• BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-17-2017, 05:44 PM
    It won't necessarily be a government as it exists now, but there certainly needs to be an organized force that must defend them. Otherwise it will fall victim to an organized force that will violate them. History is rife with examples of loosely organized, relatively stateless societies falling prey to the organized nation-states we see today. See: Native Americans.
    388 replies | 14410 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-17-2017, 04:38 PM
    All men being created equal does not give them equal intent. And therein lies the crux. Man is tribal, and that inclination is no mistake. There are groups that would subvert and disenfranchise you in order to advantageously situate themselves. Being prepared for that eventuality is... Human. Oh stop with the hysterics. Eugenics plan? Not in the slightest. They'll do it to themselves and all to the cheering of their enemies. No control needed. Persuasion is not the only arrow in the quiver of liberty. This country did not have a revolution by persuasion alone. Groups of people with opposing views and a desire for power will inevitably come to violence. History verifies it over and over again.
    388 replies | 14410 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-17-2017, 02:48 PM
    Those enemies of liberty already here don't have to be kicked out of the country. They have to be subverted and disenfranchised. They just have to lose the numbers battle. It will not happen overnight. It will require every step possible to limit the growth of their numbers so that one day liberty can win. That includes limiting immigration and celebrating the poor birth rates of progressives. Giving those that love liberty a chance to outbreed them, and win the future. This is a long term battle. Unlike you, who has accepted absolute defeat and seeks succor in your principles, others are willing to try every little thing they can to tilt things in the favor of liberty. That cannot happen with your open borders nonsense. You've made it obvious you have entirely given up on libertarians ever winning the numbers battle and are willing to aid the enemies of liberty in suppressing it. Why? So you can sleep better at night knowing you stuck to your principles. For me? Any principle that is destructive to kith and kin when pursued to its end is not a principle worth adhering to.
    388 replies | 14410 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-17-2017, 12:31 PM
    The ones that are here should be only those that are libertarian. There is a numbers battle for liberty. Unrestricted immigration will not tilt the scales in the favor of liberty. They certainly won't with people like you numbering among the ranks and agitating for liberty's loss. The numbers do not come out to a majority of Hispanics being opposed to the welfare state. You are intellectually disingenuous to the bone.
    388 replies | 14410 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-17-2017, 12:18 PM
    I'd rep this if I could. The point cannot be driven home enough. It is impossible to have liberty when invaded or subverted by a culture anathema to it.
    80 replies | 1910 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-17-2017, 12:05 PM
    How willfully blind must one be to believe 12% of 100% is a successful result? Being more generous, even 25% of 100% (presumed Johnson voters) is still an abject failure. Let's be perfectly clear: there are already enough white people here who are a problem when it comes to dealing with advocates of the welfare system. Liberty advocates have enough of a battle on hand dealing with the enemy already here. You want to add another 88 out of 100 people to those white people that support the welfare state? There is no way you can rig the numbers that will result in immigration bringing more libertarians than welfare supporters, so drop the intellectually disingenuous posturing. If you gave a damn about liberty at all the only immigration allowed in would be the 12%. And another issue: if we abolished the welfare state by government dictate, but there were an overwhelming majority of the population in favor of it, it would end up immediately returning. You cannot have a liberty focused society without a majority of the people being liberty focused. Libertarians are not winning the numbers battle, and all for the sake of your principles you want to hasten liberty's demise. The road to hell is most certainly paved with your good intentions.
    388 replies | 14410 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-16-2017, 12:40 PM
    Am I the only one struck by the notion that issues like rights, titles, and so forth are all reification fallacies and that is why they are all so ably bickered over? That they only have any real meaning if people agree on the nature and/or meaning of those abstractions and therefore give them any real force? Simply put, the thread title is slightly humorous because it doesn't actually require a lengthy rebuttal. Is there a right to immigrate? No, not in any concrete sense. It is a reification fallacy to believe as such. We could, however, try to discuss whether one should be invented, and if so, what its nature and function would be. Now, a different pair of questions could be posed. Is it in the self-interest of the thread-starter and myself to allow others to freely immigrate around where we live? If a large group of people have a framework around which their society is based and occupy an outlined amount of space (nation-state) should people from outside that outlined amount of space be allowed to freely come inside? My answer to #1? Not necessarily. It is very easy to imagine scenarios in which that free movement could prove detrimental to me and mine. That they are speculative scenarios does not matter, because failure to plan for disaster opens the door for it. As such, if thread-starter insists there is a right to immigration it would be at odds with my understanding of a right to immigrate, and as such you end up with 2 different understandings of that abstraction. Which understanding ends up in force is up to whomever is more persuasive, or, failing that, has more brute force in their favor.
    66 replies | 1825 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-13-2017, 07:01 PM
    You wouldn't even need a non-citizen to riot. There are plenty of citizen parasites already here fully capable of rioting in the event the tap is turned off. We're not even winning the numbers battle against the parasites now, so adding more power to them with open borders policies is suicidal.
    38 replies | 1029 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-12-2017, 11:08 PM
    I find you admirable in that you are utterly absent of any Machiavellian sense of politics. You're a better person for it, the kind I'd want in my neighborhood. However, stubbornly clinging to principles that one's enemies will use against you is not conducive to a final result that empowers liberty. Politics is war by other means, and you are too noble a soul to dirty yourself with what that entails. Government cannot be gotten rid of in "every aspect of our lives" when a very significant number of the people are not clamoring for it. With Democrats standing to be the chief beneficiary of open borders policies you can be damn sure liberty will be further diminished by adding further strength to an already powerful constituency that is anti-liberty. I like immigrants that advocate liberty and only those that advocate liberty. If they don't? They shouldn't be here. And if someone that supports liberty would welcome those that do not espouse liberty? They are a useful idiot at best, and a traitor to liberty at worst.
    38 replies | 1029 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-12-2017, 02:20 PM
    Ignorant balderdash. When you realize those "root causes" are supported by a sizable number of Americans, whom already possess a significant amount of political power, you will realize that adding people that are just as likely to support those root causes, if not more so, will make ever ending them utterly impossible. There is no metric at all that finds immigrants, as a whole, are more inclined towards freedom than your average American, and, in fact, they frequently oppose those liberties we still have (example: the 2nd amendment) more often because of their utter unfamiliarity and discomfort with them. Open borders supporters willfully seek the further erosion of liberty and the marginalization of the people that do support liberty in this country all in the name of consistency. A consistency that may make them sleep well at night, but one which will inevitably render the voice of liberty too small to have a meaningful political impact as they swell the numbers of their opponents. There is a good reason that the Democrats are for open borders. It will enhance their political power and is in their collective self-interest. They are not going to ever strike at the root causes of the erosion of liberty, so it should come as no surprise that anyone opposed to Democrats must oppose open borders immigration as an act of self-preservation. There are enough enemies of liberty here already. More need not apply.
    38 replies | 1029 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-31-2017, 11:04 PM
    They should only be shunned if they persist in their delusions and reject all assistance. Otherwise? Absolutely work with them, try to help them cope with their illness. In vitro hormone dysfunction does not result in a rejection of reality. The result simply does not follow from the premise.
    73 replies | 1153 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-31-2017, 07:58 PM
    History is rife with masculine women and effeminate men. No doubt hormone exposure while in the womb played a substantial role. I am more inclined to believe the hormone exposure may lead to greatly increased chances of homosexuality, but definitely not in a belief that their sex is wrong. The former is not a denial of reality, the latter definitely is. An idea that germinates and becomes an obsession, leading to conclusions with no basis in reality. In simpler terms: a mental illness. One that can be exacerbated by eager approval from those willing to consider it natural and healthy.
    73 replies | 1153 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-31-2017, 07:47 PM
    A prediction I sincerely hope is wrong: The Democrats will successfully avoid allowing him to join the Supreme Court. Trump will have proven himself to conservatives with this nomination, but the person that actually ends up on the court will be some hack that the establishment of both parties can support. In the end Trump gains politically with his own supporters, Republicans get to hate the Democrats more, Democrats get to claim they dodged a threat to their beliefs, and everyone gets screwed.
    88 replies | 2378 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-31-2017, 07:33 PM
    There is no hormone in the human system that would make you feel like the opposite sex. Men with low testosterone and high estrogen get bitch tits and decreased ball size, not a belief they are the wrong sex. They could believe they are in the wrong body, but that's a psychological issue not causally linked to the hormone imbalance. Trans-anything is a mental illness to be pitied, and the people are worth helping. It must be absolutely awful to seriously believe you are not in the right body (or species, etc.), but to pretend this is something that should be accepted as normal and healthy is beyond the pale. Change is going to come. Being browbeaten into accepting degeneracy as the new normal is unbecoming for anyone with a spine. Maybe trans-invertebrates will become the rage in this "new age" to come. Anti Federalist's "predictable reaction" is the correct reaction.
