Sure, but if it's something that can be granted and - by extension - taken away by property owners, it's hardly an "inalienable right", is it?Originally Posted by AuH20
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
The state may do all sorts of awful $#@! in the name of border control (among numerous other things), but that does not therefore mean that the border is being effectively policed. Whether or not the border is being controlled efficiently and effectively is an empirical claim, and by all measures you can name, there is no border control to speak of.
Libertarians need to get out of their philosophical and economic ivory towers, and start looking at what open immigration and a totally unsecured border does to democracies. Open borders are one of the many things being pushed for by globalist elites, and they've recently realized that libertarians can be pawns in this particular issue. If you want to see the last scraps of negative liberty further, continue to advocate for open border internationalism like a good globalist, but don't do it in the name of anyone who actually gives a damn about maintaining liberty.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
What we should really do is build a 30ft wall and then place a $#@!load of land mines on the other side of the wall, and also dig explosives into the ground in case they tunnel. And extend the wall into the ocean so that we control our oceanic borders as well. And have AA missiles to automatically strike unidentified aircraft crossing our borders.
This way noone crosses without strict approval from our government.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
Not being permitted to carry never means you don't have the right and duty to anyway.
'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988
Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation
'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...
No, of course not. Even Mises and Rothbard arrived at the same non-race based conclusion:
Murray Rothbard
"However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors .
Ludwig von Mises.
“These considerations are not a plea for opening America and the British Dominions to German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants. Under present conditions America and Australia would simply commit suicide by admitting Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese. They could as well directly surrender to the Führer and to the Mikado. Immigrants from the totalitarian countries are today the vanguard of their armies, a fifth column whose invasion would render all measures of defense useless. America and Australia can preserve their freedom, their civilizations, and their economic institutions only by rigidly barring access to the subjects of the dictators. But these conditions are the outcome of statism. In the liberal past the immigrants came not as pacemakers of conquest but as loyal citizens of their new country.”
Last edited by AuH20; 02-24-2015 at 09:56 AM.
ALL who come here outside USA Law are criminals and need to be deported along with their anchor babies.
You still look to "USA Law" for moral direction? Completely laughable.
They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support.
Are you also willing to arrest & penalize the board of directors of some major corporations? This isn't as simple as kicking them out. The problem is far more entrenched.
Rights are moral claims. Rights indicate that which ought not be interfered with, not that it is impossible to interfere, only that is impossible to rightfully interfere.
Controlling entry to your property is fine, so long as you're only talking about your own property. But this isn't the issue when it comes to the subject of immigration. The subject of immigration, rather, involves an illegitimate claim to land boundaries by a State, restricting free travel, and forcing certain standards onto other property owners. Property owners should be able to let anyone they want onto their own property, or alternatively restrict whoever they want from entering their property. But when you begin regarding State land boundaries as if they were legitimate, and when you begin to impose your standards onto others by way of force, and when you promote restricting free travel, you're no longer advocating a position concerned with liberty.
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
We need to bring our troops home from overseas and use them to secure our borders now, both our southern and northern borders. If groups like ISIS are truly a threat to U.S national security, the first thing we should do is secure our borders. The people who want to spend trillions fighting them with ground troops all over the world are the same people who desire to keep our borders open here at home.
The border isn't unsecured. We are actually spending more than twice to secure it than we did when Obama took office. Another thing to consider is that about half of those here illegally didn't sneak across the border. They came here legally- on tourist visas, work visas, student visas, and stayed after they expired. A 100% secure border (which is a myth anyways- you can never have one no matter how much money you want to spend) is impossible.
I would also like to add that the influx of illegal aliens stopped about 2007. There are actually fewer illegal aliens in the country today then there were back then.
Lol.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
This here is why we cannot have nice things.
You are a conservative, yes? What is conservative about an open ended, impossible, freedom limiting, welfare plan? You see I find myself in agreement a lot when conservatives say things like, "Well, illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to vote or collect welfare." Well, no one should, so that's pretty cut and dry. But it seems that right after arguing that correct, moral, logical, and reasonable position they then start with the avocation of a welfare program to build a wall, for instance. Or an even bigger welfare program to pay tens of thousands of soldiers to be stationed along the border. Now it might be wise to actually notice the wordage being used. These would be soldiers, stationed, along the border. Now perhaps you are unaware of what many of these soldier's daily tasks are, say, in Iraq or Afghanistan, or perhaps irony knows no bounds. In any case, you are speaking of bringing soldiers, stationing them in the towns where people try to live, and within the confines of a Constitution free zone.
I think we've discussed this before but what on earth would make that appear to be a good idea?
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
There is nothing wrong with having borders and making sure it is secure.. It is like putting up fencing around your house and having a big dog on the premises.
Okay, okay. MAYBE people can come and go as they want.. however, when they start asking for citizenship and what not, then we have a problem.
No, it's not the same. When you put up fencing, it's on YOUR property. I'm pretty sure you're not going to put a fence around your entire block and then force your neighbors to pay for the cost.
The influx stopped in 2007? Where is the evidence for this? I'm sure the influx has slowed down for a variety of reasons, but stopped? That burden of proof is on you. The fact that more is being spent on "securing the border" doesn't mean that things are actually being done effectively. I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy. If the state were dealing with illegal immigration effectively, they'd be reintroducing the policies that worked so effectively under Eisenhower in the 1950s and early 60s.
The one thing you're right about is the whole worker visa thing; much illegal immigration does indeed come from lax policing of work visas, which is why the Cathedral-conservatives are so backward on immigration. The usual GOP PC line that "I don't care about immigration as long as it's legal. The entire population of Mexico could come here legally and I wouldn't care" is utter nonsense. There are massive problems throughout the immigration system, both legal and illegal.
