Am I a libertarian if I don't believe in mulitculturalism or open borders?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I do not see race as an inherent issues in this.

Yeah.

Why not? Do you have a problem with the Amish?

No.

Could we agree they are a different culture?

I agree they are a different culture, but similar culture. They have the same kind of religion as Christians although an extreme form. but they are peaceful and want to be left alone which is fine.

My point is that you can have a functional society with people from different culture backgrounds, that on its own does not cause any problems.

I agree with you to an extent. If multiculturalism is small it can work but when there are too many people of different cultures people tend to segregate and want a different kind of government. As you said there are enclaves.

This is a pretty deep discussion and could take a lot of analysis. On the surface however, we could say the USA, people have come to the USA from all over the world and for a long time it has worked fine, more or less.

Sort of. I will argue its because the majority of America is a homogenous culture (about 60 percent European according to last census). But our minority groups do cause problems and headaches such as Black Lives Matter killing police officers and protesting and destroying cities like Ferguson. Muslims make problems in law by wanting to ruled according to their religion, culture and customs and this will only get worse as there are more of them.

One factor that has helped in this however is integration / assimilation, in that many immigrates have adopted a blended culture from their past and one of Americanism.

Yes, I agree we need immigrants to assimilate and agree with our way of life.

In other cases their are enclaves of multiculturalism such as with "China towns" and the Amish, these haven't caused a major problem.

I personally just don't think this is desirable. I like having the same beliefs or basic principles.

Switzerland has four languages spoken within it, German, French, Italian and Romansh. There has to be some culture differences that lead to that, but they could have blended out over time too.

But they have similarities too. They are all European and Christian. It should be noted that even people of the same race can have problems if they have different religions like in Iraq (shia vs sunni).

So this analysis could look at a lot of different factors such as:
- degree of immigration and "culture enclaves"
- degree of assimilation / integration
- degree of "getting along"

Exactly.

That would violate my point of "People living in close proximity to each other will need to have common values on certain moral issues; ex: What is the base for the rule of law?"

I don't think people need to have the same moral values to live together, I just think it helps and is peaceful.

I will say the majority of people.

[erowe1]

What do you think? Please explain your opinion.

If you support laws that tell me I can't hire someone to work for me unless they have some piece of paper saying they meet the government's criteria for being allowed to work in the USA, then you're not a libertarian.

[Natural Citizen]

If you support laws that tell me I can't hire someone to work for me unless they have some piece of paper saying they meet the government's criteria for being allowed to work in the USA, then you're not a libertarian.

Why?

[presence]

Why?

because non violent human action shouldn't require government forms

[erowe1]

Why?

Because that's treating my property as if the government owns it.

They have no right even to know what goes on on my property. They have no right to know even the fact that I am employing anyone at all to work for me, much less who those people are. I shouldn't have to report any of that to the government.

[erowe1]

This is the thing about anti-immigration so-called libertarians. They always want to talk about it in vague abstractions like "secure borders" versus "open borders," or "multiculturalism," without getting into specific policies.

Ron Paul says he's not for open borders, but when you get into specific policies, he's against every effective method that anti-immigration people have for enforcing immigration laws, because they're all blatantly against his principles. He's even for allowing people to leave and re-enter the country without a passport. The result is de facto open borders.

So if someone wants to say they're not for open borders, they need to get specific about what policies they would follow to "secure the border" without violating anyone's rights.

[timosman]

This is the thing about anti-immigration so-called libertarians. They always want to talk about it in vague abstractions like "secure borders" versus "open borders," or "multiculturalism," without getting into specific policies.

Ron Paul says he's not for open borders, but when you get into specific policies, he's against every effective method that anti-immigration people have for enforcing immigration laws, because they're all blatantly against his principles. He's even for allowing people to leave and re-enter the country without a passport. The result is de facto open borders.

So if someone wants to say they're not for open borders, they need to get specific about what policies they would follow to "secure the border" without violating anyone's rights.

So what specific policies do you want to talk about? Granting permanent residence to 1 over one million people a year and citizenship to another million?

[Natural Citizen]

Because that's treating my property as if the government owns it.

They have no right even to know what goes on on my property. They have no right to know even the fact that I am employing anyone at all to work for me, much less who those people are. I shouldn't have to report any of that to the government.

Hm. Okay. So, then, private-profit motive presupposes the existence of an ethical environment? Is that what you're saying? I actually agree with that. But the reason I ask is because we're dealing with another human being here whom you cannot transfer your own rights for his benefit. One who, btw, is not a citizen and does not possess rights under the American philosophy of governance to represent himself as government. We The People and whatnot, I mean.

Do you see where I'm going with this, e?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

So if someone wants to say they're not for open borders, they need to get specific about what policies they would follow to "secure the border" without violating anyone's rights.

See, but you don't really have that right, because you are going against the community. IMO, for you to have rights they have to be agreed upon by other people to respect those rights. I can argue you are violating our rights to have a country that follows the rule of law.

[erowe1]

Hm. Okay. So, then, private-profit motive presupposes the existence of an ethical environment? Is that what you're saying? Reason I ask is because we're dealing with another human being here. One who, btw, is not a citizen and does not possess rights under the American philosophy of governance to represent himself as government. We The People and whatnot, I mean.

I can't understand what you're saying. But I think the answer to your two questions is no.

I'm talking about the federal government violating my rights by telling me who I can and can't have on my property. It's none of the government's business.

[erowe1]

See, but you don't really have that right, because you are going against the community. IMO, for you to have rights they have to be agreed upon by other people to respect those rights.

That's not true. We have natural rights that come from the creator. They're not subject to other peoples' opinions.

ETA: You don't say what right you're talking about here. I assumed you meant my right to hire people without reporting it to the government, but if that's not what you meant, then I don't know. At any rate, what I said about natural rights applies to a wide variety of things, and there's no way to have effective immigration laws without violating the rights of not just illegal immigrants, but citizens as well.

[erowe1]

So what specific policies do you want to talk about? Granting permanent residence to 1 over one million people a year and citizenship to another million?

I mentioned one already--requiring employers to report to the government the identities of everyone they employ.

That one issue right there is enough to settle this discussion. There's no way to support that as a libertarian, and there's no way to enforce immigration laws without doing that, or some other equally egregious violation of rights, including the rights of citizens.

[timosman]

I mentioned one already--requiring employers to report to the government the identities of everyone they employ.

That one issue right there is enough to settle this discussion. There's no way to support that as a libertarian, and there's no way to enforce immigration laws without doing that, or some other equally egregious violation of rights, including the rights of citizens.

Nice deflection. Care to address the issue I brought up?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

That's not true. We have natural rights that come from the creator. They're not subject to other peoples' opinions.

Do you believe in democracy?

How are you not violating the rights of the majority of people to have a sound immigrant law by hiring an illegal immigrant?

If your right conflicts with mine, how do you know which one is right or true?

[presence]

So what specific policies do you want to talk about?

earn your roof or gtfo out

[presence]

Do you believe in democracy?

if everyone voted for you to jump off a bridge should you have to?

[timosman]

I just met a very nice girl from Armenia. I asked her how did she end up here. My uncle. Your uncle? Yeah, he got in and then he brought in the rest of the family. Ohhhhhhh, that's cool.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm talking about the federal government violating my rights by telling me who I can and can't have on my property. It's none of the government's business.

Well, yeah, I agree with you to that extent. Eh. Maybe I'll leave it alone for now. I see you brought up Natural Law. Which is why I inserted the ethical perspective.

Natural Law is certainly a fundamental Law. One that should be understood to be universal. And logistically not limited to the American philosophy of governance.

[Ender]

Do you believe in democracy?

How are you not violating the rights of the majority of people to have a sound immigrant law by hiring an illegal immigrant?

If your right conflicts with mine, how do you know which one is right or true?

I absolutely do not believe in democracy. America was founded as a Constitutional Republic.

A democracy is 2 wolves and one lamb deciding what's for dinner.
A republic is 2 wolves and one lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb is not on the menu.

The original question has to do with property rights- you don't want immigrants on your property? Fine. I want immigrants on my property? Fine.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

there's no way to have effective immigration laws without violating the rights of not just illegal immigrants, but citizens as well.

What I am arguing is, for example, that you have the right to worship the Christian God you want. But in Syria and Iraq right now ISIS will take your right away and not respect it. IF you disagree with them and kill them in response for your "right" they will behead you. So what I am saying is what good is your "right" if you cant exercise it without being killed or punished by other people?

I don't believe that illegal immigrants have the right to have any American rights. The only rights they are entitled to are the ones they forced their government to protect.

We have to respect other peoples rights and the rule of law. Again, I think your right is violating the rights of the majority of people.

[Natural Citizen]

Do you believe in democracy?

How are you not violating the rights of the majority of people to have a sound immigrant law by hiring an illegal immigrant?

If your right conflicts with mine, how do you know which one is right or true?

Point of clarfication...

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

[timosman]

earn your roof or gtfo out

So end the welfare state. This shows how naive people are. Most countries require way more than just pulling your weight. You need to bring something to the table like skills or money. Libertarians in theory are willing to accept anybody provided no extra burden is imposed on them, which given the current welfare state is a fantasy. Most Americans are willing to accept anybody who can breath on their own.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The original question has to do with property rights- you don't want immigrants on your property? Fine. I want immigrants on my property? Fine.

Do you believe I have a right to make the government and immigrants follow certain laws?

[Natural Citizen]

What I am arguing is, for example, that you have the right to worship the Christian God you want. But in Syria and Iraq right now ISIS will take your right away and not respect it. IF you disagree with them and kill them in response for your "right" they will behead you. So what I am saying is what good is your "right" if you cant exercise it without being killed or punished by other people?

I don't believe that illegal immigrants have the right to have any American rights. The only rights they are entitled to are the ones they forced their government to protect.

We have to respect other peoples rights and the rule of law. Again, I think your right is violating the rights of the majority of people.

You have some hit and miss in here. I think the misses come from maybe some confusion. First thing is to recognize that America is really the only true Republic on the planet. Its form of governance is religious in nature given that its principles and framing documents are premised upon a foundation for moral code that is, itself, God's Law. Or, as erowe1 mentioned, Natural Law. This affectively establishes proper Man-toMan relations and subsequently proper Man-to-Government relations in the United States of America.

[Natural Citizen]

I don't believe that illegal immigrants have the right to American rights.

Agreed. Nor do they unless they become citizens. Which is why I'd mentioned what I did about accustomed rights earlier in post # 28 when multi-culturalism came up.

Still, though, Natural Law is, in my view, universal. Morally, if the Mexican guy wants to make a deal with the American guy and they both agree on it, it shouldn't morally be anyone's business. And like Bryan said, what if, for instance, erowe1 owned property on the border? Goes back to property rights. Technically he should be able to be his own border agent.

I suppose I'm contradicting myself here so I suppose it just depends on what one views as the higher authority or one's moral duty. God or government.

[erowe1]

Nice deflection. Care to address the issue I brought up?

It wasn't a deflection, it was an answer to the question you asked. I don't even know what issue you're talking about. You mean something about granting permanent residence and citizenship? I don't even think those categories should exist. The government shouldn't even have data about any of us. We shouldn't need it to grant us some kind of status to say we're allowed to live here.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Point of clarfication...

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.


A Republic

A Republic has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly,

By who?

as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

With something like a bill of rights?

[erowe1]

What I am arguing is, for example, that you have the right to worship the Christian God you want. But in Syria and Iraq right now ISIS will take your right away and not respect it. IF you disagree with them and kill them in response for your "right" they will behead you. So what I am saying is what good is your "right" if you cant exercise it without being killed or punished by other people?

I don't understand how this relates to your position. Are you essentially saying that it's ok for the federal government to violate my rights, because if they don't do it then ISIS will? If so, then getting back to your question in the OP, again, this would mean you're not libertarian.

I don't believe that illegal immigrants have the right to have any American rights. The only rights they are entitled to are the ones they forced their government to protect.

So you don't believe in natural rights? The only rights that anyone has are those that are granted to them by some government? If that's your position, then again, that answers the question of the OP. Someone who thinks that is not libertarian.

This again goes right back to my earlier complaint. Phrases like "American rights" are just vague abstractions. Why are you so averse to putting forth whatever specific policies you support as means of securing the border? Can you suggest any that don't blatantly violate the rights of, not only illegal immigrants, but also US citizens?

[erowe1]

Well, yeah, I agree with you to that extent. Eh. Maybe I'll leave it alone for now. I see you brought up Natural Law. Which is why I inserted the ethical perspective.

Natural Law is certainly a fundamental Law. One that should be understood to be universal. And logistically not limited to the American philosophy of governance.

If you agree with me to that extent, then how what are you left with? Are there any specific policies you support that are effective means of securing the border?

[erowe1]

Do you believe in democracy?

Absolutely not. And here's another answer to the OP. If you believe in democracy, then you're not a libertarian.

How are you not violating the rights of the majority of people to have a sound immigrant law by hiring an illegal immigrant?

I don't even understand how you can ask this. I'm clearly not violating their rights, because telling me who I can and cannot hire is not one of their rights.