Ron Paul Moving to the Left on Immigration? [Archive]

FrankRep

05-27-2011, 10:56 AM

Disclaimer: Defending Ron Paul.

http://thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/08aMay/immironpaul-ap.001.jpg

A recent article claims that Congressman Ron Paul has shifted to the Left on his immigration policy position because of influence by Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul Moving to the Left on Immigration? (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7652-ron-paul-moving-to-the-left-on-immigration)

Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
27 May 2011

The National Review Online recently published an article (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267830/border-wars-kevin-d-williamson?page=1) by Kevin D. Williamson wherein he posits that Congressman Ron Paul is juking to the left on immigration in anticipation of his upcoming race for the White House.

Williamson describes Paul, noted Libertarian and “godfather” of the Tea Party movement, as “until recently something of an immigration hawk — no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no welfare benefits.” As with most attempts to pigeonhole Paul’s policy positions, the author of the NRO piece fails to grasp the legitimate source of Representative Paul’s seemingly disparate stances on the enumerated issues of immigration policy.

Assuming that Paul has experienced an electorally inspired “change of heart,” Williamson cites Paul’s former analysis of the issue as one requiring not only an economic but a cultural approach and then as evidence of his conversion to “the left,” he juxtaposes it with a quote from the Congressman’s new book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/145550145X/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=145550145X).

In the older statement cited by Williamson, Congressman Paul said, “We cannot continue to ignore the cultural aspects of immigration. We rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.... Today, however, some immigrants travel between countries frequently, enjoying the benefits of America but showing no desire to become Americans. Some even display hostility toward America and our ideals, joining the chorus of voices demanding that the United States become a multicultural society that rejects our own history. It is this cultural conflict that soon must be addressed, and the president’s amnesty proposal simply turns a blind eye to the problem.”

 Then, to buttress his conclusion, Williamson offers proof that something “has got into” Ron Paul as evinced by the words written in the new book. The proof offered by Williamson: the quotation of a single word ("superior") used by Paul in Liberty Defined to praise the work ethic of many immigrants.

Perhaps the well-reasoned and nuanced attitude held by Congressman Paul would be revealed by reading the full quote in its proper context, that of anger felt by many Americans at the failure of immigrants to acclimate themselves to the American way of life.

Most immigrants do not come for handouts; rather, they come for survival reasons and have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.

Perhaps I’m not as insightful on the issue as Williamson, but I don’t read those two statements as contradictory or as evidence that Ron Paul’s “objections to multiculturalism seem to be waning.”

 Without trying to square the two statements with the Constitution and Ron Paul’s understanding thereof, Williamson prefers to stir up controversy among the Libertarian voting bloc.

Williamson asks: “What’s got into Ron Paul? The best guess is: Gary Johnson.”

 Gary Earl Johnson is the founder of a construction company and a former Governor of New Mexico. On April 21, 2011, Johnson announced (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53532.html) his intention to seek the Republican nomination for President. Williamson, of course, identifies Johnson’s candidacy as the seed of Ron Paul’s alleged realignment on the topic of immigration. In snarky gossip tabloid style, Williamson comments, “He’s [Johnson’s] out to out-libertarian the libertarians’ poster boy.”

Johnson seems to have legitimate Libertarian bona fides. In fact, he was a featured presenter at the Nullify Now! (http://www.nullifynow.com/phoenix/) tour stop in Phoenix, Arizona. Further, in an article (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/20/00035/) published in April 2009 in American Conservative magazine, Bill Kauffman wrote, "He may take a shot at the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 as an antiwar, anti-Fed, pro-personal liberties, slash-government-spending candidate — in other words, a Ron Paul libertarian.”

Well, that’s proof enough that Johnson is a significant challenger to the success of Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, right?

Does Johnson himself claim to be the man behind Ron Paul’s migration on the immigration issue? According to the NRO piece:

Johnson is not claiming credit for Representative Paul’s new outlook. “Did he change his views?” he asks cooly. “Well, the thing about politics is that you end up changing the world a little bit when others recognize that what you’re saying is a good thing.”

So, he’s not taking credit for Paul’s “new” position, he is simply saying that unnamed “others” (more specific identification is not provided) might have changed their opinions upon hearing the good things Johnson is saying.

 There are areas in which Gary Johnson and Ron Paul agree.

Johnson talks like a pragmatist but is at heart more of a libertarian purist. Like Ron Paul, he’s a vocal critic of U.S. military actions; unlike Ron Paul — and unlike most Republicans and most Americans — he favors almost no restriction on abortion.

Did Ron Paul adopt these views after reading Johnson’s statements, as well?

Certainly not. Ron Paul has been a staunch constitutionalist and proponent of the core principles of Libertarianism for decades.

A more relevant question would be, is there any reason Williamson, working for the National Review, would wish to pit Libertarians against one another and frame the campaigns of Johnson and Paul as a “rivalry” and publish snarky, misleading comments from Johnson regarding Ron Paul, a man Johnson likely admires? Perhaps the answer that question is the desire of National Review to maintain its prominent status as one of the official and tolerated mouthpieces of the “loyal opposition.”

 More evidence of the divisive intent of the NRO piece is found in this statement reportedly made by Gary Johnson.

“People ask me, ‘Aren’t you just going to split the Ron Paul vote?’” Johnson says. “If I split on Paul’s 7 percent, this isn’t going anywhere. If it’s splitting 40 percent, that’s different. Forty percent is what it would take to win the primary.”

All in all, the article published by National Review Online comes across as the first forays of a “false flag” mission to create an attitude of enmity where none exists. Libertarians, constitutionalists, and all friends of freedom should welcome as many voices advocating limited government as can make themselves heard.

The conclusion is that Williamson goes quote-mining in the hopes of presenting a gleaming golden nugget of controversy, when all that's left glistening in the pan of his article is the worthless pyrite of pretense.

SOURCE:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7652-ron-paul-moving-to-the-left-on-immigration

FrankRep

05-27-2011, 11:09 AM

TheDrakeMan

05-27-2011, 02:17 PM

Ron Paul needs to clarify his views on immigration before I can vote for him.

acptulsa

05-27-2011, 02:28 PM

Anyone who says Ron Paul is 'moving' anywhere at all, much less 'juking', is dizzy from his own spin.

FrankRep

05-27-2011, 02:30 PM

Anyone who says Ron Paul is 'moving' anywhere at all, much less 'juking', is dizzy from his own spin.

Welcome to National Review.

outspoken

05-27-2011, 02:39 PM

Ron Paul needs to clarify his views on immigration before I can vote for him.

Yeah, because you have so many other great options to pick from the deep pool of sociopaths! :P

TheDrakeMan

05-27-2011, 02:41 PM

Yeah, because you have so many other great options to pick from the deep pool of sociopaths! :P

Some would secure the borders at least.

Austrian Econ Disciple

05-27-2011, 02:45 PM

No one has ever answered my question on how the fuck you secure thousands of miles of borders. Hell, North Korea cannot even secure a small isolated stretch with South Korea, nor could East Germany secure the border with West Germany, nor could the Iron Curtain secure their borders. (No one has either shown me exactly how much it would cost to do all this -- and I know it would be hundreds and hundreds of billions -- hell I know being a CG Member that we interdict less than 5% of immigrants) The fact is it is a fucking fairytale that it is even remotely possible to ever 'secure our borders' or whatever the fuck that means.

Now, if you let Property owners along the borders do so unhindered -- that would produce a different result, but then again it wouldn't suffice for the majority because not everyone is anti-immigration.

acptulsa

05-27-2011, 02:46 PM

Some would secure the borders at least.

We've heard that before. It still doesn't happen.

Remove the impetus to cure the problem. Obstacles can always be overcome.

Austrian Econ Disciple

05-27-2011, 02:50 PM

Some would secure the borders at least.

Secure the Air, Land, and Sea! 20 Ft Fence -- make a 21FT Ladder. Have guards positioned in towers along the Fence -- dig tunnels underneath the fence. Mexicans and other Latin Americans selling flights to America -- have a NO-FLY zone along the entire border patrolled constantly by F-22's -- use boats to land on either side of the border. Have the CG patrol either side -- use submarines to get underneath the patrols.

I mean seriously. You have to be a moron to believe that it is even remotely possible to 'secure the border'. If you want to restrict immigration how about actually going after what causes the immigration -- THE GODDAMN WELFARE STATE. Stop going after private property and my liberties good lord.

BamaFanNKy

05-27-2011, 02:51 PM

Jandrsn21

05-27-2011, 02:51 PM

Yeah, because you have so many other great options to pick from the deep pool of sociopaths! :P

lol That pretty much sums it up. I'll be frank I don't agree with Paul 100% of the time, but finding the perfect candidate will only set you up to be duped. Politicians get votes by agreeing with everyone about everything. Statesmen and patriots don't need gimmicks they tell the truth and good rational people have little choice but to listen.

Kregisen

05-27-2011, 03:32 PM

Some would secure the borders at least.

I'm pretty sure none would....it's not really possible. There are thousands and thousands of miles. The only way you could possibly get the money to secure our borders was if you cut from our foreign policy....and Ron Paul is the only Republican running who wants to cut foreign policy. So no, none of the rest would secure the borders.

And I live in Arizona, just 2-3 hours north of the border.

marc1888

05-27-2011, 07:39 PM

Ron Paul has an adult view on immigration. If you think we are loading Mexicans into boxcars and throwing them over the border your living in the wrong world. The american psyche might be emotive and reactionary but its definitely not heartless.

sailingaway

05-27-2011, 07:50 PM

I'm not sure we want this thread title as a google headline. To answer the question, no, he just filled in the details of what he thinks while others remain purposely 'vague' about what 'amnesty' and 'nonamnesty' mean to them. MCCAIN said he wasn't for amnesty and that his bill wasn't amnesty. Those who have any trouble with Ron's position are going to have a hard time pinning anyone else down. It doesn't allow citizenship/voting, it doesn't allow MORE benefits than they get now and likely allows less since it meaningfully would cut off benefits. It doesn't allow chain migration from those illegally here as McCain/Kennedy would have, by preference over others. THAT is what killed immigration from the Reagan amnesty, people are STILL coming through the system under preference from the original amnestied people (is that a term?). That meant that unless you had a relative here, there was virtually no other way to come than illegally, if you weren't a needed professional. Before that there was more flexibility.

AuH20

05-27-2011, 10:45 PM

I'm sorry but the "Secure the borders" crowd would like to bankrupt America. It's too costly to deport and pick up, deport and pick up, deport and pick up. Then people say build a fence. How much would it be to build and maintain, too much.

We have to find a better solution because the old Neo-Con 'They took our jobs' ideas will bring us closer to bankruptcy. As a border state Governor I do appreciate what Gary Johnson says about the issue. He's pretty good on the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwbjYYf6hPM

Open Borders is the preferred model of both Neocons and Globalists. Viva Cheap Labor and Balkanization! If we can't persuade the stubborn natives to go along with our plans, we'll just replace them!

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox Cheering on his compadre Rick Perry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KYLf2AJFPg

Bush's infamous "Nativism/Isolationism" Discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l16tPdgQzYk

Turd Blossom Defending Bush's Immigration Policies at an Aspen Institute Presser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXBj5PTEUZU

R3volutionJedi

05-27-2011, 10:57 PM

Immigration isn't one of my most important issues, but it is to some people in my family. I would like to hear was Dr. Paul says about it in his own words.

XTreat

05-27-2011, 11:07 PM

Free countries don't build walls in my opinion. We should address what is causing them to immigrate instead. i.e. free education, free emergency medical care, subsidized housing and groceries etc.

BuddyRey

05-27-2011, 11:15 PM

AuH20

05-27-2011, 11:17 PM

Live_Free_Or_Die

05-27-2011, 11:30 PM

Paul Or Nothing II

05-28-2011, 12:50 PM

FrankRep

05-29-2011, 10:51 PM

Live_Free_Or_Die

05-29-2011, 11:47 PM

Name calling or falsely accusing Conservatives won't win you any votes for Ron Paul or win anyone over to your cause.

I don't have a cause. Do you see me running for a political office or trying to win a popularity contest? Does my posting history indicate an individual who bends like a reed to the directions of political winds? Do you see anyone supporting any of my great ideas?

I call it like it is... however this critic is not without a sense of justice so here is your opportunity.

Name one reason it is not xenophobic to focus only on the borders of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California? If you can cite ONE reason that can withstand the test of inconsistency I will retract "Xenophobic" from my post. Where is the proposal for a fence across the Montana border? How is it the United States will be deemed safe if only the previously mentioned borders are addressed?

Furthermore... to illustrate there is no bias, please link to some John Birch articles talking about border threats involving borders along Canada, Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, Alaska, Hawaii, or other federal territories.

Shunning labels that are true gains you nothing....

ProIndividual

05-30-2011, 12:24 AM

I'm with him on the welfare benefits, but not birthright citizenship or amnesty myself.

You CANNOT be a free market capitalist and simultaneously be for closed borders, be anti-immigration, etc.

Free market capitalism absolutely depends on the only kind of border that is secure, an open border (background checks, medical checks, no quotas or extemperaneous requirements). Adam Smith was clear about the free flow of labor and goods, so was Bastiat ("When goods don't cross borders, armies will"), Ricardo, etc., all the way up to Boudreaux today. None of them called for closed borders.

Milton Freidman falsely said the fallacy "can't have open borders in a welfare state", which has been debunked, along with so-called closed border libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe. Also, native poverty rates, total compensation rates, and unemployment rates are NOT, nor have they ever been, corollary to immigration rates, legal or illegal, or combined. It's just a statist economic fallacy. The fact is, from 1980-2004, the height of the last major migration from Mexico (it's of course decreased as the economy has slowed down, as they come to work in literally 99% of cases according to studies), the native wages grew 2%. The only group that fell were high school dropouts. The most conservative closed border neocon statist economist who is reputable and undisputed puts the estimate of NET GAIN by immigrants, legal and illegal, per year at $8 billion dollars a year. Most other reputable right and left wing economists put the NET GAIN at 20-22 billion dollars a year. Even after prisons, hospitals, welfare, etc., they gain us money and wealth in the economy, and make us all wealthier (as wages always rise with increased productivity, i.e., lower production costs, like wages).

The evidence is clear....and closed border advocates hide this number deep in their research to make it less than obvious that all immigration is NET GAIN, unless promoted above market levels (which it is not here, it is held BELOW market levels). It's like blaming technology for taking a job...when logically this creates higher wages, more jobs, cheaper products, higher standards of living. Who cares if the invention of the car put the buggy whip manufactuurers out of business? Should we outlaw cars to keep those people working? Or allow their labor to be re-allocated by the market where effecient?

The answer is obvious, from a economic standpoint. Let them in.

He isn't shifting to the Left...the left is shifting to the original libertarian position...the economic position...free market capitalism.

I'm glad Ron is returning to those open and secure border roots, if he is in fact doing so. This is one of the very few issues I disagreed with him on. He must be rereading all the Austrian economists, and the free market capitalist economists before them...as they all railed for open and secure borders.

Closed borders = war

Any cursory look at history will tell you that. Labor is a good, afterall. Take a quick look at the Embargo Act of 1807, and subsequent Nonintercourse Acts, under Jefferson, if you want to see what caused the War of 1812. Also, go look at the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts in 1940, and lead up to their passing in 1939 that crashed the stock market, and the world market with it...and look at the eerie simililarities to the beginnings of WW2. Also, look at what we did to Japan before Pearl Harbor, some 60 years previous...when we shelled them to FORCE them to buy American goods, but refused to reciprocate.

History is clear, closed borders equal war, movement is natural right just like speech, and open borders are the only secure borders. You cannot limit immigration below market levels unless you trample my property rights...as I am otherwise free to hire anyone I want for any wage we agree to. It's not until liberals and neocons (liberals) got in there and made us believe immigration was bad, and property owners do not have these rights to hire and fire who they like for any price agreed upon, that we started as country to call open and secure free market capitalist borders "Left".

It's a bad understanding of free market economics, history, and natural rights that leads us to think open and secure borders are "Left". It's nonsense.

ProIndividual

05-30-2011, 12:33 AM

You don't need to get rid of welfare, btw...you just need a law that says immigrants can't have welfare for X number of years after arrival...like many European nations do. But be warned, it won't slow immigration, as studies show that 99% of immigrants choose lower level welfare states when given a choice between generous welfare states, and lower level welfare benefits. Why? 99% come to work, and 50% of them usually return home for good within a year.

But to enforce this, the immigrants have to be trackable...and that means letting them in legally.

The law creates the criminal in this case, not any harm they have caused, whatsoever. Get rid of the anti-free market law, less problems.

Besides, the law is there now, and despite cries it isn't being enforced, the obvious is clear...it is unenforcable. Just like drug laws, seatbelts for adults, smoking bans, etc., statist goals are impossible in real world application. You could send our whole military to the border, bet the immigration still happens...they'll just come in another border, or another way if you cover all borders. The real world isn't a game of "Risk", and borders aren't something Constitutionally you can use to restrict non-aggressive natural rights; like movement.

Paul Or Nothing II

05-30-2011, 01:53 AM

ProIndividual, you're obviously an internationalist but I'm afraid your internationalist-libertarian-utopia is a pipe-dream as much as a communist/socialist-utopia is. As I've said, not doing anything about immigration without ending welfare will render the death of the only bastion of libertarianism that America is & then a handful of libertarians can pipe-dream all they want but they're not going to be able to resist global-communism/socialism.

Feeding the Abscess

05-30-2011, 11:36 AM

Well, to all those saying "address the cause ie welfare", isn't it clear enough that even if Ron becomes president, it's going to be IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of welfare immediately, in fact, I think it might take several terms of libertarian-leaning presidents to systematically get rid of welfare COMPLETELY but the thing is, by that time, United States of America might look like United States of Mexico or something & remember that vast majority of these immigrants are going to vote democratic/socialist so after that "libertarian America" will remain a pipe-dream, especially since the higher their number grows the more politically palatable it'll be for political parties to offer amnesty to them in order to secure a huge voter-base.

So I don't know how "being libertarian" on this issue is going to work, anyway. So I think if local militias want to take care of it then that's good, there need to stricter citizenship checks on whatever limited welfare is being given away, birthright-citizenship MUST be ended & other than that may be businesses should incur huge penalties for hiring illegals while a chunk of the penalty-money could be put up for grabs as an incentive to whoever notifies the incidence. As Ron has said in the past, the numbers are so big that it is akin to an invasion rather than immigration.

Thank God that white Americans of European descent are holding the fort on keeping our free market, libertarian dream up and running!

:|

AuH20

05-30-2011, 12:04 PM

Well, to all those saying "address the cause ie welfare", isn't it clear enough that even if Ron becomes president, it's going to be IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of welfare immediately, in fact, I think it might take several terms of libertarian-leaning presidents to systematically get rid of welfare COMPLETELY but the thing is, by that time, United States of America might look like United States of Mexico or something & remember that vast majority of these immigrants are going to vote democratic/socialist so after that "libertarian America" will remain a pipe-dream, especially since the higher their number grows the more politically palatable it'll be for political parties to offer amnesty to them in order to secure a huge voter-base.

So I don't know how "being libertarian" on this issue is going to work, anyway. So I think if local militias want to take care of it then that's good, there need to stricter citizenship checks on whatever limited welfare is being given away, birthright-citizenship MUST be ended & other than that may be businesses should incur huge penalties for hiring illegals while a chunk of the penalty-money could be put up for grabs as an incentive to whoever notifies the incidence. As Ron has said in the past, the numbers are so big that it is akin to an invasion rather than immigration.

You're absolutely correct. Many of these immigrants are locked in purely survival mode and these unprecedented numbers are a great detriment to this nation at this juncture in time. Do you really think they care about the Fed or monetary policy, when many are fighting to survive and are barely literate? We're essentially creating a new class of slave voters even less erudite and more collectivist from a purely racial angle, than the oblivious natives we're raising. Jefferson specifically warned us of the dangers of mob rule, and you can see it in these public demonstrations in which many latinos are exclusively identifying themselves as an ethnic bloc as opposed to an individual citizen of this country.

steph3n

05-30-2011, 12:08 PM

If we make fortress america on the borders, I think I will quit what I do now and start a illegal immigration company specializing in making fools of the 'protections' because it will be so lucrative!

acptulsa

05-30-2011, 12:10 PM

My there's a lot of guilt by association in this thread. My experience is that you ask five immigrants why they're here and you'll get five different answers. And if fewer of them cite liberty as the main motivation, well, I don't know what we'd expect when we've consistently made it less of a selling point--by giving it away--over the last couple of decades.

BlackTerrel

05-30-2011, 12:55 PM

We should address what is causing them to immigrate instead. i.e. free education, free emergency medical care, subsidized housing and groceries etc.

The cause is primarily that the US is a good place to live and the countries they are coming from are not as good places to live.

The only way to remove the incentive is to make our country worse. Which is not a good strategy. But may be happening anyway.

ProIndividual

05-30-2011, 09:55 PM

ProIndividual, you're obviously an internationalist but I'm afraid your internationalist-libertarian-utopia is a pipe-dream as much as a communist/socialist-utopia is.

That's an ad hominem attack, and nonsense. I am not at all utopian...utopia implies uniformity, and since I'm against coercion, unlike you, I'm not for any uniformity. So nice try at an ad hominem attack, but it is an informal logical fallacy, and not able to be used in intelligent debate. Ad hominem means attacking the person, not the points presented...you just did that.

As I've said, not doing anything about immigration without ending welfare will render the death of the only bastion of libertarianism that America is & then a handful of libertarians can pipe-dream all they want but they're not going to be able to resist global-communism/socialism.

Again, this is nonsense. I presented stats to show otherwise...can you attack them? Can you refute them? Can you address them at all? Immigration is again, a NET GAIN economically...please stop with your nonsense. The only socialist/communist idea is the idea your collectivism is more important than their rights anyway. How can you call for collectivism, like 'we need to close our borders for our collective betterment, at the expense of their right to movement, EVEN IF it's a NET GAIN to our economy', and be against collectivism simultaneously? You can't. You are the collectivist, evidenced by the policy you push for, and the nonsense reasoning based on economic fallacies you BELIEVE (which are BS).

You are on the LEFT of me. My position is free market capitalism...so you either admit you're not a free market capitalist by what you say, or suggest you don't know what it means, or where it is in the illusion you think of as a Left/Right paradigm. I'm obviously farther RIGHT on this issue, as I'm calling for pure free market capitalism.

So since you didn't even try and look up the facts and stats I gave you, that would of changed the mind of any rational person, perhaps you can answer a question for me.

Since you are not a free market capitalist, which kind of Statist capitalist are you? Mercantilist, or Keynesian? Do you even know what these things are?

You got some reading to do, my ad hominem using friend.

Start with what I already wrote:

"Milton Freidman falsely said the fallacy "can't have open borders in a welfare state", which has been debunked, along with so-called closed border libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe. Also, native poverty rates, total compensation rates, and unemployment rates are NOT, nor have they ever been, corollary to immigration rates, legal or illegal, or combined. It's just a statist economic fallacy. The fact is, from 1980-2004, the height of the last major migration from Mexico (it's of course decreased as the economy has slowed down, as they come to work in literally 99% of cases according to studies), the native wages grew 2%. The only group that fell were high school dropouts. The most conservative closed border neocon statist economist who is reputable and undisputed puts the estimate of NET GAIN by immigrants, legal and illegal, per year at $8 billion dollars a year. Most other reputable right and left wing economists put the NET GAIN at 20-22 billion dollars a year. Even after prisons, hospitals, welfare, etc., they gain us money and wealth in the economy, and make us all wealthier (as wages always rise with increased productivity, i.e., lower production costs, like wages).

