• BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-24-2017, 07:58 PM
    I agree you should have a foundation to argue from, and argue for. That's in your self-interest. It is also in mine. As for negotiating them? Ha. Human discourse on rights is what we should wish for. It would certainly beat the violence that is the easiest solution in having one's vision reach fruition.
    108 replies | 1176 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-24-2017, 05:30 PM
    Typically, each individual has their own understanding of what constitutes the rights they are endowed with. This varies from individual to individual. Rights are referred to as a general concept in this case, not a specific interpretation of what they constitute. The effective worth of them is approximately zero absent forcibly defending them. Slaves claiming they have rights amounts to... Nothing. Whether they believe they have them or not their predicament does not change. Defend at cost of one's life, by encouraging a mass of people to defend alongside oneself, or by controlling the levers of power that enables a small group to defend against others with a different vision. That could be a state. Defend is meant in a very general way, but is meant to be understood as any means used to uphold one's understanding of rights.
    108 replies | 1176 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-24-2017, 05:16 PM
    What is sovereign is only that which can be defended. There is no sovereignty for individuals whom have had their rights not just violated, but effectively stripped by an aggressor/oppressor. Claiming you have rights when they are systematically violated makes little sense. "The people" would be whatever group makes claims and forcibly defends them. Rare is the individual that can make claims and forcibly defend them, but then I'd posit that truly rare is the sovereign individual. Anything else is categorical nonsense.
    108 replies | 1176 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-24-2017, 04:50 PM
    Cotton is the old, tired, neoconservative idiocy put into a younger body. McCain with a god-damned body transfer. The guy is trash. He has never had a thought that wasn't vapid, and is a mouthpiece for every sort of warmongering you could expect from his ilk. He's never met an American soldier he hasn't wanted to put into a body bag in the name of his vision of foreign policy. If Trump uses him as an adviser, then that is an indictment of Trump's intelligence.
    28 replies | 524 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-24-2017, 12:22 AM
    Good satire.
    128 replies | 1313 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 02:13 PM
    Why is it the best appeal they can make is anti-Semitism, et al? Conservatives have been tagged with those labels for years. It is odd to see them play identity politics so willingly when they've suffered first hand from it. Bizarre. Shouldn't the winning argument be focused on disdain for the Constitution, pluralism, and free markets, instead of just making those three factors secondary to identity politics?
    128 replies | 1313 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 02:01 PM
    Too funny. No matter how I read it, it definitely doesn't come across as agreement. Oh well, not the first Quixote impression I've done and it won't be my last. You've been a good sport about it. Have a good day!
    80 replies | 2209 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    108 replies | 1176 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 01:38 PM
    I am quite aware of the arbitrary nature of morality in all of its forms. I was the one that invoked the fallacy of reification earlier in this thread to start this whole tangent, or did you miss that? Your attempt at one-upmanship was misguided at best, and foolish at worst. Take your pick.
    80 replies | 2209 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 01:24 PM
    You are really struggling here. My mythical greater good? Good God, man. Get some help from an outside party if this is difficult for you to understand. What you quoted was directly associated with a preceding statement dealing with a fallacious statement from Superfluous Man. Either A) you didn't understand what you were responding to, or B) thought you would conflate the abstract entities I was referring to with a collective. Whichever it was, your response was inane.
    80 replies | 2209 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 01:02 PM
    Erroneously conflating unlike terms is unbecoming. A collective of people that is quantifiable is not an abstract concept or entity. A quantifiable number of people that form a majority, one that establishes a consensus, is most definitely real. These are real people doing real things. Now, the morality of those actions? Debatable. But the actions? Not falsifiable.
    80 replies | 2209 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 12:57 PM
    Which God? The one you believe in? It must be so, since you know the mind of this God so very well. It seems presumptuous to claim to know the mind of God, but what do I know? You are, of course, free to derive your understanding of morality from whatever source you so desire. As am I. And I do not derive mine from whichever one of the great multitude of gods humans have created that you worship. Unsurprisingly, you will find a lack of accord between us on what constitutes right and wrong.
    80 replies | 2209 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 12:47 PM
    Perhaps true in an individual's mind, in that each individual may have a sense of right and wrong, but extending that to your neighbor is altogether unlikely to meet complete agreement on what is right and wrong. Appealing to a universal understanding of right and wrong is fallacious. A consensus can be established between people, and that consensus can be treated as real, but is binding only to those that accept it. What you've done is the equivalent of "Deep down, we all innately know with certitude that there is a God and we can't even conceive of it not being the case." Substitute any abstract entity in and the falsity of the statement remains the same.
    80 replies | 2209 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-23-2017, 09:39 AM
    Because their morality dictates it, and it grants them the opportunity to wear their chains with a feeling of moral superiority. Moral consistency matters more than anything else to them, because they are utterly ineffectual in challenging their oppressors. Charming fellows, if only because that lack of any will to harness power makes them harmless. Very useful to any collective that currently holds power, or aspires to power, because it ensures their reign goes relatively unchallenged.
    108 replies | 1176 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-20-2017, 07:46 PM
    Absolutely. It'd save everyone from reading your posts.
    467 replies | 16109 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-20-2017, 07:44 PM
    No, I have a recipe for resenting people intent on furthering the erosion of my liberties by bringing in more people that will do exactly that. That would be you, should you persist in your open borders nonsense.
    467 replies | 16109 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-20-2017, 07:35 PM
    Libertarianism will not win without the subversion of its enemies. They are real people with beliefs specifically designed to violate your rights in the furtherance of their ambitions. Unsurprisingly, giving said enemies carte blanche to do as they please is not a solution for liberty. They must be checked at every turn. I resent anyone intent on the further, or sustained, erosion of my liberty. If you have compassion for those that would violate your rights you are only deserving of scorn and ridicule.
    467 replies | 16109 view(s)
  • BSWPaulsen's Avatar
    02-19-2017, 04:52 PM
    Your version of a libertarian is the useful idiot for any group of people who would violate your rights. Compassion that is self-destructive is tantamount to idiocy. Compassion is best reserved for those that will not do you harm and only those that will do you no harm. There is an argument to be made for inviting immigrants of a libertarian bent. Those seeking liberty, not just the economic opportunity associated with the USA. As for those that would join the welfare voters? Anyone that supports the "right" of those people to be here, to be welfare voters, to further erode liberty, is no ally of liberty. They are a fraud and a traitor, worthy of the highest degree of scorn and ridicule. Peace and prosperity do not come about by allowing the world to move to your neighborhood, especially when it is known some most definitely do not have your liberty in mind. That's not peace and prosperity, that's an invasion. How many times has history demonstrated the folly of it?
    467 replies | 16109 view(s)
  • 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.
    467 replies | 16109 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.
    467 replies | 16109 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.
    467 replies | 16109 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.
    467 replies | 16109 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 | 2024 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.
    467 replies | 16109 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.
    80 replies | 2209 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 | 1081 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 | 1081 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 | 1081 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 | 1169 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 | 1169 view(s)
More Activity
About BSWPaulsen

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
242
Posts Per Day
0.13
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:56 PM
Join Date
11-22-2011
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

02-24-2017


02-23-2017


02-20-2017


02-17-2017



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast