"My Son is Dead Because the Concept of Borders Is Dead"

[kcchiefs6465]

Not if you think that a massive flood of third world immigrants will have negligible or even a positive effect on the populace.

"Massive flood," huh? Are you familiar with the works of Bastiat? It's fascinating to me that even with how much things change as time goes on, some things remain the same.

As to your point, 'cheap labor' is a positive for the populace. Now that will throw many a protectionist into a fit but it is the truth of the matter. The issue would be the debasement of the currency, the protectionist policies with regards to tariffs, sanctions, embargoes etc. and the fact that the market for labor has been completely bastardized to such a point that an equilibrium being established is seen as quite the feat not soon able to be accomplished.

But to be clear, your efforts would further bastardize the market, especially with regards to labor.

Aside from even that, cultural integration is not a bad thing. Society benefits (as if I should even give a $#@!, but that's neither here nor there) from the mixing of ideas, etc. It is up to people, individually, to accept or reject the ideas of a particular culture. As if modern American culture is some grand display to be emulated.

That's a key of progressive egalitarianism: the population doesn't matter, the society will continue as it is regardless of who the demographics are. Nonsense.

The collective doesn't matter. The sooner you, and they, realize this the better.

Answer the question: is Hans-Hermann Hoppe a progressive or a "student of progressivism"? Am I, as an anti-dmocratic reactionary a "progressive"? As we'll see, you have far more in common with a proglodyte's view of the world than I

No, he is not. You're not the first person to throw Hans-Hermann Hoppe in my face, by the way.

My calling you a 'student of progressivism' could have been worded differently.

You are student of collectivism, progressives the same. Birds of a feather and what not.

There is more than enough blame to go around: the politicians, the populace who legitimize political action, the lobbyists whose industries profit from state-action. A low-IQ horde of invading foreigners are yet another group that deserves to shoulder part of the blame, and they're one of the easiest groups to deal with, if we were just willing to do what needed doing.

I would say the majority of the blame lies with short-sighted, busy bodies.

I don't think we would need to do anything more than what Eisenhower did in the 1950s, as I've said repeatedly. That worked quite successfully with the technology of the mid-20th century, there's no reason it couldn't work today. It would probably be far easier now than sixty years ago.

You know, frankly I am not as versed on "Operation Wetback" as I perhaps should be. I've said it before and I'll repeat it again, immigration is probably about the tenth or twentieth thing down on a list of issues that particularly concern me. It is a divisive issue and absent here, where the honing of ideas and concepts is particularly able to happen, I don't even really talk about it.

Wrong. You don't seem to know much about the progressive mindset. People who want Single Payer Healthcare think that it is immoral to let the "profit motive" and the market keep people healthy. Explain a private way to provide healthcare to a socialist and they will still oppose it, because they think the market is too chaotic to adequately provide healthcare to people.

True enough. I was simply illustrating that your same mentality could be applied to any issue.

I have a perfectly sound way to privately control borders: the Heathian anarchism I advocate where privately owned cities control their borders. I would happily move toward that system, but the US government isn't going to abolish itself and sell off its cities to corporations anytime soon. As such, as long as the state exists I want it to meet the criteria that every civilization needs to meet to have even a modicum of liberty. Secure borders is on that list of criteria.

Corporations would not exist in a free society. People coming together, abdicating legal responsibility for the actions of the group, well, let's just say it sounds familiar.

The US government is going to continue doing what it's doing because of people like you.

I $#@! you not, every single time it's, "Well yeah, of course the Federal Reserve should be abolished. But there's a lot of people that need healthcare." Or, "Well yeah, of course 'we' shouldn't be destroying peasant villages overseas. But we certainly need a million soldiers on standby."

The only thing that changes are the key words.

The only inconsistency that exists is in the mind of reckless libertarians like yourself who think the government doing anything is bad, regardless of the effects of its inaction.

To be more accurate, I think that robbery is bad. Regardless of the utilitarian arguments to the contrary.

And again, while you wish for the government to rob 'A,' 'B,' or 'C,' to do, 'X,' 'Y,' or 'Z,' other people feel the same. Their goals may be different but the means are the same. So forgive me for the grouping of you all together as your political motives are different, many times.

If liberty is to mean anything, it must be grounded in philosophy, economics and history. The kind of liberty you're advocating isn't based in any of that (especially not history), it's just a childish screed against anything done by the state, damn the consequences.

Rather it is, "Thou shalt not steal.... damn the consequences." Your philosophy is, "Thou shalt not steal.... unless it is for the things I consider really, really, important."

There's a lot of people who agree with your premise.

Complete and utter nonsense. Anyone who says that has never actually looked into the issue of what IQ predicts in terms of success and income.

What is success?

There are individual variations (as with all things), but IQ is a very good predictor of success in capitalist economies, and is a better predictor of future than education level. Individuals with a low IQ may be useful, individuals with a high IQ may be useless, but the effects of IQ shredding a population is quite clear. What you're spouting is the normal progressive hogwash about IQ being a meaningless metric (and you have the gall to call me a progressive).

Do you feel that Hispanics are predisposed to having lower IQs?

The government is absolutely involved, if you don't believe me, come visit the public schools in California and the Southwest. There is no more social pressure to learn English if you're a Spanish speaking immigrant, and that is going to lead to the increasing Balkanization the Southwest. I'm seeing the beginning of it right before my eyes, and it's not a good thing.

I believe I stated something to the effect of, "The government should not be involved." This simple statement would preclude me not believing you.

I know private business is a part of it, which is one of the many reasons I oppose consumerism as the main cultural force within the US.

Businesses catering to those who frequent is not some sort of negative consequence of the free market. It is the predictable and healthy course of the free market.

I don't care about "authorization" or "legitimacy" or anything of the kind. I am a utilitarian;

I know you don't. If you had 51 % of the population, or were king, you'd be as big a tyrant as any. Goddamned Rousseaus.

I care about a sustainable civilization built on liberty, and a society that lets hordes of low-IQ,genetically distinct invaders who don't speak the language into its border will totally lack sustainability or liberty.

"A sustainable civilization built on liberty"... that's rich. You would help to destroy liberty in order to sustain liberty. You ever listen to the introduction of Tom Woods Jr.'s podcast?

Nor do I believe in the social contract. To me, the best argument for the government is the theory of "organic government", but I think the state is a largely lumbering, inefficient overly-costly apparatus that can more efficiently be replaced by market actors, hence I oppose its existence. However I only advocate its complete abolition under certain circumstances that the society must meet. We are a far, far cry away from meeting those circumstances, so in the meantime I'm okay with the state doing things if it will increase liberty in the long run. Libertarian ends over immediately libertarian means. Immigration control wouldn't need to increase the size or scope of the state, or even increase spending if the "defense" budget was cut (which it should be in any case).

There's always a "however......"

Yes, immigration control would need to increase the size and scope of the state. Certainly it wouldn't be able to do away with the Constitution Free Zone.

You can say this or that about the harm caused by Hispanics, but those drones will be flying over the country for good. And because of people like you, I'd add, you freedom protecting, patriot.

[kcchiefs6465]

"It'll work this time."

[AuH20]

"It'll work this time."

A fence only works with a multispectrum approach to illegal immigration. It's a physical barrier, no more, no less. And we don't have the will for a multi-spectrum approach since we have been feminized and brainwashed.

[kcchiefs6465]

A fence only works with a multispectrum approach to illegal immigration. It's a physical barrier, no more, no less. And we don't have the will for a multi-spectrum approach since we have been feminized and brainwashed.

'We' don't have the money to build a fence, either.

Nor to hire 3,000 more ICE agents.

What do you figure the retirement package for a single one costs?

[Zippyjuan]

Given that most new immigrants these days (legal and illegal) are from Asia and not Mexico- should we build a wall between the US and Asia (Mexicans have actually been leaving)? How much would that cost?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/politi...n-immigration/

I don't have any links right now but tighter border security actually encouraged more Mexicans to stay in the US illegally. When it was easier to cross, they would come and work for a while, get money, and go back home to perhaps return to the US later on again. But as it became harder to cross, they instead came and stayed. Then, rather than going back to visit their families, they tried to bring their families to the US with them or to get them to come join them later meaning more Mexicans coming to the US.

Unintended consequences.

[AuH20]

'We' don't have the money to build a fence, either.

Nor to hire 3,000 more ICE agents.

What do you figure the retirement package for a single one costs?

We also don't have the funds to give out welfare to the naturalized sons and daughters of illegal aliens. And that applies to Earned Income Tax Credits and Social Security benefits either. If you're going to pick a poison, it's probably wiser to bite the bullet on costs that control the rate of dependents (and most importantly LOCAL and FEDERAL living costs for our new friends) entering the country. A relative analogy would be owning a bucket riddled with holes that you transport water with. It would probably be in the farmer's best interest to repair the holes first, so less water (the billions sent home to foreign locales) is lost over the course of trip. A more secure border and an unrestrained ICE (combined with other measures) would probably save money for this country in the long run.

[kcchiefs6465]

We also don't have the funds to give out welfare to the naturalized sons and daughters of illegal aliens. And that applies to Earned Income Tax Credits and Social Security benefits either. If you're going to pick a poison, it's probably wiser to bite the bullet on costs that control the rate of dependents (and most importantly LOCAL and FEDERAL living costs for our new friends) entering the country. A relative analogy would be owning a bucket riddled with holes that you transport water with. It would probably be in the farmer's best interest to repair the holes first, so less water (the billions sent home to foreign locales) is lost over the course of trip. A more secure border and an unrestrained ICE (combined with other measures) would probably save money for this country in the long run.

In the long run this country will be bankrupt and primarily because of its own citizens.

I'd rather not be stopped by jackboots within that course. Whether that means immigrants speed up the inevitable or not.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

"Massive flood," huh? Are you familiar with the works of Bastiat? It's fascinating to me that even with how much things change as time goes on, some things remain the same.

As to your point, 'cheap labor' is a positive for the populace. Now that will throw many a protectionist into a fit but it is the truth of the matter. The issue would be the debasement of the currency, the protectionist policies with regards to tariffs, sanctions, embargoes etc. and the fact that the market for labor has been completely bastardized to such a point that an equilibrium being established is seen as quite the feat not soon able to be accomplished.

But to be clear, your efforts would further bastardize the market, especially with regards to labor.

Aside from even that, cultural integration is not a bad thing. Society benefits (as if I should even give a $#@!, but that's neither here nor there) from the mixing of ideas, etc. It is up to people, individually, to accept or reject the ideas of a particular culture. As if modern American culture is some grand display to be emulated.

Yeah, I'm very familiar with Bastiat. I don't view economic analysis as the be-all-end-all of political economy. Cultural decline is a far bigger problem than slightly higher prices. I'm not sure why you quoted "cheap labor", since I never actually said anything about that. You should care about culture, and you're not going to see "cultural integration", you're going to see Balkanization and division. Modern American culture sucks. It's a vile stew of consumerism, hedonism and instant gratification. There is some sense in which Hispanic culture could improve white-America (traditionalism, monogamous marriage, big families etc), but being in the epicenter of the Hispanization of America, that's not the culture that's being exported.

The collective doesn't matter. The sooner you, and they, realize this the better.

You don't seem to at all grasp my ideological evolution. I used to spout the same thing; the individual is all that matters, race doesn't exist and all sorts of other nonsense. Then I started researching group genetics, phenotypic difference and the history of "diversity", "civil rights" and integration. I was wrong; you are wrong, the sooner you realize this the better.

No, he is not. You're not the first person to throw Hans-Hermann Hoppe in my face, by the way.

My calling you a 'student of progressivism' could have been worded differently.

You are student of collectivism, progressives the same. Birds of a feather and what not


I would say the majority of the blame lies with short-sighted, busy bodies. .

I'm not throwing anyone in your face, I'm just saying it's foolish to call him or me a "progressive". You are an individualist to the point where your individualism takes primacy over reality, quiite like what a Marxist does. Without community, the individual parishes, without individual freedom the community becomes a tyranny. The right wing (as I identify with it) attempts to create a balance between the freedom of the individual and the self-determination of the community, which is necessary for any sustainable civilization.

You know, frankly I am not as versed on "Operation Wetback" as I perhaps should be. I've said it before and I'll repeat it again, immigration is probably about the tenth or twentieth thing down on a list of issues that particularly concern me. It is a divisive issue and absent here, where the honing of ideas and concepts is particularly able to happen, I don't even really talk about it.

Clearly. There are more important issues than immigration, but the immigrant problem is probably the most easily solved of any major issue, and has major popular support. The same can't be said of pretty much any other major political problem.

Corporations would not exist in a free society. People coming together, abdicating legal responsibility for the actions of the group, well, let's just say it sounds familiar.

Corporations as we know them wouldn't exist, I agree with that. There would still be entities known as corporations and there's nothing in a free market that would mean CEOs or a board of directors wouldn't exist. That model may be out-competed by other models, or it could be more dominant than today, it's impossible to truly prognosticate in an unfettered total market.

The US government is going to continue doing what it's doing because of people like you.

Yeah, anti-globalist, reactionary, traditionalist, pan-secessionists are the reason the state is able to do what it does, not globalist, egalitarian progressives

I $#@! you not, every single time it's, "Well yeah, of course the Federal Reserve should be abolished. But there's a lot of people that need healthcare." Or, "Well yeah, of course 'we' shouldn't be destroying peasant villages overseas. But we certainly need a million soldiers on standby."

The only thing that changes are the key words.

One can be a critic of the Fed while still supporting some kind of welfare, one can support a military without supporting foreign policy.I am not a univeralist; I'm perfectly happy to let anyone live however they want, provided they're willing to let me do the same. You want to let hordes of IQ deficient invaders into your version of ancapistan? Have at it, I want no part of it. The funny thing is, I am an anarcho-capitalist, but by your standard anyone and everyone who doesn't want your kind of society and advocate for your exact prescriptions are "part of the problem." That would include the aforementioned Hans-Herman Hoppe and Murray Rothbard at one point in his life. And people call me divisive...

To be more accurate, I think that robbery is bad. Regardless of the utilitarian arguments to the contrary.

And again, while you wish for the government to rob 'A,' 'B,' or 'C,' to do, 'X,' 'Y,' or 'Z,' other people feel the same. Their goals may be different but the means are the same. So forgive me for the grouping of you all together as your political motives are different, many times.

And ancoms and mutualists think that capitalism is robbery; that's a debate that has no end, and ultimately, no point.

Grouping Marxists, democrats, paleocons, neocons, progressives and minarchists into the same amorphous glob because they aren't all ancaps is the very reason why radical libertarians are so often dismissed for not being serious thinkers; and in this case for good reason.

You're the type to group the DPRK and the UK into the same group, when to anyone with any kind of knowledge there is clearly no comparison. I advocate immigration control by the government pragmatically, not ideally. I don't advocate any state action as an ideal, but as a compromise because we live in the world that exists, not the one we want.

Western society, though highly flawed, is the greatest civilization man has ever known. I want to see that continue, not watch it burn because radical relativists like yourself think it has no value simply because it doesn't fit into your very specific societal prescriptions.

Rather it is, "Thou shalt not steal.... damn the consequences." Your philosophy is, "Thou shalt not steal.... unless it is for the things I consider really, really, important."

Anarcho-communist: "Your philosophy is 'though shalt not steal... unless it's in service of your capitalist masters."
Anarcho-primitivist: "Your philosophy is 'though shalt not kill'... unless it's in service of your brutal civilization.

Every last one of us - to a man - advocates someone another considers immoral for utility's sake; some of us just admit that and don't run around pretending we're on the side of some objective ethic.

There's a lot of people who agree with your premise.

There are many who agree with immigration control, but among libertarians I am a reactionary and among the neoreaction I am an anarchist. I am a radical among radicals, one percent of one percent when it comes to politics, economy and history. I may be somewhat more "mainstream" on this issue, but I am far more extreme and idiosyncratic compared to the overall society. You are far more close to the mainstream of the political lexicon than I.

What is success?

Production. Wealth. It's certainly true that success is a thing defined by each individual and there is no "real" definition, but by any objective, macro-metric, IQ makes very good predictions. The idea that it's meaningless is a canard pushed by leftists who don't like the implications.

Do you feel that Hispanics are predisposed to having lower IQs?

The evidence shows that IQ is a highly heritable and thereby racial phenotypic trait, yes. I didn't always believe this, I didn't like it when I first learned this was true, but I am not comfortable with dismissing objective data in favor of my predisposed notions. That way lies ruin.

I believe I stated something to the effect of, "The government should not be involved." This simple statement would preclude me not believing you.

Whether or not the government should be involved is irrelevant. It is involved, and shows no signs of slowing down. In the name of diversity, the government is creating a generation of anchor babies who are barely literate all throughout the Southwest. If you don't think that's going to lead to major problems down the road, you're in for a major surprise.

Businesses catering to those who frequent is not some sort of negative consequence of the free market. It is the predictable and healthy course of the free market.

The free market caters to the culture of the society it exists within. This is one of the places I break with mainstream libertarianism; libertarians think that whatever the free market does should be supported simply because the free market is doing it, hence so-called "thin libertarianism". I on the other hand, take a strong stand in regards to culture, because cultural bulwarks are what maintains liberty and keeps the market free. The rotted husk of America's free market is catering to cultural forces that will destroy what's left of it, and the majority of the liberty movement is cheering it on, because of historical and cultural illiteracy.

I know you don't. If you had 51 % of the population, or were king, you'd be as big a tyrant as any. Goddamned Rousseaus.

So because I'm not a "natural lawyer" libertarian, I'd be a tyrant. All people who disagree with your philosophical views are tyrannical. Yeah, those tyrants Benjamin Tucker, Milton Friedman, David Friedman and the like

At first you were making arguments in good faith I could respect, now you're just ad-homming and sounding stupid

"A sustainable civilization built on liberty"... that's rich. You would help to destroy liberty in order to sustain liberty. You ever listen to the introduction of Tom Woods Jr.'s podcast?


There's always a "however......"

Yeah, I've listened to lots of Tom Woods. I'm willing to bet I've read a lot more about libertarian theory than you, since you seem to think Hoppe is a collectivist statist of some sort...

In order to maintain liberty, there are indeed times when immediately libertarian means lead to illibertarian ends. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history knows this. Liberty exists within certain context civilizations meet. Borders are part of that. You're the type of person who would've opposed the 1816 tarrif, and ended up at war with Britain once again. You would've let Communists flood Washington in the name of "political freedom".

To people like you liberty will never be, because it's not a grounded in political philosophy that comports to reality; it's just a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that makes you feel morally superior to people who disagree. I care about liberty as an actual, tangible thing that can be sustained, you care about it as some sort of identity that makes you feel good to embrace, like leftists and "equality". I'm the one who really cares about liberty, because I want tit to be be the sustainable and realistic social order in the near future.

Yes, immigration control would need to increase the size and scope of the state. Certainly it wouldn't be able to do away with the Constitution Free Zone.

If the military budget gets cut (which it should, regardless of what's done about immigration), there wouldn't need to be a single extra dime spent, and net spending would likely be far lower. It would also be possible to cut back on the welfare state with less immigration. Every period of mass migration to the US has been followed with a long pause of no net-immigration, with the exception of this one for about the past few decades. It's not the sole reason, but it isa reason for bigger government..

You can say this or that about the harm caused by Hispanics, but those drones will be flying over the country for good. And because of people like you, I'd add, you freedom protecting, patriot.

Yeah, it's because of people like me. Radical right wing reactionaries are the cause of bigger government people! You heard it here first! It's not the open border globalists! It's not the warmongering neocons! It's not the progressives who see government as the solution to everything! No no! It's heathian anarchists! It's the neoreaction! Yeah, we have no candidates and no political power whatsoever but we're the ones responsible. Obviously

One thing that's always astounded me about the left is how they say everything is the fault of the right,. This is despite the fact that every single $#@!ing mainstream narrative in the country comes from the left, and today's "ultra-conservatives" are far more liberal than FDR ever was.

I see now this isn't just a problem with leftists, though; it's alive and well in the liberty movement. People who agree with me on immigration have operationally had no political power for almost thirty years. You don't want a border? Well, functionally the US barely has one. The EU has even less immigration controls. You want the "right of travel? Europe has it in spades. What has that done for liberty in the EU? You may disagree that it's degraded liberty, but it sure as hell hasn't increased it. Anti-border people like you have won; the West barely has any borders left. Canada is one of the few countries left that actually polices who they let in (and what a disaster that place is on account of it, right?)

Despite all that, it's people like me how are the problem. Nothing along the lines of what I want has been enacted for over half a century, yet I'm still the problem.

You're every bit as ideological and truth-hating as a Marxist.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Given that most new immigrants these days (legal and illegal) are from Asia and not Mexico- should we build a wall between the US and Asia (Mexicans have actually been leaving)? How much would that cost?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/politi...n-immigration/

I don't have any links right now but tighter border security actually encouraged more Mexicans to stay in the US illegally. When it was easier to cross, they would come and work for a while, get money, and go back home to perhaps return to the US later on again. But as it became harder to cross, they instead came and stayed. Then, rather than going back to visit their families, they tried to bring their families to the US with them or to get them to come join them later meaning more Mexicans coming to the US.

Unintended consequences.

The problem is cultural change cause by immigration. In So. Cal there is a clear and obvious trend of Hispanification of the culture that was not anywhere near as prevalent just say, fifteen years ago. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, at this point it's undeniable. I've seen it happen before my eyes.

Groups like La Raza say it's great and that Hispanics are going to take back California and Texas. It's just not something that can be denied at this point. There are cultural Asian enclaves that have existed for a long time - the carious Chinatown, Japantowns etc - but there is no widespread Asianification of any area to any significant degree.

People keep talking about building a wall. Maybe I missed it, but who exactly in this thread said there should be any wall built anywhere? I know I sure didn't say that. I've said repeatedly that we don't need to do anything that hasn't been done previously in US law, we just need to look at what works and do that. I think a wall is costly and unnecessary, and a strawman argument from pro-immigrant progs. Since when are proglodytes like yourself against wasteful spending in the first place?

If you're right about Hispanic immigrants staying because of tighter border controls, all the more reason to do what we know works to get rid of them.

As for Asian immigrants, it depends on what part of Asia. Some Asian countries have high IQ populations , who come here and contribute to the economy. Some don't The ones that do should be allowed to stay, the ones that don't should be sent back. Simple.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I know you're this sites resident proglodyte, but surely even you must know that government spending=/=effective policy.

You're having an academic debate with a person whose purpose here is to discourage new membership, and hence, shut down the site.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I would also bet that the son's death had more to do with the WoD than on open borders.

I was also thinking that. Other stories I read talk about the murder randomly pulling up to Golvach and shooting him. I would bet there is more to it. These so-called senseless killings are usually not that random at all.

If the murderer was into drugs, then was it drug related? If so, then you have to take this back even further. If you're going to stretch it, then also say the culprit is making drugs illegal. Perhaps if drugs were legal, then this guy is still alive. If drugs are legal, then this murderer is not even in this career. If it's going to be traced back, then trace it all the way back. Illegalities breed these kinds of disputes.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yeah, I'm very familiar with Bastiat. I don't view economic analysis as the be-all-end-all of political economy. Cultural decline is a far bigger problem than slightly higher prices. I'm not sure why you quoted "cheap labor", since I never actually said anything about that. You should care about culture, and you're not going to see "cultural integration", you're going to see Balkanization and division. Modern American culture sucks. It's a vile stew of consumerism, hedonism and instant gratification. There is some sense in which Hispanic culture could improve white-America (traditionalism, monogamous marriage, big families etc), but being in the epicenter of the Hispanization of America, that's not the culture that's being exported.

[SNIPPED FOR SPACE]

Well, thank you for your thought out responses. We are clearly at an impasse, now, though. While I'd disagree with a few of your points there's no real gain to be had by rehashing the same arguments, etc.

In any case, since you've made your position a lot more clear I suppose I will simply do the same.

They will poison this earth within a hundred years absent technological improvements beyond what I think human ingenuity is able to attain in such a period. It will be a century of perpetual war, the diminishing of freedom, and eventually nuclear, or otherwise, annihilation. If this country thinks its drone policy has not set a precedent, as well as its attacks have not angered at least a generation it is sadly mistaken. Now of course this isn't written in stone but I am no utopian or fantasizing pacifist. The people aren't going to change. Whether that is because of genetics or certain psychological occurrences that happen with regards to a group, I don't specifically know. It has also been ordained and while I am not particularly religious, I am particularly surprised that with all of the evil man has perpetuated, this planet has not been thrown off its axis.

So you see, I could not care less about the collective. I could not care less if the moral system I propose caused civilization in totality to be put in the hamper. I believe strongly that with a moral system, the most society can achieve will be achieved but I am not caught up on, "But if you do this, before you do this, then that might occur." Well sure, it might. But then, so what? For instance with regards to immigration, the argument of welfare increasing holds little bearing on the fact that people ought to be able to contract with who they please. Whether the two people are neighbors or live at the opposite ends of the world. I don't particularly think this republic can revert back to even the relative freedom of its conception. The people are too far gone and the state holds a practical monopoly over education. We could also be limited by personality types, etc. Surely I see the world differently than quite the few and it is interesting to consider that most here fall into the INTJ or INTP spectrum (as flawed a test as that may be, it does show that generally speaking we all see things the same way and perhaps a different way than most).

To reiterate, as I know that it may come across that I simply am content to watch the world burn, freedom would advance civilization, not retard it. The free market is the most efficient economy able to be produced. Though again, I could not care less if it was efficient or a painstaking burden. It is moral.

As well, while you perhaps don't argue that an influx of immigrants lowers wages and affects the countrymen, who should be protected with artificially high wages through regulation and laws, many do. I don't care if an influx of immigrants lowers wages in certain sectors. Whatsoever. Their emotional (and often fallacious) arguments mean nothing to me.

I apologize for the ad hominem. I misread an earlier post of your's, took it as you calling me a leftist, took offense at that and responded in kind, which led to you then responding in kind. I apologize and I was out of line.

Best of luck.