US judge blocks funds for Trump border wall plan

[Ender]

Isn't it funny how anarchists think the term for what they are is an insult.

Just proved my point.

[Swordsmyth]

Just proved my point.

LOL

[r3volution 3.0]

Communism is the collective ownership of ALL property, territory is not specific property nor is it all property.

You advocate collective ownership, sans contract, of certain property rights in land.

Call yourself anything at all (communist would be apt), so long as it isn't libertarian.

[Swordsmyth]

You advocate collective ownership, sans contract, of certain property rights in land.

Call yourself anything at all (communist would be apt), so long as it isn't libertarian.

I advocate nothing that hasn't been a recognized fact and necessity for all of human existence and that isn't recognized by many libertarians, I am certainly a variety of libertarian and you as a globalist are much closer to communism.

[r3volution 3.0]

I advocate nothing that hasn't been a recognized fact and necessity for all of human existence

So for slavery until recently

and that isn't recognized by many libertarians

Anyone who takes your position that the collective has an inherent right to violate the rights of individuals isn't a libertarian by definition.

I am certainly a variety of libertarian

...the variety according to which the alleged rights of the collective trump the rights of the individual.

and you as a globalist are much closer to communism.

Which property have I suggested ought to be nationalized?

[enhanced_deficit]

Could liberal judges be behind this also or this is fakenews?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...entire-nation&

[Swordsmyth]

So for slavery until recently

That was never a necessity.

Anyone who takes your position that the collective has an inherent right to violate the rights of individuals isn't a libertarian by definition.

That's not true.

...the variety according to which the alleged rights of the collective trump the rights of the individual.

The variety according to which collective rights are required to protect and enforce the rights of the individual.

Which property have I suggested ought to be nationalized?

You want to impose a single global government and so do communists, that makes you closer to them than I am, you also advocate for the use of tax money/a draft to make people fight wars that you claim will spread utopia and create the single global government which is closer to communism than I am.

[Swordsmyth]

Could liberal judges be behind this also or this is fakenews?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...entire-nation&

Liberal judges have imposed the necessity of releasing some of the invaders so Trump is dumping them in liberal states and cities that claim to want them.
That's old news.

[r3volution 3.0]

You want to impose a single global government and so do communists

So have lots of classical liberals, including Mises.

War is bad, m'kay...

you also advocate for the use of tax money/a draft to make people fight wars that you claim will spread utopia and create the single global government which is closer to communism than I am.

You advocate for taxes/a draft to support the existence of the state at all, don't you?

Yes, you do.

The only difference between you and I on this front is that I'm consistent.

i.e. I would like good government everywhere, whereas you only care about the place in which you happen to have been born.

...and none of this has anything at all to do with communism (except your views of collective land ownership)

[Swordsmyth]

So have lots of classical liberals, including Mises.

War is bad, m'kay...

Yes, war is bad, that's why your desire to conquer the world is so bad.
It also wouldn't eliminate war, it would just change it.

You advocate for taxes/a draft to support the existence of the state at all, don't you?

Yes, you do.

The only difference between you and I on this front is that I'm consistent.

i.e. I would like good government everywhere, whereas you only care about the place in which you happen to have been born.

I advocate for the minimum possible required for defense, you advocate for aggression.

...and none of this has anything at all to do communism (except your views of collective land ownership)

It has very much to do with it, the lack of a global government and the existence of independent states is a great impediment to communism and so the communists want a global government just like you and they propose to get it by stealing more from their people than is necessary to provide for the common defense in order to pay for aggression just like you.

Neither of us is a communist but you are much closer to them than I am.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, war is bad, that's why your desire to conquer the world is so bad.
It also wouldn't eliminate war, it would just change it.

Did I ever say anything about conquest?

I advocate for the minimum possible required for defense, you advocate for aggression.

The purpose of the state, as you acknowledge, is defense: i.e. prevention of aggression which would otherwise occur (in the state's absence).

This defensive action, this prevention of aggression, does not somehow magically become aggression once it crosses an imaginary line.

Murder on this spot of dirt is murder; so murder on that other spot of dirt.

Preventing the first is good; so the other.

It has very much to do with it, the lack of a global government and the existence of independent states is a great impediment to communism and so the communists want a global government just like you and they propose to get it by stealing more from their people than is necessary to provide for the common defense in order to pay for aggression just like you.

Neither of us is a communist but you are much closer to them than I am.

The geographic scale of government has nothing whatsoever to do with communism v. liberalism - nothing.

You could have a world communist state or a world minarchist state.

You disagree only because you value the decidedly unlibertarian right of national self-determination above individual liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

Did I ever say anything about conquest?

Frequently.

The purpose of the state, as you acknowledge, is defense: i.e. prevention of aggression which would otherwise occur (in the state's absence).

This defensive action, this prevention of aggression, does not somehow magically become aggression once it crosses an imaginary line.

Murder on this spot of dirt is murder; so murder on that other spot of dirt.

Preventing the first is good; so the other.

It becomes aggression when you exceed what is required to defend the rights of yourself and your fellow citizens, if it were possible to protect your rights without creating a state at all the anarchists would be correct.

The geographic scale of government has nothing whatsoever to do with communism v. liberalism - nothing.

You could have a world communist state or a world minarchist state.

In theory but not in reality, communism will always fail if it has competition and so it seeks to eliminate the competition.

You disagree only because you value the decidedly unlibertarian right of national self-determination above individual liberty.

It is not at all unlibertarian and it is required for individual liberty.

You would rob and enslave anyone in pursuit of your supposed global utopia and "the greater good" and that makes you very much like the communists.
And just like communism your utopia would never arrive but the robbery and slavery would be very real.

[r3volution 3.0]

Frequently.

I've frequently said that world government by conquest is inevitable (and would have already occurred but for out MAD recess).

This is not equivalent to saying that it's desirable; it's obviously not. My analysis is of the end state.

You know the arguments against anarcho-capitalism.

Think about those many competing "private defense agencies," how one will inevitably win and rule the others.

Apply this to geopolitics.

...not rocket surgery.

It becomes aggression when you exceed what is required to defend the rights of yourself and your fellow citizens, if it were possible to protect your rights without creating a state at all the anarchists would be correct.

No, it becomes aggression when it becomes aggression.

If violence to prevent aggression in Area X is good, then the same applies universally.

In theory but not in reality, communism will always fail if it has competition and so it seeks to eliminate the competition.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

The point is that world government is not in any way a uniquely communist idea.

The first serious advocates of world government, long before Marx, were classical liberals: e.g. Kant.

It is not at all unlibertarian and it is required for individual liberty.

Prioritizing the collective rights of some "nation" over individual rights is inherently unlibertarian.

You would rob and enslave anyone in pursuit of your supposed global utopia and "the greater good" and that makes you very much like the communists.
And just like communism your utopia would never arrive but the robbery and slavery would be very real.

You also are a pragmatist who accept the logic of "the greater good" (you aren't an anarchist).

As I explained above, you're simply inconsistent in your reasoning for refusing to apply this logic across imaginary national borders.

[Swordsmyth]

I've frequently said that world government by conquest is inevitable (and would have already occurred but for out MAD recess).

This is not equivalent to saying that it's desirable; it's obviously not. My analysis is of the end state.

You know the arguments against anarcho-capitalism.

Think about those many competing "private defense agencies," how one will inevitably win and rule the others.

Apply this to geopolitics.

...not rocket surgery.

It doesn't scale up, not only is global government not inevitable but it is impossible, the forces that lead to division become stronger as the scale increases and the forces that lead to consolidation become weaker.

You have also advocated for spreading "liberty" by the sword.

No, it becomes aggression when it becomes aggression.

If violence to prevent aggression in Area X is good, then the same applies universally.

Anything that is not defense is aggression.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean.

The point is that world government is not in any way a uniquely communist idea.

The first serious advocates of world government, long before Marx, were classical liberals: e.g. Kant.

The same can be said of the existence of national territory but communism requires and seeks global government so that makes you closer to the communists than I am.

Prioritizing the collective rights of some "nation" over individual rights is inherently unlibertarian.

I don't do that, I prioritize the collective rights of the nation to the extent that is required to defend the individual rights of its citizens.

You also are a pragmatist who accept the logic of "the greater good" (you aren't an anarchist).

As I explained above, you're simply inconsistent in your reasoning for refusing to apply this logic across imaginary national borders.

I accept the logic of "the greater good" only so far as is required to defend my rights and the rights of my fellows in "the greater good" and I am entirely consistent by refusing to extend it beyond what is necessary to defend my rights, no man has a right to force others to participate in any collective endeavor beyond what is required to defend his rights and theirs.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Thia was entirely predictable and it will be overturned.