    73 replies | 1153 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-30-2017, 03:45 PM
    I will count this a success if two conditions are met: #1) A net reduction in regulations by the end of his tenure is successfully achieved. #2) The new regulations are not more burdensome than the ones removed. It's a (potential) step in the right direction. Cautious optimism. If it succeeds, then I hope the trickle becomes a stream as deregulation gains further popularity.
    42 replies | 784 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-30-2017, 12:35 PM
    Your willingness to excuse violent illegal immigrants because they are proportionally less than violent Americans is disgusting. No different at all from people that simply pass off bad cops as just a few bad apples. It is a morally bankrupt position, but what I should expect of someone that thinks they cannot criticize violent illegal immigrants because they do not pay their salaries? This type of insanity is to be expected from an ideologue. Spare me the false dilemma fallacy. You do not cause violent Americans to go unpunished by pursuing violent illegal immigrants. That you think so is frankly absurd, and shows that not only do you not care at all by the people who suffer at the hands of illegal immigrant criminals, but that you will make excuses for them. Again, this thread is about the difficulty of pursuing illegal immigrants that are actual criminals. This isn't about harassing janitors, as you so disingenuously made it out to be. The point is there are two groups of people, and within these two groups of people there is a subset that violate the rights of others. When this issue is pointed out people like you, instead of being intellectually consistent in criticizing both, will criticize one group and provide an excuse for the other group just as easily used for the group criticized. That makes you a hypocrite, and it is unbecoming anyone that proclaims liberty.
    43 replies | 799 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-30-2017, 04:15 AM
    You do not need to pay the salaries of violent illegal immigrants in order to recognize them as the problem they are. My analogy is simple: If someone can use the "They didn't violate my rights" response when it comes to illegal immigrants, then someone else can damn well turn around and use it in favor of police. It's the sort of irresponsible laziness that allowed police corruption and brutality to become what it is today, but yet you think that it is okay to do it when it comes to illegal immigrants. Whether you pay their salary doesn't matter in the slightest. There are cops and illegal immigrants that deprive people of their rights. This is an inescapable fact. You should be consistent in your criticism of groups when they deserve it. You are not. You have gone out of your way to place immigrants in a good light in a thread emphasizing that some of them are, in fact, a problem. Less likely to commit a crime does not mean crimes are not committed.
    43 replies | 799 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-30-2017, 01:52 AM
    Can you not read? I said I hope you haven't criticized the police, because you are the exact sort of person that fully deserves your criticism to amount to nothing. Why? Because you deserve to run into the They've never violated my rights defense given you willingly ignored the illegal immigrants that are criminals (thread topic, in case you missed it) in order to focus on the good ones. I doubt you'd tolerate it from someone that wears rose-colored glasses for the police, but yet when it comes to immigrants here you are. Read the article (which, I have no doubt, despite its age, is still pertinent today). It mentions the issues concerning going after illegals known to have caused harm.
    43 replies | 799 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    01-30-2017, 01:24 AM
    I hope the likes of Contumacious, RJ Liberty, and Ender never criticize the police and expect anyone to sympathize with their opinion given their collective attitude expressed here. When discussing police brutality or corruption the vast majority of people blithely respond with some variation of "They've never violated my rights". Occasionally they volunteer a story of a cop they knew, or one who helped them, and therefore all is right in the world. They'll concede a few bad apples, and move on. Nothing changes. Another person will be brutalized and the cycle repeats itself. This is why liberty loses without a fight. How do you, Contumacious, expect anyone to take your issue with the government violating your rights seriously when you are so very capable of casually dismissing actual criminals that happen to be illegal immigrants by pointing out that you have never suffered because of them? Just like it is a certainty there are corrupt cops, it is a certainty there are illegal immigrants that are criminals. Pointing out the good cops/immigrants does not negate the bad ones! It does not mean they are not a problem worth addressing! Just like every effort should be made to eliminate corruption within law enforcement it is only logical every effort should be made to ensure a high quality of immigrant is the only one in this country. Failure on both fronts leads to the people of this country suffering further violations of their rights that are both unnecessary and destructive to the social cohesion that allows for productive environments.
    43 replies | 799 view(s)
No More Results
About BSWPaulsen

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
224
Posts Per Day
0.12
General Information
Last Activity
Today 11:05 AM
Join Date
11-22-2011
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...

02-17-2017


02-16-2017


02-13-2017


02-12-2017


02-01-2017


01-31-2017


01-30-2017