventually to tyrannical states - then you're agreeing with Robert Nozick such as in 'Anarchy, State and utopia'... however, Murray Rothbard addressed this criticism accordingly and refuted it - that's a quick read and is here:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

[AuH20]

Well you still make no sense. Every government nowadays "competes". There is always competition amongst aggressors. You are basically saying if men were not the way they are then this would be possible. You assume a defunct government or political power would be defunded? This is not the case. As long as people perceive a benefit in supporting a government then they will continue to exist.

Then men who form these oppressive enities are volunteers the population who supports them do so voluntarily because they see gain in it. Those that are being exploited and understand this are few in number and cannot resist in any meaningful way. Only when those being exploited becomes significant or the government lies become apparent can a government be reduce/eliminated/reformed.

If you go back in time, there were competeing governments all over the place. Tribes and small nations. Competing governments did not save them, they were assimilated and controlled. And facing ever growing threats from aggression many joined and formed nations. This process will continue, Anarchists make no sense because they lack this insight. They want a utopian anarchist world. The problem is they want to populate it with imperfect humans.

I don't see much difference between a utopian anarchist world and a utopian socialist world. Both assume that mankind will stop behaving in a manner that it has for thousands and thousands of years. I think that a anarchist greater freedom world is a good goal, but do not decieve yourself into believeing it can ever happen.

People must simply be ready to fight to keep their freedoms and porperty at all times. Only this kind of vigillance can stop aggressors. Government is defined as a institution of force used to control and alter human actions. Every kind of insitution like it can be used for good purposes and evil ones.

Remember the world stared in anarchy. It evolved this way for a good reason. Until you eliminate the cause for this evololution of aggressive insitutions expect nothing more than a struggle to prevent those from using force in society. Anarchism is simply a "what if" scenario...what if men were enlightned and peaceful, what if men chose volunteerism and not aggressive acts of force on others.

Better to be realistic and work towards a more free world than to demand the impossible. You would come much closer to attaining the world you want to live in..

A true anarchical solution would work if a massive EMP signal coordinated by oribiting satellites could suppress every integrated circuit on the planet (remember the ending of Escape from LA :D). Then other aggressive nations on distant continents would be hard pressed to mount an attack, in their quest for resources and wealth. In other words, bring it back to the middle ages and level the playing field. Obviously, this a far-fetched fantasy but you understand my point. If the U.S. was transformed into an anarchical community without a tradtional defense force, it would look like Africa in a decade. In other words, exploitation by foreign powers, which would make the current situation look quite tame.

[dmitchell]

I know how it works now. I ask my neighbor to turn the music down if it's too loud, and then I call the cops if they don't. And I call code enforcement at city hall if too many guys are living in the garage next door and it annoys me, or if they are not cleaning their pool and the mosquitoes are getting thick in my backyard.
I would expect more or less the same procedures in a stateless society. You deal with your neighbor directly if you can; if not, you turn to local authorities (maybe a homeowner association), courts, and dispute resolution agencies. It isn't difficult to imagine.


If the liberty movement becomes dominated by people whose goal is eliminating the border patrol, police departments and city hall, then instead of continuing to grow as it is now, it will become a fringe movement for utopian dreamers.
I hate to break this to you, but "limited government" is at least as utopian as a stateless society. Actually it is more utopian. Give an organization ultimate power over violence and conflict resolution in a territory and expect it to remain limited? It doesn't get more utopian than that.

[NH4RonPaul]

These guys are purely idiots, that's how they are viewed in NH.

[NH4RonPaul]

Sounds like a New World Order.

And it is.. it's purely one world government and a lot worse than a constitutional republic.

Basically what 'Ian' is promoting is totalitarianism.

[eOs]

it's not total fail at all. It's obvious how violent people can be just look around you. The state instituions of violence were built by people and populated by people. If you have a power vacum there will be those who will use force and coercion to exploit this.

The constant struggle against those that use agressive violence has been an eternal thing. Good government consists of those people and those ideals that seek to defend against aggressive violence. It merely is a response to the violent nature of some individuals of society.

These people tend to always seek power, the power to use force on others for personal gain. So they eventually corrupt and takeover the very government instituions erected to defend against these people in the first place. It's easier to lie,bribe, and use propaganda to attain force...in fact when there is an effective barrier (such as "good government) that prevents these people from acting out violently then the only option left to them is to corrupt and take over the existing structure.

Anarchists are naive because they cannot see that this is an eternal struggle. I would love to live in a society where people did not use violence for their own ends, but until man changes in a fundamental way we simply have to accept that organized resistance is necessary.

Simply having no institutions of organized resistance will not do it. The predators exist and will cause all sorts of misery. There is no magical answer, the strugle continues. We must push back, and try to elimintate the scope of government back to defense of liberty and property and nothing more.

+1776. I stand by my position that anarchists should go to Somalia, or set up camp in the Amazon and test out their theories, and if it works, We'll all come on over. :D

[Stary Hickory]

Stary, I can tell you're not quite familiar with Murray Rothbard, anarcho-capitalism and how the PDA (Private Defense Agency) system would work and was referenced by Live_Free_or_Die, since you've made some assumptions about PDA's that are incorrect.

That's a negative I am quite familiar with them. I even watched Stefbot ramble on for hours about such things. All governments start out in a similar fashion they need voluntary support. They start small and get people paying. These PDAs are the same....you make an assumption that people will just defund them when they become oppressive. Once power is established all the rules change.

Money is half the issue, we are talking about resources and labor. And throughout history these types of entities have always found voluntary resources and labor for their endeavors. The idea behind PDAs is not horrible, decentralization does help reduce corruption and the level of oppression, it's the same reason I support states rights, and furhter on county rights, and so on.

However these PDAs can become oppressive entities easily. Once they have significant resources and a power structure they can use it against people. History is full of examples where people support violent regimes who prey on others for the "perceived" benefit of those that support them.

A violent institution is a violent institution. No matter how you describe it. The founding fathers understood the nature of violent institutions they tried to limit it. But that did not stop statists from corrupting and using government to attain their ends with violence. A PDA will be voluntary at first and then the same types will burrow their way into the PDAs..the powerful ones. And volunteerism will turn into oppression.

I am just saying that PDAs are not an answer, the only answer is to remain vigilant and to stop aggressors in any way you can.

[Fredom101]

These guys are purely idiots, that's how they are viewed in NH.

Viewed by who?
A bunch of violent statists?

I'll take the guys who support freedom over the violent statists any day, ad hominem attacks or not.

[helmuth_hubener]

I am just saying that PDAs are not an answer, the only answer is to remain vigilant and to stop aggressors in any way you can. Not an answer to which question? They are a good answer to the question: "What would be a good way to protect and defend property rights?"