The evidence is clear....and closed border advocates hide this number deep in their research to make it less than obvious that all immigration is NET GAIN, unless promoted above market levels (which it is not here, it is held BELOW market levels). It's like blaming technology for taking a job...when logically this creates higher wages, more jobs, cheaper products, higher standards of living. Who cares if the invention of the car put the buggy whip manufactuurers out of business? Should we outlaw cars to keep those people working? Or allow their labor to be re-allocated by the market where effecient?

The answer is obvious, from a economic standpoint. Let them in."

Those facts are pesky things to collectivists like you...when you BOTHER to look them up, read them, and LEARN from them.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-02-2011, 06:56 AM

Thank God that white Americans of European descent are holding the fort on keeping our free market, libertarian dream up and running!

:|

It's quite disappointing to see leftist ideologies of racist-calling on a forum which is dedicated to a man who has openly said that he believes in the freedom of racists to be racist.

Anyways, I wasn't trying to say that only whites can be libertarian but it IS a fact that illegal immigrants, be it mexicans or canadians or whoever, are largely very poor & thus vote for socialist governments, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR RACE, otherwise they wouldn't be putting their lives at risk to sneak in to the country anyway & thus, very little chance of them being libertarians. Not to mention, libertarianism is rightly associated with Founders who were white slave-owners & thus, it doesn't appeal to a lot of colored people in general as a lot of them see it as a "white ideology".

But the point is that irrespective of their color, people vote for what they perceive is in their self-interest & poor people largely don't mind govt stealing money from others to give them "free" services; there is a reason why Founders were libertarians & not communist/socialist-types.

You're absolutely correct. Many of these immigrants are locked in purely survival mode and these unprecedented numbers are a great detriment to this nation at this juncture in time. Do you really think they care about the Fed or monetary policy, when many are fighting to survive and are barely literate? We're essentially creating a new class of slave voters even less erudite and more collectivist from a purely racial angle, than the oblivious natives we're raising. Jefferson specifically warned us of the dangers of mob rule, and you can see it in these public demonstrations in which many latinos are exclusively identifying themselves as an ethnic bloc as opposed to an individual citizen of this country.

Agreed but some libertarians obviously seem to think that the best towards libertarian-America is by allowing in millions statist-socialists.:confused:

That's an ad hominem attack, and nonsense. I am not at all utopian...utopia implies uniformity, and since I'm against coercion, unlike you, I'm not for any uniformity. So nice try at an ad hominem attack, but it is an informal logical fallacy, and not able to be used in intelligent debate. Ad hominem means attacking the person, not the points presented...you just did that.

Well, you believe that foreigners have a "right" to come into the US so obviously you don't believe in nationalities which makes you........... an internationalist. I'm sorry if you don't like that word as such but as they say "A rose by any other name ......." or whatever.

Again, this is nonsense. I presented stats to show otherwise...can you attack them? Can you refute them? Can you address them at all?

Good thing about free market capitalism & austrian economics is that it doesn't depend on numbers, which can easily be fudged to suit one's own point-of-view; I think we're well aware of how govts, central-banks & "mainstream" economists do that.

Immigration is again, a NET GAIN economically...please stop with your nonsense.

Ok, let's say for a moment, that your numbers are right & immigration does bring us a "net gain" (:rolleyes:), still, how does allowing in more statist-socialists in to the country help in making America more libertarian? It's simple, it doesn't; it just helps in making America more socialist.

The only socialist/communist idea is the idea your collectivism is more important than their rights anyway. How can you call for collectivism, like 'we need to close our borders for our collective betterment, at the expense of their right to movement,

Oh my, I didn't know foreigners have a "right" to jump our fence. It's basically like saying that a homeless person has a "right" move into your house because he has freedom of movement. Believe it or not, people of a nation do have a COLLECTIVE right to self-determination as to how their country should be run based on their collective interests, may be you don't believe in that as you're an internationalist but a lot of us do.

As for collectivism, you're a collectivist too when you call yourself "free market capitalist", "libertarian" or "anarchist" or whatever since you see yourself as being one of those who follow your favored ideologies & work towards spreading it, everyone is a collectivist in part because whether a "libertarian", "free market capitalist" or communist, they all believe in spreading their ideology which they perceive to be in their own self-interest & see themselves in groups, just their methods differ; believe it or not, humans are "tribalist" animals & nothing ever changed about that so get over it.

So since you didn't even try and look up the facts and stats I gave you, that would of changed the mind of any rational person, perhaps you can answer a question for me.

You know what's the favorite weapon of the establishment? Throw a bunch of meaningless stats at people without any rational logic behind it, that's how status quo's statistical trickery fools the people almost every time. Your numbers are no different than those trying to ban guns citing gun-violence statistics.

Those facts are pesky things to collectivists like you

Now that's an ad hominem but I get a lot of people like you who're always trying to push their opinions on others as "facts" so insults don't bother me anymore; not to mention, insults are only used in vain hope that they'll somehow be able to lend support to an inherently weak argument.

Anyways, why are you supporting "pesky collectivist" Ron Paul who's said many times that he's NOT an open-borders internationalist? I'm sure he's not a free market capitalist either in your book but then I don't think it'd matter to him (or me for that matter)

William R

06-02-2011, 08:41 AM

Lew Rockwell is now running open border articles on his website.

http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz25.1.html

http://lewrockwell.com/rockwell/tragedy-of-immigration-enforcement181.html

Good gravy. Even Milton Friedman recognized that open borders with a welfare state only grows government. Importing mass poverty. Rockwell has jumped the shark.

William R

06-02-2011, 08:52 AM

Xenophobic conservatives are not going to win this argument. Not only do they argue against private property and the right to contract guaranteed in the Constitution. They seek to redefine an allegiance clause in the Constitution to confer powers to police visitors and tourists to the federal political subdivision inside state borders.

Hilarious.

In the real world Joe Blow starts a landscaping business and plays by the rules. He hires Americans and legal immigrants. Pays FICA taxes and unemployment. Offers his employees health insurance after they've been with him for a year.

Jose crashes the gates and starts a landscaping business. He hires only illegals and pays them cash under the table. No FICA taxes etc etc. He soon is getting all the work because he is underbidding Joe Blow by 25 percent due to lower labor costs.

One of the things that makes markets function properly is the rule of law. Illegal immigration distorts the market.

William R

06-02-2011, 08:55 AM

ProIndividual

06-04-2011, 08:18 PM

Your responses to me just proved all my points...and again, you CANNOT dispute my numbers, nor are they erroneous or tailored to my argument...they are FACTS...you just blow them off. You also do not beleive our rights come from our individuality, or our Creator if you will, or the right to movement wouldn't be something you thought was government granted. They infringe on this natural right, they don't grant it through the border fairy. No, I won't address anymore of your nonsense border hawk, I won't even explain that free market capitalism and Austrian economics RELY on open but secure borders (try reading them sometime, and Milton Freidman wasn't one of them, he was a monetarist.), and I won't list reading material that you will just refuse to read. Instead, I'll just quote you:

Not to mention, libertarianism is rightly associated with Founders who were white slave-owners & thus, it doesn't appeal to a lot of colored people in general as a lot of them see it as a "white ideology".

Did you really say "colored people"? Seriously?

You just forfeited any intelligent debate.

Stop being an American collectivist arguing obstensibly against collectivism. Wake up.

ProIndividual

06-04-2011, 08:24 PM

It's the NeoCons. You've been reading too much Lew Rockwelliian. So Pat Buchanan is a NeoCon?? I guess now you'll be calling the American Conservative magazine a NeoCon rag.

And Pat Buchanan is a Paleoconservative...which is for non-free market ideas like closed borders...and borders on racism ocassionally. It's anti-war, anti-big government...but very much collectivist and nativist. These folks resemble the Barry Goldwater/Robert Taft old school wing of the Party.

Paleocons and neocons are both anti-free market with respects to various aspects of the markets. Both are way too statist to be libertarian. Unfortunately for you, Lew Rockwell is usually (not 100% of course), right. This is a case where he is correct. Anyone who bothers to read enough into the opposing views can see where the evidence lies...it lies with open but secure borders being GOOD for the country, both culturally, politically, and economically.

A song lyric comes to mind:

"Hate if you want to hate, if it makes you safe, if it makes you brave."

It's all in your head man.

Live_Free_Or_Die

06-04-2011, 08:41 PM

Hilarious.

In the real world Joe Blow starts a landscaping business and plays by the rules. He hires Americans and legal immigrants. Pays FICA taxes and unemployment. Offers his employees health insurance after they've been with him for a year.

Jose crashes the gates and starts a landscaping business. He hires only illegals and pays them cash under the table. No FICA taxes etc etc. He soon is getting all the work because he is underbidding Joe Blow by 25 percent due to lower labor costs.

One of the things that makes markets function properly is the rule of law. Illegal immigration distorts the market.

1. There is no law and there never has been that requires ID to live, work, or travel in the United States of America.
2. If you have voluntarily established an employer nexus or nexus by some other activity to the federal political subdivision, you must have volunteered for some privileges or immunities that Jose does not receive.

It sounds to me like an argument any other progressive or socialist has ever made. It's sounds to me like you want certain privileges and immunities but you think everyone else should also be forced to pay for privileges and immunities you desire because as you correctly point out.... privileges and immunities have a cost.

AuH20

06-04-2011, 09:14 PM

And Pat Buchanan is a Paleoconservative...which is for non-free market ideas like closed borders...and borders on racism ocassionally. It's anti-war, anti-big government...but very much collectivist and nativist. These folks resemble the Barry Goldwater/Robert Taft old school wing of the Party.

Paleocons and neocons are both anti-free market with respects to various aspects of the markets. Both are way too statist to be libertarian. Unfortunately for you, Lew Rockwell is usually (not 100% of course), right. This is a case where he is correct. Anyone who bothers to read enough into the opposing views can see where the evidence lies...it lies with open but secure borders being GOOD for the country, both culturally, politically, and economically.

A song lyric comes to mind:

"Hate if you want to hate, if it makes you safe, if it makes you brave."

It's all in your head man.

Not while public property obligations (tied to burdensome property taxes) and a progressive tax system exists. Hoppe cited this fallacy. Libertarians often live in a self-contrived fantasy land, excluding the undismissible value of culture from their analysis. But that is typical for libertarians who have little interest in affairs that take place in other than the present. Many are historically ignorant for rationalization purposes.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-05-2011, 08:20 AM

you CANNOT dispute my numbers, nor are they erroneous or tailored to my argument...they are FACTS...you just blow them off.

Yeah, just like I blow off the gun-violence stats that "support" taking away of the second amendment. It's a Keynesian way of looking at economics when you make connections like that; markets are so complex & there are so many factors that mayn't even be known, let alone be accounted for that it's impossible to establish a direct causal relationship like you have.

Further, lets say even IF (& that's a big 'if') there was a "net gain", it doesn't mean it's benefitting every American so your "economic gain for Americans" argument drops dead right there. Again, drawing the conclusions that have been drawn based on that data is pure Keynesian thought-process which treats economics like a perfect physical science like maths, physics, etc to strictly be accounted for in numerical terms in its entirety, which economics is NOT.

You also do not beleive our rights come from our individuality, or our Creator if you will,

Rights are a fictional concept, they don't stand for zilch unless people around you recognize them; if you're under communism/socialism, then your privacy will be probed, money will be robbed & what not, your "rights" don't stand for anything in that situation. In this light, letting in more communists/socialists in to the country hardly does any service to one's rights. The best way to secure one's rights is by keeping yourself surrounded by those who actually believe in your version of "rights" & letting socialists invade the country is the WORST strategy for making America libertarian.

the right to movement wouldn't be something you thought was government granted. They infringe on this natural right, they don't grant it through the border fairy.

Your argument is akin to those communist Zeitgeisters who say "all the world's resources belong to all humans & hence everyone should be able to take whatever they want"; while your argument goes like "all the world's land belongs to all humans so anyone should be able to move anywhere irrespective of national boundaries". You're essentially making a communist argument & unknowingly playing a part in a subversive effort to erase national (along with racial, ethno-cultural, political) boundaries so that bringing forth of the one-world-government becomes easier for the ruling-class.

and Milton Freidman wasn't one of them, he was a monetarist.

Wow, how did you know that I didn't know Friedman was a monetarist? What'll be your next assumption? That I'm a monetarist too because I have his quote as my signature? Wow, is that how you come up with "facts"? I wish I could do that too

Instead, I'll just quote you:
Did you really say "colored people"? Seriously?

Believe it or not, the differences in color or otherwise are more real than "rights" which are fictional; may be you'll love to see racial, ethno-cultural & national boundaries being destroyed so that one-world communist/socialist government becomes possible but I wouldn't; I suppose you've only heard "divide & conquer" & not "blend & conquer" which is the usual communist/socialist mantra.

You just forfeited any intelligent debate.

You'd already forfeited it when you ignored the fact that libertarianism also stands for freedom of association which means people have a right to assemble into countries & govern them as they see fit.

Stop being an American collectivist arguing obstensibly against collectivism. Wake up.

I wasn't even trying to make an argument against all collectivism as such because as I've said, we're all collectivists one way or another because individual rights only have value when one is amongst people who recognize those rights, whatever they may be; it's just that "libertarian group" has a different version of "rights" than say "communist group". And again, if you don't realize that humans are tribalist animals then you need to learn more about sociology & human behavior.

I'd only consider "open borders policy" feasible when the whole country has turned libertarian & all the unlibertarian things have been gotten rid of like welfare, all sorts of unequitable forms of taxation & so on. Then it might be feasible to let businesses engage in unhindered contracting with whomever crosses the border so to speak; BUT, citizenship should only be offered to highly skilled foreigners bringing irreplaceable talent to the country like doctors, engineers, scientists & such; NOT cabbies & nannies.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-05-2011, 08:34 AM

Not while public property obligations (tied to burdensome property taxes) and a progressive tax system exists. Hoppe cited this fallacy. Libertarians often live in a self-contrived fantasy land, excluding the undismissible value of culture from their analysis. But that is typical for libertarians who have little interest in affairs that take place in other than the present. Many are historically ignorant for rationalization purposes.

+1

Agreed, some libertarians do limit their thoughts far too much to individualism & ignore the social aspects which are a very significant part of how & why people behave the way they do as "social animals", which results in some of them having a view which is completely detached from the reality in some respects.

BamaFanNKy

06-05-2011, 09:06 AM

It's the NeoCons. You've been reading too much Lew Rockwelliian. So Pat Buchanan is a NeoCon?? I guess now you'll be calling the American Conservative magazine a NeoCon rag.

Actually I don't read Lew Rockwell. I oppose anything at Auburn. Yes, on this issue Pat Buchanan is wrong.

BamaFanNKy

06-05-2011, 09:10 AM

Open Borders is the preferred model of both Neocons and Globalists. Viva Cheap Labor and Balkanization! If we can't persuade the stubborn natives to go along with our plans, we'll just replace them!

Actually, that is wrong. Open Borders is not what myself or Gov. Johnson are talking about. You're like the guy who says Ron Paul's for Isolationism. We are going broke and we want to build a wall?!?

ProIndividual

06-07-2011, 08:33 PM

Hoppe has been debunked, go to Reason Tv and watch Shakhia Dahlmia (may be mispelled). She gives a talk to students for about an hour that is worth watching. Every credible bit of data in the world disputes Milton Freidman's fallacy that "you can't have open borders in a welfare State", and Hoppe's ideas about costs. In fact, the most closed border economist who has studied the subject, and is regarded as a credible source, put the NET GAIN at a low $8 billion a year. It's estimated by most other credible researchers at a NET GAIN for the economy of $20-$22 billion a year.

Stop with the collectivism, read the studies. No one can dispute these numbers, I dare you to try...so you'll educate yourself.

Quoting debunked statist collectivist economic fallacies from the past, or from guys who have preconceived notions and refuse conflicting data like Hoppe, is intellectually lazy...nothing more.

ProIndividual

06-07-2011, 09:05 PM

Agreed, some libertarians do limit their thoughts far too much to individualism & ignore the social aspects which are a very significant part of how & why people behave the way they do as "social animals", which results in some of them having a view which is completely detached from the reality in some respects.

Thank you for admitting you're a collectivist...as it's the opposite of individualism, and what you're lending cover to.

Get this through your collectivist head: no one owes you anything, my and everyone elses rights are NOT subject to border or government, as they come from God (or our humanity if you're an atheist), and you can't trample those INDIVIDUAL rights (there are no collective rights, read your Enlightenment history, political philosophy, and the U.S. Constitution) whenever YOU DECIDE your collective needs warrant it. NEVER is there a justified reason for trampling INALIENABLE (without border, restraint, statute, incapable of being transferred or surrendered; also spelled unalienable, both are correct) RIGHTS for your collective gain. Any attempt to justify or rationalize this collectivism is sophism, sadism, and sociopathic. You MAY NOT aggress against others to protect your collective ANYTHING. You may only defend yourself, and strongly.

Don't criticize individualism, or you label yourself a collectivist. That is quite clear by your attitudes toward your supposed right to job (doesn't exist), your supposed right to spend welfare on anyone, as long as they aren't an immigrant (despite DATA they make for us more than they take, and despite an easy fix: no welfare for immigrants for X years), and your xenophobic irrational fear that foreignors will come here and be ALL or even MAJORITY socialist, and stay that way despite the fact they FLEE socialism and often find the raised standard of living enough to make them, for all practicality, capitalists.

Look up individualist anarchism. You'll find they were originally socialists, until they realized the foolishness economically of the theories, dropped the labor theory of value, picked up the theory of marginal utility, and all the while were FREE TRADERS (not NAFTA CAFTA, but REAL free trade, like the kind no government governs, like Adam Smith's Free Trade, and every free market capitalist since). When the transition was complete, individualist anarchists who were anti-State socialists were reborn as free market individualists, monetarists, libertarians, Objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, re-emerging classical liberals (what BOTH the Federalist and Anti-Federalist 'founding fathers' were, with Jefferson being ambiguously individualist anarchist/minarchist, and Thomas Paine being a full fledged anarchist), voluntaryists, free market minarchists of vaying degrees, and agorists.

See how being socialist in America often is a silly teenage phase? A plague of your twenties, hard to find realistic outside the agrarian society Marx modeled the whole thing in, which died in the industrial revoulution, never to return (taking child labor and famines with it, along with low standards of living and low life expectancies)? See how stopping thoughts at the border is impossible, unwarranted, and again, COLLECTIVIST?

You would see that, if you'd spend some time reading the data that is clearly on the side of free market capitalism, and open and secure borders.

Plus, call me crazy, but they uphold our natural rights...but that isn't something with much marginal utility for you, is it? You only place utility in the rights of those who win a birth lottery, by "bein' born in 'merica" (which concedes that government grants your rights, not God or your humanity). Such liberal statist collectivist nonsense...sorry, but it is.

AuH20

06-07-2011, 10:09 PM

Thank you for admitting you're a collectivist...as it's the opposite of individualism, and what you're lending cover to.

Get this through your collectivist head: no one owes you anything, my and everyone elses rights are NOT subject to border or government, as they come from God (or our humanity if you're an atheist), and you can't trample those INDIVIDUAL rights (there are no collective rights, read your Enlightenment history, political philosophy, and the U.S. Constitution) whenever YOU DECIDE your collective needs warrant it. NEVER is there a justified reason for trampling INALIENABLE (without border, restraint, statute, incapable of being transferred or surrendered; also spelled unalienable, both are correct) RIGHTS for your collective gain. Any attempt to justify or rationalize this collectivism is sophism, sadism, and sociopathic. You MAY NOT aggress against others to protect your collective ANYTHING. You may only defend yourself, and strongly.

Don't criticize individualism, or you label yourself a collectivist. That is quite clear by your attitudes toward your supposed right to job (doesn't exist), your supposed right to spend welfare on anyone, as long as they aren't an immigrant (despite DATA they make for us more than they take, and despite an easy fix: no welfare for immigrants for X years), and your xenophobic irrational fear that foreignors will come here and be ALL or even MAJORITY socialist, and stay that way despite the fact they FLEE socialism and often find the raised standard of living enough to make them, for all practicality, capitalists.

Look up individualist anarchism. You'll find they were originally socialists, until they realized the foolishness economically of the theories, dropped the labor theory of value, picked up the theory of marginal utility, and all the while were FREE TRADERS (not NAFTA CAFTA, but REAL free trade, like the kind no government governs, like Adam Smith's Free Trade, and every free market capitalist since). When the transition was complete, individualist anarchists who were anti-State socialists were reborn as free market individualists, monetarists, libertarians, Objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, re-emerging classical liberals (what BOTH the Federalist and Anti-Federalist 'founding fathers' were, with Jefferson being ambiguously individualist anarchist/minarchist, and Thomas Paine being a full fledged anarchist), voluntaryists, free market minarchists of vaying degrees, and agorists.

See how being socialist in America often is a silly teenage phase? A plague of your twenties, hard to find realistic outside the agrarian society Marx modeled the whole thing in, which died in the industrial revoulution, never to return (taking child labor and famines with it, along with low standards of living and low life expectancies)? See how stopping thoughts at the border is impossible, unwarranted, and again, COLLECTIVIST?

You would see that, if you'd spend some time reading the data that is clearly on the side of free market capitalism, and open and secure borders.

Plus, call me crazy, but they uphold our natural rights...but that isn't something with much marginal utility for you, is it? You only place utility in the rights of those who win a birth lottery, by "bein' born in 'merica" (which concedes that government grants your rights, not God or your humanity). Such liberal statist collectivist nonsense...sorry, but it is.

I think you've lost the concept of community and the integral role it plays in keeping the species going. No man is an island. This is where extreme libertarianism crashes into the uncompromising wall known as reality. As appalling as it sounds, your survival and well-being like it or not, is dependent on the good grace of others. Your laundry list of inalienable rights is an abstract fallacy as tangible as your diminishing capacity to defend them. For this reason, men formed civilizations. You must understanding that liberty emerged from environments of order as opposed to free-for-all chaos, but for some that 'limited' version of liberty is never enough.

I think Russell Kirk stated it best when when he said that the libertarian rebels against the human condition itself and is ill-equipped to survive in this rough & tumble world. And I completely agree with him. When I think of libertarianism in it's most extreme forms, I think of walking, talking livestock waiting to sheared and then slaughtered. This illegal immigration argument is proof positive of this self-destructive death wish as well.

ProIndividual

06-07-2011, 10:12 PM

Yeah, just like I blow off the gun-violence stats that "support" taking away of the second amendment.

Ummm, the stats on gun deaths support the case that they are mostly harmless. 13,000 gun murders a year, 30,000 flu deaths, and 15,000 deahts from SAID anti-flammatories as weak as asprin in arthritis patients alone...ummm also, 400,000 die of alcohol, 430,000 of tobacco.

1.2 million from cars.

Ps. We aren't all collectivists at all. Some of see forced uniformity by the collective to be the failure of democracy (mob rule). Some of us think we should only vote where directly affected, and that any other voting that isn't in self defense is tyranny upon others. Some of us think society collectiviely exists, and has existed for most of human history, without a coercive social contract, i. e. the State. Some of us think we'd be just fine to organize noncoercively, in voluntary social contracts if we chose, or none at all.

Collectivism is coercive government, with a monopoly on violence. Individualism is a lack of uniformity, where those who like tyranny may have it, but have no right to force it on others....and those others can choose another social contract or none at all. The only moral justification for regulation is aggression on the part of the regulated.

So we certainly aren't all collectivists like you (the reason you think it's okay to be one). Some of us are individualists who choose to answer collective needs (like defense) without a monopoly on coercion and violence, and forced theft through taxes over all those who live within our gang turf....that which we only hold with that very monopoly on violence and coercion.

