• BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-18-2017, 01:13 AM
    At least in the USA, in the times before the government thought it needed to rescue health care for the poor, doctors were greatly respected for their outright charitable behavior, or their willingness to accept very little payment from those that had very little to give (having in mind the so-called "country doctor"). The spirit of the oath they take was more greatly honored than the current system where they are damn near hamstrung in their attempts to behave in the manner of their forebears. Schools are not altogether different in this regard. Communities often pitched in to obtain a schoolhouse and pay the salary of a teacher. Costs, unsurprisingly, were much lower. Costs could not exceed what the community could handle, so no rapacious behavior on the behalf of the educators could amount to anything. There was no government trying to throw inexhaustible amounts of money at them. Whatever government touches turns to gold plated shit. All the cost, none of the function.
    36 replies | 661 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-18-2017, 12:36 AM
    Not wanting to be fallacious? My God, man, your entire position became fallacious the moment you showed yourself incapable of discussing a specific group. These people exist, they are not a logical fallacy. Your refusal to address that particular group is most definitely because you lack balls, not because you are interested in logical consistency. Logical consistency would result in telling those people "It's a good thing your lives were ruined. It means progress when these foreigners do the job more cheaply than you did. Obtain more skills so you are relevant again, even if your life will probably be worse than what it was due to your many hours spent developing skills that are no longer worth as much. Enjoy your lower standard of living." When a community has had enough of seeing foreigners displace those around them you had better hope government is there to keep them from becoming violent. Those with an understanding of human history have a good idea of where this is headed (populism is on the rise for a reason, and history has given us a pretty damn good indicator of what the end result of it is), and what you're endorsing will require government force if what you think is "progress" is to be sustained. And God save the people that endorsed the foreigners displacing the existing population in the event the displaced rise to power, because the fate in store for them is not to be envied. When there is more than one of that individual it creates a displaced population. Plural. Technically correct in its entirety, and you can be damn sure there is a lot more than just one individual given what the H1B visa program constitutes. Not sheer propaganda as you fancy it, but plainly factual truth. All I need is 2 individuals displaced by a foreigner being invited to take their job and my position is the correct one.
    172 replies | 3243 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    73 replies | 900 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-17-2017, 12:39 PM
    Every overly generalized line you write makes it painfully obvious you don't interact in your community worth a damn. Your exclusive focus on the big picture makes it obvious. As I said before, at least have the balls to discuss that specific group in plain detail. Here's the point you're missing because you're too blind to see it. It doesn't require statist solutions for the population to have enough of displacement. Violence does not require the state, or did you forget that? Do you think human history always required a state for tribes to come into conflict when one felt pressured or threatened by another? Do you seriously believe humans don't show marked preference for those they know over ones they do not? Do you believe humans will not fight for the ones close to them at the expense of those that are not? How, in the name of all that is holy, does any of that require the state? Displaced populations, given a high enough percentage of the population, are prone to taking affairs into their own hands. That's the point. If enough of the population is suffering displacement and discontent, then they can become a potent force in their own right. In fact, the great irony in all this is in order to successfully displace a population with an influx of foreigners you need the government's force to accomplish it, because the foreigners would not have the means to defend their claims without the government's protection. So if you want to argue for the displacement of an existing population, for any reason (in this case, economically), then you had better be ready to bring government force as back up. And that makes you a statist, because you know damn well what is going to happen without government force and it isn't pretty. Only a government has the force necessary to force integration on a population, which is damned well necessary when one population's prosperity declines in favor of another. Human history bears this out, hell American history bears this out.
    172 replies | 3243 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-16-2017, 11:05 PM
    If you honestly believe the bolded, then you do not meaningfully interact in your community. People's lives are structured around their profession. Their economic responsibilities are tied to their career. When that person is displaced and can no longer meet their obligations their lives are effectively destroyed. They must accept a new role in life, one less than what they had spent many hours of their life developing. The game of life dealt them a bad hand and they lost. Libertarianism is fine with the fact certain lives, in certain professions, are effectively destroyed by progress. It's a good thing in the greater picture. It's really unbecoming when people that proclaim a love of liberty try to shove this under the blanket by acting like there is no reason that an individual's displacement would ruin their lives. At least have the balls to tell those people "It is a good thing your life is ruined, because the rest of humanity is making progress. Learn new skills so that you are relevant again." But make damn sure the population doesn't catch on that they can put at end to it when they've had enough of watching their communities displaced as a result of this. Humanity has this penchant for putting a halt to progress when it doesn't like what it's doing to the people around them. Violently. And rightly so.
    172 replies | 3243 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-16-2017, 10:40 PM
    You've got to get him to agree to your position on rights first before the first statement has any real meaning. Borrowing from osan the "Freeman" establishes what he believes are his rights with his mind and defends the reified concept with his own life. If someone does not first agree to something akin to the idealized "Freeman", then they probably believe rights are whatever the government makes of them because they are unwilling to assert their own understanding of rights and defend them with their blood. ;) Telling an individual to prepare to defend themselves against organized thugs usually does not strike a chord. Better put: does he own a weapon, and has he coordinated with others similar to himself that have weapons? Does he have a system in place for the event his rights are violated by others and recourse must be obtained outside of his personal endeavors? Has he formed a league of like-minded men that will sustain society even in the event one of them falls, so their vision will live on? It takes a highly developed sense of civic duty and responsibility, what I prefer to think of as gravitas, for man as a unit, and men as a whole to be prepared to meet organized violence absent resorting to a government. After all, failure to be properly organized and vigilant is how the state triumphs. Ibn.AL.Muqafaa, welcome to the site. Plenty of great people here, with a lot of heated disagreements to be found.
    36 replies | 661 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-14-2017, 06:41 PM
    Well put. It would be more accurate to phrase it as populist protectionism when referring to the kind not endorsed by big business. In order to reach that solution requires a fundamentally different man engaged in society. In the meantime, I expect protectionism, due to man's will to power, will be ascendant. This is not a statement on protectionism being good in the meantime, but rather it to be the expected outcome given the nature of man engaged in this society. Power is sought not for the good it may achieve, but rather to club the other guy with it so that personal benefit will be expected. There simply are not enough men with the gravitas to obtain power, correct society using that power, abdicate the power once everything is set to rights, and remain vigilant against those that would fill the vacuum.
    147 replies | 2244 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-13-2017, 07:57 PM
    Rare is the man that advocates for the diminishment of himself and the uplifting of others. Until man disavows power itself, and therefore the state by extension, the battle will continue to be fought. Those that have power, or access to it, versus those that would merely replace them. Far too few would do as Cincinnatus did - obtain the power, and abandon it entirely. How do you create a society full of people like him? Point to a society full of people like that, and you'll find a society where freedom is the order of the day and petty warfare over power a relic of the past. Until then? Heh.
    147 replies | 2244 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-13-2017, 06:33 PM
    Regarding the bolded: Obvious answer: yes. Question #1: Should corporations be able to lobby for legislation and regulation favoring them to the disadvantage of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and domestic workers? Obvious answer: no. Question #2: Why do you expect those in favor of protectionism to place any importance on what corporations should be able to do regarding hiring practices when everyone is routinely screwed by their usage of government power via legislation and regulation?
    147 replies | 2244 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-10-2017, 04:24 PM
    Ahahahahaha. A fine demonstration of hyperbole.
    564 replies | 19379 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 10:25 PM
    My Own Way - Pennywise
    27 replies | 362 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 07:24 PM
    Not even remotely close. One can endeavor to keep Democrats at bay while attempting to subvert the GOP. The growth of the Democratic party must be checked. This is not optional if libertarians have any hope of relevancy. Libertarians need time. Time to win the battle for the Republican party, so they can then hope to compete against the Democrats on relatively equal footing while the numbers are still comparable. And even then, convincing people to give up their freebies is going to be very tough. ??? The GOP is already on track to be a permanent minority regardless of whatever beliefs they espouse. You seem be suffering from this delusion that if the GOP was a purely libertarian minority that it would be a good thing. It wouldn't. We'd be putting up with whatever the Democratic party dictated to us. In fact, absent any nativism, and a need for immigrant voters, the GOP will have to offer the policies Democratic voters offer to immigrants, which is most definitely not any removal of the welfare state. Projected demographics are not in the GOP's favor and immigration will only hasten the GOP's decline into irrelevancy. Keep in mind that libertarians will get to share whatever fate is in store for the GOP. I don't know about you, but I am not keen on accelerating the pace at which Democrats get to reign supreme. And I am not optimistic that if the Republican party dies that there will be a conservative alternative of high popularity. Far more likely is out of the ashes arises a far left party and a moderately left party, much more in the mould of Europe.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 07:01 PM
    As a means of preventing additional Democratic voters? Yes, it is. Demonstrably so. 0 is less than the >50% Democratic voters immigrants currently comprise. Then the welfare state will not be dismantled, because the number of those supporting it will continue to outstrip those against it. The voters supporting the welfare state will continue to swell their ranks while libertarians retain what power they do have in the Republican party, a party already losing the raw numbers battle, and only capable of winning the presidency with a populist. The logical connection is very simple. The Democratic party is very pro welfare. They are already capable of winning the popular vote, and presidential elections when the disaffected have swung their way in certain states. Immigrants, at a greater rate than 50%, are voting for the Democratic party. As such, the growth and expansion of the party supporting the welfare state will ensure its permanence regardless of whether libertarians ever win the battle for the Republican party.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 06:50 PM
    Nativism can be turned against when it is no longer useful in entrenching libertarians as a political force. A wonderful battle to be had once a climate has been created in which immigration no longer plays into the hands of the enemy. After, say, dismantling the welfare state. Agreed?
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 06:37 PM
    Then you were grossly exaggerating the importance of economic problems. The people that make up Trump's base are substantially less than the Democratic base. The people that make up Trump's base can be persuaded. They are the disaffected. Providing the disaffected with a vision that they can both believe in, and stand to gain from, is the libertarian cause du jour. We can agree on that, right? The libertarian battle for the soul of the Republican party is a continuous effort, and it must be waged for the sake of libertarian political power. Rand, Amash, and Massie are the beginning. Those successes can be built on, correct? You will find no disagreement from me in that certain "Trumpian" objectives must be fought and defeated, but common ground should most definitely be found in areas that benefit libertarian political power. However, that does not mean the Democrats are not the bigger enemy, that must be eventually confronted. Actions that benefit them are bad. This is not a negotiable point. While the likes of PierzStyx and undergroundrr have no problem increasing the size of the Democratic party for the sake of their principles, libertarians, as a political force, lose whenever this happens.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 06:24 PM
    Trump and Carson are the reasons immigrants vote Democrat? Ahahahahahahaha. The reason the Republicans aren't winning the Hispanic vote is because of their failure to tap into their culture? Ahahahahahahaha. You really don't get it, and there is no point in taking what you say seriously.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 05:43 PM
    Sigh. Look, undergroundrr, between the giant, misguided red herring in your first attempt to reply to me, and you regurgitating points I have roundly dismissed previously I wasn't going to bother, but maybe me repeating the point will sink in this time. Even if we assumed all you wrote is true about immigrants (and it most assuredly is not, but I will concede just for the sake of argument), then the fact the majority of them are voting Democrat means open borders policies are suicidal for libertarians. If you think the fact 12% of them identifying as libertarians is a win for libertarianism, then you are hopeless. Now, if you want to discuss with me a way to control immigration so that the 12% becomes 100%, then that is a discussion worth having. There is nothing hazy about this. Open borders libertarians have two choices: be useful idiots for the Democrats, or violate their principles in order to maximize their political power. In no way, shape, or form, will the current circumstances permit uncontrolled immigration to increase the power and influence of libertarians.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 05:13 PM
    There you go. Was it so hard to concede anti-immigrant fervor exists regardless of economic problems? You can propose hypothetical circumstances where free immigration does not aid the enemy. Like a state without a welfare system. This isn't that situation. On average Democratic voters are added with each additional immigrant. This is no surprise, because it's hard to convince people not to vote for free shit. There's a good reason Clinton won the popular vote; Americans love free shit. Finding out foreigners do too surprises precisely no one, but adding more people to the free shit army is bad politics.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 04:49 PM
    You're missing the point that anti-immigrant fervor happens regardless, and economy is irrelevant, or you are trying to downplay its significance. This is basic human territorialism at play. No self-respecting man likes the man that takes what was his, and you can be damn sure he remembers who did it. Of course. I've taken the Machiavellian approach on this. If a principle should aid the enemy, then it must be suspended until such a point that it no longer does.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 03:52 PM
    I typically lurk the forums, happily reading the posts of you, tod evans, Anti Federalist, and osan. If I see the last post in any thread is by any of you four it is worth reading. (My apologies to those I am forgetting, there are others whom have given me pleasurable reading overs the years too!)
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 03:42 PM
    In which scenario does Bob end up liking immigrants? Neither. Good God man, you cannot be so daft as to honestly believe either scenario makes Bob appreciable of the "other" taking his job. He could find a better job and he still won't like the man that took what was his. Rights violated without recourse are not rights. At no point in mankind's past, present, or future will rights ever have any meaning whatsoever absent the force to sustain them. Those in positions of power must be held to account, at the point of a lance if necessary, in order for those subject to power to have rights.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 12:16 PM
    tod evans is the kind of guy to share a trench with.
    564 replies | 19379 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 12:06 PM