To the question "How can we make it so people will be perfect and guarantee that everything will stay perfect and free and beautiful forever and ever?"... not so much. If you seek an answer to that question, you indeed will need to keep searching.

I personally believe you are overlooking the crucial role of ideology.
http://mises.org/media/1465
http://media.mises.org/ppt/Ideology.ppt

If the populace predominately and overwhelmingly understands and believes in anarcho-capitalist libertarianism, that is a different situation than has ever existed in history before. If we somehow staged an an-cap coup and got into a PDA situation without the requisite ideological shift, that an-cap regime would be short-lived indeed, you're right. But after the ideological shift has occurred, an an-cap system could be very stable. I see no reason to believe it would immediately deteriorate into tyranny. As you say, though, vigilance is required and ultimately every generation must decide anew for itself whether they wish to remain free or... not. There's no way to inevitably bind your descendants 200 years in the future to maintain your ideal vision of the society they should have. If you're wanting to do that, you could look up Dr. Emmett "Doc" Brown.

[nobody's_hero]

Viewed by who?
A bunch of violent statists?

I'll take the guys who support freedom over the violent statists any day, ad hominem attacks or not.

I support what the people of the FSP are doing. These are probably the most freedom-loving people in the U.S. who are trying to turn idealism into action.

One thing, however, that they must contend with, is that majority rule exists (majority rule is not automatically just, but it exists).

Even the very tactics of the FSP involve and adhere-to the concept of majority rule. That's why they picked a state with a small population to try to 'take over.' You have to out-number your opponents in order for such a strategy to work.

Regardless of race, religion, and all those other cards that people like to play—Understanding the philosophy of liberty is a must for those wishing to join and help maintain a free society. That means—yes, we are the minority.

The question will be this: When and if the people of the FSP manage to take over New Hampshire, will they be willing to allow continuous numbers of Massholes* to cross over their existent (or non-existent?) state borders and turn the tables of majority rule from freedom's side unto tyranny's? Will immigration control be necessary to keep out such statists, or will the porcupines stick to their philosophy 'til the bitter end (pardon the pun)?

*People who are attracted by lower taxes, yet lack the understanding that less government=less taxes, but will eventually want the services of government, and therefore begin voting for the growth of government (or establishing a new one, if the FSP abolishes the government of N.H.), then finally moving on to another, more prosperous and free state (if such exists), after eating out the sustenence of FSP'ers and draining the state of New Hampshire. **The term Masshole does not apply to Ron Paul supporters here who are unfortunate enough to be living in Massachusetts at this time.**

[Sentient Void]

That's a negative I am quite familiar with them. I even watched Stefbot ramble on for hours about such things. All governments start out in a similar fashion they need voluntary support. They start small and get people paying. These PDAs are the same....you make an assumption that people will just defund them when they become oppressive. Once power is established all the rules change.

Money is half the issue, we are talking about resources and labor. And throughout history these types of entities have always found voluntary resources and labor for their endeavors. The idea behind PDAs is not horrible, decentralization does help reduce corruption and the level of oppression, it's the same reason I support states rights, and furhter on county rights, and so on.

However these PDAs can become oppressive entities easily. Once they have significant resources and a power structure they can use it against people. History is full of examples where people support violent regimes who prey on others for the "perceived" benefit of those that support them.

A violent institution is a violent institution. No matter how you describe it. The founding fathers understood the nature of violent institutions they tried to limit it. But that did not stop statists from corrupting and using government to attain their ends with violence. A PDA will be voluntary at first and then the same types will burrow their way into the PDAs..the powerful ones. And volunteerism will turn into oppression.

I am just saying that PDAs are not an answer, the only answer is to remain vigilant and to stop aggressors in any way you can.

Response:


Now, if you're saying that such PDA's would devolve into ultra-minimum states, then potentially to minarchist states, and eventually to tyrannical states - then you're agreeing with Robert Nozick such as in 'Anarchy, State and utopia'... however, Murray Rothbard addressed this criticism accordingly and refuted it - that's a quick read (13 pages) and is here:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

[Sentient Void]

**The term Masshole does not apply to Ron Paul supporters here who are unfortunate enough to be living in Massachusetts at this time.**

Phew! ;)

/me lives in the North Shore of Boston, MA

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I support what the people of the FSP are doing. These are probably the most freedom-loving people in the U.S. who are trying to turn idealism into action.

One thing, however, that they must contend with, is that majority rule exists (majority rule is not automatically just, but it exists).

Even the very tactics of the FSP involve and adhere-to the concept of majority rule. That's why they picked a state with a small population to try to 'take over.' You have to out-number your opponents in order for such a strategy to work.

Regardless of race, religion, and all those other cards that people like to play—Understanding the philosophy of liberty is a must for those wishing to join and help maintain a free society. That means—yes, we are the minority.

The question will be this: When and if the people of the FSP manage to take over New Hampshire, will they be willing to allow continuous numbers of Massholes* to cross over their existent (or non-existent?) state borders and turn the tables of majority rule from freedom's side unto tyranny's? Will immigration control be necessary to keep out such statists, or will the porcupines stick to their philosophy 'til the bitter end (pardon the pun)?

*People who are attracted by lower taxes, yet lack the understanding that less government=less taxes, but will eventually want the services of government, and therefore begin voting for the growth of government (or establishing a new one, if the FSP abolishes the government of N.H.), then finally moving on to another, more prosperous and free state (if such exists), after eating out the sustenence of FSP'ers and draining the state of New Hampshire. **The term Masshole does not apply to Ron Paul supporters here who are unfortunate enough to be living in Massachusetts at this time.**

Well the Masshole scenario is the big question and I don't think an/caps are oblivious to it. Quite frankly it cracks me up when the minarchists talk about eternal vigilance. Just a few posts back Star made a comment the world started in anarchy.

News flash... the world has never left anarchy. Look at any world map and you will see nothing but a bunch of different geographical regions of people who have obtained a majority of force and acted on their beliefs.

I find some minarchists to be naive to this whole eternal vigilance thing which really means maintaining a majority of force. At least the an/caps are intellectually honest about it. Anarchy is not the problem. Anarchy exists and always will. It is society that is utopian no matter what label you put on it.

So the question is how do you maintain a majority of force. That is why the constitution and limited government failed. If we are to be honest about this question the market offers a lot of solutions that appear reasonable.

People believed in the constitution and limited government right up to the civil war. Where I think minarchists are just completely naive is that a return to limited government will not lead to another civil war. You don't think libertarians or progressives are going to push for secession so they can each do their own thing?