Collectivism is tyranny of the group over the individual, whether it be majority, super majority, or even concensus -1, where the individual being involuntarily governed did not first aggress against another. Without aggression, our individual sovereignty and right to govern ourselves is not void, and must be respected by any moral theory that hold any water. Otherwise, you just make excuses for why a group can somehow ignore your rights and do whatever they like to you, and this action of the mob will be "moral" and "just".

What is right is almost never popular, and it is never easy. Demcracy is a cruel tyranny, when those who vote are not directly affected.

I'm definately not a collectivism.

But what you said, about us all being collectivists, is exactly what I'd expect of a collectivist minarchist (conservative, whatever you call it, all the same meaning for all intents and purposes).

You may seem far right to liberals, but to us, you're just another statist. We flank you.

I answered two of your other strawmen too, but somehow they got deleted. Just know, they are strawmen, and I see throught them. You called minorities "colored people"...arguing the relevancy or prevalance of the issue is setting up a false argument. I'm pointiong out you're either so old you think that's what minorities aren't offended at being called, or you are in fact a racist, or MAYBE a really shelytered white kid unaware of the racism of that phrasology. The others are easily attacked to. We can debate online for a half hour on a live radio show if you like. It would save me typing all that point by point dissection of your nonsense propaganda points again.

ProIndividual

06-07-2011, 10:14 PM

I think you've lost the concept of community and the integral role it plays in keeping the species going.

No, you are conflating society, nation, country, and the people with nationalism, statismm, and a monopoly on coercion, force, and violence, i. .e the State.

You miss that society existed, as did voluntary governments and social contracts, for the vast majority of human history. Look up stateless societies...look up Thomas Paine, a founder, and read him. The fact is, you think State= society.

The fact is, it doesn't.

Stop making excuses for a monopoly on coercion because you want order, organization, and overall society. They are mutually exclusive, or least can be without this coercive monopoly you support.

AuH20

06-07-2011, 10:34 PM

No, you are conflating society, nation, country, and the people with nationalism, statismm, and a monopoly on coercion, force, and violence, i. .e the State.

You miss that society existed, as did voluntary governments and social contracts, for the vast majority of human history. Look up stateless societies...look up Thomas Paine, a founder, and read him. The fact is, you think State= society.

The fact is, it doesn't.

Stop making excuses for a monopoly on coercion because you want order, organization, and overall society. They are mutually exclusive, or least can be without this coercive monopoly you support.

Okay, we'll remove the state from the equation. Let's just say I headed a local community not integrated into what would we classify as a modern-day nation state. Why would I want a mass bloc of essentially foreign nationals moving into my territory who did not speak my language and possessed a different value set & culture, with no other residency requirement other than simply physical occupancy in the defined borders of my village? How would this language/value disconnect as well as a dereliction of communal responsibility enhance my community in the end? You must understand that life on this planet is more complicated than simply free trade and the potential for personal profit. How did that relationship work out for the Native Americans?

The problem with many libertarians is that they are ignorant on what make cultures successful. In fact, many libertarians recoil in horror at the mere mention of culture since it is an embryonic form of the state. Nevertheless, you cannot have the manifestation of liberty without a successful culture which promotes morals and an enduring order.

ProIndividual

06-07-2011, 10:35 PM

I posted this on another thread, but it applies to this conversation:

"I think the debate gets lost in "jurisdictions" of governments and courts, when in anarchism this is irrelevant. How so, you ask?

No social contract can claim area. There are no "borders". Gangs claim turf with coercion, that's what governments are; gangs.

So, how then do social contracts work in an anarchistic society, without land based bullies who enforce territorial "jurisdictions"?

Easy. Like every other contract in your life.

If social contracts were strictly voluntary, this would mean area was irrelevant, as would all claims against your individual SOVEREIGNTY (that which makes borders null).

Let's say we have 3 neighbors. Neighbor One is an anarchist, and has no social contract he has opted into. He paints his house purple with pink polka dots. Neighbor Two is a conservative (minarchist for our purposes here) and has signed a conservative social contract, and paints his house with anti-abortion slogans. Neighbor Three is a liberal statist and has signed a liberal socialist social contract, painting their house with anti-capitalist slogans.

Neighbor One, Two, and Three are subject to different standards of law, not different courts. The courts CAN be arbitrators of a private nature, ensuring no monopoly on violence and coercion, or you can have public/ private partnerships which allow a bid process for which arbitar will be the Judiciary for a specific contract length of time, or you can even have simple common law courts that are simply advised as to whether the accused has opted into a social contract, and if so, which one (remembering WHERE they live is irrelevant to which laws they are subject to).

Let's say Neighbor One (the anarchist) is taken to court for something, anything. The standard devoid of a social contract for whatever type of court you envision will be "Harm", as the only law of anarchism is natural law, or "Do No Harm". This is the only law he can be held to devoid of membership in a more invasive legal social contract, like his Neighbors. No harm, no crime...and no taxes (or benefits of those taxes).

Let's say Neighbor Two (the minarchist/conservative) is taken to court. The standard of law for him will be the social contract he signed onto, but not to ignore natural law ("Do No Harm"). It must meet at minimum that law to be a legitimate legal social contract. It can surpass it with invasive laws, as that is not a harm if agreed upon (which it was, as the contract is voluntary). These laws might include illegal drugs (for all those signed onto the social contract, not by area "jurisdiction" like a street gang), illegal abortion, etc. IF he breaks these laws, he is liable for the punishments described in the social contract. Because his kids are not able to sign legally, all children are governed as anarchists until adults, meaning they must cause Harm to be found guilty of anything. This doesn't stop parents from punishing them, however. This social contract has ZERO effect on his neighbors and their social contracts, or lack thereof. This guy pays low taxes and recieves low benefits, and has a minarchist standard of law that he chooses and MUST abide to. Notice again, the same court system was used, only what is the criteria for conviction has changed.

Lastly, Neighbor Three is taken to court. Again, natural law is the minimum standard, but additional laws will matter because of the voluntary liberal social contract. These laws might include banning wealth accumulation (codifying egalitarianism), banning speculation on capitalist stocks, and banning fatty foods. When in court, he is bound to the laws he agreed to in the voluntary social contract he signed, not people who didn't agree to them like now. Again, his kids are not liable to this standard, only the minimum standard of Harm. This set of rules and laws are not effecting his other Neighbors, as the contract is only for those who signed it legally. This guy pays heavy taxes (depending on income, as he is an egalitarian socialist, and all wealth above the mean is banned), and recieves arguably heavy benefits (for how long? I don't know, this isn't an economics lesson...lol).Notice for a thrid time, the same court system was used, only what the criteria was for conviction had changed.

As long as juries can also nullify any law they disagree with, like early American courts could (and still can, although they are no longer told this, and in fact are lied to about it by judges), and we have what I discribed above, then we have a cohesive natural justice system with no conflicts over area or borders, and can call it truely anarchistic (a lack of coercion and uniformity).

The main point I'm trying to make is natural law, and it's natural justice system, is a standard of law totally designed to be a standard for every form of law everywhere. This was understood to be the function of natural law theorists as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas, at least. Even he used the basic Harm rule when discussing crimes according to natural law as opposed to statist law. He, a Saint, even surmised that prostitution could be tolerated under natural law, as it was not in itself a Harm. I'd argue that prostitutes should be sued for Harm by wives, making it lucrative to stay away from married men. Anyway, the main point is, because natural law is designed as a theory to hold all other law to, it is a borderless system, which doesn't rely on monopolies on force over specific areas of land. It puts forth a new (not new now, but it is new in terms of history) legal and moral theory altogether; that any coercion is crime, and anything devoid of coercion cannot be crime. For this reason, "jurisdiction" is merely gang turf, irrelevant to a non-coercive agreement, like a voluntary social contract.

If we continue to think of self-government, or minimalized government for that matter, in terms of jurisdictions and land monopolies (borders), we will devolve to just another coercive social contract, i. e., the State. We have to consider at all times the individual above society, and society above the government, the government above the State, and the State a coercive monopoly. There is no reason for uniformity of social contracts, laws, or social norms...especially in terms of land area. "Moving if you don't like it" and "voting with your feet" imply a tyranny of the collective over the individual rooted in the ballot, and must be corrected by thinking beyond the State's monopolies, like area of land and law. "

ProIndividual

06-07-2011, 10:36 PM

Let's just say I headed a local community not integrated into what would we classify as a modern-day nation state.

Again, that's only nation-state when the nation is no longer voluntary, and claims gang turf, which you seem to assert is the only way to organize a society; through violence and coercion. It's why I posted the above.

And there is no national language in the U.S. by law. It is a state's issue, not federal, check the Constitution.

The rest of your screed is justifying collectivism to preserve YOUR stuff, culture, blah blah blah. You trample individual rights given by God, and ask why it is isn't praactical. Murder can be practical, it doesn't make it moral, or the only way to organize society for MOST of human history.

Native Americans were coerced by the very State you seem to think would of saved them....it didn't. Their individual rights were trampled so gang turf could expand, and expand it's power to coerce more people; power for power's sake. Some Presidents, like Grant, called Manifest Destiny what it was, a bloody (sanguine) crime.

And again, you assert immigration is a NET LOSS...only in your xenophobic nightmares...not the "reality" you claim to have such a grip on, while I somehow have no grip on...I think you're horribly confused as to the facts, and listen to Lou Dobbs too much. He's not a free market capitalist, and he isn't very informed as to the benefits of immigration.

Fact: immigration is condusive to economic growth.

AuH20

06-07-2011, 11:03 PM

Again, that's only nation-state when the nation is no longer voluntary, and claims gang turf, which you seem to assert is the only way to organize a society; through violence and coercion. It's why I posted the above.

And there is no national language in the U.S. by law. It is a state's issue, not federal, check the Constitution.

The rest of your screed is justifying collectivism to preserve YOUR stuff, culture, blah blah blah. You trample individual rights given by God, and ask why it is isn't praactical. Murder can be practical, it doesn't make it moral, or the only way to organize society for MOST of human history.

Native Americans were coerced by the very State you seem to think would of saved them....it didn't. Their individual rights were trampled so gang turf could expand, and expand it's power to coerce more people; power for power's sake. Some Presidents, like Grant, called Manifest Destiny what it was, a bloody (sanguine) crime.

God may have given them, but he doesn't enforce nor guarantee these rights. For all intent and purpose, your liberty is dependent on me and others like me. This is where the naughty words 'compromise' or 'social contract' comes into play. For example, if we accept the absolute private property argument of unheeded immigration, say with the passage of a multitude of guests from one piece of private property to another. Theoretically, shouldn't I have a say in your affairs, in the event you invite 100 unruly guests who in the process of working their way to that destination trash the surrounding neighborhood as well as my property. Or would that be a gross abrogation of yours as well as your guests' rights? Even you have to be aware of the enormous holes in some aspects of libertarian thought, especially when minimizing the damaging characteristics of the human herd & simultaneously sugarcoating it under the guise of the noble individual.

AlexanderY

06-07-2011, 11:23 PM

Again, that's only nation-state when the nation is no longer voluntary, and claims ganf turf, which you seem to assert is the only way to organize a society; through violence and coercion. It's why I posted the above.

And there is no national language in the U.S. by law. It is a state's issue, not federal, check the Constitution.

The rest of your screed is justifying collectivism to preserve YOUR stuff, culture, blah blah blah. You trample individual rights given by God, and ask why it is isn't praactical. Murder can be practical, it doesn't make it moral, or the only way to organize society for MOST of human history.

Native Americans were coerced by the very State you seem to think would of saved them....it didn't. Their individual rights were trampled so gang turf could expand, and expand it's power to coerce more people; power for power's sake. Some Presidents, like Grant, called Manifest Destiny what it was, a bloody (sanguine) crime.

I don't agree with what AuH20 is saying, but I understand his train of thought.

AuH20 is somewhat of a libertarian, with Stormfrontish/AmRenish sympathies.

When I think of libertarianism in it's most extreme forms, I think of walking, talking livestock waiting to sheared and then slaughtered. This illegal immigration argument is proof positive of this self-destructive death wish as well.

Based on the aforementioned quote, you can tell he views the "pure libertarian" the same way he views white liberals who promote diversity.

The problem with many libertarians is that they are ignorant on what make cultures successful. In fact, many libertarians recoil in horror at the mere mention of culture since it is an embryonic form of the state. Nevertheless, you cannot have the manifestation of liberty without a successful culture which promotes morals and an enduring order.

Essentially, he believes that since most of the immigrants coming here are Mestizo, they're incapable of living in a society envisioned by white Europeans.

What he means by "what makes cultures successful," is what he percieves to be a high IQ northern European society.

He doesn't say it explicitly, but it seems that is what he is implying.

As a non-Mestizo Hispanic (Criollo), primarily of mixed Northern and Southern European stock, I don't think he is being very charitable to the Mestizo Mexicans.

I live with many of them here in South Florida, sure, they have their flaws, many are unassimilated.

I went to school with many of their children, they were very assimilated (mainly first gens), some were dumb as a rock, many were average, quite a few of them were brilliant though.

I'm not saying they're all going to be rocket scientists, but they are capable living in a first world country, going to a trade school or a college, getting a job, and maintaining a first world lifestyle.

Here in South Florida many of the doctors are hispanic, and most of my teachers in High School were Hispanic, with a few blacks, and a Jew.

I can take you to places in Central Florida that look like Eastern Europe under the Soviet hegemony, and let's not mention the blacks.

Most Hispanics have not been here over a generation. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics I know are either the first of their family born on US soil or were born in their home countries and were brought here for a shot at life.

Foreign born Hispanics, are probably not going to accomplish much, their children will probably attend college or accomplish more than their parents did.

Once you have second generation Hispanics, they're probably going to be very assimilated and will live amongst whites, based on numerous observations.

The big mistake that guys like AuH20 make is that they compare Hispanics to the blacks, which is dubious (well, the exception being some Puerto ricans).

Paul Or Nothing II

06-08-2011, 03:04 AM

@ProIndividual

You've just lost it, pal. You're just an internationalist & that's that but fortunately a lot of us do believe in countries & people's right to association; you're just an ideal slave for the hidden plutocrats wanting to tear down racial, cultural, national boundaries so that bringing in one-world-government becomes extremely easy.

You think "rights" just exist & that somehow YOUR VERSION of "rights" is correct & that of communists, Islamists & others is wrong. On what grounds? Because you say so? Well, they can say the same too. How about a cannibalist society who believe that they've a "right" to eat anyone who's not part of their tribe? What if YOU were born & brought up in that tribe? The whole argument that "rights" come from God (:rolleyes:) or nature is fallacious, rights are subjective because different people may've extremely different views on what they are.

Further, you neglect (due to your internatiolist views) that libertarianism belives that people have a right to decide how they live within the group they associate with based on mutual accord, which means communists are free to live how they want in their own country, muslims are free to do the same in their country & same for libertarians; if you think that somehow you've a "right" to tell people & force them to conform to YOUR VERSION of "rights" then how's that libertarianism at all? You're lost in your own argument.

Again, your "rights" aren't worth zilch if you aren't surrounded by people who recognize in YOUR VERSION of "rights" & that's why letting in communists/socialists into America in huge numbers doesn't serve the purpose of making America libertarian. You probably don't care as you're an internationalist but there are a lot of us who do.

Live_Free_Or_Die

06-08-2011, 03:26 AM

Theoretically, shouldn't I have a say in your affairs, in the event you invite 100 unruly guests who in the process of working their way to that destination trash the surrounding neighborhood as well as my property.

No you shouldn't. There are already remedies to unruly guests that do not involve nosy busybodies digging into the affairs of people who are not unruly. If someone steals something from you... you aren't going to bear the burden of the cost to obtain a remedy anyway. You are going to socialize your loss and redistribute a portion of incarceration, recovery, or justice costs to me. Since I am already paying for unruly behavior... why in the hell am I going to tolerate you being a nosy busybody trying to further penalize me for unruly behavior I am not responsible for? Is it my fault if you decide to act unruly?

Stick to the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the regulation of emigration, immigration, or travel The only delegated power under Article 1, Section 8 is creating a rule of Naturalization.

AndrewD

06-08-2011, 05:32 AM

@ProIndividual

You've just lost it, pal ... if you think that somehow you've a "right" to tell people & force them to conform to YOUR VERSION of "rights" then how's that libertarianism at all? You're lost in your own argument.

+++REP

Finally someone besides myself tells it like it is. Thank you brother for stating the obvious (to a few of us at least).

ProIndividual

06-08-2011, 09:22 AM

You've just lost it, pal. You're just an internationalist

I am not an internationalist, because I'm not any kind of nationalist. I'm for the people not the government and land monopolists like gangs and States. I am neither an intranationalist nor an internationalist.

I am a free market individualist anarchist, and a "natural lawyer", as Lysander Spooner deemed it. You know who Lysander Spooner is? He used to compete, and beat, the government in first class mail, before they outlawed competition in that type of mail, and monopolized it. He is the reason mail is delivered to homes, not just a post office and you pick it up yourself. He invented that in the free market.

So, no I'm most certainly not a nationalist of any kind. I'm able to think for myself, and I question authority.

Traitors and Patriots: The Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41076

I'll quote from what I wrote and researched elsewhere:

Originally posted as a comment on MSNBC.com, in response to an article titled "Manning facing new charges, possile death penalty", subtitle " 'Aiding the enemy' is most serious of 22 new counts filed against private in Wikileaks case", regarding the Wikileak leaks of some U.S. secret documents, along with documents that sparked the revolution in Egypt and Tunisia, which were accompanied by the separate group "Anonymous", the cyber-activists who attacked those working against Wikileaks, and who helped shut down government websites and communication (along with evidence of infiltration and impersonination via web) in Egypt and Tunisia during their repsective uprisings. I have given my very positive overall view of Anonymous and Wikileaks in a past post, although neither is perfect or infallable. That being said, here goes:

Since everyone wants to debate whether or not this Private, and anyone else who leaks government secrets that are in the public interest, is a patriot or a traitor (black and white thinking, a psychopathic fallacy), let us then define patriot and traitor...then I'll give you my opinion.

traitor - a person who betrays his or her country, cause, friends, etc.; one guilty of treason or treachery

(Notice it doesn't say "state" or "government", as the word "country" above does not mean either of those things. In fact, "country, "nation", "society", and "people" are all synonyms, all meaning basically the same thing...the physical people, their society, culture, and other cohesive identifiers. "State" and "government" often come in conflict with "country" and the like. For this reason, support for your government where it hurts your country is treasonist.)

Patriotism
is a love and devotion to one's country. It has had different meanings over time and its meaning is highly dependent upon context, geography, and philosophy.

It is a related sentiment to nationalism, but nationalism is not necessarily an inherent part of patriotism.

(Notice again, "country" is the word, not "state" or "government".)

The English term patriot is first attested in the Eliabethan era, via Middle French from Late Latin (6th century) patriota "fellow countryman", ultimately from Greek πατριÏ�της (patriÅ�tÄ“s) "fellow countryman". The abstract noun patriotism appears in the early 18th century.

(Notice again, "countryman"...see the theme?)

Nationalism
involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. It can also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, or the belief that one state is naturally superior to all other states. It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland (usually an autonomous state) for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols. Deep emotions are aroused.

Gellner and Breuilly, in Nations and Nationalism, contrast nationalism and patriotism. "If the nobler word 'patriotism' then replaced 'civic/Western nationalism', nationalism as a phenomenon had ceased to exist."

(As you can see, nationalism is not patriotic, it can be opposed to patriotism in fact, as it finds blind allegiance to a government to be preferable to true national interests, the interests of society, the interests of the people, and the interests of the country. A simple example is fascist nationalism, where the nations were effected detrimentally by their governments interests. Secrecy is rarely about true national security, it's usually about government security, and therefore nationalist, not patriotic.)

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.

-Edward Abbey

Politics, as a practise, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.
-Henry Brookes Adams

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.
-Samuel Adams

If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
-Samuel Adams

The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack... These actions apparently arise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals.
-quote found at the American Library Association

If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans, but Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free, Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.
-Ezra Taft Benson

The constitutional right of free speech has been declared to be the same in peace and war. In peace, too, men may differ widely as to what loyalty to our country demands, and an intolerant majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has been in the past, to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees.
-Justice Louis D. Brandeis

If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom.
-Tom Braun

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
-Henry Steele Commager

The republic was not established by cowards, and cowards will not preserve it.
-Elmer Davis

They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
-Eugene Debs

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
-Declaration of Independence

Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
-Albert Einstein

Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

They [the founders] proclaimed to all the world the revolutionary doctrine of the divine rights of the common man. That doctrine has ever since been the heart of the American faith.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Let me write the songs of a nation - I don't care who writes its laws.
-Andrew Fletcher

Where liberty dwells, there is my country.
-Ben Franklin

The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots.
-Elbridge Gerry

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
-Johann Wolfgang von Geothe

To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.
-G. Edward Griffin

I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
-Nathan Hale

From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.
-Frederich August von Hayek

Love your country, but never trust its government
-Robert A. Heinlein

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
-Patrick Henry

The following quotes are from Mark Twain:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood of his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"- with his mouth."

"Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest."

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about."

"We teach them to take their patriotism at second-hand; to shout with the largest crowd without examining into the right or wrong of the matter -- exactly as boys under monarchies are taught and have always been taught. We teach them to regard as traitors, and hold in aversion and contempt, such as do not shout with the crowd, and so here in our democracy we are cheering a thing which of all things is most foreign to it and out of place -- the delivery of our political conscience into somebody else's keeping. This is patriotism on the Russian plan."

"The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice -- and always has been."

"[Patriotism] ...is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a longline of successive "owners" who each in turn, as "patriots" with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of "robbers" who came to steal it and did -- and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn."

"...the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it."

So, as you can see, if you support the Private you are a patriot. If you support killing him, or banning Wikileaks, you are a nationalist, and not a patriot. The idea you can support secrecy is in itself support for the government, and is statism. Again, national security is not the same as government security. There are many differences, chiefly of which are motives and IF IT HURTS ANYONE DIRECTLY. Even indirect harm is inconsequential, as the greater public good is the release of secrets, not the keeping of them. The legal precedent is even very clear here.

What Manning did was in no way treason, and it is treasonist to call it that. Let's stop redefining words to justify our statism please.

And for conservatives...I'm farther right than you are, I'm a libertarian...so please attack that, and not the usual "stupid liberal hates America" nonsense...thank you.

I think that about sums up what you are as a nationalist, and what I am as a countryman. Believing in a society where social contracts aren't coerced and monopolized, and land isn't treated like a gang treats turf in order to enforce said monopoly, IS NOT being a INTERnationalist, or INTRAnationalist, or any NATIONALIST of any kind.

I'll leave that to you.

ProIndividual

06-08-2011, 10:20 AM

TWO PART COMMENT:

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (so far a 3 part blog, 21 fallacies)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436

4. Tariffs that limit imports, and policies that encourage exports, are good ideas

The fallacy that government is a better judge of the most profitable modes of directing labor and capital than individuals is well illustrated by exporting policies. In the twentieth century, the federal government has sought to promote exports in various ways. The first was by forcing open foreign markets through a combination of diplomatic and military pressure, all the while keeping our own markets wholly or partially closed. The famous "open door" policy, formulated by Secretary of State John Hay in 1899 was never meant to be reciprocal (after all, he served in the McKinley administration, the most archly protectionist in American history), and it often required a gun boat and a contingent of hard charging marines to kick open the door.

A second method was export subsidies, which are still with us. The Export-Import Bank was established by Roosevelt in 1934 to provide cash grants, government-guaranteed loans, and cheap credit to exporters and their overseas customers. It remains today-untouched by "alleged" free market Republican administrations and congresses.

