What do you think? Please explain your opinion.
Reply With Quote
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.
What do you think? Please explain your opinion.
Since open borders and multiculturalism leads to the destruction of Liberty they are immoral and unjust.Originally Posted by Ron Paul in 2008
Are you asking your question as it relates to the primary moral foundation for the fundamental principles of Liberty that establish the traditional American philosophy of governance or are you asking your question based on some other traditional philosophy that is not the traditional American philosophy of governance?
Think that through before you answer, though. I don't want to provide my thought on your question until I know that you understand mine. The former is the more relative to what we do here. And the latter contradicts the former 100% of the time by default given that we are the only true Republic in the world per our specific framing.
Actually, I'm getting ready to get off of here, though. I'll check back on you tomorrow. I didn't realize what time it was.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-30-2016 at 12:59 AM.
Does being opposed to multiculturalism and open borders mean you want to dictate other individual's property rights and associations?
If yes then no. Because you don't respect other people's property rights and their rights to enter into contracts with whom they wish. Property rights and free association are basic tenants of libertarianism.
I think you have to define what the traditional American philosophy of governance is here. I don't think I can answer your question if you don't.
btw I consider myself to have the beliefs of the founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson. They all wanted a limited constitutional government but still supported restrictions on immigration to ensure we had the best country.
How so?
Think that through before you answer, though. I don't want to provide my thought on your question until I know that you understand mine. The former is the more relative to what we do here. And the latter contradicts the former 100% of the time by default given that we are the only true Republic in the world per our specific framing.
That's fine. I will see you tomorrow.
Actually, I'm getting ready to get off of here, though. I'll check back on you tomorrow. I didn't realize what time it was.
No to both.
I was under the impression that freedom of movement is a basic tenant of libertarianism. A lot of people here agree with that and don't believe that state can restrict immigration of people. Some however will agree with me that its okay.If yes then no. Because you don't respect other people's property rights and their rights to enter into contracts with whom they wish. Property rights and free association are basic tenants of libertarianism.
I agree with you. It doesn't make sense to let people who are anti-liberty and religious fanatics to come here. Its a threat.
Define "open borders". In detail.
Pro-liberty people support property rights, such that if you own property you can decide who enters and who doesn't.
Consider that government owned land is not open free-range property, it is private property owned by a collection of people. Those people can set the terms of use of their property, such as allowing their own to use it freely, while restricting its use by others. This is a completely pro-liberty construct and could be seen as a closed border view.
Some pro-liberty people prefer to have local land corridors that are free-range, and not owned. This is also a completely pro-liberty construct and could be seen as an open border view.
Obviously it is not possible for one land area to have both of these models at the same time, but they both can exist side-by-side on the planet. IMO, this is the solution we should seek.
Side point- in the closed border model, it could be argued that if you own land on the border then you should be able to have people come and go over the border as you wish.
Part 2....
Define "mulitculturalism". In detail.
People living in close proximity to each other will need to be able to communicate with each other, in some functional form.
People living in close proximity to each other will need to have common values on certain moral issues; ex: What is improper treatment of others? What is the bases for the rule of law?
People living in close proximity to each other will need to have common values on certain issues of shared resources, forms of pollution, and more.
People living in close proximity do not have to share the same culture background.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
The state, in the action of prescribing immigration would:
violate an individual's right to justly acquire property or the use of property.
violate an individual's right to sell or rent property to a willing counterpart.
violate an individual's right to contract for gainful employment.
violate an individual's right to contract with employees of the individual's choosing.
violate an individual's right to service customers of their choosing.
What is okay about that?
Its non government regulation of people moving to the country IMO. Maybe it can also be considered no government interference or restriction of people.
Yes. I support having private property.Pro-liberty people support property rights.
Exactly my positionConsider that government owned land is not open-free range property, it is private property owned by a collection of people. Those people can set the terms of use of their property, such as allowing their own to use it freely, while restricting its use by others. This is a completely pro-liberty construct and could be seen as a closed border view.
My view is that if most people want the government to regulate immigration that we should do that but conversely if people don’t want the government to regulate immigration we should have that as well even though I disagree with it. I support the peoples right to decide or choose to do what they believe is best for the country, which is what I am doing right now.Some pro-liberty people prefer to have local land corridors that are free-range, and not owned. This is also a completely pro-liberty construct and could be seen as an open border view.
Obviously it is not possible for one land area to have both of these models at the same time, but they both can exist side-by-side on the planet. IMO, this is the solution we should seek.
Side point- in the closed border model, it could be argued that if you own land on the border then you should be able to have people come and go over the border as you wish.
I do believe there are limited functions of the federal government, with the regulation of immigration being one of them.
I’ll define is as a government policy of tolerance and non-regulation of immigrants of foreign cultures. Anti-racism.Define "mulitculturalism". In detail.
I don’t want to associate with other cultures on a regular basis in this country.People living in close proximity to each other will need to be able to communicate with each other, in some functional form.
Yes.People living in close proximity to each other will need to have common values on certain moral issues; ex: What is improper treatment of others? What is the base for the rule of law?
Why do you think so?
People living in close proximity do not have to share the same culture background
I think they mostly do. For instance, can you tell me a country where different cultures got along?
Also I am mostly opposed to Islamic immigrants because Islam is a form of law that is incompatible with our constitutional laws.
Whos right? A citizens right?
I don't see how that is true. I am not advocating passing a law prohibiting buying property from another citizen.
If the person is illegal and a non-citizen then yes.violate an individual's right to sell or rent property to a willing counterpart.
I don't agree with that. Nobody should hire illegal immigrants if its not government approved. There have to be basic rules to hold our country together and keep things orderly.violate an individual's right to contract for gainful employment.
If we were talking about citizens nothing would be right with that. But I don't see how your rights are violated by only being allowed to enter into contracts with people who are citizens.violate an individual's right to contract with employees of the individual's choosing.
violate an individual's right to service customers of their choosing.
What is okay about that?
The problem I see with this is that forced taxation by government distorts the market. If a group acquires the property legitimately then I have no problem with it. But when you have everyone's wallet to play with everything becomes economical.
No one has the right to immigrate but nothing.
No one has the right to burden others but nothing.
Rights are not granted by the state or dependant on citizenship. One person to the next does not change their right to justly acquired property and free association.
we agree.If the person is illegal and a non-citizen then yes.
Whether an individual decides to hire someone who resides within the US or from outside is a matter of business ethics, to be handled however the free-market handles it, without coercion from the state. The basic rule is property rights and the rights which extend from that. And you are saying this basic rule should be violated.I don't agree with that. Nobody should hire illegal immigrants if its not government approved. There have to be basic rules to hold our country together and keep things orderly.
Answered the question yourself!If we were talking about citizens nothing would be right with that. But I don't see how your rights are violated by only being allowed to enter into contracts with people who are citizens.
I'm not gonna watch the $#@! ass videos so you gotta make the argument yourself.
No one has the right to immigrate but they do have the right to justly acquired property.
The violation of property rights and free association is the burden being proposed, and it's being proposed by your side. I do agree with ya there.
So my side is the one robbing Americans to pay for welfare for illegals?I'm not gonna watch the $#@! ass videos so you gotta make the argument yourself.
No one has the right to immigrate but they do have the right to justly acquired property.
The violation of property rights and free association is the burden being proposed, and it's being proposed by your side. I do agree with ya there.
Also that video makes the best argument against your side so its little wonder why you do not want to watch it.
Where do you think rights come from?
IMO rights probably come from each other or the community.
What do you mean that non-citizens have rights? What rights do they have? For instance or example, the majority of Americans will disagree of an illegal immigrant coming here and purchasing property because its an affront to rules of the majority of citizens.
I believe in nationalism, sovereignty and nationhood because that is the worlds heritage. I don't think what you are advocating which is essentially no nations or governments works.
What do you mean by justly?One person to the next does not change their right to justly acquired property and free association.
Do you think I should have the right to buy property in another country if its against that countries laws?
we agree.
if you break the law you should go to jail. If people hire illegals and are permitted to do that we don't have a democracy. I do believe in government regulation of immigration. Why don't you? I don't see how it violates freedom of association or property rights.Whether an individual decides to hire someone who resides within the US or from outside is a matter of business ethics,
But the state is supposed to represent the will of the people and act on the peoples behalf.to be handled however the free-market handles it, without coercion from the state.
You still have property rights with restricted immigration. I don't want to take private property away but what I am saying is that you have to respect the just laws of democracies and authorities. Personally, I believe there would be chaos without governments.The basic rule is property rights and the rights which extend from that. And you are saying this basic rule should be violated.
The solution to stopping robbing Americans to pay for welfare for illegals is to stop robbing Americans to pay for welfare for illegals. That is not what the discussion is about. I have honestly not watched the video so I'm excited for you to tell me what its all about.
Or from God.
Yeah Non citizens have no real rights and they surely have no right to immigrate.
You still have property rights with restricted immigration. I don't want to take private property away but what I am saying is that you have to respect the just laws of democracies and authorities. Personally, I believe there would be chaos without governments.
I want to know how property rights are limited via immigration restrictions.
How is that going to happen when we have activist judges claiming "illegals have the right to welfare"?
Why not just stop them from coming in and deport the ones we have now?
.Personally, I believe there would be chaos without governments
Personally, I don't think we will ever know until it is tried. People always want to point to Somalia as an example but, what they don't seem to realize is that the chaos is coming from outsiders attacking them.
Somalia has a valuable sea port among other valuable resources and everybody had an opinion on what they should do. Here is an article expressing the views of "others" on what they think should do. Personally, I think they should be left alone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_p...tes/716751.stm
Look the bottom line is that if the founders wanted the federal government to restrict immigration they would have given yhe federal government an explicit power to limit immigration in the consitution.
No such power is mentioned.
You can logically be for reduced state power and still want to limit immigration, but what that makes you is decidedly not constitutionalist. If you don't want to follow the constitution then ok, but stop appealing to the founders if you disregard the 10th amendment so openly.
Moreover, favoring federal immigration law makes you indistinct from gun grabbers, who similarly ignore the clear meaning of the constitution because it interferes with their pet liberty violation.
I point out frequently that this is one reason why I do not support the constitution. Its self-proclaimed best defenders are no better than its worst adversaries. In short, everyone ignores it on at least one issue. That makes it unworthy of anyone's consideration as even a functioning system, let alone as a liberty-securing one.
There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.
So much for private property rights with something like this coming through.
The average person would be ill equipped to deal with something like this on their own. It would also be untenable with the philosophy of any one property owner chosing to allow it.
In this world a libertarian society with open borders is a pipe dream, an impossibility since it puts private property rights at risk. It should be abandoned as part of the Libertarian philosophy since it defies logic.
* See my visitor message area for caveats related to my posting history here.
* Also, I have effectively retired from all social media including posting here and are basically opting out of anything to do with national politics or this country on federal or state level and rather focusing locally. I may stop by from time to time to discuss philosophy on a general level related to Libertarian schools of thought and application in the real world.
So much new discussions lately. This is getting really hard to keep up with. I think this is a good thing. Forum should be 90% this.
Sorry did not read the thread but will leave my opinion on OP.
You can be libertarian and against multiculturalism and open borders. But you will always be drawn to change those two positions. It is like minarchists that end up an-cap.
If you are not libertarian then you will over time also adopt socialist positions.
In my opinion open borders only possible in a society that rejects socialism. Society that has not rejected socialism will be flooded with poor people and overwhelmed.
Multiculturalism is an empty term that can mean anything. The way we all define it on this forum it is a terrible ideology. I think homogeneous societies are much better. I think some cultures are superior. From there we can arrive at the rest of conclusions.
Edit: and I am cool with cultural exchange and peace on earth.
Good morning, Ron Paul in 2008. How are you? Okay. So, Bryan chimed in here. And he went straight to the nuts and bolts of your question while adding a schematic of sort to put everything together. That also opens an opportunity for extended dialogue once thoughtful consideration is provided to both parts of his model there. And likely healthy, practical, dialogue, too. I'm going to set that aside given that I've already considered those terms. If nobody else touches on his thoughts there, then, I will. Because there are some really good points made there that may stimulate much needed discussion which remains absent of late.
Anyway. With that in mind, it should be understood to be true that some people do not accept that there exists a set of fundamental principles that are uniquely American and support a primary governmental philosophy. The traditional American philosophy of governance is a set of principles that are the product of a fundamental foundation for moral code. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So I'll offer some words from the Declaration of Independence for the moment to support that. Per the original of 1776...
Again, there are some who reject the sincerity of these words in their function as fundamental American principles which serve to define America's traditional philosophy of governance. This is true. In fact, we see the view here often. And elsewhere, too. The framers were wise to consider that this would happen. In support of that foresight, I'll offer some thoughts from John Adams on the possibility of any future rejection of the legitimacy of these principles/philosophy given the era of their initial consideration. It is true that we read and hear often that our founding documents are "outdated." That they are not legitimate. This is patently false.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Again, 1765: John Adams - Instructions...
Also. Note particularly that these rights and liberties were entered with submission to Divine Providence. Here we go directly to the fundamental foundation for moral code that I'd mentioned that establish the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty itself."We further recommend the most clear and explicit assertion and vindication of our rights and liberties to be entered on the public records, that the world may know, in the present and all future generations, that we have a clear knowledge and a just sense of them, and, with submission to Divine providence, that we never can be slaves"
And, of course, Adams later confirmed his thought there in a letter to Jefferson in 1815 when he'd mentioned that (again, supporting validity in the principles of the era and relevance to them today)
So what does this mean? It is, in my view, the philosophical foundation for justification of Man's desire for Individual Liberty itself as well as an orderly society, by way of a limited government provided "Just Powers.""The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington."
So anyway. I suppose that I'm starting waaaaaaay back here while you've likely moved waaaaaaay up there in dialogue. Which is okay. I just hate to skip things. A place for everything and everything in its place is traditionally how I like to go about asking/answering questions. That way we cover all of our bases along the way and don't skip or pass over relative consideration of critical factors.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-30-2016 at 07:50 AM.