The more I am thinking about it the more I am liking the thought of a libertarian-progressive partnership now that it could have some scope. We could join forces to put the country back on track to limited constitutional government. And then continue our partnership right on up through secession and civil war ii if necessary.

What is the biggest progressive forum around?

[nobody's_hero]

Well the Masshole scenario is the big question and I don't think an/caps are oblivious to it. Quite frankly it cracks me up when the minarchists talk about eternal vigilance. Just a few posts back Star made a comment the world started in anarchy.

News flash... the world has never left anarchy. Look at any world map and you will see nothing but a bunch of different geographical regions of people who have obtained a majority of force and acted on their beliefs.



I agree and would take it a step further to say that a government that doesn't respect the law (the Constitution) could also be defined as anarchy.

We certainly have anarchy now, in that sense.

The good news is that it does not require a majority to succeed. Only that irate tireless minority set on winning over minds and setting brushfires and all that good stuff. ;) I wish the FSP luck in that regard.

You don't even need a majority of the people; just a majority of those who would seek to participate in government (vote). —A majority of people controlling government who are unwilling to use that government to control the people would start us back on the path to freedom. However, 'eternal vigilance' will be necessary in whatever form of government (or non-government) we manage to return to. We can't just say, "oh, we have an anarcho-capitalistic society now" . . . and then go back to eat cheetos and play computer games and expect it to last forever. . . human nature, and all that.

[nobody's_hero]

Phew! ;)

/me lives in the North Shore of Boston, MA

I feel like starting an underground railroad. lol. We've got to get you out!

[Sentient Void]

I feel like starting an underground railroad. lol. We've got to get you out!

LoL, well I'm signed up for the FSP... I would have moved by now but jobs for my field (computer repair/troubleshooting/networking, branch/retail supervisor/manager) are damned scarce up there right now it seems (for right over the border and near a train station into Boston). The girlfriend needs easy access to a train into Boston for her job.

TBH, I can't fucking wait to move to NH.

[ClayTrainor]

LoL, well I'm signed up for the FSP... I would have moved by now but jobs for my field (computer repair/troubleshooting/networking, branch/retail supervisor/manager) are damned scarce up there right now it seems (for right over the border and near a train station into Boston). The girlfriend needs easy access to a train into Boston for her job.

TBH, I can't fucking wait to move to NH.

The thought has been on my mind a lot, since listening to these FTL guys in this interview. I'm self-employed on the internet, so I could really live anywhere so long as I'm connected. I dread thinking about all the bureaucratic hoops I gotta jump through in order to stay there though.

[anaconda]

I'm not really sure how Alex Jones gets away with pimping the constitution and his federal immigration regime all at the same time. :o :confused:

Constitution empowers the Federal government to raise a military. The military is authorized to defend the borders. Don't seen any inconsistencies here.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Constitution empowers the Federal government to raise a military. The military is authorized to defend the borders. Don't seen any inconsistencies here.

This is so stupid. It's impossible to "defend" thousands of miles of borders. East Germany couldn't even enforce their border regimen and they had one of the strictest ever invented, and only had to enforce a much smaller area. The incentive is primarily the same in both scenarios (People fleeing). As long as there is a Welfare State you cannot stop people from coming and abusing it. It's simply impossible, and to give the State more power to try and fulfill an impossible goal is insane.

How do you plan to stop people from flowing in when the incentive is still there, and there is a litany of ways to enter the US? The State can't even manage USPS, or Amtrak, how the fuck do you expect them to lock off thousands of miles of borders, both landlocked, and seabound?

I want you to legitimately answer me this:

If East Germany could not stop emigration (which is the same principle as immigration when it comes to border enforcement), and they were about as totalitarian as one could get, how do you expect the US to stop the flow of immigration when it has to enforce at least 300% more area?

You talk of utopia. Your border enforcement agenda, which would cause a massive rise in the Police State (How do you tell "citizen" from "illegal", intrusive laws on businesses, and massive databases, plus ICE raids and other scenarios, and even more militarization of the police, and a papers please mentality, etc.), is epitome of utopia. It is the definition of impossible, but you want to give the State this power over society. It's astonishing.

[Arion45]

Classic. Securing borders is equivalent to being a Nazi.

Anarchists are either subversives or useful idiots for the NWO.

How did the Ron Paul Forums get overrun by anarchists?

Ron Paul is for limited government and following the Constitution, not anarchism.

Reminds me of how subversives would attempt to undermine the antiwar America First Committee by dressing up like Nazis and attending their rallies. Then the newspapers would take pictures of these Nazis and write articles about how America Firsters supported Hitler.

Open borders are what the international bankers want. Obama, the SPLC, AIPAC and the ADL want open borders, too. Anyone who doesn't is to be smeared as a Nazi.

Nice tactic.

Because once one takes the non-aggression principle and self ownership to it logical conclusions you see that the state is evil.

What you want is to limit the movement of free people across imaginary lines drawn in the sand. You are advocating using force against people who have committed no crime. By crime I mean the violation of natural rights. Any other law not derived from natural rights are illegitimate.


They are going to ruin his chances in 2012 if they continue to protest for open borders while calling themselves "Ron Paul supporters" when that is NOT his platform.
The republicans are already calling RP a RINO and the open border crowd are eating right out of their hands on this issue by siding with the Liberals.
We need to keep a lid on open borders and try getting the Presidency first because we have a long way to go before we can even seriously begin demanding such a major change.
Get drugs decriminalized, end the welfare state, end the fed and get the economy stabilized by getting RP or someone like him in power first.
Whoever it was protesting for open borders and calling themselves RP supporters has to stop.

Someone still believes in the left right paradigm.

[Jace]

The "human nature" argument against anarchy is total fail.

So... humans are irrational, violent, greedy and therefor must be controlled by a government...made up of irrational, violent, and greedy men who also control all the guns.

Right...makes perfect sense ;)

The Founders understood that humans are irrational, violent and greedy -- and that power corrupts. That's why they set up constitutional republic with separation of powers and checks and balances. Their goal was to diffuse power into local, state and federal roles, accountable to the people through elections and civic participation.

They also favored a free enterprise system that diffuses prosperity across society, in contrast to centrally planned economies. The Founders used tariffs to protect the American free enterprise system from foreign mercantilists.

One of the main problems with our republic is that Congress allowed power to be concentrated in the Fed, and it's destroying our constitutional republic and our free enterprise system.

Ron Paul is for re-storing the Constitution, non-interventionism, limited government, free enterprise and taking down the Fed.

Ron has very powerful ideas that are traditionally American, with common-sense appeal to a broad section of the population, with a proven track record, but it's difficult to get the message through to people in this propaganda war that we are engaged in.