Last edited by ThePaleoLibertarian; 02-24-2015 at 08:26 PM.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
We sure believe in the borders of Ukraine but apparently not Texas.
I'm not in an ivory tower. Far from it. It's not philosophical or theoretical. I'm wading through cow $#@! and I want to hire illegal immigrants to do some of it for me. I could care less about maintaining a democracy. This democracy has made sure that it's citizens feel that they are above doing my job. They want to sit on their ass and have someone else produce their food.
Or he could just be a grieving father who doesn't understand why his kid had to die.
"The Patriarch"
His kid had to die for the cheap labor and political power unfettered immigration brings.
Why do I think you wouldn't have a problem with a father using his son's death to make a political point, if his point was something you agreed with, say anti war?
Would you have a problem with the father of a victim of police abuse speaking out against police?
I don't care about "maintaining a democracy"; I vastly prefer monarchy (among others), and democracy is one of the worst political systems there is. What I'm talking about is the deleterious effects that open borders, anchor babies and a flood of third worlders with alien cultures have on democracies. Indeed, such things would have negative effects on any society, but not as much as a democracy where "political freedom" is fetishized over personal and economic liberty.
Moreover, aliens (legal or illegal) are not the statistical majority of any workforce. The statistics I saw a few years ago, said at the most, they constituted less than a quarter of certain industries' The idea that Americans are "too lazy" to do certain jobs is just nonsense, not backed by any empirical reality.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
The burden of proof is on the individual stating that we don't need the government policies you advocate for? So paleolibertarians are lazy democrats or what?
WTF are you talking about? The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making that claim. He claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants has stopped. I seriously doubt that the situation in Mexico has improved or the situation in the US has deteriorated to the point where there is no net illegal immigration. That burden is on him. I don't know how what I said could be interpreted any other way.
As for any burden that may rest on me, it's very clear what an influx of third worlders from Central and South America will have on the US. Look at whether Latinos in the US want more or less government (hint: they want more), look at their voting records, look at what their lobbies want and look at what groups like La Raza agitate for. That's to say nothing of border eradication serving the globalist agenda. Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?
The quip about "lazy democrats" is just ridiculous. Yeah, democrats are such anti-globalist, anti-immigration activistsAll people who oppose the state want the government to take care of certain things while it still exists. I'm no exception and neither is any ancap on this forum.
Last edited by ThePaleoLibertarian; 02-24-2015 at 10:32 PM.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
I'm curious, did your statistics look into turnover?
I would imagine that after hiring, firing, and having quite a few simply not show back up for even something as simple as a drug screening, that some saw greener pastures.
Right or wrong, contracts are contracts. And one super-duper, implied, 'contract' does not, or ought not, trump personal freedom.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
That is some sick stuff. The reason for freedom is freedom, not some desired result.
They're not "my statistics". It's been a while since I looked at them in-depth, so I'll have to get back to you on that. As I recall, turnover was a part of it, but I might be wrong.
That's the thing though; if the influx of illegals only affected property owners who had contracts with them as workers, I would have much less of a problem with it. The problem is that those private contracts between boss and illegal worker force everyone else into a political union with said illegals. The root problem is how awful democracy is, but the immediately fixable problem is immigration policy.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
I don't, and the quicker the better.WTF are you talking about? The burden of proof of any claim is on the person making that claim. He claimed that the influx of illegal immigrants has stopped. I seriously doubt that the situation in Mexico has improved or the situation in the US has deteriorated to the point where there is no net illegal immigration. That burden is on him. I don't know how what I said could be interpreted any other way.
As for any burden that may rest on me, it's very clear what an influx of third worlders from Central and South America will have on the US. Look at whether Latinos in the US want more or less government (hint: they want more), look at their voting records, look at what their lobbies want and look at what groups like La Raza agitate for. That's to say nothing of border eradication serving the globalist agenda. Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?
The quip about "lazy democrats" is just ridiculous. Yeah, democrats are such anti-globalist, anti-immigration activists
From above:
As if the global elites, you know, the major shareholders and/or often even the people in charge of these various corporations aren't already doing what they're doing.Why are open-border libertarians so ok with serving the ravenous desires of global elites?
Which corporation do you think will build that wall? Which corporation do you think will supply the guards?
ETA: And furthermore, who owns/controls said corporations?
Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 02-24-2015 at 10:47 PM.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Please do.
What would be the problem at all, then?That's the thing though; if the influx of illegals only affected property owners who had contracts with them as workers, I would have much less of a problem with it.
What do you mean by "political union"?The problem is that those private contracts between boss and illegal worker force everyone else into a political union with said illegals. The root problem is how awful democracy is, but the immediately fixable problem is immigration policy.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Really? You mean you don't want property protected or contracts enforced by law? Good to know.
I know that ideally non-state actors would take care of that, but we live in reality, and in reality the state is a metastasizing cancer feeding off the last scraps of a robust market system. Open borders is one of the (many) reasons for this.
Of course they are, but libertarians should stop nodding along and being okay with it, all the while still pretending to be their opposition. In this area at least, you aren't.As if the global elites, you know, the major shareholders and/or often even the people in charge of these various corporations aren't already doing what they're doing.
Any movement that is not properly right wing will inevitably become leftist. Libertarians nodding along and giving cover to the open-border globalists is a very good example of that very process at work.
Do you mean in a theoretical ancap society or in this one?Which corporation do you think will build that wall? Which corporation do you think will supply the guards?
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us