A third method was dollar devaluation, to cheapen the selling price of American goods abroad. In 1933, Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard and revalued it at $34.06, which represented a significant devaluation. The object was to allow for more domestic inflation and to boost exports, particularly agricultural ones, which failed; now Bush is trying it.

I'd just like to point out, FDR's agriculture policies caused the "soup lines" or "bread lines" we always hear so much about. He had 10 million acres of crops destroyed and 6 million farm animals killed in order to boost domestic food prices for producers. This raised the price of food. His subsidies to export made exporting the food more profitable than selling it domestically. The combination of the two led to food shortages. So, next time some liberal claims that stimulus and bailouts prevented "soup and bread lines", remind them those were the fault of FDR and bad economics. It doesn't even matter that stimulus and bailouts don't work (or work well), it's enough the Obama administration isn't as dull on economics as their Roosevelt predecessors. We simply don't have these "soup and bread lines" because no one is repeating FDR's mistakes, which caused them to begin with.

A fourth method, tried by the Reagan administration, was driving down farm prices to boost exports, thereby shrinking the trade deficit. The plan was that America would undersell its competitors, capture markets, and rake in foreign exchange. (When others do this it is denounced as unfair, as predatory trade.) What happened? Well, it turned out that the agricultural export market was rather elastic. Countries like Brazil and Argentina, depending on farm exports as one of their few sources of foreign exchange, which they desperately needed to service their debt loads, simply cut their prices to match the Americans. Plan fails.

But it got worse: American farmers had to sell larger quantities (at the lower prices) just to break even. Nevertheless, although the total volume of American agricultural exports increased, their real value (in constant dollars) fell - more work, lower profits. Furthermore, farmers had to import more oil and other producer goods to expand their production, which worsened the trade deficit. Then, there were the unforeseen and deleterious side-effects. Expanded cultivation and livestock-raising stressed out and degraded the quality of the soils, polluted watersheds, and lowered the nutritional value of the expanded crop of vegetables, grains, and animal proteins.

The author says "worsened" trade deficits, in italics, for a reason. Trade deficits are not negative, and the fact people think trade deficits are negative is itself a fallacy. We will cover this fallacy here, after we have finished with this part.

Finally, the policy of lower price/higher volume drove many small farmers, here and abroad, off the land, into the cities, and across the border, our border. Here is an economic policy that not only failed in its purpose but worsened the very problem it was intended to alleviate, and caused a nutritional, ecological, and demographic catastrophe.

I wished the author would have also italicized "problem", as to further drive home the point that trade deficits are not negative. So, let's address this fallacy now.

•The instinctive reaction of politicians is that if one country places a tariff barrier on our exports, we should respond by doing the same. However economic theory suggests that placing a tariff barrier on imports leads to a loss of economic welfare. It is better to not retaliate.

Time and time again, trade restrictions like tariffs have hurt our country's economy, not helped it.

The Embargo Act of 1807 and the subsequent Nonintercourse Acts were American laws restricting American ships from engaging in foreign trade between the years of 1807 and 1812. They led to the War of 1812 between the U.S. and Britain.

Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits, especially as entrepreneurs and workers responded by bringing in fresh capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British merchants.[8] (Since the damage that was caused was so widespread and severe, you can liken this to 'stepping over dollars, to pick up pennies')

The Embargo was in fact hurting the United States as much as Britain or France. Britain, expected to suffer most from the American regulations, found consolation in the development of a South American market, and the British shipowners were pleased that American competition had been removed by the action of the U.S. government.

The attempt of Jefferson and Madison to resist aggression by peaceful means gained a belated success in June 1812 when Britain finally promised to repeal her Orders in Council. The British concession was too late, for by the time the news reached America the United States had already declared the War of 1812 against Britain.

The entire series of events was ridiculed in the press as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, Go-bar-'em or O-grab-me ('Embargo' spelled backward); there was a cartoon ridiculing the Act as a snapping turtle, named "O' grab me", grabbing at American shipping.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

The Tariff Act of 1930, otherwise known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Hawley-Smoot Tariff (P.L. 71-361)[1] was an act, sponsored by United States Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in US history, exceeded (by a small margin) only by the Tariff of 1828[3] and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners reduced American exports and imports by more than half.

Some economists have opined that the tariffs contributed to the severity of the Great Depression.[4][5][6]

U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP. ( I want everyone to notice, we are in an era of a horrible economy with high unemployment and trade surpluses. In 1929, the trade surplus was $1 billion, this did not however translate to long term growth or more employment. In 1933, we ran a smaller trade surplus and had worsening effects, along with LESS TRADE OVERALL. Trade surpluses (foreign exchange deficits) are often regarded as good, but they have almost never translated into higher growth rates or low unemployment rates. The higher growth rates and lower unemployment rates are found in periods of high trade deficits (foreign exchange surpluses). The very way governments come up with trade numbers, and whether a nation has deficits or not, has been criticized as nearly erroneous, by free market economists from Frederic Bastiat to Don Boudreaux. Bastiat demonstrated that a government can record a deficit, even though a net profit was made by their citizen who was involved in the trade. This is counter intutitive, but deductively logical. The government numbers record the price at sale, not the resale value and profit made. When this profit is taken into account, then the only debt in the 'trade deficit' that is not covered by the foreign exchange surplus is government debt acrued by borrowing from foreigners. When people say "we need to do something about the trade deficit", I say "yes we do, we need to stop letting the government run in deficit and debt by borrowing money from foreigners". The common misconception is that unbalanced, or even unreciprocated, trade is bad for the economy. In fact, private sector trade is not debt, and is not bad for the economy at all. It's the debt the government runs up in the trade deficit that materializes as debt, and gives trade deficits a bad name. Private sector trade, good...Public Sector borrowing, bad. As you can see from the severely diminished trade numbers above, protectionism shrinks the economic pie, while free trade (or at least free-er trade) expands the total economic pie, benefiting everyone.)

According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[15]

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.[16] Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.[17]

Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists such as Milton Friedman who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, downplay the Smoot-Hawley's effect on the entire U.S. economy.[18]

I think it's fair to say the money supply was responsible for the deflation (too little money in circulation), and the tariffs were responsible for reduction in trade and GDP, overall.

I think it's pretty clear, interfering in the economy to spur exports or reduce imports only hurt the economy. Which, by chance, brings us to our next fallacy...

5. The fallacy of trade deficits

The 19th century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that trade deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France, and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If, in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France, and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was trade deficit against the ledger of France.[30]

In the above example, there is a single trader who is traveling and trading across national borders. The Frenchman owns a cask of wine worth 50 francs, and travels with it to England. France records an export of 50 francs, England an import of 50 francs.. In England, he sells his wine for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent) and buys 70 francs worth of English coal. He then leaves England for France with the 70 francs of coal, so that Enland records this as an export and France as an import. So, England has exported 20 francs more than it has imported, for a trade surplus of 20 francs. Meanwhile France imported 20 francs more than it exported, for a trade deficit of 20 francs. This is the last time the trade is recorded by either government, the entire reason why trade numbers are irrelevant in most cases to trade effects. Therefore, it's important to notice that the nation with the trade surplus (England) actually "lost money" on the trades, while the nation with the trade deficit (France) actually made all the profits. But the trade did not conclude with the importation of 70 francs of English coal by the Frenchman...he then sells it in his native France for 90 francs, without any government recording it as an import/export. This means the trader profited 40 francs overall (he turned 50 francs of wine into 90 francs), and yet his government calls it a 20 franc loss. The idea he lost money for himself, or for his nations GDP, is erroneous.

The idea trade surplus or deficit is directly tied to whether the trade is "balanced" or not, is fallacious. The trade deficit is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange surplus in the private sector. The trade surplus is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange deficit. Every product traded for currency is an investment in currency. Every trade of currency for a commodity is an investment in that commodity. There basically is no such thing as "balanced trade", because every trade is balanced by virtue of the fact they are voluntary, and because of the inverse relationship of trade and foreign exchange. Trade and foreign exchange are negatively correlated.

By reductio ad absurdum, Bastiat argued that the national trade deficit was an indicator of a successful economy, rather than a failing one. Bastiat predicted that a successful, growing economy would result in greater trade deficits, and an unsuccessful, shrinking economy would result in lower trade deficits. This was later, in the 20th century, affirmed by economist Milton Friedman.

Contrary to popular misconception, trade deficits are correlated with higher growth rates, lower unemployment, and wealthier periods. The opposite is true for trade surpluses. We should embrace trade deficits, if in fact we put any creedance in them at all.

6. Immigration causes unemployment or lower wages for natives

Immigrants increase the supply of labour but they also increase Aggregate Demand in the Economy. This means that they buy more goods and create additional demand in the economy. They provide labour supply and increase labour demand.

If immigration caused unemployment why did America not have high unemployment during times of mass immigration? Because the immigrants created as many jobs as they took.

Often immigrants take jobs that native workers just don't want to do. - You won't see big multinationals cueing up to stop immigration.

Furthermore immigrants tend to be of working age. Therefore they tend to contribute more tax than receive in benefits. Without immigration US demographics would have a larger % of dependent old people.

Fears that immigrants threaten American workers are mostly misplaced. Just as working women haven't deprived men of jobs, immigrants create jobs as well as filling them--both when they spend their wages and in complementary lines of work. Mexican construction workers, for instance, create jobs for Americans selling building materials, as well as spending their wages at Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people ).

Nor do immigrants depress wages, since they rarely compete directly with native-born Americans for jobs. On the contrary, their efforts often complement one another. A foreign nanny may enable an American doctor to return to work more quickly after childbirth, where hardworking foreign nurses and cleaners enhance her productivity. Research by Gianmarco Ottaviano of Bologna University and UC, Davis' Giovanni Peri found that the influx of foreign workers between 1990 and 2004 raised native-born Americans' wages by 2%. Only one in ten--high school dropouts--lost slightly, by 1%. All Americans benefited from higher capital returns, cheaper goods and services and faster productivity growth.

Immigrant diversity and dynamism stimulates new ideas and businesses. Migrants are a self-selected minority who tend to be young, hardworking and enterprising. Like starting a new business, migrating is risky, and hard work is needed to make it pay off. Immigrants are 30% more likely than native-born Americans to start their own business.

That number would surely be higher if we legitimized their status. People who lack formal property and business rights can't get a bank loan to start a business or ink legally enforceable contracts. Legalizing them would unleash their entrepreneurial energies and swell tax revenues.

Exceptional individuals who generate brilliant new ideas are often migrants. Instead of following conventional wisdom, they tend to see things differently, and as outsiders they are more determined to succeed. Nearly a quarter of America's Nobel laureates were born abroad. Nearly half of Silicon Valley's venture capital-funded startups were cofounded by immigrants. No one could have guessed when he arrived at age 6 as a refugee from the Soviet Union that Sergey Brin would go on to cofound Google ( GOOG - news - people ). How many potential Brins does America turn away--and at what cost?

Immigration limits not only make us less safe by encouraging people to not get background and medical checks, but are impossible to expect immigrants to follow:

http://images.forbes.com/media/2010/06/09/0609_how-long-citizen-chart.jpg

As you can see, no 30 year old Mexican with a H.S. diploma, and a U.S. citizen sister already in the U.S. , is going to wait an estimated average wait time of 131 years. It's untrue to say "they need to just wait in line like everyone else", as most of these quotas and restrictions on immigration were not in effect when our ancestors came, and if they were, many would of came anyway (as in the people fleeing fascism or famine). We create criminals with the law, not the other way around. We are trying to fight free market forces in the exchange of labor and goods (the cardinal rule in free market economics), and expecting that it will remain enforcable. I won't even go into the ethical and moral implications. Natural law is a great argument here, but that's for another time.

The fact is, there has never been a negative correlation between native poverty and unemployment rates and immigration levels. At times, there has been a positive correlation. This means immigrants can be a net benefit to a society, both in terms of employment levels and wage rates for natives, but they cannot be a drag on either. Like all other free exchange, this creates more activity in the economy, not less.

7. You can't have open borders in a welfare state

Many worry that if America opened its borders now, millions would come, the welfare burden would be unsustainable and society would collapse. Yet such fears are misplaced. Most people don't want to leave home at all, let alone forever. Since 2004 three rich European countries--Britain, Ireland, and Sweden--have allowed people in eight poor eastern European countries (notably Poland) to come work there freely. All 75 million of those eastern Europeans could have moved, yet only 1 million did--and half have already gone home.

The belief that free migration is incompatible with a welfare state--asserted by Milton Friedman and recently echoed by Paul Krugman--is also incorrect. When in 2004 Poles were given the option of moving to Sweden--which has the most generous welfare state on earth--or to Britain and Ireland, which denied Poles access to any benefits until they had worked for a year, less than 1% opted for Sweden. America, too, could deny immigrants access to welfare initially.

Opening up to eastern Europeans gave Britain a big boost. Growth soared. Unemployment fell. Wages continued to rise. Newcomers paid much more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services. After the global financial crisis plunged the economy into recession, many Poles went home rather than remain unemployed in Britain. Considering that Sweden is as rich as the U.S. and that Romania is poorer than Mexico, if open borders can work within the European Union, they can work in North America.

Allowing people to move freely is not just a matter of economic self-interest. It is also a moral imperative: Freedom of movement is a basic human right that should not be denied to people less fortunate than ourselves.

In February 2011, Reason Foundation senior policy analyst Shikha Dalmia spoke at the International Students For Liberty Conference about immigration.

Calling for open borders, Dalmia argues that immigrants create more wealth than they consume and that an increasingly globalized economy inevitably means that people, like goods and services, will be crossing borders in growing numbers. While nativists and protectionists may view such developments with alarm, allowing people to move more freely is a great advance both for human rights and economic progress.

In this video, she also addresses several mini-fallacies being spread by "libertarians" who call for closed borders (among other statist policies), like Hans Hermann Hoppe.

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/shikha-dalmia-gives-lecture-on

11. Hamilton was an economic genius and was just great

Another myth is that the financial genius and economic statesmanship of Alexander Hamilton saved the credit of the infant United States and established the sound financial and economic foundation essential for future growth and prosperity. Ron Chernow's hagiographic biography of Hamilton is now moving up the best seller charts, cluttering the display tables of Borders and Barnes & Noble, and taking up time on C-Span's Booknotes; but its greatest contribution will be to perpetuate the Hamilton myth for another generation.

Sumner's concise and devastating biography of that vainglorious popinjay, written over a hundred years ago, remains the best. He closely studied Hamilton's letters and writings, including the big three - his Report on the Public Credit (1790), Report on a National Bank (1790), and Report on Manufactures (1791) - and came to three conclusions: first, the New Yorker had never read Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), the most important economic treatise written in the Anglo-American world in that period; second, he was a mercantilist, who would have been quite at home serving in the ministry of Sir Robert Walpole or Lord North; and third, Hamilton believed many things that are not true - that federal bonds were a form of capital; that a national debt was a national blessing; that the existence of banks increased the capital of the country; that foreign trade drained a country of its wealth, unless it resulted in a trade surplus; and that higher taxes were a spur to industry and necessary because Americans were lazy and enjoyed too much leisure.

The idea here was that if you taxed Americans more, they would have to work harder to maintain their standard of living, thus increasing the gross product of the country and providing the government with more revenue to spend on grand projects and military adventures. Hamilton was once stoned by a crowd of angry New York mechanics. Is it any wonder why?

ProIndividual

06-08-2011, 10:21 AM

PART 2:

15. The economic pie is finite, and when one person wins, another must necessarily lose

This usually comes from folks who learn economics from the movie "Wall Street".

The fact is, as I've demonstrated throughout this blog, wages grow due to: a) task maximization due to technological advances, competition with low paid labor, and competition in the global economy, b) which are caused by accumulations of capital in the hands of wealthy producers, c) that lead to said task maximizing strategies causing productivity to rise, and d) creating profits and causing them to rise, and therefore the amount of money that can be negotiated for wages. The fact is, the pie always continues to grow as long as we can task maximize.

The most simple way to do this has been to grow the population. I mean which army can do more, the army of 3, or 3,000? Obviously building that base will go way faster with 3,000 soldiers, whether it's a base for 3 or the 3,000. After population, there is equality under the law. Notice how most third world countries don't let women work or own property of any real equity to males? When you keep half the population forcably unemployed you get half the possible economy for your population...which apparently means cave-living and a steady diet of bad food in insufficient quantities. And no education, I forgot that part. Because that's the next method of task maximization. If I teach you my job, I can do other stuff, and we can adapt more quickly to shocks like a wave of illness causing usual specialists to be absent, or retractions in the economy.

So, without going on and on regarding all the different ways mankind task maximizes, let me just say, all of it is wholly dependent on wealth accumulation in a few hands. Who would pay the soldiers in my example? Some government, corporation, union, or church (or some other institution), take your pick. No matter what, in order to task maximize, wealth must accumulate in sufficient levels to allow longterm investment in things like technology, new labor sources (that can bear drawbacks and risks), and relocation to better fit into the specialization of Division of Labor. As the tasks maximize, the economy grows, and the pie expands.

The predicatble path of this process should be the poor recieving a smaller and smaller fraction of the total pie in play at any given moment, but with overall real wages rising, therefore raising their standard of living far exceeding inflation. Since decimals are infinite (on a number line for the visual reader), then this process can continue infintely (which I do not necessarily believe would happen, especially in a truely free market where remaining mercantilist state supported coercions on power and capital erode and die). But even if this process continued infinitely, the poor would be better off generation to generation in all respects, even as the gap between rich and poor (poverty being something that would be largely a matter of perspective instead of need) continues to grow.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4bbcb17c7f8b9a6218b70000-547-/look-at-the-wealth-gap-grow.jpg

http://lobbyingcongress.org/images/charts/U.S.%20Real%20GDP.png

So the economic pie is certainly not finite.

I think between this and the last couple fallacies, you should see several very important facts:

- You can receive a smaller and smaller piece (%) of the total pie, and at the same time recieve a larger and larger piece ($) each time, because the pie continuously grows, and is not finite.

- Unions are not corollary or causal to wage rates, real wages, household income, total compensation, or national income share.

- Productivity is corollary to wage rates, real wages, household income, total compensation, and national income share. Except for national income share, productivity is also causal to those things. In the case of national income share, it's causal (currently) to productivity.

- Wage rates, real wages, household income,and total compensation are negatively correlated to national income share (when income share goes down, compensation rises), by way of productivity (productivity leads to higher wages, etc., but productivity is caused by wealth accumulation leading to technological advances, etc., which is corrolary to national share of income via the wealth gap increasing).

- Unions do not improve the situation of the middle class in terms of any form of compensation listed, unless it is at the expense of some other middle class or lower class worker. This is evident from the graphs, that the top 1% continues to accumulate capital, and the middle class' and lower class' share continues to decline (it shows the bottom 80% on the one graph). So, if the income share continued to rise for the top 1% of earners with or without unions being a major aspect of the workforce (depending on the time frame), then obviously the income share the middle class is seeking to hold onto is rightfully the poor's. The lower class and middle class mostly share the same "slice of pie", as it were. The whole system depends on increasing standards of living, which depends on ever increasing productivity, which relies on ever increasing amounts of capital accumulation...so it's no suprise the rich aren't losing any momentum (and thank God, because if they did, the whole thing begins to erode). Since the top 1% NEED to continue increasing their share, that leaves the other two "classes" to fight over the constantly diminishing share (keeping in mind, their compensation and standard of living are continuously rising, and it's because of this widening wealth gap in the national income shares). So, unions can only raise wages artifically above the market value, causing more unemployment for equal or lesser wage workers, and therefore grabbing income share away from those same people. It's become my opinion, unions should never be allowed to collectively bargain on compensation...workers shouldn't all be paid the same wage either, some are more productive than others, and profit motive is enough to cause individual task maximization by workers on it's own, and eroding that inequity of pay but fairness of competition you end up rewarding the lazy to mediocre, and punishing the hard working. You do not have to be paid by wages, persay, however, you can be paid by any means, like percentage for example. The flexibility is important.

I'm not sure if unions have a causal relationship with safety...and after the research I've done on wages, I wouldn't be suprised either way. If they are not causal to safety in anyway, like standard of living, then I will have no reason to ever support any union again...which is mind blowing for me, as I have been a member of several unions. Admittedly, if I wouldn't have researched this stuff myself, I would never have believed it. That's how strong these economic fallacies are in regards to unions.

16. There is a war on the middle class

There is no war on the middle class. If I haven't given enough evidence of that thus far, then please watch this video:

To hear the Lou Dobbses and Bill O'Reillys of the world--not to mention politicians ranging from Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton--the middle class of America (however you define that term) has never had it so tough. Between credit squeezes, out-of-control immigration, rising costs of education and health care and everything else, it's all darkness out there for those of us who are neither millionaires nor welfare cases, right?

In "Living Large," Drew Carey and reason.tv examine the plight of the American middle class. What do they find? Click on the link below to find out.

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/living-large

17. We need government to provide roads, police, and firemen...not to mention help the poor

Privatization or public-private partnerships can more efficiently handle all four of these services. First, let's examine roads.

When you buy a gallon of gas at the national average of $4 per gallon, $1 of that is tax (federal,state, and local combined). That $1 not only covers your local contractors profit, employees wages, and road maintenance/construction, but it also covers a bereaucrat's salary and benefits (including the coverage of his family).

Now, imagine you pay no such tax. Imagine you also are sitting at a gas station. You get one gallon of gas for $3, and pull out onto a private road which requires tolls. At the toll booth, you pay 85 cents for your daily round trip usage, and keep the other 15 cents. The 15 cents savings was the bereaucrat's salary and benefits.

Or you could imagine paying a monthly fee that amounts to 85 cents a gallon. Maybe being taxed (I'm hoping we can avoid this), and then using private-public partnerships to transition into a privatized system. Universal coverage can be achieved by basing amount due in payment for us, if any, on income ratings. Or you can just see the obvious...no one without the $4 drives now, so we aren't pricing anyone out of the driving market by cutting their total expense 15 cents.

Police and fire are very similar. For most of our nation's history we didn't have centralized police. The idea we need to have a monopoly on policing is absurd. Private security should be able to compete with current government police services for public-private contracts, at the very least. If not that, then fully privatize it to allow bad and violent police forces to be hired and fired by their communities. We all know police are NOT receptive to criticism or complaints. They have a horrible record of "customer relations". Although they have gotten better in the age of cameras, they still kill people every other day and never face any real standard of the law that can be called equal, by any stretch of the imagination. The ability to just compete for tax dollars, or private dollars, would not mean the poor would recieve no police service. Again, universal coverage is possible in a free market model. Even if you don't do it as I explained, there are several other ways. One is allowing insurance companies to hire and fire police as a side effect of trying to keep insurance payouts for crime victimization low, another is to include the costs of all dealings in the justice system into the penalties assesed to the violators, and unpaid penalties acrue on the costs of subsequent criminals, making it increasingly unprofitable to be a career criminal.

Either way, police and fire require no monopoly on force to exist, and they do not need to be necessarily run or funded by the government.

As for the poor...

...in the greatest influxes of immigration to this country we saw the largest poverty problems. Yet, no mass starvation or homelessness (overall). True, there were horror stories, but wages continued to rise, and standards of living continued to drive down poverty despite the issues. Why did those poverty stricken immigrants make such a "good go of it"? Was it welfare? Entitlements?

No. Those who fled Italy pre and post fascism, and the Irish immigration fleeing the Great Potato Famine, did not have a welfare or entitlement system to depend on. So how did they make it?

Mutual aid societies.

