Do you support unlimited immigration into US

[undergroundrr]

Did they ask different questions to the different groups?

No. That's how they came to the conclusion that whites like taxes more and eschew hard work more than Hispanics.

Now, do I believe that about whites and Hispanics? No. Because it's totally irrational to use leftist social science to prove that Hispanics or any other ethnicity are going to actually do anything as a group, let alone "completely destroy the rest of our liberty".

[undergroundrr]

believes that it is a function of IQ

And that argument is a function of Molyneux's IQ. If one believes the leftist social science, it would demonstrate that whites are more progressive than Hispanics and more accepting of getting taxed for big government programs. It's why old white people get so dang mad about messing with their social security.

The American political landscape is going to morph no matter what happens at the borders. Neither you nor Molyneux nor Pew nor Frank Luntz have the ability to predict how it will affect "the rest of our liberty."

I differ from you and Molyneux in that I don't think less liberty (aka more government) is a way to get more liberty.

[dannno]

No. That's how they came to the conclusion that whites like taxes more and eschew hard work more than Hispanics.

Oh, ok. Hard work is great and a necessary component, but smart work is often more productive. The guy who designs and builds the excavator is more productive than someone with a shovel.

The problem with the Luntz style questioning was that he could ask the same question 2 or 3 different ways and get hugely varying responses. But if you ask several different groups of people the same questions, then compare those groups, that is a valid comparison.

Of course, you want to look at other variables and other statistics, if you want I can keep posting more of those graphs. I think I have a dozen or two I can post. Or I could just post some Molyneux videos, if you watched those you would have seen them already.

Now, do I believe that about whites and Hispanics? No. Because it's totally irrational to use leftist social science to prove that Hispanics or any other ethnicity are going to actually do anything as a group, let alone "completely destroy the rest of our liberty".

How is asking what political party someone votes for or whether they want bigger government and indexing them in groups leftist social science?

[undergroundrr]

If this is true, that is a good thing, but unfortunately from a practical standpoint libertarians are an extreme minority in all racial makeups so I don't think the hispanic libertarians are going to put us over the edge when the vast majority want bigger government, compared to the native population.

BTW, I have a lot more of these graphics if you want, that one I post is just the most obvious to me that shows there is a huge problem with open immigration.

Yeah sorry. Electing Republicans does not result in more liberty and less government. Hispanics can be 100% Democrat in all generations for all I care, and they probably will be unless Republican rhetoric and typecasting about Hispanics doesn't change. Which it won't.

[dannno]

If one believes the leftist social science, it would demonstrate that whites are more progressive than Hispanics and more accepting of getting taxed for big government programs.

Or it means they know from a realistic standpoint that they need to chip-in to pay for police, courts, defense, roads and other government services.

It's why old white people get so dang mad about messing with their social security.

They paid for it.. Ron Paul realizes it needs to be altered and phased out, but he never advocated for it to be abolished without paying something to those who paid into it.

The American political landscape is going to morph no matter what happens at the borders. Neither you nor Molyneux nor Pew nor Frank Luntz have the ability to predict how it will affect "the rest of our liberty."

Not precisely, but we can get a pretty good idea by looking at the data.

I differ from you and Molyneux in that I don't think less liberty (aka more government) is a way to get more liberty.

Immigration is a government program, and unlimited immigration would lead to much more government than border security would without even changing our current laws - but in reality we know that unlimited immigration would change the laws and exacerbate the situation further.

[dannno]

Yeah sorry. Electing Republicans does not result in more liberty and less government. Hispanics can be 100% Democrat in all generations for all I care, and they probably will be unless Republican rhetoric and typecasting about Hispanics doesn't change. Which it won't.

It is true that a lot of Republicans are for big government, but many are not... There are not many Democrats at all who are for small government.

It is also true that Bush grew government at a very fast rate, but is your answer really to elect Democrats?

[undergroundrr]

It is true that a lot of Republicans are for big government, but many are not... There are not many Democrats at all who are for small government.

It is also true that Bush grew government at a very fast rate, but is your answer really to elect Democrats?

In terms of liberty, government's intrusion in our lives, etc., it does not matter whether Democrats or Republicans are elected. It's established by real evidence (not leftist social science or rhetoric) that if one or the other is control, budgets and deficits will soar.

I am a little curious if the latest budget atrocity would have been tempered if we had gridlock instead of Republican control of all three branches.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is a matter of property rights as I keep telling you, property rights have a purpose, the purpose is to allow the owners to benefit from and protect the property.

Property rights are the universal language of ethics; any ethical idea can be expressed in terms of property rights.

You can express the nationalist idea in terms of property rights (the people collectively have a limited property right in the land, such that they are within their rights to restrict immigration) just as a communist can express the communist idea in terms of property rights (the people collectively have an unlimited property right in the land, own it outright, such that they can do whatever they want with it), but this has nothing to do with the liberal idea.

Liberalism isn't just about property rights, it's about a specific version of property rights governed by specific rules (e.g. homesteading, voluntary exchange, etc). These alleged collective property rights of the people have no place within that framework. You are setting up a principle in opposition to liberal principles; these cannot be reconciled.

The only way that immigration restrictions could conceivably be justified within a liberal framework would be pragmatically, as an illiberal means for accomplishing a liberal end (as a minarchist justifies the state in general), but you've made clear that, for you, this alleged collective right of the people to restrict immigration is not a means to an end, but an end in itself (you said they have the right to do this on a whim, regardless of whether it serves any liberal end, such as preventing violence).

[Swordsmyth]

Property rights are the universal language of ethics; any ethical idea can be expressed in terms of property rights.

You can express the nationalist idea in terms of property rights (the people collectively have a limited property right in the land, such that they are within their rights to restrict immigration) just as a communist can express the communist idea in terms of property rights (the people collectively have an unlimited property right in the land, own it outright, such that they can do whatever they want with it), but this has nothing to do with the liberal idea.

Liberalism isn't just about property rights, it's about a specific version of property rights governed by specific rules (e.g. homesteading, voluntary exchange, etc). These alleged collective property rights of the people have no place within that framework. You are setting up a principle in opposition to liberal principles; these cannot be reconciled.

The only way that immigration restrictions could conceivably be justified within a liberal framework would be pragmatically, as an illiberal means for accomplishing a liberal end (as a minarchist justifies the state in general), but you've made clear that, for you, this alleged collective right of the people to restrict immigration is not a means to an end, but an end in itself (you said they have the right to do this on a whim, regardless of whether it serves any liberal end, such as preventing violence).

By your contorted definition all property rights are illiberal since they allow the owners to prevent the use of their property by others, by that definition only anarchy is true liberalism.

I am saying that people form groups to control territory out of necessity and that those groups then have a level of ownership over that territory and as the owners they then have an absolute right to control that territory in any way they see fit.

[r3volution 3.0]

By your contorted definition all property rights are illiberal since they allow the owners to prevent the use of their property by others, by that definition only anarchy is true liberalism.

No no, you misunderstand me; both the liberal version of property rights and the version of property rights that you're advocating recognize an owner's right to restrict access to his property. That's the not issue in dispute. The difference between our two version of property rights lies in how people come to obtain property rights in the first place. In the liberal version, property rights are obtained only through homesteading, voluntary transfer, or restitution; the source of the collective property rights in your system is something else (e.g. a fictional social contract).

I am saying that people form groups to control territory out of necessity and that those groups then have a level of ownership over that territory and as the owners they then have an absolute right to control that territory in any way they see fit.

I know that's what you're saying. On the liberal view, in contrast, the state's only legitimate function (its only "right," if you want to use that language) is to protect property rights. Restrictive immigration policy thus could hypothetically be justified in the same way that minimal taxes are justified (as an illiberal means to a liberal end), but it can never be an end in itself (something which the state has an absolute right to do).

[Swordsmyth]

No no, you misunderstand me; both the liberal version of property rights and the version of property rights that you're advocating recognize an owner's right to restrict access to his property. That's the not issue in dispute. The difference between our two version of property rights lies in how people come to obtain property rights in the first place. In the liberal version, property rights are obtained only through homesteading, voluntary transfer, or restitution; the source of the collective property rights in your system is something else (e.g. a fictional social contract).



I know that's what you're saying. On the liberal view, in contrast, the state's only legitimate function (its only "right," if you want to use that language) is to protect property rights. Restrictive immigration policy thus could hypothetically be justified in the same way that minimal taxes are justified (as an illiberal means to a liberal end), but it can never be an end in itself (something which the state has an absolute right to do).

The state "homesteads" it's territory by controlling and protecting it, and immigration control is the protection of property rights because the group owns the territorial property rights and anyone trying to join the group without it's permission is stealing a portion of the group's ownership.

[r3volution 3.0]

The state "homesteads" it's territory by controlling and protecting it, and immigration control is the protection of property rights because the group owns the territorial property rights and anyone trying to join the group without it's permission is stealing a portion of the group's ownership.

Yes, I understand that that's the theory of property rights you're advocating (which is similar to the theory which a communist might advocate to justify the authority of the communist state), but it has nothing to do with liberalism. The state has not in fact homesteaded the national territory, nor has it obtained these property rights via voluntary exchange (the fictional social contract), nor by restitution; hence, from the liberal perspective, it has no such rights.

Also,

The state "homesteads" it's territory by controlling and protecting it

If that statement is to be taken seriously, if justifies anything that any state does.

You appreciate that?

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, I understand that that's the theory of property rights you're advocating (which is similar to the theory which a communist might advocate to justify the authority of the communist state), but it has nothing to do with liberalism. The state has not in fact homesteaded the national territory, nor has it obtained these property rights via voluntary exchange (the fictional social contract), nor by restitution; hence, from the liberal perspective, it has no such rights.

If your only remaining argument is that governments weren't created or submitted to in order to provide for the common defense and administer justice and that they don't add value to their territory when they do so in direct contravention of my assertions then we don't really have anything more we can discuss.

If you don't believe in the "social contract" as you put it or that the state adds value to it's territory through it's legitimate functions you should join the anarchists.
You are undermining your belief in monarchy in your ill-conceived attempt to justify open borders in pursuit of global government and the prioritization of profits over all else.

[r3volution 3.0]

If your only remaining argument is that governments weren't created or submitted to in order to provide for the common defense and administer justice and that they don't add value to their territory when they do so in direct contravention of my assertions then we don't really have anything more we can discuss.

You're missing the point (again)...

It's one thing to say that the state is a necessary evil (because anarchy would be even worse from a liberal perspective), and that consequently the state can justly do certain illiberal things (collect minimal taxes, etc); that is a pragmatic liberal argument. It is another thing to say that the state has the right to do illiberal things for their own sake, as you claim.

The argument you're making is NOT equivalent to the minarchist argument.

Minarchist: "light taxes (i.e. aggression) are justified because anarchy (i.e. more aggression) is worse."

You: "immigration restrictions (i.e. aggression) are justified, period."

[Swordsmyth]

You're missing the point (again)...

It's one thing to say that the state is a necessary evil (because anarchy would be even worse from a liberal perspective), and that consequently the state can justly do certain illiberal things (collect minimal taxes, etc); that is a pragmatic liberal argument. It is another thing to say that the state has the right to do illiberal things for their own sake, as you claim.

The argument you're making is NOT equivalent to the minarchist argument.

Minarchist: "light taxes (i.e. aggression) are justified because anarchy (i.e. more aggression) is worse."

You: "immigration restrictions (i.e. aggression) are justified, period."

Do the people have a right to create a government to control territory and administer justice?
If the answer is yes then that government has a property right to control it's territory.
If the answer is no then the anarchists are right and we should all revert to the law of the jungle: The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must and nothing that happens can be said to be either right or wrong, it just is.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do the people have a right to create a government to control territory and administer justice?

The state, however it comes into being, has the right to take what measures are necessary to protect property rights.

At a minimum, this always includes the collection of light taxes to finances the domestic security apparatus.

It may even include the imposition of restrictions on immigration, IF such a policy is a net gain for liberty.

...contra the result of a whim on the part of a nationalistic population.

The state has no right to do anything illiberal (indeed, to exist at all) except in the interest of a greater liberal good.

This is what necessary evil means.

If the answer is yes then that government has a property right to control it's territory.

The state has a right to do certain illiberal things in pursuit of the greater liberal good.

It does NOT have the right to do those illiberal things on a whim, or anytime that they don't serve the greater liberal good.

[FSP-Rebel]

[Swordsmyth]

The state, however it comes into being, has the right to take what measures are necessary to protect property rights.

At a minimum, this always includes the collection of light taxes to finances the domestic security apparatus.

It may even include the imposition of restrictions on immigration, IF such a policy is a net gain for liberty.

...contra the result of a whim on the part of a nationalistic population.

The state has no right to do anything illiberal (indeed, to exist at all) except in the interest of a greater liberal good.

This is what necessary evil means.



No, it doesn't. See above.

Any "right" which the state holds is contingent on its being used in pursuit of liberty.

So you are saying that people don't have a right to form clubs or to jointly hold and control property through a club?
Or are you saying that such a club can only control it's property through unanimous agreement and that any single member can ignore any rule he doesn't like and invite non-members to ignore it as well?

[r3volution 3.0]

So you are saying that people don't have a right to form clubs or to jointly hold and control property through a club?

Sure they do, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the state, which is by no means a voluntary club.

Or are you saying that such a club can only control it's property through unanimous agreement and that any single member can ignore any rule he doesn't like and invite non-members to ignore it as well?

Again, nothing to do with the state.

You talk like Rousseau...(!)

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth

By the way, speaking of these alleged collective property rights of the people, are they alienable?

Property (on the liberal view) is always alienable.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure they do, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the state, which is by no means a voluntary club.



Again, nothing to do with the state.

You talk like Rousseau...(!)

The state is not completely voluntary but life isn't fair like that, you don't get to choose your family either, there is simply no practical way to allow every person born to voluntarily join the nation or refuse.
The state exists and the citizens own it collectively (in a republic at least), as the owners they have a right to make membership rules and decide who to allow into their territory without unanimous agreement, if you don't like the rules you can vote to change them or secede or overthrow the government or move to a different country that is willing to let you join them.

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth

By the way, speaking of these alleged collective property rights of the people, are they alienable?

Property (on the liberal view) is always alienable.

In what way?
Are you asking if the state can sell it's territory to another state?
I would say yes provided the citizens of the larger state and the area being sold agree, such questions can be complicated as can the similar questions of secession or expulsion.

[r3volution 3.0]

The state is not completely voluntary but life isn't fair like that, you don't get to choose your family either, there is simply no practical way to allow every person born to voluntarily join the nation or refuse.

The state is inevitable, and justified on the grounds that it reduces the incidence of aggression/better secures property rights.

It in no way follows that the state is justified in restricting immigration, on a whim.

It is justified only in doing what is necessary to protect property rights/prevent aggression.

Again, your argument is NOT the argument of minarchists..

Reiterating that "life isn't fair" and that the state is inevitable does not help your case at all.

We're not debating whether the state should exist; we're debating what powers the state can justly exercise.

So, unless your argument is "the state has a right to do whatever it can do (pure 'might is right'),' you can stop talking like this.

In what way?
Are you asking if the state can sell it's territory to another state?
I would say yes provided the citizens of the larger state and the area being sold agree, such questions can be complicated as can the similar questions of secession or expulsion.

No, I'm asking whether the individuals who allegedly hold these property rights can alienate them.

Bob owns 1/300,000,000th of the right to decide who can enter the country; can he sell it for a taco?

[kahless]

I vote no on unlimited immigration. I believe there should be a complete moratorium on immigration, mass humane deportations of illegals, repatriation financial incentives and reparations offered as paid repatriation.

This is unlikely to happen since those that wish to radically change the country politically, economically, demographically and culturally control the propaganda machine. A significant percentage of the population support their ideology but they are still a minority. However through rising immigrant birth rates, brainwashed youth growing older, maintaining current immigration levels and with little to no political opposition to it that in 5-10 years time this will change.

If you think things are bad now in this future the US will be unrecognizable. We will all have the pay the price to our new masters and mourn the loss of what little liberty we have now. Brought to you by the Democratic party, the Republican establishment and the sham Libertarians.

This is obvious, the polling data on immigrants and new citizens has confirmed it time and time again. It is so obvious that there is no doubt in my mind those supporting open borders in this forum could not possibly believe in limited government as they use political correctness and platitudes to promote the loss of our liberties.

[Swordsmyth]

The state is inevitable, and justified on the grounds that it reduces the incidence of aggression/better secures property rights.

It in no way follows that the state is justified in restricting immigration, on a whim.

It is justified only in doing what is necessary to protect property rights/prevent aggression.

Again, your argument is NOT the argument of minarchists..

Reiterating that "life isn't fair" and that the state is inevitable does not help your case at all.

We're not debating whether the state should exist; we're debating what powers the state can justly exercise.

So, unless your argument is "the state has a right to do whatever it can do (pure 'might is right'),' you can stop talking like this.

The state OWNS territory therefore it has a right to say who is allowed to enter it.

No, I'm asking whether the individuals who allegedly hold these property rights can alienate them.

Bob owns 1/300,000,000th of the right to decide who can enter the country; can he sell it for a taco?

That is a new and complex question, in our current system and philosophy he can't, I could devise arguments in support of allowing or forbidding him to do so, without going too deeply into it right now my instincts favor the arguments against allowing it.

What is your position?

[r3volution 3.0]

The state OWNS territory therefore it has a right to say who is allowed to enter it.

Not on the liberal view

It has a right to exist and do certain things (for the purpose of minimizing aggression overall), but it owns nothing in the sense you mean.

Its rights are entirely contingent (on their being exercised for the purpose of minimizing aggression), not at all like "ordinary" property rights.

That is a new and complex question, in our current system and philosophy he can't, I could devise arguments in support of allowing or forbidding him to do so, without going too deeply into it right now my instincts favor the arguments against allowing it.

What is your position?

My position is that these alleged collective property rights don't exist in the first place, but I ask this question, because, if you deny that these alleged collective property rights are alienable, that is yet another way in which your property theory is illiberal (liberal property rights are always alienable). I assumed you would deny alienability, since otherwise your preferred political system would gradually evolve into something else, something not democratic (like a corporation with a small number of people holding most of the shares).

[osan]

Yes or no . If yes , please describe what positives the people here would gain from this .

Not in the least.

[osan]

What! Not all immigrants are lazy welfare stealing rapists?

No, but I suspect you might be in your spare time.

[osan]

That's right. If you want the government to regulate borders then you are a Marxist.

Good God... this is FAIL^FAIL.

You're a Cultural Marxist if you want to use the State's violence to protect your "culture," your "race," or your "people." National Socialism is still Socialism.

You have a very bad habit of throwing words around in ways that make it clear you don't know what you're talking about.

For one thing, there is no such thing as "state", yet you speak of it as if it were otherwise. Your reasoning goes well south from there. People hold every right to defend their property, whether owned individually, or in some common manner. That aside, there are practical reasons for limiting immigration that root in property rights and the effects of invasions, whether military, cultural, economic, or what have you. You make the same error that progressives and other Weakmen make: you focus on the rights of one group over those of another, only you choose the outsider.

By the logic of those who argue for wholly open borders, I am obliged to allow strangers to enter upon my front pastures and pitch tents or build cabins and start farming. If they disagree with this assessment, then I respond by asking where that bright line between my rights and those of the others rests. No matter what answer they give, I can show that it is an arbitrary placement.

We as a people, if we are to accept that concept of conglomeration, hold every right to defend that which we validly claim as ours. We are here. We claim this land. As the old saying goes, possession is 9/10 of the law. That's a joke, son.

You say "they" have the right... Well, so do we. Get over it.

[osan]

To paraphrase, "What Rights are you willing to forfeit to keep immigrants out?"

What rights are you willing to have trampled when immigrants demand you adopt their cultural values that found upon authoritarianism?

That blade cuts both ways.