    No. What I'm describing is any country with an existing population that has certain cultural mores, expectations, and so on having a significant influx of others that do not share those distinctions. Hell, we can even do this in the USA. Take any sparsely populated western state and introduce a large number of Californians. Same country, often separated by less than 200 miles, and yet the people couldn't be more different. What they want from government, culture, and so on are very different. In public I've made the joke (a few times, here in Arizona) that the wall shouldn't be with Mexico, it should be with California. Instead of laughter it gets a lot of agreement. At this point it is less a joke and more an observation with some degree of merit. In order to avoid strife and discontent, to have a harmonious society, integration is critical. Ethnicity matters much less than a shared belief in ideals like those found in the 2nd amendment. What Europe has going on in suicidal, but it's not my problem.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 11:39 AM
    About the only thing all members of this site have in common is agreement the government's policies, as of today, exacerbate anti-immigrant fervor. Chiefly through the welfare system. But believing that the state of the economy, or the state, is the cause of anti-immigrant fervor? No. If the government treated immigrants less favorably than they do now that anti-immigrant fervor would still exist. Discontent with immigrants will always be highest in the populations most affected by large numbers of immigrants. Individuals have varying reasons for their anti-immigrant attitudes, and boiling it down to "distrust of others" is a false conclusion. Territorialism works much better in all cases. My country, my culture, my community, my family, my land, my resources, and my job. Typically all anti-immigrant arguments boil down to some version of one of those categories, if not a combination thereof. All of it amounts to my territory, conceptually.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 11:18 AM
    The stock answer from AuH20? I am genuinely surprised to see it from you. I guess someone had to trot out this old, tired non-answer. Maybe you're just playing along for the sake of conversation. The state exacerbates it with the welfare state. But to believe it wouldn't exist absent the state is nonsense. The state's meddling is not the cause of anti-immigrant fervor and never will be. It existed before states and it will exist after states. History has amply demonstrated that humans are territorial. Attempts by outside groups to displace a population by en masse movement typically produces the discontent one expects. No state is required for humans to be both territorial and discontent when their territory is encroached upon. Why do you think libertarianism places great emphasis upon property rights? Territorialism.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-09-2017, 11:03 AM
    It takes a poor understanding of humanity to believe economic fluctuations are primarily responsible for why the average individual is pro-or-anti immigrant. If the economy were doing well the growing anti-immigrant fervor in this country would still have significant traction. Here's a hint: if the economy is doing well, but a specific American worker has to train his foreign replacement, then what do you think is going to happen to his opinion on immigration? Do you think it matters to him that the economy is doing well when his lifestyle is disrupted and he must find new work? Do you think the fact it is easier to find another job matters at all to him? Ah, but to the libertarian this poor fellow is mere happenstance! Unimportant! A speed bump to the protection of human rights! After all, he did not develop himself so that he was entirely irreplaceable! Shame on him! He should have bettered himself! All hail the rights of immigrants to move freely! The NAP is Lord! And yet... The discontent of the populace grows, regardless of the performance of the economy, and yet libertarians usually cannot figure out why. It must be that inbred sense of nativism, or their lack of skills in the job market, or they are just authoritarian statists hell bent on ignoring the rights of immigrants. All convenient explanations that will eventually see libertarians condemned to irrelevancy because their big picture views ironically ignore the plights of individuals. Why'd I laugh at your post? It was too rich in irony. It ignores the fact anti-immigrant hysteria is driven by individuals that have their own personal reasons for disliking immigration. Many people do not like the changes immigration brings about. And make no mistake, there are pros and cons to immigration as it concerns the society affected. What an individual ends up placing more emphasis on is entirely up to them. Most people do not given a damn about the supposed "rights" of immigrants to move about freely when it negatively impacts them, or people close to them, personally. If you get enough of those unhappy people? They discover they have the force to change things in their self-interest, the NAP be damned. The rights of people are nothing without force behind them. And if an existing population determines that they will forcefully dissuade immigration you can well guess what that supposed "violation" of immigrant rights amounts to: nothing.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-08-2017, 11:33 PM
    Ahahahahaha. Too funny.
    92 replies | 2342 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-04-2017, 11:27 PM
    I don't know that the attacker can claim any such right. His actions put himself entirely at the mercy of the guy that defended himself well. It's like claiming aggressors have a right to only get their ass kicked to a certain extent before the onus is on the defender to be compassionate, that retribution should fall on the defender for going too far. Far better to allow the defender to handle the situation as he sees fit, so that picking fights is further discouraged. It is well within good reason to suggest that a defender show restraint once the threat is over, and is commendable in the situations it occurs in, but I certainly wouldn't obligate him to. That line of reasoning can easily result in accepting bullying for fear of, for example, harsher punishment from the cops than what the aggressor is doing.
    77 replies | 1177 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    03-03-2017, 06:21 PM
    Armies are imaginary. No fuss at all!
    134 replies | 2678 view(s)
More Activity
About BSWPaulsen

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
276
Posts Per Day
0.14
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:42 AM
Join Date
11-22-2011
Referrals
0

03-09-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

03-23-2017


03-17-2017


03-14-2017


03-13-2017


03-09-2017



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast