Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support.
Abstract Immigrants
But the welfare state is already here— and, far from having a wall built around it, the welfare state is expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do as regards immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.
Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods.
Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries or any other countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country that has produced such benefits for the American people for so long.
Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?
http://www.creators.com/conservative...mmigrants.html
We really have no control, other than the United Nations. The UN, people we don't elect, are controlling the U.S. at the moment ... Not just us, but the EU as well. They call the shots on immigration, and steal from the middle class to give to the refugees. They won't steal from the rich, because this deal will be shot down in a heartbeat, once the rich feel they are going to miss out on one steak dinner this month.
More than 50% of immigrants are on welfare:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/71517072/
That just seems so obviously wrong that I must be misinterpreting your meaning.
Although they do overlap, the two are completely different problems with completely different solutions - at least that is the way I see it.
So perhaps you might explain why you think they are so intertwined that one cannot be addressed without addressing the other.
I also do not think the "welfare state" is an inescapable fact of life. There are solutions, but there just doesn't seem to be leaders willing to even voice them, much less advocate them.
GA
That's a pretty interesting view on the matter.
So the people, such as myself and a few others here, who are for legitimate contracts and a free market, are the thieves rather than those who openly advocate stealing from all to pay for a fence, or more browncoats, or what have you?
Excellent logic.
Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 09-03-2015 at 01:18 AM.
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
"You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
"When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
"Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."
Well, first of all let's determine: is there such a thing as a high-quality person, and is there such a thing as a low-quality person? Because that seems to be the assertion you ultimately want to challenge, yes?
So let's just be clear and upfront. If you feel that there is no such thing as high-quality and low-quality people, the alternative is that all people are of uniformly equal quality. That is the only logical alternative (besides some marginal possibilities such as you could believe there's no such thing as people). Is that your belief? Or do you agree with me that different individuals possess different levels of quality?
I believe there are specific qualities that make one more suited for specific tasks. Said qualities and tasks being so numerous and varied (and, not defined by a central authority,) I think it is the height of foolishness to claim knowledge of an overarching "quality" for the task of "participating in society."
They confronted me in the day of my calamity, but the Lord was my support.
Exactly. And we never will, because those are two separate issues, each with its own choice.
The choices for the welfare state are yes vs. no, or viewed incrementally, more vs. less.
The choices for immigration restriction are yes vs. no, or viewed incrementally, more vs. less.
The only conceivably defendable correct answer for both of those questions is no, or less. And that remains the correct answer for each item irrespective of what situation prevails with the other item.
We cannot allow a situation where we concede to further empowerment of the state in one respect in order to ameliorate the damages done by previous empowerments of the state in some other respect. This is what got us here. Every big-government solution to an existing big-government problem creates more big-government problems requiring more big-government solutions. No matter where we are in that cycle, our demand always has to be that we get out of it, not that we take just one more step toward tyranny first.
Helmuth pretty much hit the nail on the head in the first post so there's really little else to say without being superfluous. But consider a modern democratic-republican state like our own, how does one achieve a "libertarian" society when you have, let's face it, a rather unintelligent hoard of third-worlders pouring in and voting straight for the Democratic Party? Imagine if we truly opened the borders and a billion people migrated here, with the current system in place. Does anyone seriously expect the Republican Party to have a chance? The old "Conservative" GOP we have now would disappear in a heartbeat, there would need to be serious reformations. And any "libertarian" small government candidate would be permanently excluded and marginalized into the fringe in the political landscape. I've never seen any open-borders libertarian answer these questions, it's just "Oh well let them in, we'll have less government on the border."
Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the USA were a democratic-republican state, as you claim, consider, how does one achieve a "libertarian" society when you have, let's face it, a rather arrogant hoard of educated white elites who were born here voting for either the Democrat or the Republican party?
To me, I offer no prescription for achieving a libertarian society this side of the return of Jesus. But that's not the point. Moral laws exist and we ought to observe them. I don't say that just because I don't believe we can achieve a world with zero theft, that I am obliged to not to oppose theft.
Before we even begin to look at the pragmatic effects of free markets (which I am convinced will ultimately prove to be on the whole good in ways that no one can predict), we have to face the moral question of whether you are doing right or wrong when you use violence to compel me to verify that a person I wish to hire has paperwork indicating that you have given them permission to work for me. It is wrong. And that settles the matter. Further discussion about the effects that will result when we do right, rather than wrong, can have no bearing on the decision.
Actually low crime is very important to me. And honesty and integrity are very important to me. I hate being stolen from or otherwise victimized by crime, and I hate dishonest people. I personally would love to live, work, and shop in a county populated only by honest people.
Unfortunately, that may be a pipe dream that's unachievable in America. Currently about 90% of Americans lie regularly. Americans cheat on their spouses, steal from their employers, and on and on and on. The problem is way too universal and pervasive to have any chance of improvement, at least in this country. Maybe after a few hundred years of selective breeding.
So honesty is out as a societal goal. Totally unrealistic. I have to content myself with being totally honest myself and not being friends with, working with, or closely associating with dishonest people. Creating my own little bubble of honesty.
Low crime, on the other hand, is very achievable. Unfortunately, the solution is politically incorrect. As in VERY politically incorrect. As in YOU DO NOT SAY THIS IN PUBLIC politically incorrect. But hey, why not, I'll say it. If you want low crime, live around white people. Blacks commit murder at a rate 8 times that of whites. Hispanics more than double.
More interesting reading: http://web.archive.org/web/201111041...race-and-crime
White homicide rates in big cities have now dropped to extraordinarily low levels. The white population has basically been pacified.
Now as for IQ, there is a correlation between IQ and crime rate also, phill. I do not know whether it's a stronger correlation than the correlation with race. But it's a strong correlation, so if you formed a high-IQ-only community, it would also be a very-low-crime community.
Anyway, there's a lot of factors that go into making a good person, and into making a good society. It can't be reduced down to just one factor, though there are strong cross-correlations among many of the factors.
This is a very important question. In a community where everyone is a full-deed unrestricted landowner, each land-owner can of course do whatever he wants (theoretically at least, but there may be strong social pressure). But in a neighborhood with deed restrictions, with covenants, everyone would be bound by the covenants. All the neighbors can agree -- and it must be unanimous -- to bind themselves to not sell or rent to anyone not meeting whatever standards they want to set. Maybe no violent criminal record, maybe a certificate of good character from their church, maybe take an IQ test, maybe meet with the neighbors and convince them he'd be a good addition -- the neighborhood could make whatever entry requirements they want.And what if, in YOUR community, I as a landowner decided these were the exact kind of people that I wanted to move in?
Or no requirements at all.
Generally I think that over time neighborhoods, and then towns, and then cities, with entry requirements will out-compete ones without and become wildly popular due to being incredibly superior places to live. But if not, that's fine, too. So long as there's a free market, I'm happy, and whatever mix the market results in will be basically the best possible practical result.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-03-2015 at 07:38 AM.
Kid, you're not dumb. The United States is a country and a country that won't protect it's borders won't survive.
Illegal Alien Invasion Bordering on Madness
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/ille...#axzz3kgM2iKRb
There you go again. It's as if you didn't even read the post your replied to. What specific actions does "protect its borders" involve?
The rightness or wrongness of those actions depends on what they are, regardless of the excuse you use for justifying them. You can't take something that's wrong, and anoint it with the magic phrase, "protect our borders," and make it become right.
http://www.examiner.com/article/22-s...-with-high-iqs32 serial killers with high IQs
1) Ted Kaczynski (A.K.A. The Unabomber) - Ted Kaczynski is hard to top. Labeled not merely a serial killer, but a 'domestic terrorist' by the FBI, Kaczynski skipped the 5th grade after testing 167 on an IQ test....
2) Edmund Kemper - Born in 1948, Edmund Kemper began his career in murder quite early. He exhibited early signs of sociopathy, stabbing his cat to death by the age of 13. At the tender of age 15, he killed both of his grandparents. Uncertain of what to do, he called his mother, who advised him to call the police. Kemper contacted the authorities and he was sent to Atascadero State Hospital, where psychological tests recorded an IQ score of 136. In a later IQ test, he tested at 145(Russell, 2002).
3) Ted Bundy - Born in 1946, Ted Bundy was a serial killer who confessed to over 30 murders, and may have been guilty of many more. Experts estimate that the number of his victims may be over 100. He became a media sensation not simply for his prolific murder career, but for his deadly combination of physical attractiveness, intelligence and charm, possessing a reported IQ score of 136.
4) Andrew Cunanan - born in 1969, Cunanan engaged in a killing spree resulting in 5 victims. He is perhaps most well-known for having killed Gianna Versace, the famous fashion designer. Andrew Cunanan's murder spree came to a violent end in Miami, where he committed suicide by gunshot.
Cunanan was charming, attractive, and intelligent, revealed to have had an IQ of 147.
......
On The Immigration Vexation
I do want you to read “Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch,” an eminently reasonable column by another intrepid freedom lover, Vin Suprynowicz. Other than Vin, myself and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I have not come across a libertarian who was willing—and able—to offer a sane, reality-based, countervailing analysis of current libertarian “thinking” on immigration:
“A recent column on the euphemisms used by proponents of illegal-immigrant amnesty brought some irate buzzing from all seven members of the Young Anarchists’ League.
As near as I can figure, I’m “not allowed” to call for the enforcement of current immigration laws — or possibly of any laws, even those few (like the immigration laws) enacted within the powers delegated to Congress under the Constitution — because any such enforcement of the law amounts to some kind of “collectivist police state fascism” against people who have “not initiated force or fraud.”
I’m not sure how you cut through a border fence without “initiating force,” or how you rent an apartment, register a car and go to work every day using someone else’s Social Security number without “initiating fraud.”
http://barelyablog.com/vin-suprynowi...tion-vexation/
Enforce the laws.
You're still doing it.
How in the world could you believe that the current immigration laws are delegated by the Constitution? Is it just because you sweep them together under the rubric "immigration laws," and anything the government might ever want to do to us, so long as they can subsume it under that rubric becomes constitutional?
Where in the Constitution does the federal government get the authority to give us all Social Security Numbers? Where does the Constitution delegate to it the authority to withhold taxes from our paychecks, or to collect any information at all from employers about whom they employ, whether that be through W-2s, I-9s, or any other paperwork or electronic data sharing? These things make the foundation on which the current immigration laws that you want enforced are built.
Last edited by erowe1; 09-03-2015 at 08:03 AM.
You're a true egalitarian. OK, well that's how you feel. I am not going to change that. I, and most people, feel otherwise. I think that some people are better than others. On what authority do I make that judgment? My own. That's what everyone trying to live and accomplish things out in the real world does. It's fine and good in an ivory tower to say abstract feel-good things like "we're all humans; we're all equal; no one can objectively say any one human is better than any other human," but not in the real world. I say it's fine and good, but actually it's not. It's false and evil.
You cannot tell the difference between good people and bad people, between better people and worse people. Fine. Everyone else can. I can. We all can. You're the odd man out. And you don't care whether you spend your days and raise your children among good people or among bad people. Fine. Everyone else does. I do. We all do.
We want to live the best lives we can. We want to be surrounded by and associate with the best people we can. And because we are realistic, we don't propose to do that by increasing the aggregate goodness level of the whole Planet Earth, reforming all human nature and remaking the world as we wish it to be, as erowe1 does.
I don't have all the answers. In my opening post I am just making a simple point: it is reasonable to want to live among high-quality people and to keep lower-quality people at a distance. It is reasonable. It is rational. It is human. In fact, it is a nearly universal desire.
Touche!
Yes, but there is still a correlation between criminality and IQ. Smart people are criminals far more rarely than dull people. These mass murderers are the exceptions, the outliers. But it sure is interesting! High IQ may be over-represented among serial killers. Did their intelligence allow them to be mass-murderers because they were able to elude capture longer, while stupid would-be mass-murderers get caught and thus do not achieve mass-murderer status? Interesting.
Kid, I'm not going to get into a debate about libertarians theory.
Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to “provide for the common defense” and Article IV requires that they ”protect each of them (the states) against invasion.” With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job. Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue. Fortunately, Arizonians understand. Arizona did not make illegal immigration illegal, the federal government did.
http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2010...-constitution/
Connect With Us