Ron Paul is not for anarchism, not for open borders, and not for eliminating government altogether. I am wondering why this site has been overrun by people who are promoting open borders using rhetoric that sounds very similar to the leftist open borders folks who have had no problems demonizing Ron and Rand Paul in the media as racists.



Of course you are. How else do you plan to enforce your immigration to birth rate ratio?

Also, I haven't really noticed you on here advocating an end to passports and customs reporting requirements for citizens. How is that anything other than closed borders?

Your thoughts on these issues are much appreciated. :)

You have me confused with someone else.


The issue is: how does one extract resources from someone with no assets. One way is through labor. I just thought of another one: force the guy to donate a kidney. In any case, it's not as if the state is adept at doing this. Compensation to the victim is pretty much the last thing on the state's to-do list, if it's there at all.

So in your ideal society, if I am hit by an uninsured driver, my insurance company is to use force to extract this person's kidney to compensate me?

[Arion45]

delete

[Arion45]

Open borders are a tool of statists, internationalists and plutocrats, not liberty-minded people.

If you understand simple economic logic, you will see where they are coming from. The United States was a country with abundant land and natural resources, but with labor scarcity. This made labor here very expensive, and was why slavery developed in the South. The prosperous, innovative and hard-working family farmer gave way to the opulent lifestyles of plantation slave owners.

You are advocating the initiation of force against non violent people and limiting the freedom of movement people. I wonder do you think you are a liberty minded person? Because you are sure telling us how much you want a centralized government to control people.



In the North, wealthy investors would send ships to Eastern and Southern Europe to recruit poor laborers to bring them to Northeastern cities. Large influxes of poor immigrants drove down labor costs in the cities, while driving up rents and prices. Through our history, when the people who were already here began to see their standard of living drop, they organized to resist the influx of newcomers. So we had waves of foreigners coming in, then a backlash that led to immigration restriction, until the negative effects were forgotten, and then the next wave began. Right now we are undergoing the biggest and longest immigration wave ever, and our living standards are dropping while wealth is concentrating in the hands of a small plutocracy.


In the free market there is no shortage of jobs. There may be scarcity of land and living quarters in a city but this will regulate itself by driving up prices. All I see here is a person telling us how freedom of movement needs to be limited to protect the status quo.



Nations with surplus labor (China, India, Mexico, etc.) tend to be ruled by cliquish plutocracies, while having non-existent middle classes and demoralizing poverty.

One of the biggest proponents of open borders was John D. Rockefeller. In Ludlow, Colorado at the turn of the century, Rockefeller owned coal mines. The work was dangerous and difficult in the mines and it was hard to find miners willing to work for what he wanted to pay. He solved this problem by importing foreign labor. He imported Italians, and when they demanded higher wages, he imported Mexicans. When the Mexicans asked for more pay, he brought in Poles and Greeks. He would play these groups off each other and it worked great because they would compete against each other for work. The newest arrivals would work hard until they figured out they were being exploited, then another group would be brought in. The different groups couldn't effectively ask for higher pay and safe working conditions because they spoke different languages and had different customs and cultures, and were mistrustful of each other and of the native population. Finally, they realized that they were being paid less than what their labor was worth, and they demanded higher compensation for the difficult work they were doing. They organized and went on strike. Then Rockefeller called in the National Guard, which massacred 19 of them, including women and children, in what today is called the Ludlow Massacre.

So the free market worked and then government was called in to disrupt it. So this supports the voluntaryist stance.



Rockefeller was pro-immigration not from a humanitarian standpoint, but because he knew by importing impoverished and ignorant foreigners, he could drive down the market value of labor and drive out smaller operations to secure a monopoly. He used his profits to secure support of the state, which massacred his non-compliant and alien workforce.

When people contract their labor they do it voluntarily between themselves and their employer. This of course would be ludicrous to argue against. If that drives down the price, that is how the free market works and to argue against that would make one a socialist. A monopoly can only be accomplished with the help of the force of government. Someone can always come in and under cut the competition if they are charging too high of a price. It takes the government to drive out competition.



Today, the plutocrats have opened up our borders because it serves their interests, which are keeping the cost of labor low while keeping prices and rents high. Silicon Valley was founded by American engineers, but if you go into any company in Silicon Valley today, you will see that American engineers have been driven out, replaced by Chinese and Indian-born engineers who are here on H1B visas, essentially indentured servants. Americans have been driven out of food service, construction and landscaping work here over the last 20 years, entirely replaced by foreign-born labor. Yet the cost of living keeps climbing. And the state keeps expanding.

Whats wrong with competition? Are you saying that you want the force of government to protect peoples jobs? To force an employer to pay a certain amount? Like a working wage? Are you a liberal?



We now have 300 million people in this country and a 9 percent unemployment rate -- 12 percent in California where immigrants make up a larger percentage of the population compared to most states. We are becoming a nation with a surplus of workers. We don't need any more people, but they will continue to come, whether there is a welfare state or not. China, India, Africa and Latin America have a surplus of poor, hungry people, and millions of them would move here in a heartbeat, even if it meant sleeping in doorways and eating out of trash cans.

Actually immigrants are leaving because the job market is so bad.



We have to decide what type of society we want to be. Do we want to be a middle class nation where rich people pay workers a middle class wage? Of small business owners and homeowners? Or do we want to be a crowded, impoverished nation, like India, where workers are dependent and subservient to a small plutocracy, and grateful for the privilege of serving them. A nation of corporations and low-wage workers paying landlords rent?
[/QUOTE]

India is poor because of it's governmental regulations and lack of free market. Look at Hong Kong. It has a comparable economy to the United States. It is number #2 in economic freedom in the world.

[helmuth_hubener]

Ron Paul is not for anarchism, not for open borders, and not for eliminating government altogether. I am wondering why this site has been overrun by people who are promoting open borders using rhetoric that sounds very similar to the leftist open borders folks who have had no problems demonizing Ron and Rand Paul in the media as racists. Ron Paul is for liberty. We're for liberty. Ron Paul's a libertarian. We're libertarians. What's the problem?


So in your ideal society, if I am hit by an uninsured driver, my insurance company is to use force to extract this person's kidney to compensate me? Realistically, no, I'm just throwing out possible ways that asset-less people can recompence for their crimes or trespasses. That was your question. In the big picture, no road owner (or very few road owners) would trust and allow uninsured people to drive on their roadways. And I'm not talking just auto insurance. Insurance becomes much more important in a free market society. They form the backbone of the justice system, the police, and the military defense. People without insurance would be pariahs, outcasts, no decent person would associate with them. Anyway, if you are harmed somehow by someone, assetless or not, your PDA has failed to protect you from that harm. So they pay out. That's what you're paying premiums for. In all likelihood it's not worth it to them to try some outlandish way of squeezing this turnip, so they just eat the cost and put the turnip on a blacklist, ruining his life until he makes good or has no choice but to leave for some other society. In any case, you're done right and are a happy customer.

At least that's one way it could work out. The nice thing about an-cap is that you could have 20 very different societies all within a 100 mile radius. You can do whatever you want, as long as it's voluntary. If you want to base a society on what you feel is the perfect way to deal with uninsured drivers, have at it, start a colony!

[Fredom101]

India is poor because of it's governmental regulations and lack of free market. Look at Hong Kong. It has a comparable economy to the United States. It is number #2 in economic freedom in the world.

Hong Kong is typically ranked #1 in terms of economic freedom. The US dropped to 7th or 8th last year if I'm not mistaken.

[Jace]

You are advocating the initiation of force against non violent people and limiting the freedom of movement people. I wonder do you think you are a liberty minded person? Because you are sure telling us how much you want a centralized government to control people.

Ron Paul is not for open borders. Do you think he is not liberty minded?



A monopoly can only be accomplished with the help of the force of government. Someone can always come in and under cut the competition if they are charging too high of a price. It takes the government to drive out competition.

This is not true. Monopolies can arise independently of government. When the central government collapsed in Afghanistan, warlords monopolized the roads in the total absence of government. The typical Afghan became so furious at having to pay tolls to use the roads that they supported the rise of the Taliban, which was a grassroots organization that came into being for the purpose of killing the warlords and opening up the roads. The Taliban's initial success and popularity grew and they developed into one of the most oppressive, violent and religiously intolerant regimes in the world. So essentially, the Taliban came into existence during a time when there was no central government, but monopolies everywhere that people hated.

Monopolies can arise with government collusion or without and in various situations. Sometimes they can arise in a free market and government can grow up around them to protect them from competition.


Whats wrong with competition? Are you saying that you want the force of government to protect peoples jobs? To force an employer to pay a certain amount? Like a working wage? Are you a liberal?

Nothing is wrong with competition. I believe in the free enterprise system that our Founding Fathers supported. I just don't think a free enterprise system can survive in America with the kind of mass immigration we are seeing now. In my own life I have not seen the benefit of importing millions of poor foreigners into this country. The cost of living has gone up, the quality of life has gone down, while government and taxation has increased to deal with all the social problems and poverty that has resulted here from such a huge and rapid influx of poor foreigners into our neighborhoods. I don't blame them for coming, but I can see with my own eyes the negative consequences to liberty and to property that is resulting.

Houses around here were more affordable 30 years ago when they were built by American-born workers. Today they are built entirely by illegal alien labor, but to buy one takes up a greater percentage of income. And I have traveled around the world to countries where there is a lot of immigration and no immigration and nowhere could I not afford an apple. Or a salad. Or even notice the price. So I've never bought the argument that we need Third World labor or else we won't be able to buy produce in the supermarkets.


Actually immigrants are leaving because the job market is so bad.

That may be the case, but even in this bad economy they are still coming. The rate has just slowed a little.


India is poor because of it's governmental regulations and lack of free market. Look at Hong Kong. It has a comparable economy to the United States. It is number #2 in economic freedom in the world.

Hong Kong is a wonderful city. I have been there and had a great time. But Hong Kong was never free. It never had an elected mayor or city council, but was ruled by a governor appointed by the Queen of England before China took over. The city exists because it was taken by force of arms by the British Empire during the Opium Wars. It developed into a great city by being the gateway for opium into China, which Britain secured a monopoly on by killing a lot of Chinese mainlanders. While very free and rich economically, it has never had democracy or true freedom. I would encourage you to go there and see how the average person lives -- in densely overcrowded tenements where any mention of Avian Flu can cause a panic attack.

India is so crowded and poor that a lot of westerners go over there and see so much human misery that they become emotionally overwhelmed and have a spiritual awakening and convert to mystical religions to try to make sense of it all.

We have doubled our population to 300 million people in just over 60 years, due mainly to immigration. We will hit 400 million in our lifetimes if the current growth rate continues, and over 500 million in our children's lifetimes. Look to India, China and Mexico City for a glimpse into our future.

[Jace]

Ron Paul is for liberty. We're for liberty. Ron Paul's a libertarian. We're libertarians. What's the problem?

Realistically, no, I'm just throwing out possible ways that asset-less people can recompence for their crimes or trespasses. That was your question. In the big picture, no road owner (or very few road owners) would trust and allow uninsured people to drive on their roadways. And I'm not talking just auto insurance. Insurance becomes much more important in a free market society. They form the backbone of the justice system, the police, and the military defense. People without insurance would be pariahs, outcasts, no decent person would associate with them. Anyway, if you are harmed somehow by someone, assetless or not, your PDA has failed to protect you from that harm. So they pay out. That's what you're paying premiums for. In all likelihood it's not worth it to them to try some outlandish way of squeezing this turnip, so they just eat the cost and put the turnip on a blacklist, ruining his life until he makes good or has no choice but to leave for some other society. In any case, you're done right and are a happy customer.

At least that's one way it could work out. The nice thing about an-cap is that you could have 20 very different societies all within a 100 mile radius. You can do whatever you want, as long as it's voluntary. If you want to base a society on what you feel is the perfect way to deal with uninsured drivers, have at it, start a colony!

You have an interesting viewpoint. Perhaps you should write a novel about what the world would look like under this system.

In my own life, my concern now is winning people over to Ron Paul's goals of restoring the Constitution, non-interventionism, sound money, limited government and ending the Fed. These are powerful, commonsense ideas. We can get people elected to office that believe in these things and that's what I thought this movement was focused on.

I think, from my own experience, that the types of things you are speaking of will only alienate the electorate. If you don't believe me, try running for your local city council on a platform of turning Main Street into a toll road and privatizing the police department, and see how many people you can convince to vote for you. Bring up the possibility of dealing with uninsured drivers by having their insurance companies remove their kidneys to sell them to pay for damages. Personally, I don't think any of those ideas will go over well with your average voter, or even your well-informed liberty-minded one, even if you honestly believe that following your ideas would make the world a better place.

[emazur]

Jace, that description of the Taliban and the Afghan roads is intriguing. Do you have a source?

[Jace]

Jace, that description of the Taliban and the Afghan roads is intriguing. Do you have a source?

I read it in Jon Krakauer's book about Pat Tillman, "Where Men Win Glory: The Odyssey of Pat Tillman."

In the beginning of the book, Krakauer describes the rise of the Taliban after the Soviets pulled out.

Warlords all over the country were committing all kinds of atrocities after the government fell, controlling the roads in from Pakistan and looting convoys and raping women and boys.