Unfortunately private welfare is now illegal for the most part. It was deemed racist, and in many cases I agree. However, a monopoly on welfare is not necessary in order to stop racist business practices. You could base the membership of a mutual aid society on geographics, or anything besides race, and it would largely be as beneficial. Not only would charity driven or profit driven welfare be more efficient, it would be less likely to okay welfare for those abusing the system. The beauty of decentralized welfare was the ability to sniff out and police fraud more effectively. It's much easier to sucker a nation of millions for welfare than a group of a dozen.

There's also an issue with taxation. Taxing the poor and lower middle class (those right above the poverty line) CREATES or EXACERBATES poverty. They wouldn't be in poverty at all, or for as long, or as far, if you didn't tax them at all. You might think this a great argument for a progressive tax rate, but in actuality it's an argument for not taxing people into poverty, and then claiming to solve poverty with their money. Stop taxing anyone lower middle class or worse off, and you will essentially lessen the poverty problem.

With the combination of not taxing the poor and allowing mutual aid societies (not race based) one can eliminate the "need" for government welfare.

I hope you can see, police, firemen, roads, and welfare can be better supplied by the private market, existing without a monopoly.

19. You must give to charity, or pay taxes, or you are not a benefit to society

Creating jobs for others is a huge benefit. In fact, charity is less efficient than profit driven pursuits, and government is less effecient than charity. This means profit seeking leads to the employment of others, and in doing so you spend capital more efficiently than if you just gave it away to a charity.

The best way to help the poor is to save the money you were going to give them, and instead employ them.

"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."--- old proverb

Now, I'm not against charity, and I do think it's necessary, as some problems (like rare diseases) have little market value in solving, and require immediate capital to help. Also, emergencies are more likely to require charity than long standing issues.

But all in all, you do not have to pay taxes or give to charity to benefit society. Society is lucky to have whatever you are willing to contribute of your own free will and spirit.

20. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer

As I've demonstrated, we all get richer. The fact the ratio of richness isn't egalitarian isn't evidence of failure, it's an observation of a mechanism. In order for us all to get collectively wealthier, the top percentage of us needs to accumulate large amount of capital. So, as I showed previously in this blog, we all get richer even as the gap between rich and poor grows, and this is completely sustainable.

(And lastly, but please, before you give any cooky hypothetical situation whre "this doesn't work", read about externalities, and make sure what you are describing is not an externslity!)

21. Externalities force our hand in interfering in the markets to achieve efficiency

This one fallacy took me a whole separate, two-part, blog to cover. Read that debunk here:

The Externality Fallacy: The Failure of the Statist Economic Case (Part I)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41342

The Externality Fallacy: The Failure of the Statist Economic Case (Part II)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41344

Sources: me, bing (search engine), http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/03/7-common-economic-fallacies.html

http://100777.com/node/906

The above link was originally posted at Mises.org, but I had issues viewing that copy so linked the alternative.

Also sourced, various Wikipedia articles. Almost anything not in bold print is copied and pasted. (in the original copy, go to the links to see what I wrote, what others wrote)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/special-report-immigration-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in_2.html

http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/03/7-common-economic-fallacies.html

http://www.reason.tv/

originally posted at Mises.org:

http://100777.com/node/906

libertygrl

06-08-2011, 10:26 AM

Yeah, because you have so many other great options to pick from the deep pool of sociopaths! :P
You got that right. I may not agree with him on illegal immigration but I would still vote for him in a heartbeat.

AuH20

06-08-2011, 10:58 AM

Essentially, he believes that since most of the immigrants coming here are Mestizo, they're incapable of living in a society envisioned by white Europeans.

What he means by "what makes cultures successful," is what he percieves to be a high IQ northern European society.

He doesn't say it explicitly, but it seems that is what he is implying.

As a non-Mestizo Hispanic (Criollo), primarily of mixed Northern and Southern European stock, I don't think he is being very charitable to the Mestizo Mexicans.

I live with many of them here in South Florida, sure, they have their flaws, many are unassimilated.

I went to school with many of their children, they were very assimilated (mainly first gens), some were dumb as a rock, many were average, quite a few of them were brilliant though.

I'm not saying they're all going to be rocket scientists, but they are capable living in a first world country, going to a trade school or a college, getting a job, and maintaining a first world lifestyle.

Here in South Florida many of the doctors are hispanic, and most of my teachers in High School were Hispanic, with a few blacks, and a Jew.

I can take you to places in Central Florida that look like Eastern Europe under the Soviet hegemony, and let's not mention the blacks.

Most Hispanics have not been here over a generation. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics I know are either the first of their family born on US soil or were born in their home countries and were brought here for a shot at life.

Foreign born Hispanics, are probably not going to accomplish much, their children will probably attend college or accomplish more than their parents did.

Once you have second generation Hispanics, they're probably going to be very assimilated and will live amongst whites, based on numerous observations.

The big mistake that guys like AuH20 make is that they compare Hispanics to the blacks, which is dubious (well, the exception being some Puerto ricans).

You're certainly close on my classification. But let me explain further. I am very much a cultural elitist as opposed to a race warrior. I certainly don't believe that White Caucasians have a monopoly on the truth. Let me also clarify that I'm not against other ethnicities emigrating into the United States but I feel strongly about first laying down parameters for their integration into our decaying American experiment.

Citizenship has to be imbued with some type of critical core incentives as well as prime responsibilities, as opposed to material and service comforts being doled indiscriminately to anyone. Aristotle touched on this key point with his treatise on civic virtue being the hallmark for a thriving and fair society. Ultimately, that's where I want to bring these hispanics but there are many opposing forces which thwart this arduous transformation. Poverty and lack of education is one. The close proximity of their respective homelands is another stumbling block which dulls the Americanization process (when I use this term I not necessarily referring to the superficial consumer-based culture which has been packaged abroad. I'm referring to founding ideals) since there is less external pressure to take the "plunge" so to speak. The pervasive "clan-by-blood" mindset being pushed by the deceitful powers-at-be is another obstacle which is sidetracking the assimilation mindset. Perhaps, 70 years ago, with certain underlying social pressures and a more truthful educational system, we could successfully bring in and guide these waves of desperate people in the proper direction, but today that goal appears foolhardy.

ProIndividual

06-08-2011, 11:46 AM

Aristotle touched on...

Yep, and Plato and Aristotle were statists. They believed in the "Utopian State"! And that was AFTER Plato's teacher and mentor Socrates was executed by the State! These geniuses decided the answer to the coercive State, and the social contract that murdered their mentor for freedom of speech, was to have a "Utopian State", a total conflict of terms.

I much prefer the philosophy of other Socractic students, the ones your State schools ignore completely, like Antithenes, Diogenes of Sinope, the subsequent Cynics and Stoics (including Jesus of Nazareth, who lived a days walk from Gadara, the Cynical capital of the Middle East; he also lived a Cyncical lifestyle of self-indiuced austerity), like Zeno of Citium, Hipparchia, etc., and the Eastern philosophers like Lao Zi (or Lao Tzu). They said things like "there has never been such a thing as governing man well, there had been such a thing as leaving man alone."

"Utopian State"-ers are your heroes and who your reference for the "correct" way to monopolize and turn a country of people into a gang turf of coercion. Good job. It's all rationale for interfering in the markets, the demand and supply of cheap immigrant labor...not very free market capitalist AT ALL. Really collectivist though...

dannno

06-08-2011, 11:51 AM

Williamson describes Paul, noted Libertarian and “godfather” of the Tea Party movement, as “until recently something of an immigration hawk — no amnesty, no birthright citizenship, no welfare benefits.”

I don't see that as being an immigration hawk.. an immigration hawk is someone who wants to build a fence around the border, militarize the border AND MORE IMPORTANTLY wants to actively setup a program to deport the people who are here and have been here and working hard for many years.

ProIndividual

06-08-2011, 11:57 AM

I'm chomping at the bit for one of these anti-"illegal" immigration guys to TRY and debate the facts and data. TRY and re-prove the fallacies I and others debunked above...please...because in doing so, you won't be able to avoid educating yourself.

Billy Dalton staggered on the sidewalk someone said he stumbled and he fell
Six squad cars came screamin' to the rescue hauled old Billy Dalton off to jail
Cause the law is for protection of the people rules're rules and any fool can see
We don't need no drunks like Billy Dalton scaring decent folks like you and me no siree
Homar Lee was nothing but a hippie walkin' through this world without a care
Then one day six strapping brave policemen held down Homar Lee and cut his hair
Cause the law is for protection of the people rules're rules and any fool can see
We don't need no hairy headed hippies scaring decent folks like you and me no siree
Oh so thank your lucky stars we've got protection
Walk the line and never mind the cost
And no wonder who them lawmen were protecting
When they nailed the Saviour to the cross
Cause the law is for protection of the people rules're rules and any fool can see
We don't need no riddle speaking prophets
Scaring decent folks like you and me no siree

TheDrakeMan

06-11-2011, 11:54 AM

Southron

06-11-2011, 01:05 PM

There is very little benefit to those directly competing with illegals for work.

I am all for halting immigration and stricter policy when issuing Visas.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-18-2011, 12:08 PM

+++REP

Finally someone besides myself tells it like it is. Thank you brother for stating the obvious (to a few of us at least).

We're not few, pal, there are MILLIONS of us who believe in the idea of people joining hands to form a country on principles that we mutually agree upon but I find it very funny that so many people on this forum talk about all kinds of conspiracies (even that likely don't exist :)) but still nobody would dare point out that the whole reason the media & the elite are pushing multi-culturalism, multi-racialism & multi-whatnot everywhere because they want to "merge" all the people in the world & create a world without cultural, racial, ethnic & political identities because that'd be the best environment to bring in the global government. Flooding America with foreigners be it Mexicans or Canadians is obviously being done with an eye on merging the national identities so that North American Union which is already blatently in the works as Ron has pointed out before becomes politically palatable. Once you have open borders & allow the country to be flooded by millions of foreigners in the name of libertarianism, be it illegally or on work-visas, sooner or later, it'll become extremely politically palatable to offer citizenships because that guarantees millions of votes for the party that initiates it for many future elections to come & anyone opposing it would be called "racist" & shoved aside & obviously as the demographic transition occurs, North American Union becomes more & more palatable & we get closer & closer to one-world-government until it eventually materializes.

newyearsrevolution08

06-18-2011, 12:21 PM

Ron Paul needs to clarify his views on immigration before I can vote for him.

Ron Paul has kept the same track record pretty much his entire voting life and I believe his entire political life. I think YOU need to do a bit more research on Ron Paul before assuming anything.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-18-2011, 12:21 PM

I'm still anti-illegal & legal immigration. Really, I would like to know how the economic benefits of allowing third & second-worlders into our nation outweigh the cultural, criminal, religious drawbacks. All throughout the Western world, immigrants coming from vast 'diverse' backgrounds have been committing a disproportionate amount of crime in their new nations. It was discovered recently in Oslo, Norway that every rape & murder of the past five years in their city was committed by an immigrant from Africa or the Middle East. See here: youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&feature=player_embedded#at=25 Should we really base our immigration policy lazily on the non-existent Non-aggression principle? Or should we take into account that accepting everyone whose anyone into our nations so they could work for $2 dollars an hour may not be the best idea in the world? We are, after all, entering into an age of mechanization. Perhaps these minimum wage low-paying jobs won't even need humans in the not-so-distant future.

These concerns are unfounded, such concerns were even raised by Marx & communists to grab power but none of that is true. For example, people previously working in agriculture weren't needed after machines came along, it was bad for those individuals AT THAT MOMENT but eventually people moved on to other jobs & now we've less people working in agriculture & more on other goods/services which enrich our living standards which wouldn't have existed had people resisted mechanization of agriculture & allied activities. There'll always be jobs for humans, even machines have to be made & run & maintained; as long as we keep the government small & keep it's power restricted & cherish our rights to our life, liberty & property then we needn't worry.

ProIndividual

06-19-2011, 09:08 AM

I see a alot of responses to what I said, but NOT ONE disputes the data I presented. Immigration spurs on the economy, not shrinks it. Immigration is the result of a free market labor force, i. e., the total of immigration is the total needed by the labor market to fill positions.

When ONE of you finds data that shows that immigrants are a net LOSS to the economy, then you will have some intelligent point about immigration....until then you just support dogmatically a bunch of economic fallacies and nonsense that liberals also tend to believe in (socialists are not for open borders or free trade, they are for quota immigration and restrictive "fair" trade).

And please, look at what I presented first, to keep from putting up nonsense I already showed you that has been debunked, like the works of fake libertarians like Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Have a nice day xenophobic statists posing as pro-American liberty lovers. :)

(And for the dude who said "I'd like to see evidence immigration is good the economy"; I'm parapharasing...please LOOK at what I provided you dogmatist loon.)

You anti-immigration people are anti-free market capitalist...you want mercantilism/Keynesianism where it fits YOU. Look up and read EVERY real free market capitalist in history; Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Frederic Bastiat, von Mises, Carl Menger, all the way up to today's Don Boudreaux and Robert Murphy. NONE of them call for any restrictions on immigration. Free market capitalism is for open borders...

...so either stop thinking YOU are free market capitalists, or start supporting what it REALLY means.

I do not think I need to repost all the economic fallacies I did earlier in this post, to show how ignorant you are about economic REALITIES. I will however repost the two main fallacies you people believe:

6. Immigration causes unemployment or lower wages for natives

Immigrants increase the supply of labour but they also increase Aggregate Demand in the Economy. This means that they buy more goods and create additional demand in the economy. They provide labour supply and increase labour demand.

If immigration caused unemployment why did America not have high unemployment during times of mass immigration? Because the immigrants created as many jobs as they took.

Often immigrants take jobs that native workers just don't want to do. - You won't see big multinationals cueing up to stop immigration.

Furthermore immigrants tend to be of working age. Therefore they tend to contribute more tax than receive in benefits. Without immigration US demographics would have a larger % of dependent old people.

Fears that immigrants threaten American workers are mostly misplaced. Just as working women haven't deprived men of jobs, immigrants create jobs as well as filling them--both when they spend their wages and in complementary lines of work. Mexican construction workers, for instance, create jobs for Americans selling building materials, as well as spending their wages at Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people ).

Nor do immigrants depress wages, since they rarely compete directly with native-born Americans for jobs. On the contrary, their efforts often complement one another. A foreign nanny may enable an American doctor to return to work more quickly after childbirth, where hardworking foreign nurses and cleaners enhance her productivity. Research by Gianmarco Ottaviano of Bologna University and UC, Davis' Giovanni Peri found that the influx of foreign workers between 1990 and 2004 raised native-born Americans' wages by 2%. Only one in ten--high school dropouts--lost slightly, by 1%. All Americans benefited from higher capital returns, cheaper goods and services and faster productivity growth.

Immigrant diversity and dynamism stimulates new ideas and businesses. Migrants are a self-selected minority who tend to be young, hardworking and enterprising. Like starting a new business, migrating is risky, and hard work is needed to make it pay off. Immigrants are 30% more likely than native-born Americans to start their own business.

That number would surely be higher if we legitimized their status. People who lack formal property and business rights can't get a bank loan to start a business or ink legally enforceable contracts. Legalizing them would unleash their entrepreneurial energies and swell tax revenues.

Exceptional individuals who generate brilliant new ideas are often migrants. Instead of following conventional wisdom, they tend to see things differently, and as outsiders they are more determined to succeed. Nearly a quarter of America's Nobel laureates were born abroad. Nearly half of Silicon Valley's venture capital-funded startups were cofounded by immigrants. No one could have guessed when he arrived at age 6 as a refugee from the Soviet Union that Sergey Brin would go on to cofound Google ( GOOG - news - people ). How many potential Brins does America turn away--and at what cost?

Immigration limits not only make us less safe by encouraging people to not get background and medical checks, but are impossible to expect immigrants to follow:

http://images.forbes.com/media/2010/06/09/0609_how-long-citizen-chart.jpg

As you can see, no 30 year old Mexican with a H.S. diploma, and a U.S. citizen sister already in the U.S. , is going to wait an estimated average wait time of 131 years. It's untrue to say "they need to just wait in line like everyone else", as most of these quotas and restrictions on immigration were not in effect when our ancestors came, and if they were, many would of came anyway (as in the people fleeing fascism or famine). We create criminals with the law, not the other way around. We are trying to fight free market forces in the exchange of labor and goods (the cardinal rule in free market economics), and expecting that it will remain enforcable. I won't even go into the ethical and moral implications. Natural law is a great argument here, but that's for another time.

The fact is, there has never been a negative correlation between native poverty and unemployment rates and immigration levels. At times, there has been a positive correlation. This means immigrants can be a net benefit to a society, both in terms of employment levels and wage rates for natives, but they cannot be a drag on either. Like all other free exchange, this creates more activity in the economy, not less.

7. You can't have open borders in a welfare state

Many worry that if America opened its borders now, millions would come, the welfare burden would be unsustainable and society would collapse. Yet such fears are misplaced. Most people don't want to leave home at all, let alone forever. Since 2004 three rich European countries--Britain, Ireland, and Sweden--have allowed people in eight poor eastern European countries (notably Poland) to come work there freely. All 75 million of those eastern Europeans could have moved, yet only 1 million did--and half have already gone home.

The belief that free migration is incompatible with a welfare state--asserted by Milton Friedman and recently echoed by Paul Krugman--is also incorrect. When in 2004 Poles were given the option of moving to Sweden--which has the most generous welfare state on earth--or to Britain and Ireland, which denied Poles access to any benefits until they had worked for a year, less than 1% opted for Sweden. America, too, could deny immigrants access to welfare initially.

Opening up to eastern Europeans gave Britain a big boost. Growth soared. Unemployment fell. Wages continued to rise. Newcomers paid much more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services. After the global financial crisis plunged the economy into recession, many Poles went home rather than remain unemployed in Britain. Considering that Sweden is as rich as the U.S. and that Romania is poorer than Mexico, if open borders can work within the European Union, they can work in North America.

Allowing people to move freely is not just a matter of economic self-interest. It is also a moral imperative: Freedom of movement is a basic human right that should not be denied to people less fortunate than ourselves. (unless you think rights are granted by government, not God, and therefore are subject to border, which violates individual sovereignty...which would be a statist stand)

In February 2011, Reason Foundation senior policy analyst Shikha Dalmia spoke at the International Students For Liberty Conference about immigration.

Calling for open borders, Dalmia argues that immigrants create more wealth than they consume and that an increasingly globalized economy inevitably means that people, like goods and services, will be crossing borders in growing numbers. While nativists and protectionists may view such developments with alarm, allowing people to move more freely is a great advance both for human rights and economic progress.

In this video, she also addresses several mini-fallacies being spread by "libertarians" who call for closed borders (among other statist policies), like Hans Hermann Hoppe.

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/shik...ves-lecture-on

Please, start being patriots, stop being nationalists without an economic factual leg to stand on...please!

Paul Or Nothing II

06-20-2011, 06:30 AM

Look, no one's interested in your speculative essays, get over it; there's a world BEYOND economics (not to say that your Keynesian economic arguments hold any water), economic considerations aren't the be all & end all.

As I've said before, if one believes in freedom then one MUST recognize that different people have a different view on "rights" based on their perceived self-interests & neither "nature" nor "god" has defined "rights", & that for example, neither communists nor libertarians can say that THEIR VERSION of "rights" is more correct, so the best way to deal with this is to let followers of each ideology separate & govern themselves the way they see fit rather than authoritatively trying to shove any particular version of "rights" down everyone's throats. So you need to realize that there are a lot of people who believe in national sovereignty (unlike you) so they'll object to your globalist "right to open-borders" view which results in obliteration of national boundaries & national identities pushing us towards one-world-government.

If you're going to be authoritative & say that YOUR VERSION of "rights" is correct & everyone must agree with it then you're just an authoritarian wanting to impose yourself on others. You just can't argue that people have a "right" to cross national boundaries at will just because YOU think they do.

And as I've explained in my earlier post, erasing national boundaries like that is a sureshot way of moving closer & closer to one-world-government that the global plutocrats would yearn for but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to limited numbers of work-visas being issued as per the labor-needs of the country.

ProIndividual

06-20-2011, 01:30 PM

Again, FAIL.

You didn't dispute anything that was factual. I presented accepted facts, you give me BS. I win. Please educate yourself, stop being a nationalist boob.

And I made ZERO Keynesian arguments...you are making those arguments loon...read free market capitalist economists...lol.

Natural rights is a worldwide view, as natural law is the law we judge all laws by, no matter the nation. Your liberal idea that rights are viewed and defined differently is because you believe that made-up positive rights can be rights...there is only one law, "do no harm", this is natural law. From natural law you get your natural rights, i. e., what MAY NOT be done to you, what you DO NOT have to do to yourself, and what you MAY NOT do to others...these are called negative rights also (notice the negatives "NOT"). There are no positive rights that can be opinion, liberals like you make that up. There are only God given, or innate to humanity, rights; the rights to be left alone, not be invaded, not be aggressed against.

You never read anything about rights in your life, this is obvious.

Start with what our country was founded on...natural law theory, natural rights, and natural justice. Then, you follow this philosophical basis, my statist friend, and see why the Constitutional civil rights in the Constitution are all NOTs. What the government may NOT do, you do NOT have to do to yourself, what others may NOT do to you, and what the feds may NOT do to states. As you'll see (if you bother, dogmatist), you want to DO something against someone's natural right to movement...therefore you MUST show they have aggressed, or you are simply a TYRANT.

You want positive law, and positive rights, just like liberals do...just on different issues. Wake up statist nationalist...this conflicts with natural law, natural rights, natural justice, the entire Enlightenment, and everything our country was historically founded on. Save your culture warrior BS for your O'Reilly Factor Fan Club, I've heard it all before. Just try to READ once in a while, and stop fearing other languages, cultures, etc.

Your pathetic excuses reveal a bit of a mental issue...whether that's xenophobia, racism, nationalism, or just statism, I do not know. But for sure, you have some liberal tendancies, in the sense you advocate for economic suicide just because you fear they see rights differently.

AND, there are no collective rights or sovereignty...saying "sovereign states", or "popular sovereignty" is a misnomer; a shortcut to saying individual sovereignty, and the powers and authorities of institutions with the CONSENT of those sovereign individuals. READ Dr. Thomas E. Woods' book "Nullification". He explains this concept with quotes from the founders, and other proof hard to deny. Watch his speeches, he mentions it in several.

So, end the ability for us to vote on every damn issue (if you fear what ideas immigrants harbor), like you should in a Republic (it's not a democaracy, we vote too much, as voting in the Jeffersonian model was meant to be in self defense, by those affected ONLY). Don't trample individual rights for your "collective rights"...that's liberal, statist, collectivist nonsense.

Say what you want, I'm annihilating you on this issue, clearly.

Plus, you seem to argue my exact stance directly above the comment you are addressing, then turn into a culture warrior in the very next comment you leave...are you confused or what?...lol. (rhetorical question, you're clearly confused...or a collectivist...lol)

I'm not advocating one world government...I'm advocating a free market as defined by EVERY free market capitalist in history...lol. It's hard to have one world government with NO government interference in the markets (the definition of free markets). You are sadly misinformed, and a bit paranoid.

Movement is a right, please READ about natural rights and the founding of our country...stop puking collectivist nationalist talking points...become a patriot.

Ps. I sourced the articles used in the post...it's 100% a copy and paste from Forbes Magazine, you know, STEVE FORBES, the guy who ran for the REPUBLICAN NOMINATION years back. Yeah. He's not exactly for one world government dude...wake up.

And since you admit there is no economic issue, then where is the aggression of the immigrant? How is moving nonviolently aggression? Obviously what you want includes aggression, and government interference in the markets; protectionism, mercantilism, Keynesiansm, nativism, etc., etc...

Please explain the aggression, because you require force to stop them from nonviolently moving...that's not debatable.

Perhaps you don't believe in the non-aggression axiom at all (also called natural law).

ProIndividual

06-20-2011, 02:32 PM

]"let followers of each ideology separate & govern themselves the way they see fit rather than authoritatively trying to shove any particular version of "rights" down everyone's throats."

Without the only law being "do no harm" (you can option into more restrictive laws and social contracts if you CHOOSE, but "move or shut up" is NOT consent of a sovereign), then you can justify rape and murder being "legal" in certain jurisdictions. Rape and murder are tyranny, PERIOD. This isn't opinion. 2-3% of the population are sociopaths, this doesn't mean they get their own state with their own laws, or their own country for that matter. We don't need to appease sociopaths who want murder, rape, and theft legal...we CAN allow social contracts to NOT be monopolized, and therefore allow people to opt into property-less communes, or property-srtrong anarcho capitalist utopias, or anything in between. The trick is CONSENT. You seem to be okay with gangs, and gang turf, including those of sociopaths, running thw world. You seem to be just fine with defining rights anyway anyone wants...that's fine, minus HARM (non-aggression axiom, natural law, the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM standard of ALL LAW WORLDWIDE). But if it includes HARM, like the sociopaths in Iran that rape virgins because their law says no virgin can be executed, they must be raped first, then killed, then this concept is not natural law complient...they are egoist law complient, i. .e "might makes right".

Is that why you advocate for gangs and gang turf? Because you support "might makes right", not "do no harm"? Obviously, the "right to food", or the "right to housing" are not rights under natural law...but you can have them be civil rights in a social contract. BUT that social contract cannot be based on gang turf, or HARM is done...it must be based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

You would allow the same amount of immigrants anyway...as I pointed out, 99% of immigrants come to work, not for welfare or some nefarious culture war. That's why your admission of workers will be the same as my open borders in effect. The idea you think it wouldn't is fallacious. So, we aren't arguing practice, we are arguing philosophy. And you aren't being consistant based upon the quoted statement above. You call my way "auhtoritative(ly)", but you ADVOCATE AUTHORITARIANISM in your very idea. These gangs with gang turf means no matter where in the world you go, the difference of rape and murder being legal is just the whim of the tyrants in power, the feelings of the gang.

Unlike you, I do NOT believe that there is a lack of tyranny in allowing rape and murder, even if the whole world votes you to be executed and cornholed, it's still tyranny. We know it's tyranny, and that your rights have been violated thanks to natural law theory, the non-agression principles. By your logic getting raped and executed in Iran is not tyranny, because it's their gang turf, you shouldn't have been born a virgin there. It's nonsense, and not consistant philosophically.

And again, the same immigrants in practice will be coming, you do NOT want to stop them, according to you. Unless you think fallaciously that tons of immigrants come for the welfare, or some other nativist talking point. So, since the same immigrants will be allowed in anyway (same numbers, people, everything), then why argue about rights?

I mean, if they pass a law to kill all left handed babies, would you think that was a violation of rights? Even if everyone but left handed babies agreed, even their parents, it's still a violation of their rights.

Rights exist...and can only be aggressed against...NOT VOTED INTO, OR OUT OF, EXISTANCE. We know this, because many gangs (States) have deemed murder legal for various reasons throughout history, and always has it been rejected...but why? Because intuitively, even the illiterate who never heard of rights, realizes this popular aggression (like Nazi Germany or USSR) is an unfair aggression against them. What the majority thinks is a "right" is irrelevant, if one is aggressed against. Rights are inalienable, not up for vote, and not transferable.

You can disagree with me if you like, but what would be your reasoning for rejecting the vote of the whole nation against you, in calling for your murder? On what grounds would you label this tyranny? If you have no rights truely, if harm is not the standard, and "might makes right" on gang turf run by gangs with fancy uniforms and flags they brainwash you to hold dearer than your life is the standard, then what would be the basis of your outrage? Without rights, you cannot be outraged...as this fits right in with your quote:

]"let followers of each ideology separate & govern themselves the way they see fit rather than authoritatively trying to shove any particular version of "rights" down everyone's throats."

Non-aggression must be defended by the natural individual right of self defense, and bending to the 2-3% of sociopaths to avoid shoving "do no harm" down their throats is enabling tyranny...end of story. They don't need their own turf to do what they please, they need abide the natural individual rights of man....and when they do not, we must call it what it is...and what it is NOT is freedom or liberty.

I'm not the one spinning tyranny to make it sound like freedom. Your same logic could be applied to states keeping slavery, and being able to secede to keep it...nonsense. First of all, secession wasn't about slavery (not that you asserted that), and more importantly IF states would have seceded and kept slavery, it would NOT have been freedom (although by your view it would be). Why? Because the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of he slaves were still being violated by the GANG and GANG TURF...no CONSENT of the governed. Therefore, since we all admit today the slaves were being screwed by tyrannical slavery, then you should see your idea of utopia fails. I t need not be centralized, and it need not be monopolized by gangs with gang turf.

Notice the Dems are blue (crips), and the Repubs are red (bloods). That's all they are, competing gangs, for the same turf. They monopolize money, social contracts, and the use of force...and then convince YOU that your aren't the sovereign. There is no other sovereign than the individual, there is no other legitimate law than "do no harm". All else is tyranny (unless you CONSENT).

If you have the mental and physical ability to govern yourself, you have the right to govern yourself. Since you have the right to govern yourself, then logically all compulsory external government is tyranny. This is why gangs and turf do not overrule your rights and sovereignty. The individual ALWAYS trumps the collective.

Now, just take your quote to the logical end, that CONSENT in social contracts is required, or GANGS with TURF just shove AUTHORITATIVE laws down the throats of the individual SOVEREIGNS, and you will arrive philosophically where I am. Where your statement rings true, the only place it rings tue, where decentralization leads to liberty, not statism.

It's called decentralizing to the individual.

newyearsrevolution08

06-20-2011, 02:36 PM

Securing borders?

stop giving handouts and allow people to come and go as they please. Its called "TRAVELING" lol....

We don't need to build fences to keep anyone out, we just need to stop giving free aide to everyone and have people make their own way in this country.

ProIndividual

06-20-2011, 02:48 PM

I may be long-winded, but it's only cuz I'm full of WIN.

Southron

06-20-2011, 03:26 PM

I may be long-winded, but it's only cuz I'm full of WIN.

Halt immigration, tighten visa requirements, end birthright citizenship, secure the border, prosecute illegal trespassers, defend border property, make it harder to vote and have a wonderful day.:)

Paul Or Nothing II

06-21-2011, 03:34 AM

Natural rights is a worldwide view

I hope that's a joke; people in different parts of the world have different view on "rights" depending on their perceived self-interests.

Enlightenment era scholars came up with ideas that they saw in their own respective self-interests & called them "natural rights" but that doesn't mean anything; different people have different views so there's no reason for anyone to shove them down everyone's throats, people with similar views should be free to come together & govern themselves as they see fit.

From natural law you get your natural rights, i. e., what MAY NOT be done to you, what you DO NOT have to do to yourself, and what you MAY NOT do to others

And WHO defines these "natural rights"? Does nature speak?

And when a "violation" occurs, who decides & administers "justice"? The "community", right? So, how's that not a collectivist concept? You need to convince others that a wrong was done to you, if you can't then you get no justice & if you've been accused of a crime & if it's proven somehow even though you didn't commit it then you're punished so in that light, it's hardly an "individualist" concept.

As I've said before, your "rights" have no value unless people around you recognize & honor them & that's why different people should be able to govern themselves as they fit according to THEIR VERSION of "rights" that they agree on rather than shoving a so called "universal" concept of "rights" down everyone's throats.

I'm not advocating one world government

Well, whether knowingly or unknowingly you do support it by saying that people from other countries should be able to flood America with open-borders; as I've said, the reason government does nothing about immigration DESPITE "the governed" asking them to do so because flooding of Mexicans & Candadians will lead towards North American Union & later one-world-government.

Obviously, the "right to food", or the "right to housing" are not rights under natural law...but you can have them be civil rights in a social contract.

Oh oh but they've "right to cross national boundaries at will"? lol

The whole concept of having a country/nation is collectivist so if one supports that then one must support that they've right to govern themselves as they see fit.

BUT that social contract cannot be based on gang turf, or HARM is done...it must be based on CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

Right but "the governed" don't want to be flooded by foreigners so government should take steps in that direction.

Securing borders?

stop giving handouts and allow people to come and go as they please. Its called "TRAVELING" lol....

We don't need to build fences to keep anyone out, we just need to stop giving free aide to everyone and have people make their own way in this country.

Yeah and when will the welfare end? Can Ron end it immediately if he became president? How many libertarian-leaning presidents will it take? How long will it take? Or should we wait until enough Mexicans & Canadians flood US & thereby national sovereignty is diluted & North American Union becomes politically inevitable?

Of course, a fence would be too expensive but border vigilante should be allowed to "defend their property" like Ron says; even businesses can be penalized for hiring illegals & a chunk of the penalty can be put up as incentive to notifiers while the rest can be used for deportation & of course, criteria for whatever limited welfare that may be given away under Ron's presidency can be severely strengthened.

I may be long-winded, but it's only cuz I'm full of WIN.

Unilaterally declaring yourself as the "winner" shows childish & undeveloped mind obsessed with ideas & their zealous affirmation; there is no contest going on here for anyone to "win", I've an opinion & so do you but you think you can shove your opinion & your version of "rights" down other people's throats, how authoritarian is that!

Halt immigration, tighten visa requirements, end birthright citizenship, secure the border, prosecute illegal trespassers, defend border property, make it harder to vote and have a wonderful day.:)

+1
Simple & short lol

AlexanderY

06-21-2011, 04:37 AM

Halt immigration, tighten visa requirements, end birthright citizenship, secure the border, prosecute illegal trespassers, defend border property, make it harder to vote and have a wonderful day.:)

THIS.

Ease up on immigration from Western European nations, as a matter of fact, promote it.

I'm "Hispanic" too, but I also realize that many of the immigrants that come here from Mexico are of a different breed and genetic make up than the Average American.

It will be better for the US and the American Hispanic population in the long run.

Given the amount of intermarriage that occurs in Western and Southwestern states between Non-Hispanic Whites and Mestizo Hispanics, it may just have somewhat of a Brazil effect, but with a much better social outcome, while still maintaining a Western Majority.

It sounds "racist," but to any realist, it's not a bad solution to our future "Mestizo problem."

Kade

06-21-2011, 06:52 AM

Paul will win more liberal votes by moving to a more rational position on immigration. I have never heard a good free market argument for strict xenophobic immigration laws.

FrankRep

06-21-2011, 06:59 AM

Paul will win more liberal votes by moving to a more rational position on immigration. I have never heard a good free market argument for strict xenophobic immigration laws.
And lose the Conservative majority? Bad Strategy.

PS: Liberals usually vote Democrat anyway.

Kade

06-21-2011, 08:04 AM

http://i.imgur.com/U0Lf8.jpg

We do?

Cutlerzzz

06-21-2011, 02:35 PM

jmdrake

06-21-2011, 03:07 PM

Open Borders is the preferred model of both Neocons and Globalists. Viva Cheap Labor and Balkanization! If we can't persuade the stubborn natives to go along with our plans, we'll just replace them!

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox Cheering on his compadre Rick Perry:

Sorry, but I don't see the connection between Rick Perry offering university scholarships to Mexican migrants and Gary Johnson wanting to make it easier to get work visas. Not unless work visas = welfare.

jmdrake

06-21-2011, 03:21 PM

It's really sad to see so many people advocate big, coercive government in this thread. Immigration regulations are just a relic from the progressive era, instituted to help unions and encourage eugenics.

The economic arguments against immigration are easily refuted. I would bet money that every person in this thread who is advocating putting stolen money towards border control has had relatives immigrate to this country.

Do some of you think that Americans are entitled to rights that nobody else is?

:rolleyes: Yeah, let's just over simplify the other sides argument and "spin" the conspiracy theories to our own advantage right? The same globalists that are pushing eugenics are pushing various "open border" plans (the North American Union being the most applicable to this thread), so the whole "immigration laws are a eugenics plot" argument is rather flat. The bottom line is that there are good arguments either way. The libertarian "immigration is good for the economy" argument is undermined by the fact that we do not live in a free economy in the first place. Ron Paul's position in 2008 was free the economy by ending the welfare/warfare state and then we can relax border restrictions because the immigration problem will take care of itself. The welfare state does create a magnet of people looking for a handout. It has to. That's no poor reflection on the people. It's a reflection on the magnet. The warfare state means that if we don't do more to control access points into the country then we have to have more controls on the people already here. I wish I had bookmarked the quote, but I remember a general saying years ago that the "Loss of freedom is the price we have to pay for globalism". Well if that's the price then screw globalism! Really I think this debate is nothing but a distraction for the Ron Paul movement. Dealing with the warfare/welfare state is (or should be) top priority. Everything else can take care of itself.

heavenlyboy34

06-21-2011, 03:45 PM

Cutlerzzz

06-21-2011, 04:02 PM

jmdrake

06-21-2011, 04:17 PM

So in short, are you defending theft, coercion, and regulation?

In short I'm defending ending the welfare/warfare state. Are you defending soundbite attack journalism and smear campaigns against Ron Paul? :rolleyes:

AuH20

06-21-2011, 04:32 PM

Cutlerzzz

06-21-2011, 05:28 PM

Do you think citizens can patrol the border or defend their property? There is a reason it's one of the few defined governmental responsibilities. Mainly so the citizens don't get sued to kingdom come or worse, imprisoned.

Deporting illegal immigrants and militarizing the border with stolen property is the antithesis of private property.

In short I'm defending ending the welfare/warfare state. Are you defending soundbite attack journalism and smear campaigns against Ron Paul? No, you're supporting a nationalist state.

If any of you really want border control that badly, then buy the land along the border yourself, and build a fence. Don't put a gun to other people's heads and tell us to pay for it for you.

Live_Free_Or_Die

06-22-2011, 06:00 AM

Do you think citizens can patrol the border or defend their property? There is a reason it's one of the few defined governmental responsibilities. Mainly so the citizens don't get sued to kingdom come or worse, imprisoned.

According to that logic it is perfectly ok for people who choose the increased risks of living next to the ocean to receive socialized flood insurance...

FrankRep

06-22-2011, 06:11 AM

According to that logic it is perfectly ok for people who choose the increased risks of living next to the ocean to receive socialized flood insurance...
Apples, Oranges.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-23-2011, 05:33 AM

:rolleyes: Yeah, let's just over simplify the other sides argument and "spin" the conspiracy theories to our own advantage right? The same globalists that are pushing eugenics are pushing various "open border" plans (the North American Union being the most applicable to this thread), so the whole "immigration laws are a eugenics plot" argument is rather flat. The bottom line is that there are good arguments either way. The libertarian "immigration is good for the economy" argument is undermined by the fact that we do not live in a free economy in the first place. Ron Paul's position in 2008 was free the economy by ending the welfare/warfare state and then we can relax border restrictions because the immigration problem will take care of itself. The welfare state does create a magnet of people looking for a handout. It has to. That's no poor reflection on the people. It's a reflection on the magnet. The warfare state means that if we don't do more to control access points into the country then we have to have more controls on the people already here. I wish I had bookmarked the quote, but I remember a general saying years ago that the "Loss of freedom is the price we have to pay for globalism". Well if that's the price then screw globalism! Really I think this debate is nothing but a distraction for the Ron Paul movement. Dealing with the warfare/welfare state is (or should be) top priority. Everything else can take care of itself.

+1

If foreigners are just allowed to flood the country & national boundaries erased then I'm sure these ultra-libertarians will enjoy the North American Union & then the one-world-government that'll soon follow :rolleyes: The whole purpose of having nations is collectivist ie people setting up & governing their respective nations based on how they see it fit, based on their beliefs & ideas, etc if one doesn't support existence of nations then one is knowingly or unknowingly supports the global government that'll be brought in after the national boundaries & national identities are erased thru "multi-culturalism" that's precisely why MSM & powers-that-be are so devoted to "multi-culturalism".

Ron has already said that it's nationalism which'll thwart plans of one-world-government & nationalism in that sense does NOT mean hating other nations & their people as some people might like to assume but it just means that putting our own nation's sovereignty, its culture, its ideas & its people first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztrwE2-BCI

jmdrake

06-24-2011, 01:02 PM

Deporting illegal immigrants and militarizing the border with stolen property is the antithesis of private property.

No, you're supporting a nationalist state.

No I'm not. And only a complete idiot would say so. The fact is that we already have nationalist/socialist state. Turning into an open border socialist state will not solve the problem. It will simply widen it. It will cause taxes to go up, not down as the "safety net" is strained even further. And with the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" in full swing, even more rights will be taken away from people already living here. Why? Because drugs being illegal creates a market for illegal drugs. And opening the borders up further just means more opportunity to expand that market.

If any of you really want border control that badly, then buy the land along the border yourself, and build a fence. Don't put a gun to other people's heads and tell us to pay for it for you.

When you pull your head out of your rear you may be able to carry on a decent conversation with intelligent people. Ending the welfare/warfare state would cause taxes to go down, not up. Doing that would also cause immigration to naturally go down. Once that happens you can open the borders all you want.

jmdrake

06-24-2011, 01:27 PM

Do some of you think that Americans are entitled to rights that nobody else is?

Oh, and this piece of nonsense deserves to be attacked directly. Of course there are rights that are tied to citizenship. Do you think people in other countries should, for instance, be allowed to vote in U.S. elections? Should I be allowed to vote in British, French or Chinese elections? Do I have the right to go into those countries without permission? Can I carry whatever I want into some other country? Gee, that would make invading another country very easy. Just have your soldiers exercise their right to bear arms and their right to cross borders without even being questioned. Let them move into position and then just take over. Yeah, makes sense. :rolleyes: The truth is that there are some rights that are universal and there are some rights that are tied to responsibilities and relationships.

jmdrake

06-24-2011, 01:29 PM

Great video! Thanks! And yes, you and Ron Paul are right.

+1

If foreigners are just allowed to flood the country & national boundaries erased then I'm sure these ultra-libertarians will enjoy the North American Union & then the one-world-government that'll soon follow :rolleyes: The whole purpose of having nations is collectivist ie people setting up & governing their respective nations based on how they see it fit, based on their beliefs & ideas, etc if one doesn't support existence of nations then one is knowingly or unknowingly supports the global government that'll be brought in after the national boundaries & national identities are erased thru "multi-culturalism" that's precisely why MSM & powers-that-be are so devoted to "multi-culturalism".

Ron has already said that it's nationalism which'll thwart plans of one-world-government & nationalism in that sense does NOT mean hating other nations & their people as some people might like to assume but it just means that putting our own nation's sovereignty, its culture, its ideas & its people first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SztrwE2-BCI

angelatc

06-24-2011, 02:02 PM

I've said this before, and damned if I won't end up saying it a dozen times more...Remove the incentives for people to move here illegally (black market in illicit substances, welfare, free education, etc.), and illegal immigration will cease to be an issue. Let borderlands be privately-owned, and property owners can exercise their own prerogatives over who they allow on their land.

And I've said this before - those changes aren't going to happen in your lifetime. Dismantling the entitlement system entirely will never happen, because a majority of people like it. Yes, it sucks to be us, but that's the cold hard reality.

Plan B is allowing Congress to decide matters of citizenship, like the constitution says.

angelatc

06-24-2011, 02:04 PM

Oh, and this piece of nonsense deserves to be attacked directly. Of course there are rights that are tied to citizenship. Do you think people in other countries should, for instance, be allowed to vote in U.S. elections? Should I be allowed to vote in British, French or Chinese elections? Do I have the right to go into those countries without permission? Can I carry whatever I want into some other country? Gee, that would make invading another country very easy. Just have your soldiers exercise their right to bear arms and their right to cross borders without even being questioned. Let them move into position and then just take over. Yeah, makes sense. :rolleyes: The truth is that there are some rights that are universal and there are some rights that are tied to responsibilities and relationships.

You do understand that the anarchists are only here to advance their own agenda, not further Ron Paul's, right?

ProIndividual

06-25-2011, 01:28 PM

AuH20

06-25-2011, 04:37 PM

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?300180-Criticism-of-Hoppe-s-Immigration-Ideas

Hoppe is wrong, so are all these paelosonservative and neoconservative border hawks. They either suffer from misconceptions of rights, think in terms of hypotheticals in some imagined utopia, or wallow in economic fallacies.

You have no right to discriminate in a Stateless society, and since property is NOT an inalienable right, it's actually alienable, it cannot trump inalienable rights like speech, life, or movement when there is no aggression on the part of the speaker, living, or moving.

It is economically beneficial to allow open but secure borders, and non-quota driven immigratiom. Refusal to do so also causes the expatriation of domestic capital (outsourcing) above market levels.

All attempts to justify homeowner associations or closed borders is rooted in a psychopathy; either nationalism or statism. Either way, it's collectivist, not patriotic. You do NOT have a right to improve your property values (or so you think) with collectivist policies...investment in property is just that, an investment. All investments entail some risk of loss. The immigrant, or the neighbor who won't mow his lawn or paint his house, is not responsible for your drop in property value; you owning it to begin with is at fault. If you worry so much about loss of property value, then rent, PERIOD. Any attempt to curtail their right to property for your collective gain (whether it be a neglectful neighbor or an immigrant) is collectivist tyranny. All land owners or citizens take risks, and you cannot view neighbors and immigrants as obstacles to your maximizing your investments...investments that carry risk of loss to begin with.

And BTW...Ron Paul is furthering the anarchist agenda...so to say we are not here to support him is nonsense. If we donate to Paul, spread the word on Paul, etc., then we support Paul and his agenda...but that doesn't mean the 10% we disagree with isn't valid and worthy of discussion either.

Please read my quickly and badly written critique of Hoppe, and if you still suffer under some economic, rights oriented, or utopia driven hypothetical...then you may well be hopeless and unwilling to hear reason.

Please stop thinking nationalism is good, and somehow the same as patriotism. Please stop thinking any opposition to nationalism is treacherous. If this is what you think, you are sadly mistaken.

Ps. The conflict of voting by citizenship is real...because of the monopolized State social contract, and the fact everyone is competing for the same monopoly on violence...nothing more. Voting is tyranny most of the time, for this reason.

Ps. #2: The Constitution is NOT for limiting individual inalienable rights, it's for limiting and constraining (supposedly) government (the State). So quit trying to use it to limit individual inalienable rights, for the good of the collective (collectivism) using the State as your bludgeon. Consistancy would be nice from "Constitutionalists". Original intent includes Natural Law! It is the standard of all jurisprudence in theis country, always has been, hence jury nullification. The Constitution is the "law of the land", but even it does not overrule Natural Law and jury nullification...PERIOD!

The paradox of such ideas are "self-evident".

Inalienable rights are not subject to border...anyone who thinks this doesn't bother to look up the word "inalienable" (also spelled "unalienable").

Oh, and "gloablism" is just another word for free market capitalism; a global market. Again you guys show you are NOT free market capitalists by using Leftist propaganda phrases like "screw globalism", or whatever Alex Jones says about it this week, to make a case. You are making a case against free market capitalism...if you want NON-free trade with labor (limiting immigration), you are NOT for free market capitalism, or globalism. You seem to be thinking mistakenly that gloablism means a one world government, and not just free market capitalism...you'd be mistaken unless your education on the subject comes from Leftists or know-nothing conspiracy freaks like Alex Jones. Go to the CATO institute and order the dozen or so books they have on "globalism", and realize, IT'S JUST FREE MARKET CAPITALISM.

You guys use more Leftist phrases than you're aware of, and believe so fallaciously that nation and State are same thing, and that patriotism (love of nation) and nationalism (over-reverance for the government and it's symbols) are the same, it's wonder you even support Ron Paul at all.

It's easy to support Paul when you're anti-State...when you pretend to be anti-State it must be a little tougher. I notice the contempt some of you have for us anarchists...perhaps disclusion and discrimination are the norm with statists, even the minarchist ones. Don't hate us for pointing out the flaws in your logic, whether it be the monopoly on the social contract or immigration debate. The fact we are the minority opinion gives us MORE credibility, and further illustrates the failure of democracy; nothing more.

One day, you too will take your philosophy to it's logical ends...or you won't, and we'll continue to gain numbers online, until the world will be minarchists playing the role as statists, and the anarchists playing the role we always have; advocates of true, unadulterated, unregulated liberty. I won't live to see this, maybe either will my kids, or even their kids....but one day the eventuality will come to pass; this world cannot continue to deny the market by inflating false bubbles....and the bubble of philosophy will pop sometime. Statism doesn't make us free, the State does not protect your liberties, and any government not of a voluntary nature is simply tyranny. Sugar-coat it how you like...explain it away with nonsense hypotheticals built on false assumptioms, glorify and deify men and institutions where you see fit...but remember whose good ideas you're stealing, and whose bad ideas you fail with (or pormote tyranny with).

End the Fed: an anarchist movement since before the Federal Reserve was invented...since the 1850s we have railed against the monopoly on currency by the State. "Currency competition", as Ron Paul advocates, is exactly the idea the anarchists of the time like Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker spoke in favor of. Any failure to give credit where credit is due shows the historical ignorance of our opponents...which is nothing new in majority opinions.

Add Washington, Jefferson, Madison and John Jay to that exhaustive list. All hopelessly wrong and biased :D

I have no intention to invite immigrants, even if there are no restrictive acts against it. I am opposed to it altogether… - George Washington, from a letter to Sir John St. Clair
:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs… John Jay

I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege of citizenship, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States. - U.S. Constitution's Creator James Madison

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity: transact together. Civil government being the sale object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. - U.S. Constitution's Creator Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 217

Notice the term Jefferson specifically used. "temperate liberty." Newcomers with no intellectual anchor to draw from would race past the key point of temperate liberty. Just based off of this particular phrasing, Thomas Jefferson would have disagreed with the pure libertarian mindset as well as the progressive mindset, which is preoccupied with the granting of services and material items as so-called rights.

The founders were clearly suspicious of democratic mob rule after seeing what transpired in France. That's why property owners were the only ones allowed to vote, since they knew full well that such a glaring moral hazard would erode their constitutional republic over time. Illegal immigration with no set framework or assimilation strategy embodies the latent viciousness of mob rule which the founders warned us of.

Southron

06-25-2011, 05:34 PM

AuH20

06-25-2011, 05:47 PM

Opening our borders is no different than intervention in world affairs. Instead of the U.S. intervening in the world, you invite the world to intervene in our political affairs.

They bring their ideas of tyranny that dominate the globe. We must protect and return to our founding ideals while they still remain in our national conscience.

This country was founded to secure the blessings of liberty to this nation. You cannot create utopia for the world with open borders here. You will just make us more like those tyrannies our ancestors came from.

I completely concur. America was founded as a sanctuary from foreign tyranny, as opposed to a halfway house for whomever immigrates here. With that said, newcomers should take a step to our founding ideals and we shall reciprocate, as opposed to the other way around. But this is a fleeting phenomenon in today's day and age.

itsnobody

06-25-2011, 07:45 PM

I'm still anti-illegal & legal immigration. Really, I would like to know how the economic benefits of allowing third & second-worlders into our nation outweigh the cultural, criminal, religious drawbacks. All throughout the Western world, immigrants coming from vast 'diverse' backgrounds have been committing a disproportionate amount of crime in their new nations. It was discovered recently in Oslo, Norway that every rape & murder of the past five years in their city was committed by an immigrant from Africa or the Middle East. See here: youtube.com/watch?v=K_rHFKRwv5Y&feature=player_embedded#at=25 Should we really base our immigration policy lazily on the non-existent Non-aggression principle? Or should we take into account that accepting everyone whose anyone into our nations so they could work for $2 dollars an hour may not be the best idea in the world? We are, after all, entering into an age of mechanization. Perhaps these minimum wage low-paying jobs won't even need humans in the not-so-distant future.

All the immigrant rape problems only occur in liberal atheist countries that target immigrants and report false crimes. This is because socialism creates racism.

A lot of the atheist libertarians want us to become like liberal atheist countries and have very strict immigration laws and high rape per capita rates.

Ron Paul is for less regulation and less laws, not more like liberal atheist countries with strict immigration laws like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc...

Paul Or Nothing II

06-26-2011, 12:22 PM

Add Washington, Jefferson, Madison and John Jay to that exhaustive list. All hopelessly wrong and biased :D

Notice the term Jefferson specifically used. "temperate liberty." Newcomers with no intellectual anchor to draw from would race past the key point of temperate liberty. Just based off of this particular phrasing, Thomas Jefferson would have disagreed with the pure libertarian mindset as well as the progressive mindset, which is preoccupied with the granting of services and material items as so-called rights.

The founders were clearly suspicious of democratic mob rule after seeing what transpired in France. That's why property owners were the only ones allowed to vote, since they knew full well that such a glaring moral hazard would erode their constitutional republic over time. Illegal immigration with no set framework or assimilation strategy embodies the latent viciousness of mob rule which the founders warned us of.

++++++1

Fantastic post, unfortunately I'm out of reputation but I'll get back to this post later.

All the immigrant rape problems only occur in liberal atheist countries that target immigrants and report false crimes. This is because socialism creates racism.

A lot of the atheist libertarians want us to become like liberal atheist countries and have very strict immigration laws and high rape per capita rates.

Ron Paul is for less regulation and less laws, not more like liberal atheist countries with strict immigration laws like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc...

Are you kidding me? Those countries are WAY MORE politically correct & those crime-statistics aren't fake, go there & see for yourself; the liberal-socialist government & media there is selling their countries thru political correctness & third-worlders are flooding it for their "free" socialist systems. And it's really funny when you say that socialists support "strict immigration laws" lol guess who wants US to be flooded by foreigners - THE SOCIALISTS aka Democratic party (not that Repubs have done any better when it comes to taking action), socialists like immigration because then they let in third-worlders & they'll vote for them in return for all the "free" stuff so that socialists can stay in power; if there's been any tightening of immigration laws in recent times then it's due to public outrage over the previously lax immigration laws which is fast turning, not just those countries, but whole of Europe into a third-world $hithole.

As for Ron, he obviously is NOT for open-borders so I don't know what you're talking about. Further, as I've said before many a times, the whole reason the governments & MSM is so devoted to free immigration is so that national, racial, cultural, political, etc etc identities are erased so that bringing forth of the one-world-government becomes easier; the purpose of allowing in maximum immigrants from Mexico & Canada is to destroy American sovereignty & erasing national boundaries & national identities & moving towards North American Union & later one-world-government & Ron does NOT support any of this & that's why he doesn't support open-borders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y30k3nkk54

As for what the Founders thought about immigration, just see the first post on this page itself by AuH20.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-26-2011, 12:51 PM

You do understand that the anarchists are only here to advance their own agenda, not further Ron Paul's, right?

Yes, obviously a lot of these open-borders commenters are anarchists & as someone who believes in people's right to self-determination, I fully respect their view (even though I'm a minarchist) SO LONG AS they're willing to respect my view. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to it if let's say all the anarchists moved to a state & became a strong majority there & demanded separation from the USA & that that terrirory be declared as "anarchists territory" or whatever. But if they truly believe in freedom & people's right to self-determination then they ought to recognize that not all the people in the world are going to agree on anarchy & therefore there will be people who'll believe in having their own countries & running them as they see fit & anarchists should respect that. And if they're trying to subvert USA by supporting open-borders due to their anarchist views then they're NOT going to get an anarchy that they desire, in fact, all they're going to get is North American Union & later one-world-government. Their best bet towards achieving their goal is electing people like Ron & others who'll reduce government & push people towards smaller government & allow them to leave the union & they'll hopefully lead the way in anarchism & prove to the rest of the people in the world that anarchy can work & may be then rest of the people in the world might also consider it.

ProIndividual

06-27-2011, 08:12 PM

Kade

06-28-2011, 07:25 AM

Kade

06-28-2011, 07:27 AM

You do understand that the anarchists are only here to advance their own agenda, not further Ron Paul's, right?

Maybe they are here to explore their own ideas, debate with people who they feel could be sympathetic, and show the diversity of the belief systems of those that support Ron Paul?

Or are we deflating this tent again?

Pro-Life Libertarian

06-29-2011, 08:02 PM

The first order of business for the next President needs to be making the southern border secure. By secure I mean impenetrable. Cut off the flow right there. Forget drug cartels and illegal families, how exactly are we supposed to stop an invading army?

The second point is to deport any and all illegal immigrants. In my opinion asking for verification during a traffic stop for ANOTHER crime is not un-Constitutional. Require proof of ID for school registrations, welfare benefits, and voting(believe it or not, you don't always need ID). Punish employers that hire illegal workers. Whenever they are found they will be sent back to Mexico. A lot of illegals will leave voluntarily, as demonstrated in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

In consideration for America's industries, I support an expanded guest worker program.

TheDrakeMan

06-29-2011, 08:41 PM

All the immigrant rape problems only occur in liberal atheist countries that target immigrants and report false crimes. This is because socialism creates racism.

A lot of the atheist libertarians want us to become like liberal atheist countries and have very strict immigration laws and high rape per capita rates.

Ron Paul is for less regulation and less laws, not more like liberal atheist countries with strict immigration laws like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc...

Those Scandinavian countries are more secular than atheists. And can we PLEASE stop calling them Socialists? They are Social Democracies, in certain areas they're even more capitalistic than America. Calling them Socialists makes no sense. And why shouldn't they have tighter immigration laws? This may shock some of you, but things like gang-rapes were extremely rare in these countries before immigrants started migrating over. In fact crime statistics have shown all the rapes committed in Oslo, Norway in the past 6 years were from immigrants. It's offensive to blame the victim and say they're somehow faking crime reports. Do you really think the Liberals that control those countries would say, "yeah, lets tell our government officials to release a bunch of fake crime statistics to paint immigrants in a bad light." Another shocker, importing people from third-world religiously primitive countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, & Pakistan may... just may.. not be a good idea. Stick to first-world immigrants that are skilled, like East Asians/West Euros/Americans/Canadians. Stick to immigration groups that do not commit a highly disproportionate amount of crime. It's a reasonable amount of state intervention, and I'm shocked that some people here would be willing to put an entire populace at risk for the sake of Libertarian purity.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p__qffobdE&feature=player_embedded

Maybe they are here to explore their own ideas, debate with people who they feel could be sympathetic, and show the diversity of the belief systems of those that support Ron Paul?

This is what is needed on this board. I use to be an Anarchist & Libertarian, then my ideas evolved into more of a Conservative viewpoint. Mostly from politely discussing and debating topics with other people. There are certain areas where society benefits from State intervention and taxation. Sometimes even war to spread Republicanism & Democracy is justified.

In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to it if let's say all the anarchists moved to a state & became a strong majority there & demanded separation from the USA & that that terrirory be declared as "anarchists territory" or whatever.

I would be willing to let the AnCaps experiment in another part of the world. No way in hell should it be America, though. What if Anarchism fails and another government takes advantage of the situation? Like Russia aligning with a newly-formed state, which borders the United States. It's way too risky.

Southron

06-29-2011, 08:54 PM

Paul Or Nothing II

06-30-2011, 02:12 AM

The idea that Hobbes, Locke, or any of these guys were inflalable is nonsense. Natural theorist predate them, and still continue. Both of those guys thought man had a "right to kill another". This is a flaw in their logic.

I can find many more sources for what I believe than you can...and when you quote the founders about what they were wrong about, it doesn't make them right...cult of personality, hello!....

The two bold lines contradict each other. If you (rightly) claim that Hobbes, Locke, etc were NOT infallable then how can you claim that any of your "sources" are infallable? Hobbes, Locke, etc preached what they deemed correct from their point-of-views while people in your "sources" preached what they deemed correct from their point-of-views.

So this again comes back to the point I've made earlier that no version of "rights" can be claimed to be absolutely correct or be universally imposed on all people because it's only based on views & motives of the presenters & that's why every people should've a right to self-determination & form into nations & govern themselves as they see fit if that's what they desire.

Washington was alos a cruel slave master while anarchists like me preached abolition...go figure right?

Just because Washington was wrong about one (or more) things, doesn't mean he was wrong about everything; in the same way, just because you're right on one (or more) things, doesn't mean you're right about everything you say.

Try exploring the economic fallacies I presented in earlier posts...you guys have nothing to combat the data...at all. You're afraid of nonsense that doesn't exist...wake up.

The only "economic fallacy" that you put forth that was remotely relevant was the 2% increase in Americans' income over a period when there'd been a lot of immigration but as I've said, it's a Keynesian way of looking at economics. Just because there was 2% increase does NOT mean, it was necessarily a positive result of immigration. Most Austrian Economists will recognize that there may've been numerous factors, many of which we mayn't even be able to quantify that may've effected it & NOT just immigration, & considering the fact that big immigration puts a lot of Americans out of work, the increase isn't surprising at all because it may've put the bottom layer of Americans out of work causing the average to move upwards &/or because those who remained employed must've had their incomes go up along with growth caused by technological improvements & many other factors other than immigration. And even if native unemployment doesn't go up during a time doesn't mean anything, it's perfectly possible that the unemployment that caused by immigration was offset by other factors like a burgeoning economy & such; claiming that anyone can identify & correctly quantify almost countless factors within the markets & thereby establish a perfect cause-and-effect relationship that "immigration increased Americans' incomes by 2%" is a ludicrous Keynesian-type argument.

Further, in a welfare-state, those Americans that become unemployed because of immigration become a drain on the taxpayers & the country itself, & no matter what your "statistics" say, immigrants flood welfare-states because of all the "free" stuff it provides which further drains the taxpayers & the country; ask Greece if you want, they've'd massive illegal immigration too as have many European welfare-states.

And as I've said many a times before, there IS a world BEYOND economics. Economic considerations are NOT the be all & end all.

And Ron does support open and secure borders...he just isn't using those words...he is NOT in favor of quotas on immigration.

As my earlier video clearly shows, Ron believes in nationalism so he'll only allow immigration to the extent it's beneficial to America & Americans. He does NOT support open borders as he clearly isn't an anarchist like you who believes in overthrowing America by diluting its sovereignty & thereby allowing North American Union & one-world-government. He's said many times that immigration has gotten so bad that it's akin to an invasion & government should protect its citizens from an invasion.

Some of the lines on Ron Paul's immigration-issue page - http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

"A nation without borders is no nation at all."

"As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state." (Ron clearly agrees with Friedman on this issue, unlike you)

"As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake."

Maybe they are here to explore their own ideas, debate with people who they feel could be sympathetic, and show the diversity of the belief systems of those that support Ron Paul?

Or are we deflating this tent again?

I'm completely sympathetic towards anarchists, hell, I'd be one if they can show me that anarchy can work, I don't think it can & that's why I'm a minarchist.

Anyways, as I've said, I wouldn't be opposed to it if all the American anarchists flooded a state & became a majority there & then decided to leave the Union & declare it "anarchist territory" or something BUT I will NOT be sympathetic to anyone who naively believes in the overthrow of the whole nation through open-borders in the vain hope that it'll lead to a peaceful anarchist-utopia when in fact, any such thing is certain to lead to North American Union & one-world-government. It's outright stupidity at the moment.

The first order of business for the next President needs to be making the southern border secure. By secure I mean impenetrable. Cut off the flow right there. Forget drug cartels and illegal families, how exactly are we supposed to stop an invading army?

The second point is to deport any and all illegal immigrants. In my opinion asking for verification during a traffic stop for ANOTHER crime is not un-Constitutional. Require proof of ID for school registrations, welfare benefits, and voting(believe it or not, you don't always need ID). Punish employers that hire illegal workers. Whenever they are found they will be sent back to Mexico. A lot of illegals will leave voluntarily, as demonstrated in 1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

In consideration for America's industries, I support an expanded guest worker program.

+1

My thought exactly.

Paul Or Nothing II

06-30-2011, 02:37 AM

Those Scandinavian countries are more secular than atheists. And can we PLEASE stop calling them Socialists? They are Social Democracies, in certain areas they're even more capitalistic than America. Calling them Socialists makes no sense. And why shouldn't they have tighter immigration laws? This may shock some of you, but things like gang-rapes were extremely rare in these countries before immigrants started migrating over. In fact crime statistics have shown all the rapes committed in Oslo, Norway in the past 6 years were from immigrants. It's offensive to blame the victim and say they're somehow faking crime reports. Do you really think the Liberals that control those countries would say, "yeah, lets tell our government officials to release a bunch of fake crime statistics to paint immigrants in a bad light." Another shocker, importing people from third-world religiously primitive countries like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, & Pakistan may... just may.. not be a good idea. Stick to first-world immigrants that are skilled, like East Asians/West Euros/Americans/Canadians. Stick to immigration groups that do not commit a highly disproportionate amount of crime. It's a reasonable amount of state intervention, and I'm shocked that some people here would be willing to put an entire populace at risk for the sake of Libertarian purity.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p__qffobdE&feature=player_embedded

Agree with most of what you've said above.

This is what is needed on this board. I use to be an Anarchist & Libertarian, then my ideas evolved into more of a Conservative viewpoint. Mostly from politely discussing and debating topics with other people. There are certain areas where society benefits from State intervention and taxation. Sometimes even war to spread Republicanism & Democracy is justified.

If you think you've right to shove republicanism & democracy down the throats of people in other countries then you must agree that they've a right to shove their Islamism/communism/whatever down your throat as well. Otherwise you'd be no different than communists tyrants who impose communism on others because they think it's good for everyone or Islamic zealots who try to impose Islam on other people because they think it's good for everyone. People've different views on what's good for them, nobody can just say that they're right & others are wrong. I'd say let muslims/communists/whoever govern their countries how they see fit & let's govern ours as we see fit for us; if they attack then we hit back otherwise we should 'live and let live'.

I would be willing to let the AnCaps experiment in another part of the world. No way in hell should it be America, though. What if Anarchism fails and another government takes advantage of the situation? Like Russia aligning with a newly-formed state, which borders the United States. It's way too risky.

Oh yeah, the evil Russians, right! :rolleyes: Get over the cold-war nostalgia, Russia is in tatters.

Firstly, I don't think there are enough anarchist-Americans out there to fill a state & secondly, governments get their just powers from the people they govern so if you believe in United STATES of America (unlike United EMPIRE of America that Lincoln bred) & States Rights like most prominent Founders did then states & their people have a right to leave the Union & govern themselves as they deem fit.

TheDrakeMan

07-08-2011, 01:13 PM

Oh yeah, the evil Russians, right! Get over the cold-war nostalgia, Russia is in tatters.

Russia is still a serious threat for East European nations like Latvia or Estonia. But besides that they are weak. The point was mostly hypothetical-- a foreign State could take advantage of a Libertarian-Anarchist split in America. Whether it be China, Mexico, Or Brazil. If we're going to experiment with Anarchy it should be in a place like the Ocean. Perhaps the seastead project will be the first AnCap. experiment.

If you think you've right to shove republicanism & democracy down the throats of people in other countries then you must agree that they've a right to shove their Islamism/communism/whatever down your throat as well.

They may have the right but not the ability. It's similar to Romans conquering the Celts & Germanic tribes. The tribes had a right to fight back, but for the most part couldn't-- and the world was changed for the better. That may be how the world will one day view America's imperialistic wars in the Middle East & North Africa.

Paul Or Nothing II

07-09-2011, 05:56 AM

Russia is still a serious threat for East European nations like Latvia or Estonia. But besides that they are weak. The point was mostly hypothetical-- a foreign State could take advantage of a Libertarian-Anarchist split in America. Whether it be China, Mexico, Or Brazil.

I don't give a Shit about what Russia or anyone else is doing, as I've said, if you believe in freedom, States Rights & that any government's just powers arise from the very people it governs then any state & its people MUST have a right to leave the Union, any time it wants, for whatever reason it wants.

If we're going to experiment with Anarchy it should be in a place like the Ocean. Perhaps the seastead project will be the first AnCap. experiment.

I'm NOT saying "we" should do an experiment or anything, I'm saying that the government's just powers come from the people it governs & that if people are not free to leave then they're not free at all but slaves to the government & other people.

You can't expect to hold someone hostage, just because you "need" them for your protection; if that's how you see it then I guess you don't mind it when government steals you money so that it can continue its socialist policies or when government breaches your personal liberty & privacy though Patriot Act just because other people think these things are "necessary".

They may have the right but not the ability. It's similar to Romans conquering the Celts & Germanic tribes. The tribes had a right to fight back, but for the most part couldn't-- and the world was changed for the better. That may be how the world will one day view America's imperialistic wars in the Middle East & North Africa.

So, in short, you don't believe in the Constitution & liberty, & you believe in "bullyism" in that whoever is strong should get to do whatever they want?

China is very likely to eclipse America as the world's superpower so I'm sure you won't mind it when they shove their communism down our throats! And may be, world will also views China in a good light for neutralizing a powerful tyrant that America has been for a long time :rolleyes:

Look, there are no exceptions when it comes to supporting the Constitution & liberty.

ProIndividual

07-09-2011, 07:33 AM

Ron Paul or Nothing II...how is it you are not a protectionist on tariffs, but are on immigration, when they both fail for the exact same reasons?

Quote me all you like, I'm right. Immigration is CONDUSIVE to economic growth, including lower unemployment rates and higher domestic wages. How you see this in trade of goods but not trade of labor is beyond me.

Labor is just another good. And this has more human rights implications than a petty trade for goods as well...and all the same property rights implications. C'mon man.

"As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state." (Ron clearly agrees with Friedman on this issue, unlike you)

Whether Ron said it or not, I already showed it was a fallacy. But you keep right on asserting it.

Ron also is for Austrian economics and free markets which are against this stuff.

The free market and free people with property rights determine the immigration rate, not government...as evidenced by their inability to control it for centuries. We buy what we want, and we hire who we want with our property (capital). Again, just use the logic you already have from the tariffs thread.

And stop saying it's Keynesian to make an Austrian argument...you seem to be confused about which is which. Only Hoppe makes this argument, or anything like it, from the Austrian side, and most Keynesians make your argument.

ProIndividual

07-09-2011, 08:27 AM

One last try man:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/US_Unemployment_1890-2008.gif

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133f378bbc2970b-400wi

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/img/immigration_chart.jpg

http://marketliberal.org/Images/ProductivityVsCompensation.JPG

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/usimmig1900-1980.jpg

You should notice several things:

From 1990 on, in the first two charts, the correlation is what I suggest, negative for immigration and unemployment. So, more immigration gave us lower unemployment, or lower unemployment gave us higher immigration (I'd say it's reciprocal). But certainly our unemployment didn't go up with more immigrations.

The third chart stands alone, showing exactly what I'm saying...as unemployment goes down immigration goes up, and as immigration does up unemployment goes down (overall). As you can see, they aren't perfectly correlated, as unemployment is caused by a variety of factors, not just a lack of or abundance of immigration. The point isn't that they are perfectly correlated, but that they aren't POSITIVELY CORRELATED. As long as unemployment for natives doesn't rise with immigration, I win this argument.

The fourth chart shows that compensation for natives rose over the entire period, as productivity rose...and immigration, outsourcing, and technology in the process of production all rise productivity. Again, immigration is condusive to economic growth, not opposed to it. To win this point, all I need to do is show more immigrants do not equal less compensation for natives. If you force me to do it for you (just google it), I will, and show you that in nations with closed borders the growth is slower, or the compensation declines with productivity (North Korea).

Notice the last chart shows still further that there is now not, nor was there ever, a correlation between native compensation rates and immigration or unemployment rates for natives and immigration. I can also show, again you can look this up yourself, that poverty rates for natives are also non-corollary.

It's clear...you would hurt our economy because you make the assumption that less immigrants means more Americans working, when in reality it would stagnant or slow growth, and hurt compensation rates along with unemployment rates to some degree. It's not intuitive, but it's deductively logical...like with tariffs in the other thread.

Closing borders to trading labor freely hurts our economy, unemployment rate, and compensation rate...it cannot help any of those things.

ProIndividual

07-09-2011, 11:08 AM

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?302475-Zombie-Forum-Responses&p=3387353#post3387353

Zombie: "Immigrants hurt the economy, and we need to close those borders right on up."

Me: "Moooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaan close the borders!!!!!!"

http://www.funpeak.com/funnypics/hilarious-zombie.jpg

Echoes

07-09-2011, 11:28 AM

++++++1

Fantastic post, unfortunately I'm out of reputation but I'll get back to this post later.

Are you kidding me? Those countries are WAY MORE politically correct & those crime-statistics aren't fake, go there & see for yourself; the liberal-socialist government & media there is selling their countries thru political correctness & third-worlders are flooding it for their "free" socialist systems. And it's really funny when you say that socialists support "strict immigration laws" lol guess who wants US to be flooded by foreigners - THE SOCIALISTS aka Democratic party (not that Repubs have done any better when it comes to taking action), socialists like immigration because then they let in third-worlders & they'll vote for them in return for all the "free" stuff so that socialists can stay in power; if there's been any tightening of immigration laws in recent times then it's due to public outrage over the previously lax immigration laws which is fast turning, not just those countries, but whole of Europe into a third-world $hithole.

As for Ron, he obviously is NOT for open-borders so I don't know what you're talking about. Further, as I've said before many a times, the whole reason the governments & MSM is so devoted to free immigration is so that national, racial, cultural, political, etc etc identities are erased so that bringing forth of the one-world-government becomes easier; the purpose of allowing in maximum immigrants from Mexico & Canada is to destroy American sovereignty & erasing national boundaries & national identities & moving towards North American Union & later one-world-government & Ron does NOT support any of this & that's why he doesn't support open-borders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y30k3nkk54

As for what the Founders thought about immigration, just see the first post on this page itself by AuH20.

Awesome clip, he was really spot on there.

Calling for wide open borders in the current situation of the world is nothing less then retarded.

ProIndividual

07-09-2011, 11:46 AM

nothing less then retarded.

That's what we call good economics and strong property rights these days...retarded.

sarahdeez

07-09-2011, 11:56 AM

Related:

Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Awards an "F" to Ron Paul (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/7393-anti-illegal-immigration-group-awards-an-qfq-to-ron-paul)

NumbersUSA awarded Ron Paul a failing grade for his constitutionalist stance on illegal immigration, because of his libertarian approach to the problem.

Actually he has been upgraded to a B, and Rand a B-. This is probably not bacause RP has changed his views - this is laughable to those who have studied him. It is probably because he often votes against bills for reasons other than the obsious. Another possiblity of the changing grade is that numbersUSA has changed their scoring system.

Pro-Life Libertarian

07-09-2011, 12:05 PM

I am belatedly reading State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan. We really need to build a wall ASAP and start the deportation process.

Paul Or Nothing II

07-10-2011, 05:08 AM

Ron Paul or Nothing II...how is it you are not a protectionist on tariffs, but are on immigration, when they both fail for the exact same reasons?

You'd've gotten that by now if you'd kept aside your "I'm right, because I say so" attitude & read mine & some of the other people's posts here.

Again, you see humans as mere economic agents while as someone who's studied psychology & sociology, I see them as social agents which also dictate economic & political path of the country & native culture has a strong impact on their views on these things. Letting in a horde of poor &/or uneducated &/or unintelligent people into the country pushes the country towards socialism because they're more likely to vote socialist because they see it as beneficial for them for all the "free" stuff they're promised & they've little understanding of how & why socialism destroys countries & they probably don't care.

As for your economic arguments, as I've said before, no sane Austrian Economist will propose that just because Americans' incomes rose by 2% during a period of high immigration that that 2% rose SPECIFICALLY because of immigration, it's just wishful thinking on your part to promote your anarcho-capitalist agenda, nobody can accurately quantify all the factors involved in that rise like a burgeoning economy, new technological innovations or whatever.

How you see this in trade of goods but not trade of labor is beyond me.

Effects of tariffs are quite axiomatic & obvious, if you add costs to cheaper goods then prices will rise & citizens' living standards will go down, & also lead to favoritism & corporatism & violation of equality principle but one CAN'T say that open-borders have any DEFINITIVE positive impact, there are far too many factors involved to correctly quantify its effects but its impacts on the country & its identity & culture are undoubtedly extremely devastating.

Labor is just another good.

Yes, it's a "good", if one may say so but it's attached to ANIMATE beings, the immigrants that come in have their own economic & political views that shape the economics & politics of the host-country so the host-country must make sure that too many people of a different economic & political views don't enter the country. This is especially true for any libertarian country because as I've said, completely open-borders will allow millions of socialist voters into the country & overthrow libertarianism.

I've never said I'm for halting ALL immigration. I think high-skilled, intelligent immigrants would be an asset because intelligence is rare & we'd always have unskilled & low-skilled natives to do the jobs that immigrants do at market-wage, if there are no wage-laws & welfare-state for them to become dependent on. Not to mention, intelligent, high-skilled immigrants with likely higher pays would be much more open to libertarianism because they'd've a lot to lose by supporting socialism & again, because intelligence is rare, their numbers would be pretty small so there won't be any chances of drastic shift in ideology of the country & its culture.

Whether Ron said it or not, I already showed it was a fallacy. But you keep right on asserting it.
No, that was YOU getting caught LYING. You'd said that Ron is for open-borders & I've proved that he isn't. And no, you haven't proven anything to be fallacious. You've just posted a bunch of graphs & made all the wrong inferences to support your views.

And Ron does support open and secure borders...he just isn't using those words...he is NOT in favor of quotas on immigration.

Some of the lines on Ron Paul's immigration-issue page - http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

"A nation without borders is no nation at all."

"As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state." (Ron clearly agrees with Friedman on this issue, unlike you)

"As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake."

You should notice several things:

Your charts aren't exactly saying what you're trying to say. You're saying that all immigration all the time is beneficial which is simply not true. you've said that immigration raises Americans' incomes, well then, let all the world immigrate to America heh? :rolleyes:

You're saying that rise in immigration is helping lower the unemployment but that's a fallacious inference. The thing is that immigration rises when economy is doing well so unemployment for natives will naturally be lower, NOT because of higher immigration but because economy is doing well while obviously, when the economy is doing badly, the immigration will be lower & native unemployment will be higher. This is because even fence-hoppers have a way of doing cost-benefit analysis of their own & risking their lives & jumping the fence has less incentive when the economy is doing badly & there's more incentive for fence-hoppers when the economy is doing well so your analysis of the graphs is WAY off the mark when you say that more immigration pulls the unemployment down sheesh :rolleyes:

Nobody would be stupid enough to argue against the fact that unskilled & low-skilled immigrants put unskilled & low-skilled Americans out of work & put them on the taxpayers' dole in a welfare-state so again, if there are no wage-laws & welfarism then these Americans will have to take up the jobs that otherwise are done by immigrants at market-wage so there won't be any unnecessary bloating of prices of goods/services anyway.

And this has more human rights implications than a petty trade for goods as well...and all the same property rights implications. C'mon man.

Here's an illustration. Let's say, in an anarcho-capitalist world, a bunch of people contribute & buy up an island & declare it their country, everyone has a right to their life, liberty & property & decisions are made democratically. Now, these people, in effect, collectively own the whole island so they've a right to decide who can come into their country & who can't because they're the property owners & if someone tries to force his way in then property rights dictate that the islanders have a right to put a hole in his skull.

Same argument can be made for America, all its "public" things are owned by the Americans as they pay for the maintenance of its infrastructure & governance, etc etc, so we've a right to decide who can come into the country & who can't as much as those islanders & if others force their way in then Americans have a right to defend their property.

I think that's enough on property rights implications.

Again, the more you argue for letting in poor &/or uneducated &/or unintelligent masses into the country, the more you'll be killing libertarianism in this country & pushing it more & more towards socialism. And your naivety on the threat of North American Union & one-world-government is mind-boggling, you couldn't be any more clueless, hiding in your world of economics as if economics was the be all & end all.

Paul Or Nothing II

07-10-2011, 05:26 AM

Awesome clip, he was really spot on there.

Calling for wide open borders in the current situation of the world is nothing less then retarded.

I think calling for open-borders in ANY situation would be pretty retarded because as I've said, if we let lots of foreigners flood the country, then our own principles, culture & ways of life will be lost as the foreigners re-shape the political ideology in the country to what they've previously been used to.

This Jefferson quote posted by AuH20 says it all -

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity: transact together. Civil government being the sale object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. - U.S. Constitution's Creator Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 217

I am belatedly reading State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan. We really need to build a wall ASAP and start the deportation process.

A wall or complete deportation would be crazy, it'd cost too much financially, even Ron has said this. Instead, let the hunting season begin, people've a right to defend their property & deal with invaders like they should. Local anti-illegal-immigrant vigilantes should be given a free license. Further, police should be able to profile & ask people for proof of legality. And whatever welfare is given should have a more stricter identification process for proof of citizenship.

ProIndividual

07-11-2011, 02:02 AM

I am belatedly reading State of Emergency by Pat Buchanan. We really need to build a wall ASAP and start the deportation process.

Pat Buchanan is a paleocnservative, he is racist about many issues, certainly xenophobic, and entirely expected to be aged and WRONG on this issue, as all paleocons are.

He is for closed borders and protectionism largely...even if he does get it right on being anti-war.

You have to understand the slant the author comes from...it's like I've read some compelling liberal's books...until I debunked all their myths...just like I did on this issue!

Please read the whole thread for the links and evidence you require to snap out of the paelocon myth.

Echoes

07-11-2011, 11:45 AM

Pat Buchanan is a paleocnservative, he is racist about many issues, certainly xenophobic, and entirely expected to be aged and WRONG on this issue, as all paleocons are.

He is for closed borders and protectionism largely...even if he does get it right on being anti-war.

You have to understand the slant the author comes from...it's like I've read some compelling liberal's books...until I debunked all their myths...just like I did on this issue!

Please read the whole thread for the links and evidence you require to snap out of the paelocon myth.

Pat Buchanan would respond by saying you open-border globalists are the biggest threat to whatever few freedoms we have left...and he'd be 100% accurate.

ProIndividual

07-13-2011, 10:44 PM

Pat Buchanan would respond by saying you open-border globalists are the biggest threat to whatever few freedoms we have left...and he'd be 100% accurate.

Wrong, and it's sad argument.

ProIndividual

07-13-2011, 10:49 PM

Paul or Nothing II:

Tariffs and closed borders don't allow that (they are the same thing when you realize that labor is a good like any other being imported).
I agree so far as the tariffs go but all your open-borders arguments have been sufficiently refuted already - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3388645

Letting in millions of poor &/or uneducated &/or unintelligent (intelligence is rare) who'll be most likely to vote for socialist parties for all the "free" stuff they're promised, will KILL a libertarian country & that's why a libertarian country MUST adopt a selective immigration policy otherwise it won't remain libertarian for long.

I see denials, not refutation, like most people when faced with data who won't give up their beliefs. There is no spurious regression, there is causality.

You lack consistancy in your arguments, being a protectionist about borders and labor, but not tariffs and trade. Which is it? Are you a protectionist or free market capitalist? Do you respect property rights or not?

The evidence is clear, and on my side. Nice try though, by stating or restating the same old fallacies in different, albeit still nationalist, ways.

You'll wake up eventually, or not. Either way, I'm quite secure I and others have defeated these arguments previously, over and over again.

One example of your failure logically, quickly:

you've said that immigration raises Americans' incomes

I didn't say anything, I gave charts that PROVED it. I don't see any of my data being refuted...so I'll assume the contrary opinion you hold is based on nationalist fairy dust. See, this is why you fail. You ad hominem attack me, instead of the data I provided. Killing the messanger isn't likely to be a logical way of doing things. It's in fact an informal logical fallacy. I didn't say anything...it's not an opinion.

As far as your silly idea, of 'let's let all the immigrants in then, right', why not think logically why this is not a good question?

If every citizen around the world wanted to be a U. S. citizen, why not just add states to the Union, like our founders intended? Why aren't we offering statehood now to many countries who are protectorates financially and militarily anyway? At least they would pay their fair share.

Also, as I pointed out to you before, 99% of immigrants go to where work is, not where the most generous welfare state is...so why would this NOT be good for our economy? Again, look at the data. It is good for the economy.

And half or more of those immigrants return home within a year...so it's hardly permanent overall.

Also, of the ones that stay, they ADD more to the economy than they TAKE...fact.

As for your cultrual concerns...I am not concerned. It's up to the govt to be the culture warrior or the culture police. This social nonsense is why Keynesians support attacking externalities with pre-emptive regulation (like pollution). You asserting these is some "cultural good" to be gained by limiting immigration...only if your xenophobic is the qualifier you do not face up to. And again, I pointed out before, you can evaluate immigrants like that...it fails logically. You do not know which immigrants with little or many skills will come here and bring with them the inventor of Google (which did happen when he was 6 years old). There is no accurate way to do what Hans-Hermann Hoppe wants to do, which is only let in immigrants of "positive value". You can't know who is of positive value. This is essentially pointing to some so-called negative social good, classifying it as an externality, and then pre-emptively regualting immigration beyond the standard american tradition of background checks and medical checks, so you can solve this social externaltiy. Keynesian analysis to the max. And again, it fails logically, and when data is provided as well.

This is an issue about spontaneous order, and free market principles; like property rights.

You either believe in them...or you don't.

Luckily for the believers, the data shows we are correct.

I won't address the rest...it's clear I could though, but I hate repeating myself over and over again.

Paul Or Nothing II

07-14-2011, 01:19 PM

Paul or Nothing II:

I see denials, not refutation, like most people when faced with data who won't give up their beliefs. There is no spurious regression, there is causality.

I've already refuted your false statistics & graphs over & over but you keep repeating the same thing over & over so I'm going to give you the same responses.

Again, it's nothing short of RIDICULOUS to claim that just because Americans' incomes rose while there'd been immigration that the rise was SPECIFICALLY caused by immigration, no sane Austrian Economist will ever accept that because economy consists of many many more variables, NOT just immigration.

Only Keynesians who look at economics as hard-science will foolishly claim that they can correctly quantify the impact of one variable out of so many numerous ones.

You lack consistancy in your arguments, being a protectionist about borders and labor, but not tariffs and trade. Which is it? Are you a protectionist or free market capitalist?

Look up the definition of free market, they don't include immigration issues so you're making a fallacious argument, & not so for the first time, because your vision is clouded by your anarcho-capitalist philosophy & as I've PROVEN earlier, you'd even LIE to justify your false arguments.

Do you respect property rights or not?

I've already established that property rights are the basis for Americans to kick out invading immigrants. As the owners of all the American public land, they've a right to decide who can & who can't come into America.

Here's an illustration. Let's say, in an anarcho-capitalist world, a bunch of people contribute & buy up an island & declare it their country, everyone has a right to their life, liberty & property & decisions are made democratically. Now, these people, in effect, collectively own the whole island so they've a right to decide who can come into their country & who can't because they're the property owners & if someone tries to force his way in then property rights dictate that the islanders have a right to put a hole in his skull.

Same argument can be made for America, all its "public" things are owned by the Americans as they pay for the maintenance of its infrastructure & governance, etc etc, so we've a right to decide who can come into the country & who can't as much as those islanders & if others force their way in then Americans have a right to defend their property.

I think that's enough on property rights implications.

The evidence is clear, and on my side. Nice try though, by stating or restating the same old fallacies in different, albeit still nationalist, ways.

You'll wake up eventually, or not. Either way, I'm quite secure I and others have defeated these arguments previously, over and over again.

I've defeated your arguments over & over & proven them to be fallacious but you keep repeating the same fallacious arguments & can't break out of the fallacious defense-mechanisms you've created to shelter your ego from getting hurt.

One example of your failure logically, quickly:

I didn't say anything, I gave charts that PROVED it. I don't see any of my data being refuted...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/US_Unemployment_1890-2008.gif

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/img/immigration_chart.jpg

Your charts themselves refute your fallacious arguments.

Charts clearly show that the fluctuations in unemployment are caused by fluctuations in the ECONOMY, which means your argument that immigration lowers native unemployment is a FALSE INFERENCE at best or another blatent LIE at worse, for propping up your fallacious myopic worldview.

As I've said, when the economy is doing well there's more incentive for fence-hoppers to risk fence-hopping while the native unemployment is low BECAUSE the economy is doing well, NOT because there are more fence-hoppers, on the other hand, when the economy is doing badly there's less incentive for fence-hoppers to risk fence-hopping while the native unemployment is higher BECAUSE the economy is doing badly, NOT because there are less fence-hoppers. Gee, you make it sound like America, Americans & American economy are completely dependent on the fence-hoppers gracing American land with their criminal feet :rolleyes:

And again, no rational person would argue against the fact that millions of unskilled & low-skilled immigrants flooding the country puts many unskilled & low-skilled Americans out of work & on the taxpayers' dole BUT if the wage-laws & welfare were gotten rid of then almost all of the unskilled & low-skilled Americans that are unemployed at any time will have to take up the jobs that are otherwise are done by immigrants AND because there'd be no wage-laws & welfare these Americans will've to work at market-wage which means they will NOT end up bloating the prices of goods & services unnecessarily.

so I'll assume the contrary opinion you hold is based on nationalist fairy dust. See, this is why you fail.

And I don't even have to assume but rather as someone who's studied pscyhology, I'm almost absolutely certain that you're making all these fallacious arguments because of your anarcho-capitalist views. By making these false arguments & constantly declaring that "I'm right", you're trying to, firstly reassure yourself, & secondly trying to convince others on anarcho-capitalism but resorting to blatent LYING & making FALSE INFERENCES is NOT going to help at all.

Also, as I pointed out to you before, 99% of immigrants go to where work is, not where the most generous welfare state is...so why would this NOT be good for our economy? Again, look at the data. It is good for the economy.

Again, ask Greece, they're flooded with illegals from nearby regions for the "free" stuff they'd on offer; it's foolish to think that welfare isn't a draw for illegals to risk so much, may be some of them do work but they take such risks because they know that even if they don't get a job, they can rely on the welfare & pop out babies who'll be "American", & a significant amount of them "work" for the drug-trade, so that "work" will be killed anyway if drugs are decriminalized.

You please look at the data & stop making false inferences.

A simplified (perhaps too simplified) way of proving your theory to a significant extent, that immigration is good in a welfare-state, would be by collecting ACCURATE data & showing that :

total cost (incomes) of all immigrant laborers + welfare collected by all of them (whether they work or not) + welfare collected by natives who are unemployed because of immigrants + the savings/capital that ended up getting wasted in the process of government stealing money from others & making it available for welfare to illegals as well as natives who're umemployed because of immigrants + the cost of drug-violence, drug-addicts & cost of cleaning the environmental mess they cause on their way in, cost of lost savings/capital in the process of financing this by government robbing others
<
total cost (incomes) of native laborers if they weren't caused to be unemployed because of immigrants + cost of weapons & ammo used against immigrants as well as cost of goods/services that were NOT produced because of labor-hours lost in the process (or may be it'll be a "net positive" as it may foster a local "weapons/ammo-industry" :cool:)

The point of collecting this data would be to verify if the economic benefits of immigrants working for much less wage than natives who otherwise would've worked those jobs, which results in goods/services being cheaper is cost-effective or not, for the country as a whole.

Aside from the fact that it'd be nearly impossible to gather ACCURATE data on all of the above, obviously, the costs are blatently too much. But this, as I've said before, is a mere simplification of the whole scenario & we probably can't even fathom or account for all the variables because markets are too complicated, & it'd be Keynesian to think that we can quantify all the variables in the markets correctly.

Not to mention, the cultural, economic & political costs of them being here alone makes a significant case for debarring them from coming here anyway.

And half or more of those immigrants return home within a year...so it's hardly permanent overall.

Yeah, & what about those who remain here & pop out more "Americans" every now & then & vote socialist? Seriously, it's not even funny that a self-professed anarcho-capitalist is opposing a minarchist on the issue of socialization of the country. Either you've some ulterior socialist motives or you're just incapable of realizing the fact that letting in millions of poor &/or uneducated &/or unintelligent people into the country & then them popping out "Americans" at a prolific pace is going to push it towards socialism, NOT towards liberty.

As for your cultrual concerns...I am not concerned.

To put it in your words, "this is where you fail". Just like how the general populace being unaware of & unconcerned about the details of money & banking doesn't suspend them from its ill-effects, just like socialists being unaware of & unconcerned about economics & why socialism fails doesn't suspend them from the ill-effects of socialism, IN THE SAME WAY, you being unaware of & unconcerned about culture, social factors, psychology & sociology does NOT mean that they don't exist or they don't have any ill-effects on shaping the culture, economics & politics of the country.

So again, you live in your little world of economics, unconcerned about other aspects of life, thinking that all that you know is all that matters but don't consider the world & its realities that exist outside of your current sphere of knowledge or may I speculate that you CHOOSE to ignore those realities because recognizing the fact that people are NOT homogeneous economic entities & that culture & social factors have a profound effect on their economic & political views, & thereby not all of them will ever adopt a single economic & political ideology shatters your anarcho-capitalist vision of the world & that's why you've created a wishful defense-mechanism that overthrowing of the American nation will somehow usher in an age of anarcho-capitalism & everyone will "just agree" on it & there'll be no other people espousing other ideologies :rolleyes:

You do not know which immigrants with little or many skills will come here and bring with them the inventor of Google (which did happen when he was 6 years old). And again, it fails logically,

So you're telling me that we should allow in millions of poor &/or uneducated &/or unintelligent likely SOCIALIST VOTERS into the country in the hope that some or any of them will invent something like Google or something? :rolleyes: It's like advising someone to buy millions of lottery-tickets in the hope that he MIGHT win some of them; it's completely bereft of commonsense & logically, not very cost-effective.

Further, I'm all for free trade so if someone is capable of inventing something then it'll come here anyway; we DON'T need to let in millions of socialist voters & with them popping out more "Americans" at a prolific pace to further push the country towards socialism. You know why Democratic AKA Socialist Party likes to cuddle immigrants so much, right? I guess you don't really care, they're busy destroying America in their own way & you're busy trying to overthrow America in your way & convincing yourself while hoping to convince others that that'll usher in a anarcho-capitalist age, & not North American Union & one-world-government :rolleyes:

then pre-emptively regualting immigration

It's NOT a question of "regulation", it's a question of property rights & as I"ve explained & exemplified before a couple of times, since Americans pay for the maintenance of all the "public" things in America like infrastructure, government, etc etc, Americans are the owners of American land & thus, they've a right to defend their property against foreign invasions & they get to decide who can come in & who can't.

Luckily for the believers, the data shows we are correct.

I don't know how correct the data is or isn't (it's likely an approximation) but you've only made fallacious inferences from it to support your myopic worldview that only revolves around economics.