STATE MULTICULTURALISM
If you define multiculturalism as a government mandate which increases diversity of ethnicity and culture within the State or the associations of private businesses then I see nothing libertarian about it.
STATE NATIONALISM
If you define multiculturalism as government FAILING to take actions to LIMIT diversity of ethnicity and culture within the State or the associations of private businesses, then I see this as nationalism not libertarianism.
LIBERTARIANISM
If you define multiculturalism as government taking NO ACTION to affect diversity of ethnicity and culture within the State or the associations of private businesses, then I see this as a libertarian solution.
Rule of thumb: when uncle does nothing, there is liberty.
'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...
I do not see race as an inherent issues in this.
Why not? Do you have a problem with the Amish? Could we agree they are a different culture?I don’t want to associate with other cultures on a regular basis in this country.
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.Why do you think so?
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. 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. In other cases their are enclaves of multiculturalism such as with "China towns" and the Amish, these haven't caused a major problem.I think they mostly do. For instance, can you tell me a country where different cultures got along?
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.
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"
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?"Also I am mostly opposed to Islamic immigrants because Islam is a form of law that is incompatible with our constitutional laws.
This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.
Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.
I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.
Made simpler - Man's Freedom = Freedom from Government-over-Man...Individual Liberty = Liberty against Government-over-Man. Very good, grasshoppa.
I am a registered Pub who considers myself Libertarian . I am not really supportive of open borders since I see no way for many to protect property rights. Multi culturism is different , kind of depends on how you want to define it.
Well. We get into the terms of accustomed rights there. That's deep. Heh. Admittedly, too deep for me unless limited to traditional philosophies for governance in a particular place. Which is why I framed it that way initially.
Have you ever heard the quote, "The Revolution is not over"
This notion supports the idea that evolution guides revolution by way of its function from within it.
Multi-culturalism presents a quirk in that, though. Because, then, we get back to "accustomed" rights there. And, as I'd mentioned, their varying terms of controversy. Which is why its relevance was considered there in the latter half of my initial question to the op.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 07-30-2016 at 09:43 AM.
Libertarianism is about property rights and the rule of property based law. It is not about your personal views of social order.
"Like an army falling, one by one by one" - Linkin Park
Well, one of the most important functions of a federal government is to protect the people with a military. Would you agree?
Me too. I don’t really care what goes on in the third world. Interventionism usually fails.Somalia has a valuable sea port among other valuable resources and everybody had an opinion on what they should do. Here is an article expressing the views of "others" on what they think should do. Personally, I think they should be left alone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_p...tes/716751.stm
Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con¬stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat¬uralized citizens of the United States.
How come?You can logically be for reduced state power and still want to limit immigration, but what that makes you is decidedly not constitutionalist.
What do you mean? How am I disregarding the 10th amendment?If you don't want to follow the constitution then ok, but stop appealing to the founders if you disregard the 10th amendment so openly.
I do believe that immigration is a federal responsibility.
How so?
Moreover, favoring federal immigration law makes you indistinct from gun grabbers, who similarly ignore the clear meaning of the constitution because it interferes with their pet liberty violation.
Yeah. But even if we reject socialism and have no welfare or benefits for immigrants they will still come for jobs and freedom.
I agree.Multiculturalism is an empty term that can mean anything. The way we all define it on this forum it is a terrible ideology. I think homogeneous societies are much better. I think some cultures are superior.
As for peace on earth, we don’t have it because of different cultures and religions fighting.Edit: and I am cool with cultural exchange and peace on earth .
I am too. But I believe that we have to respect our culture as well.
Fine. You?
I don’t disagree.Anyway. With that in mind, it should be understood to be true that some people do not accept that there exists a set of fundamental principles that are uniquely American and support a primary governmental philosophy. The traditional American philosophy of governance is a set of principles that are the product of a fundamental foundation for moral code. Nothing more. Nothing less.
So what does this mean? It is, in my view, the philosophical foundation for justification of Man's desire for Individual Liberty itself as well as an orderly society, by way of a limited government provided "Just Powers."
No, we definitely need to define key words and ideas. Do what you must.So anyway. I suppose that I'm starting waaaaaaay back here while you've likely moved waaaaaaay up there in dialogue. Which is okay. I just hate to skip things. A place for everything and everything in its place is traditionally how I like to go about asking/answering questions. That way we cover all of our bases along the way and don't skip or pass over relative consideration of critical factors.
This discussion taught me that my beliefs about libertarianism were wrong.
Last edited by Ron Paul in 2008; 07-30-2016 at 10:53 AM.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us