Krakauer did a good job in explaining that chaotic period, and how the Taliban basically began with one small raid against a warlord, and grew from there. But I read the book only for about an hour before I had to return it to the person I borrowed it from. I've been meaning to read the rest.

There is plenty of other stuff out there about the Taliban, though.

[Sentient Void]

You have an interesting viewpoint. Perhaps you should write a novel about what the world would look like under this system.

In my own life, my concern now is winning people over to Ron Paul's goals of restoring the Constitution, non-interventionism, sound money, limited government and ending the Fed. These are powerful, commonsense ideas. We can get people elected to office that believe in these things and that's what I thought this movement was focused on.

I think, from my own experience, that the types of things you are speaking of will only alienate the electorate. If you don't believe me, try running for your local city council on a platform of turning Main Street into a toll road and privatizing the police department, and see how many people you can convince to vote for you. Bring up the possibility of dealing with uninsured drivers by having their insurance companies remove their kidneys to sell them to pay for damages. Personally, I don't think any of those ideas will go over well with your average voter, or even your well-informed liberty-minded one, even if you honestly believe that following your ideas would make the world a better place.

As an an-cap, my support and advocation for an ancap society is in regards to the ultimate ideal of a free society - something to move towards and strive for, and how it is imagined that such a society could work and be sustainable, despite your and others' belief that it is not sustainable nor just. We disagree, and have lots of effective reasoning and historical reference that it can be done.

With that said - I talk about liberty and Ron Paul, etc thesame way you do - taking the minarchist approach. For me, an I'd even say most ancaps, we see minarchism and limited government as a solid and practical goal as a stepping stone towards a truly free an just society based on the NAP and property rights.

If I and other ancaps decided to run for office (some ancaps reject this gradualist approach though in favor of an agorist approach), we would probably run on a platform similar to if not almost identical to that of Ron pauls - a solid libertarian platform that most would see as a common sense approach. The gradualist idea is that through reducing governmnt spending, size, taxation, subsidies and regulations and unleashing te power of individuals, the free market and the innovative entrepreneurial spirit, people would increasingly see an appreciate the power of the market and freedom again and be more open to further privatization (with of course splitting up public monopolies prior or during privatization as well) of govt services over time until complete elimination of the public state. This may take decades or generations, assuming te direction for liberty is sustained.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul even at some point mentioned something along the lines of such a move toward ultimate liberty was possible and if I was he was fine with it.

[constituent]

Constitution empowers the Federal government to raise a military. The military is authorized to defend the borders. Don't seen any inconsistencies here.

That's incorrect, and plainly absurd.

Glad to see you stand for using the military to enforce unconstitutional federal law though. (and standing armies to boot!)

(Have you even read the constitution? I'm beginning to have my doubts.)

It's good to know where the "freedom" crowd stands. :)

[constituent]

You have me confused with someone else.


No Jace, I was speaking to you and am not confused as to where you stand on the immigration issue.

Your stance (and Alex Jones') is anti-constitutional.

[teacherone]

hats off to Jace. while i disagree with his arguments philosophically they have been presented fairly, thoroughly, and with historical citations to boot.

good thread.

[Jace]

No Jace, I was speaking to you and am not confused as to where you stand on the immigration issue.

Your stance (and Alex Jones') is anti-constitutional.

I never mentioned passports.

If my stance on immigration is un-Constitutional, then so is Ron Paul's.

[helmuth_hubener]

You have an interesting viewpoint. Perhaps you should write a novel about what the world would look like under this system.

In my own life, my concern now is winning people over to Ron Paul's goals of restoring the Constitution, non-interventionism, sound money, limited government and ending the Fed. These are powerful, commonsense ideas. We can get people elected to office that believe in these things and that's what I thought this movement was focused on.

I think, from my own experience, that the types of things you are speaking of will only alienate the electorate. If you don't believe me, try running for your local city council on a platform of turning Main Street into a toll road and privatizing the police department, and see how many people you can convince to vote for you. Bring up the possibility of dealing with uninsured drivers by having their insurance companies remove their kidneys to sell them to pay for damages. Personally, I don't think any of those ideas will go over well with your average voter, or even your well-informed liberty-minded one, even if you honestly believe that following your ideas would make the world a better place.
I still don't understand why you think uninsured driving would be so problematic under an-cap. You never explained that.

I think the issues you mentioned are great ones. On this discussion board, you see, I am not talking to "the electorate".

There are several novels out there featuring voluntary societies, as well as non-fiction. Try L. Neil Smith's Probability Broach -- it bridges the gap between minarchy and an-cap-archy nicely.

[Arion45]

Ron Paul is not for open borders. Do you think he is not liberty minded?

Yes Ron Paul is liberty minded. His reasoning behind this is that it is not fair for American citizens to pay taxes into a welfare state and then have immigrants enjoy that welfare state. Get rid of that welfare state and there is no reason to restrict movement.





This is not true. Monopolies can arise independently of government. When the central government collapsed in Afghanistan, warlords monopolized the roads in the total absence of government. The typical Afghan became so furious at having to pay tolls to use the roads that they supported the rise of the Taliban, which was a grassroots organization that came into being for the purpose of killing the warlords and opening up the roads. The Taliban's initial success and popularity grew and they developed into one of the most oppressive, violent and religiously intolerant regimes in the world. So essentially, the Taliban came into existence during a time when there was no central government, but monopolies everywhere that people hated.

This was not what I speaking of. Roads in a free society can be private property. Thus that person can have a monopoly on that particular road. Just like I have the monopoly on my car. I can charge you a toll if you would like to drive it. Now this does not take into account if the warlords stole the roads by force which would be wrong. But instead of saying it is a monopoly, it is really just stolen property.



Monopolies can arise with government collusion or without and in various situations. Sometimes they can arise in a free market and government can grow up around them to protect them from competition.

Monopolies will sometimes form but will be eventually competed against and broken up in a free market or without the force of government. The reason for this is that the people can see the illegitimacy of the monopoly and force of a private company. The people will then rise up and end it. Government has legitimacy and the monopoly of force in a certain geographic area. This is what lets the monopoly persist in a society.





Nothing is wrong with competition. I believe in the free enterprise system that our Founding Fathers supported. I just don't think a free enterprise system can survive in America with the kind of mass immigration we are seeing now. In my own life I have not seen the benefit of importing millions of poor foreigners into this country. The cost of living has gone up, the quality of life has gone down, while government and taxation has increased to deal with all the social problems and poverty that has resulted here from such a huge and rapid influx of poor foreigners into our neighborhoods. I don't blame them for coming, but I can see with my own eyes the negative consequences to liberty and to property that is resulting.


