So We Anti Globalists Are now xenophobic Nationalists.

[AngryCanadian]

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd. We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity enough.

Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.

[AZJoe]

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Does that make the alternative country-phobic Globalists.

[nikcers]

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd. We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity enough.

Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.

The only thing that can fight globalism is free markets. This is just more muddying the waters.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd. We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity enough.

Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.

They upset we are winning, anything they hate is good for you....

[PierzStyx]

Define "anti-globalist."

If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.

If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist. Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.

These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.

[Superfluous Man]

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd. We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity enough.

Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

Why else would you be anti-globalist, and not count yourself among those who are pro-migrant and pro-diversity?

I'm anti-global government, but I'm not anti-globalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac

[AngryCanadian]

Define "anti-globalist."

If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.

If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist. Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.

These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.

These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.

Does that include Free Open border policy which Europe had?

[Superfluous Man]

Does that include Free Open border policy which Europe had?

It does mean free open borders. I don't think it's accurate to say Europe had that policy. But the USA did up until a century ago.

[presence]

Does that include Free Open border policy which Europe had?

europe doesn't have a "free open border policy"

they have a import "refugee" and bait them with "free" government cheese program which is totally different

free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from

[Ender]

Define "anti-globalist."

If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.

If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist. Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.

These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.

YEP.

[Ender]

europe doesn't have a "free open border policy"

they have a import "refugee" and bait them with "free" government cheese program which is totally different

free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from

THANK YOU!

[PierzStyx]

europe doesn't have a "free open border policy"

they have a import "refugee" and bait them with "free" government cheese program which is totally different

free open borders means PRIVATE individuals sponsor immigrants with jobs and homes and when those immigrants can't cut it on the free market they go hungry and homeless until they march back to where they came from

Or immigrants just come her eon their own dime. Like most Hispanic, whether from Mexico, Cuba, or Chile, immigrants do. And they, like everyone else, would have to compete in the market, for success or failure.

The problem is that nativists hate the free market. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first American law limiting immigration in 1882, was passed because it turned out Chinese people were not just cleaner than your average white European but they worked harder and were more economically successful. The politically dominate whites in power hated having to compete on the market against them so used the violence of the government to attack them and keep them from entering the country. Which reveals the next truth.

Closed borders are inherently protectionist and anyone who promotes free market capitalism cannot be a proponent of closed borders.

[LibForestPaul]

Which is worse
globalist, or nationalist.

I believe globalist, still possible to leave one nation to another. Can't leave the globe.
3rd WW will sort this all out. 1-3 billion dead, human race will survive.

[MallsRGood]

Or immigrants just come her eon their own dime. Like most Hispanic, whether from Mexico, Cuba, or Chile, immigrants do. And they, like everyone else, would have to compete in the market, for success or failure.

The problem is that nativists hate the free market. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first American law limiting immigration in 1882, was passed because it turned out Chinese people were not just cleaner than your average white European but they worked harder and were more economically successful. The politically dominate whites in power hated having to compete on the market against them so used the violence of the government to attack them and keep them from entering the country. Which reveals the next truth.

Closed borders are inherently protectionist and anyone who promotes free market capitalism cannot be a proponent of closed borders.

Yes, Trumpian nationalism is just unionism writ large, with a border wall for a picket line and Mexicans for "scabs."

[osan]

Define "anti-globalist."

If you are supporting a strong national government to regulate human movement and to militarize the border then you are a nationalist. And nationalist inevitably does lead to xenophobia and fascism.

Oh good grief... more anti-border talk.

Firstly, nationalism in itself is not a problem when your population isn't composed mainly of imbeciles. This "nationalism = badness" meme is a load of nonsense.

Secondly, given the political organization of the planet, having and protecting national borders is essential if you want to have a country. If you live in a land where freedom reigns, for example, and the rest of the world is made up of slaver nations, you almost certainly need protected borders. If the people of the rest of the world disdain your freedom, then you most certainly need borders that are maintained.

This notion that anyone can show up willy-nilly and take up residence, while perhaps a nice ideal, has no place in this world when one wishes his nation, such as it may be, to continue. To allow the unrestricted movements of those from without to enter within is to invite national suicide. Just look what happens when an aggressive predatory culture inundates another nation. Doesn't happen, you say? Look to Europe and then tell me it doesn't happen.

If you oppose any strong centralized government, and therefore support human liberty in all its permutations in opposition to nationalism and globalist government, then you aren't a nationalist or fascist.

Your tacitly implied presumption here is that anyone who recognizes that a nation cannot allow unrestricted immigration without facing destruction as that nation is a fascist is not valid. People are what they are, and most folks like the idea of their national identity, rightly or otherwise. Why are they wrong for this? I see no problem with it at all.

Of course included in this is acknowledging the right of human movement across unowned land, the rejection of limiting free trade, including limiting the movement of human capital, and an understanding that the only property you can regulate the entrance into is land you directly and privately own.

And what happens when there is no more unowned land? Hell, what happens when one parcel of unowned land becomes isolated from the rest because it is surrounded by that which is privately held?

These maxims must hold true: Free markets. Free will. Free men. Anything else is an argument for slavery.

In theory, yes. In practice in a context of globally poisoned thinking, not quite.

ETA: It was late-ish and I was very tired, thereby forgetting to add this bit: Free markets, free will, and free men do not preclude strongly defended borders. In circumstances such as those we find common in the world today, such borders are likely to prove the only means of retaining the "free" status of those markets, as well as the men and their wills.

Once again, in case you didn't grok: imagine you are the freest nation on earth like, oh I dunno... America. Now imagine you are surrounded by other nations who, if you let them, would take what you have and make you unfree. Even Canada would do this, gigantic pussies they may otherwise be, were the simply free to move their people southward, and we know by all means the lingering hatreds, resentments, and desires of our trusty neighbor to the south. In small time would they roll their aggressions across those imaginary and purportedly arbitrary lines on the ground and would make their attempts at eating as many of us as they could and enslaving the rest.

That is what governments do. They oughtn't, but they do because that's what people let them do. THEY oughtn't, but they do.

They world OUGHT not be as it is, but it is. Therefore, you deal with what is in front of you and now as your fantasies say they should be. To do otherwise drives right into insanity's garage.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

So We Anti Globalists Are now called xenophobic Nationalists.

Thats right according to the pro migrants, pro diversity, Pro Globalist crowd. We are xenophobic nationalists and fascists. And why? because we aren't supporting diversity enough.

Some of those people on the pro diversity crowd and Globalist crowd are annoying to debate with they just wont listen to the facts nor reasons expect the nose from the news media.

Anything that stands against evil is labeled "evil".

Let us deport the traitors from our nations to the 3rd world they adore.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Or immigrants just come her eon their own dime. Like most Hispanic, whether from Mexico, Cuba, or Chile, immigrants do. And they, like everyone else, would have to compete in the market, for success or failure.

The problem is that nativists hate the free market. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first American law limiting immigration in 1882, was passed because it turned out Chinese people were not just cleaner than your average white European but they worked harder and were more economically successful. The politically dominate whites in power hated having to compete on the market against them so used the violence of the government to attack them and keep them from entering the country. Which reveals the next truth.

Closed borders are inherently protectionist and anyone who promotes free market capitalism cannot be a proponent of closed borders.

So what do you do again? Would you mind if I force you to compete against 50 people who will do your job for cheaper then you?
Protectionism/immigration limits work.

[Superfluous Man]

Secondly, given the political organization of the planet, having and protecting national borders is essential if you want to have a country. If you live in a land where freedom reigns, for example, and the rest of the world is made up of slaver nations, you almost certainly need protected borders. If the people of the rest of the world disdain your freedom, then you most certainly need borders that are maintained.

I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."

Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.

For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.

[Superfluous Man]

So what do you do again? Would you mind if I force you to compete against 50 people who will do your job for cheaper then you?
Protectionism/immigration limits work.

It's not about anyone forcing anything. It's about allowing that competition to happen, and not having the government try to stop it when it does.

Do you honestly think government should do that? Manipulate labor markets and protect some people from having to compete against others for their jobs?

[osan]

Anything that stands against evil is labeled "evil".

This is quotable fare. Nicely done. Here... <SLOGSCHPLUMF> ...have some rep.

Let us deport the traitors from our nations to the 3rd world they adore.

It is a commendable idea. Somalia would be a prime candidate. It is pretty much unowned land anyhow, practically speaking.

Ideally, we build a huge manmade island in the pacific and one in the Atlantic. All male exiles go to one, all female the other. That way there is no propagation of the faulty genes that lead to their bankrupt lives in the first place. Each would be free to have all the gaysex they wanted. They would be initially provided with implements for basic farming and nothing more. Live freely, as commies, or any other ways you might please. Be one happy family, or kill each other off. Makes no difference to the rest of the world because such lives have ceased to matter. The only thing you cannot do is leave. Shark infested waters and 24x7 gunboat patrolling, with anything human flopping about in the waters shot into the next life as a matter of law, no catch and return allowed. You get exactly one chance and no more, because the rest of us are so painfully serious about not having you in our company any longer. Any vessels approaching will be warned off and sunk where heed it not taken because we no longer care what you think or want regarding this very specific matter. The inmates stay in and everyone else out. No visitors, thankyouverymuch.

It is a perfect solution - as perfect as this sort of necessity allows, anyway. You're not killing anyone, just sending them to a place where they will no longer be able to harm your own. They are left there, to their devices. Can't expect better than that. I'd be willing to donate to such a project.

Could you imagine Obama and the tranny in such a place. Barry might one day grow a pair and kill Michael who undoubtedly would drive him to murder with his whining about having broken yet another nail. Michael, OTOH, might actually and finally find some satisfaction with the boundless gaysex it is likely to have at its beck and call... that is if the whining doesn't turn them away.

As for funding: recoup the development and maintenance costs by establishing The Exile Island Channel, where video cameras capture the hilarious escapades of the inmates, charging the customary monthly fees, of course. It has something for everyone including *****sex, lezzysex, catfighting, eye-gouging, domination, live warring, cannibalism in times of famine, and all the other truly entertaining interactions that keep 'em coming back for more, year after year, no matter how boring.

Imagine a community with no medical establishment other than that as chance might provide! That scratch from a thorn bush could prove fatal! You can't buy that at Walmart! We'd get to watch the effects of famine on the social fabric, including the much coveted act of cannibalism, for which a premium fee would naturally be charged. See the spontaneous ascension of a Lord of the Flies culture as the strong subjugate the weak. I bet there's dozens, if not hundreds of PhD theses in that arrangement, so it can be said that Exile Island aids in the education and science of mankind. It would be like evolution in a test tube. The imagination reels at the possibilities. Entertainment, CONtainment, and science all wrapped into one neat little package that also serves to keep the rest of us safe from tyrants, liberals, and other undesirables who trespass upon the rights of their fellows while in political office. It's like a dream come true!

[osan]

I hate when anti-immigration people use these vague euphemisms like, "protected borders," and, "borders that are maintained."

Don't be obtuse; it's very unflattering.

I am decidedly not "anti-immigration". I am stating the practical realities of a world that is artificially far from perfect due to the choices vast legions of humanity freely make. "Protected border" is no euphemism, and I gave very specific reasons describing why they must be protected. Go back and read once again, or a dozen times, until it becomes clear because there is likely nothing more that I could add to make it any more so. Protecting one's borders makes perfect sense in a world drowning in the aggressions of one subpopulation against another. This is the reality of man's devolution.

The so-called "enlightenment" probably saw humanity's apex. It's been politically downhill ever since. Whatever the real cause(s), we are in some deep and rapidly spoiling kimchee.

Yes, of course nations need protected borders in order to "have a country" (although why that's a reason to do anything, I don't know). That doesn't mean limiting the movement of people and goods across them or regulating immigration in any way.

Once again, and I'm not sure why I bother sometimes, I direct your attention to Europe, which as we type these words is being consumed by the predatory Islamic cultures of the middle east. Now, tell me once again how limiting movement is evil.

For most of this country's history, when there were no limits placed on the number of people being able to come here from any other country for any length of time, nobody would have said that we didn't have borders that were maintained.

Bull.

$#@!.

I take it you are familiar with a place called "Ellis Island"? People were routinely sent back whence they came for any of a list of reasons, most of them medical.

Should serial killers be granted entry? Child molesters? Other hard-core felons? People with communicable diseases? Shall we find the next Typhoid Mary in some third-world $#@!hole and bid her come to America and christen us with her warming presence?

The world of humanity is hopelessly $#@!ed up at the moment. The mental landscape is a disaster area, with thinking gone so far afield from basic rationality that it becomes something of a mystery as to how we have not collapsed in on ourselves yet. But that may come before much longer in any event. Because of this terrible circumstance of galloping insanity raging across the globe, men have been given the choice of taking measures or being consumed. You can talk your idealistic talk all you want, but I would bet money I do not have that were the real results of your ideals to make themselves felt in your life, you would be screaming for someone to do something about it. The world is now less warm and fuzzy than perhaps it has ever been in all human history, for not only do we remain a highly aggressive species, we now lack most of the cultural inhibitions against wholesale insanity that kept the world from flying apart in the past.

The whole thing is a jumbled mess, to be sure, and there is no room here for dissecting the endless litany of historical causes lead us to today. Suffice to say that this is where we are; people are not only not getting better, but worse on the whole in terms of their thinking. This thinking leads Brother Ass about by the end of its nose and in some cases its pecker. Therefore, prancing about in a vapor of bunnies and light isn't going to get you far, but please do show us the way its done. If you can pull it off, I will happily amend my views and publicly announce my wrongness and your rightness. Seriously, I would, because my inner liberal would like nothing more than to see this world come to something closer to what I would consider right.

Until then, I would recommend you think things out a bit more carefully.

[LibertyEagle]

THANK YOU!

Then perhaps you should be focusing on getting rid of the handouts to illegals, including birthright citizenship, BEFORE you push so much to bring more in.

[LibertyEagle]

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The 20th century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 – coincided with periods of mass immigration.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

It is impossible to believe that the U.S. or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

Much more here...

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/...vate-property/

[osan]

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The 20th century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

And what is the underlying cause of the problems in each of the cited cases? Unjust use of force.

Not all force is wrong. The mugger whom I meet with force, whether I shoot the ghost from his worthless carcass or wax kindly and lock him up until police (ugh...) arrive, my use of force is just.

Forcing groups who have long histories of mutual enmity to mix in unwanted fashion is unjust. It denies the right to hate, and make no mistake about it: people hold every right to hate what they want, when they want, for any reason they want including no reason at all. Opinions and emotions are no business of "government". They are nobody's business insofar as interference is concerned. Action is the only avenue of potential concern for such entities, and only those that are objectively criminal in nature.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 – coincided with periods of mass immigration.

I was unaware of this, but it accords perfectly with what is happening in Europe, save that the current situation is far worse, posing existential threats to long-established European cultures.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

See? I'm not the only one.

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

And this speaks very directly to the raving hypocrisy of the "diversity is God" crowd. How is the destruction of one culture for the sake of another diverse? It is nothing more than the supplanting of one for the other. These people are either clinical idiots or hard-core criminals. Perhaps they are both, and that is why they should be stopped with unequivocal force.

It is impossible to believe that the U.S. or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration.

Since when does any of this have anything to do with freedom? The filth on the "left" don't even pay much boilerplate lip service to freedom anymore. They appear to be confident enough in their supremacy that they no longer feel the need to mitigate their true positions with feathery words. That position is nothing less than bald-faced force. With them, it is "our way or the reeducation camp". If those people were set loose upon the land, politically speaking, every Christian and non-progressive Jew in America would be in a concentration camp, their properties seized, and their status as last-class citizens guaranteed. I would be in no way surprised to see them going the Mao/Stalin route with mass exterminations. I have been around such people my entire life, especially while growing up in NYC. Their viciousness is unmitigated, held in check only because Law keeps them in check... that and the fact that their phag-asses don't believe in guns while those they would see murdered are armed to the teeth. Be grateful for the 2A.

Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

Ayuh.

[Superfluous Man]

I am decidedly not "anti-immigration". I am stating the practical realities of a world that is artificially far from perfect due to the choices vast legions of humanity freely make. "Protected border" is no euphemism, and I gave very specific reasons describing why they must be protected.

You are anti-immigration. That's the whole point of your post. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration. "Protect the border" is not an accurate description of what you advocate, neither is "maintain the border." These are just euphemisms you use to make immigration restriction sound like something more basic and harmless than it is.

[Superfluous Man]

Bull.

$#@!.

I take it you are familiar with a place called "Ellis Island"? People were routinely sent back whence they came for any of a list of reasons, most of them medical.

I said, "for most of our country's history." You're referring to something that did not apply to most of our country's history.

[osan]

You are anti-immigration. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration.

So you know my mind better than do I. Right.

Talk to me when you get a proper clue. I've no time for willful or feckless nonsense.

[LibertyEagle]

You are anti-immigration. That's the whole point of your post. And "protect the border" is a euphemism, regardless of your reasons. You're not talking about protecting the border. You're talking about limiting immigration. "Protect the border" is not an accurate description of what you advocate, neither is "maintain the border." These are just euphemisms you use to make immigration restriction sound like something more basic and harmless than it is.

I don't know about Osan, but absolutely, I am against unlimited immigration. Only a complete dumbass or someone wanting to destroy what's left of our country, would be for it.

[Superfluous Man]

So you know my mind better than do I. Right.

Talk to me when you get a proper clue. I've no time for willful or feckless nonsense.

No. I accurately describe the position you have laid out here using words.

If those words don't accurately reflect your mind, that's on you. In that case, the mind I'm talking about is the person you're pretending to be when you write anti-immigration posts.

[Superfluous Man]

I don't know about Osan, but absolutely, I am against unlimited immigration. Only a complete dumbass or someone wanting to destroy what's left of our country, would be for it.

There will always be natural factors that limit immigration in a free market. But the state, by use of force, should never limit it.