The United States is not a free market. There are welfare programs, regulations, permits, licensing etc. that limits the free market. If there was truly a free market immigrants would travel freely and meet the needs of a given area for cheap labor. If the area became saturated with immigrants there would be no forced welfare programs to keep them in that location. Therefore, they would leave and find a place with work or return home.



Houses around here were more affordable 30 years ago when they were built by American-born workers. Today they are built entirely by illegal alien labor, but to buy one takes up a greater percentage of income. And I have traveled around the world to countries where there is a lot of immigration and no immigration and nowhere could I not afford an apple. Or a salad. Or even notice the price. So I've never bought the argument that we need Third World labor or else we won't be able to buy produce in the supermarkets.

Currently the government states there is around 3% inflation. It is actually more but I will not go into that here and use their number. 30 years at 3% per year is 90% inflation. Plus governmental loans has increased the demand for homes. Just like we see in the price of tuition for universities increasing because of governmental student loans. Without these loans a majority of these people would not qualify. There would be less demand and thus pricing would fall.





That may be the case, but even in this bad economy they are still coming. The rate has just slowed a little.


Hong Kong is a wonderful city. I have been there and had a great time. But Hong Kong was never free. It never had an elected mayor or city council, but was ruled by a governor appointed by the Queen of England before China took over. The city exists because it was taken by force of arms by the British Empire during the Opium Wars. It developed into a great city by being the gateway for opium into China, which Britain secured a monopoly on by killing a lot of Chinese mainlanders. While very free and rich economically, it has never had democracy or true freedom. I would encourage you to go there and see how the average person lives -- in densely overcrowded tenements where any mention of Avian Flu can cause a panic attack.

There is a difference between economic freedom and social freedom and as you can see, one without the other does not equal a free state. Hong Kong is one of the most free countries in economic freedom. Its social freedoms leave a lot to be desired.



India is so crowded and poor that a lot of westerners go over there and see so much human misery that they become emotionally overwhelmed and have a spiritual awakening and convert to mystical religions to try to make sense of it all.


India has the same population density as New Jersey.





We have doubled our population to 300 million people in just over 60 years, due mainly to immigration. We will hit 400 million in our lifetimes if the current growth rate continues, and over 500 million in our children's lifetimes. Look to India, China and Mexico City for a glimpse into our future.

So limit immigration because over population causes poverty? What about Tokyo? How poor is this city and how many people lives in this city. Something is not adding up here. It seems that population only, does not equal poverty or ruined economies.

[Jace]

Yes Ron Paul is liberty minded. His reasoning behind this is that it is not fair for American citizens to pay taxes into a welfare state and then have immigrants enjoy that welfare state. Get rid of that welfare state and there is no reason to restrict movement.

So do you agree with Ron Paul that we should enforce our immigration laws and oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

So do you agree with Ron Paul that we should enforce our immigration laws and oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants?

I can respect Ron Paul's position because he understands why his position does not jive with original intent and why his position has changed.

The thing I don't like about Ron Paul's position is that it attracts support from people that do not understand the constitutional issues and look at Ron Paul's plan to transition back to the constitution as a solution not the transition plan it is.

This is how Ron Paul advocates solving the over sized federal problem:



Bring all of the troops home, close overseas bases, end unnecessary war, end entangling police action alliances, end foreign aid.

Address the welfare state by using the reduction in military spending to make the welfare state solvent for all who have payed into the system. End participation and dependency on the system for all young people.

End birthright citizenship and stop subsidizing immigration. Until the welfare state is dissolved utilize the military to police the borders to ease immigration pressures for amnesty.

End all of the unconstitutional government agencies and put the economy back in the hands of the people by repealing legal tender law, eliminating the IRS, and eliminating the heavy hand of federal regulation.

[constituent]

I never mentioned passports.

Yea, exactly.



If my stance on immigration is un-Constitutional, then so is Ron Paul's.

Indeed.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I thought that Ian and Mark did a good job at the start of the interview laying out the case against immigration statutes and enforcement. But then they let Alex derail the discussion--especially when they would corner Alex on the indisputable fact that immigration control--i.e. human being control--can only be attempted by way of police state tactics. They do this sometimes when they have a statist caller on their ftl show--they let the statist off the hook right when they have him cornered and let him change the subject.

I think they should have turned Alex's conspiracy theories around on him by pointing out that the #1 MAIN CONCERN of the conspirators is prevention and/or quick extinguishment any libertarian threat to their wealth and power.

They should have asked Alex: "So what do the Bilderbergers do if a Ron Paul movement seems to be sweeping up populists, conservatives, and others and causing massive opposition to nearly all statist policies such as empire, drug war, fiat money, central banking, police state, etc.?

"The conspirators will use whatever authoritarian issue the 'libertarian' resistance is still latched onto and exploit that to the max.

"Hence, the conspirators ordered their operatives in every major media editorial office to whip up the Alex Jonesers and make them beg the Feds to grant Arizona and Joe Arpaio more police state powers."

Alex Jones is playing right into the Rothschilds' and Rockefellers' hands.

Alex often laments that the same jackbooted cops that kidnap, rob, murder, and maim us, merely let the un-chipped/un-taxed/un-stamped Mexicans go free when they find one. If all that is true, then instead of calling for the cops to treat the Mexicans the same way that they treat us, why not celebrate the freedom of the Mexicans and join forces with them?? We should all learn Spanish, get fake socialist security numbers, and insist to all government bureaucrats, cops, and soldiers that we are free/un-chipped/un-taxed/un-stamped. We should be allied with and indistinguishable from the so-called "illegals."

[BuddyRey]

Why can't we all just admire and respect three great radio hosts and not begrudge them their miniscule differences in opinion? Besides, Minarchy and Voluntaryism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, provided that a Minarchic government operates by the initiated contract and consent of its citizens/patrons. I'm tired of seeing the movement getting caught up in phony divisions and childish arguments when we have common cause and so many matters on which we can all agree.

[constituent]

^ I'm not convinced that this is a "minor issue."

[AuH20]

I thought that Ian and Mark did a good job at the start of the interview laying out the case against immigration statutes and enforcement. But then they let Alex derail the discussion--especially when they would corner Alex on the indisputable fact that immigration control--i.e. human being control--can only be attempted by way of police state tactics. They do this sometimes when they have a statist caller on their ftl show--they let the statist off the hook right when they have him cornered and let him change the subject.

I think they should have turned Alex's conspiracy theories around on him by pointing out that the #1 MAIN CONCERN of the conspirators is prevention and/or quick extinguishment any libertarian threat to their wealth and power.

They should have asked Alex: "So what do the Bilderbergers do if a Ron Paul movement seems to be sweeping up populists, conservatives, and others and causing massive opposition to nearly all statist policies such as empire, drug war, fiat money, central banking, police state, etc.?

"The conspirators will use whatever authoritarian issue the 'libertarian' resistance is still latched onto and exploit that to the max.

"Hence, the conspirators ordered their operatives in every major media editorial office to whip up the Alex Jonesers and make them beg the Feds to grant Arizona and Joe Arpaio more police state powers."

Alex Jones is playing right into the Rothschilds' and Rockefellers' hands.

Alex often laments that the same jackbooted cops that kidnap, rob, murder, and maim us, merely let the un-chipped/un-taxed/un-stamped Mexicans go free when they find one. If all that is true, then instead of calling for the cops to treat the Mexicans the same way that they treat us, why not celebrate the freedom of the Mexicans and join forces with them?? We should all learn Spanish, get fake socialist security numbers, and insist to all government bureaucrats, cops, and soldiers that we are free/un-chipped/un-taxed/un-stamped. We should be allied with and indistinguishable from the so-called "illegals."


I think you're missing the critical issue at hand. For decades, the most unscrupulous multi-national foundations (Ford, Carnegie, Tides, Fields, etc.) have poured billions upon billions of dollars into this agenda of multiculturalism and cultural diversity. The reason being is that if you cannot quickly enough change the stubborn heritage of the indigenous citizens, you REPLACE them with subservient, more dependent peoples. That's what all this is about. A independent, sovereign man who knows who HE IS, is the greatest threat to their agenda. You think a lettuce picking immigrant with a 6th grade education and who is barely literate in Spanish, is a threat to their hegemony? You think that such an individual, is concerned with such an over-arching problem, when he's living day-to-day on his manual labor skills? It's the treadmill syndrome only magnified with a lack of education.

It's rather tragic that some Libertarians insulate themselves in this ideological bubble, without seeing the noose being lowered and fastened around their neck.

[constituent]

I think...You think a lettuce picking immigrant with a 6th grade education and who is barely literate in Spanish, is a threat to their hegemony? You think that such an individual, is concerned with such an over-arching problem, when he's living day-to-day on his manual labor skills? It's the treadmill syndrome only magnified with a lack of education..

It think you're blind to what life really looks like for most people, even good ol' fashioned, English speakin' 'muricans, if you believe this isn't the case for most folks regardless of their country of origin.

Regardless of their occupation or even their "social status."

[AuH20]

It think you're blind to what life really looks like for most people, even good ol' fashioned, English speakin' 'muricans, if you believe this isn't the case for most folks regardless of their country of origin.

Regardless of their occupation or even their "social status."

This has little to do with ethnic background or language preference. It's essentially the exploitation of downtrodden peoples from backward countries and promoting the virus of dependency among a vulnerable class. Furthermore, to further inflame resentment against the nativeborn, they play up racial divisions.

I know that a man with an empty stomach is very easy to control. It harkens to back to feudal times, when the nobles held their serfs down to a subsistence level. A man without property and an education of some sort is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. Why do you think the founders placed such a paramount emphasis on property ownership, when they created the Constitution? It's the foundation of personal growth and pride for the individual. Even among the nativeborn people of this country, our property rights are dwindling with each passing day. This is no coincidence.

[nobody's_hero]

"Hence, the conspirators ordered their operatives in every major media editorial office to whip up the Alex Jonesers and make them beg the Feds to grant Arizona and Joe Arpaio more police state powers."

I haven't seen anyone beg the feds for anything. This is Arizona doing what Arizona sees fit to do. Time will tell. If I were an illegal immigrant, I'd steer clear of Arizona. It's not rocket science.

Remember, the goal of the elite is to create a central goverment. If anything, they're pulling their hair out because a state has discovered how to pick the lock on its cage.

[AuH20]

Hmmm. I wonder why the the public school system is such a mess? It couldn't have been planned that way? Could it? This ties into the illegal immigration question:



"In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present eduction conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds, and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people, or any of their children, into philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen – of whom we have an ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way."

- John D. Rockefeller General Education Board (1906)

In other words, groom more gardeners, limousine drivers, maids, etc. with a rudimentary understanding of the world. Create a perpetual slave class.

[constituent]

This has little to do with ethnic background or language preference. It's essentially the exploitation of downtrodden peoples from backward countries and promoting the virus of dependency among a vulnerable class. Furthermore, to further inflame resentment against the nativeborn, they play up racial divisions.

How do you define "backward countries?"

What's the difference between say a "backward country" and a "western nation?" Is there a difference?

[AuH20]

How do you define "backward countries?"

What's the difference between say a "backward country" and a "western nation?" Is there a difference?

Mexico is home to the world's richest man. It is one of most resource abundant countries in all of the world. Oil, oil shale, natural gas, silver, fluorspar. Yet half of the country lives in poverty, thanks to an oligarchical system of government. As dysfunctional as our nation has become, comparatively Mexico makes the U.S. look like Shangri-La.

[constituent]

Mexico is home to the world's richest man. It is one of most resource abundant countries in all of the world. Oil, oil shale, natural gas, silver, fluorspar. Yet half of the country lives in poverty, thanks to an oligarchical system of government. As dysfunctional as our nation has become, comparatively Mexico makes the U.S. look like Shangri-La.

Well, I'd say that the peso crash in the 90's is what really did in the economy for average joe in mexico. They can work for 1200 pesos/week in Mexico or as much as 1000 dollars/week in the United States (depending on how long/hard they work). Same number, different units. There's a reason for that...

but to put it on the Mexican people as you have done is truly backward.

[Arion45]

So do you agree with Ron Paul that we should enforce our immigration laws and oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants?

No, I disagree with him on this issue. But being a politician he has to tone down his beliefs to be more palatable to the masses. This is the essence of the problem that is the state. Principles are sacrificed to win elections.

[Arion45]

Why can't we all just admire and respect three great radio hosts and not begrudge them their miniscule differences in opinion? Besides, Minarchy and Voluntaryism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, provided that a Minarchic government operates by the initiated contract and consent of its citizens/patrons. I'm tired of seeing the movement getting caught up in phony divisions and childish arguments when we have common cause and so many matters on which we can all agree.

Because if people do not stick to first principles (non aggression principle, and self ownership) then liberty is never full achieved.

[Travlyr]

Why can't we all just admire and respect three great radio hosts and not begrudge them their miniscule differences in opinion? Besides, Minarchy and Voluntaryism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, provided that a Minarchic government operates by the initiated contract and consent of its citizens/patrons. I'm tired of seeing the movement getting caught up in phony divisions and childish arguments when we have common cause and so many matters on which we can all agree.

I'm with you on this. There are some people that I cannot at all agree with, but most liberty minded thinkers should be working together. I admire all three of these guys.