And how many invaders and future welfare voters will be allowed to flood in before that.

One hundred percent STATIST garbage. Every word of that promoted growing government and not a single word about “get “documented”, you’ll get free money and all you want”.

So, is the “deep state” against Donald Trump, or is it really against Ron Paul...

Here is real news you do not want to miss:


A Better Solution Than Trump’s Border Wall
written by ron paul
monday january 30, 2017


Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.

First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.

Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.

Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.

The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.

The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.

I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.


http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-s-border-wall

And allowing in tens of millions of welfare voters DOES NOTHING to grow the power of the state?

You wonder why "losertarian" is a term, its for people like you...Who pursue policies guaranteed to keep liberty principles from ever succeeding, the LP does have a lot of those.

So the logic of Congress is to invade every other country on the planet, but, leave our borders wide the $#@! open and just let everyone else invade us at the exact same time? We really do have TRAITORS in high positions of power in this country.

But didnt you know America was founded to be a cesspit of the world`s most backwards, violent, moronic culture, it says so in the Constitution The "Zeroth Amendment", right next to no hate speech and only the state can own guns, just above welfare for all/S

Neo Cons and cultural marxists need to be deported.

The other problem is that the people who think "secure borders" means restricting the immigration of peaceful people coming here to work by their own means or the voluntary help of others are using the phrase totally differently than Ron Paul.

...They are not "peaceful" when they reduce the standard, quality of life of the American Worker, taxpayer, robbed the opportunities of the American people, and vote against our rights.

"They just want to work!".....OK, and? How is that our problem? We have millions out of work/under working in our Nation, we are NOT world`s Job market.

"Coming to voluntary help of others", Get the $#@! out of here with that crap.

So along with this Judge, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Judge Napolitano, and every other constitutionalist who opposes an action by Trump that blatantly and unquestionably violates his oath of office is a traitor?

When you oppose the nation from defending itself from invasion, work to the end result to the determent of Americans, their rights, freedoms, and their future....Yeah, I will call them a traitor to their faces.

There is theory, then their is results, we live in a world of results.

We do that.

Your lying has gotten so much worse Juan, go back.

Yes those peaceful MS-13 and those peaceful jihadis'.

"But didnt you know, if you just make the case against marxism in Arabic, and tell those 80IQ Mestizos the benefits of voluntary exchange and the evils of Marxism they will surely vote for Freedom and Liberty....I mean, just ignore the voter trends and if they outnumber those who do vote for such things in an area that area goes to $#@! because politics is downstream from culture, culture being downstream from genes, and how mass immigration will result in a nation wide slum....And anyone who says otherwise is a "statist"


20-40 years later

.....What? What do you mean you are banning my guns, no due process, and hate speech laws are Constitutional? How the SCOTUS rule in such away, how can those judges ever be appointed?

Wait, you mean elections have consequences, and demographics are destiny, and when are out numbered in a Democracy with universal suffrage you are going to lose EVERYTIME?

Wow....Maybe we should have kept out enemy voters to avoid such a fate..."

Good, less spending

...You know illegals burden us with 150-300 Billion per year...Right? So NOT spending 10-15 Billion ONE TIME to stop a recuring cost of 150-300 Billion yearly really does show you to be a a reality removed person, autist, or useful idiot.

Those are solutions to the actual problems, but the nationalists don't care about the actual problems; they simply hate foreigners.

Yeah, when you come into my nation, lower wages, quality of living, increase tax burden, debt, crime, poverty, and vote against my rights and ruin my nation, I am going to hate you and work to stop you because that is a natural response.

We love our nation, we hate those who would harm it from beyond it, and those who are harming it from within.

...so, suffice it to say, they want a wall.

Yeah, because walls work, that is why they have been used for the last 14,000 years.

Better put up roadblocks at every street corner in the US to make sure no criminals are passing through

[/QUOTE]


If you stop them from breaking in, stop them at point of entry you dont need to

So eliminate welfare for immigrants (duh).

But nationalists don't focus on this, because it doesn't solve what they consider the real problem.



Most of the voting public (i.e. the part already here, born here) is the enemy.



Yes, I'm aware that nationalists believe that foreigners are sub-human: possessed of fewer rights than the glorious natives.

I have a different view.

How can we eliminate it? Activist judges will just overturn it because "muh 14th Amendment" nonsense...They can not get welfare if they are not in the nation to begin with...

Yeah, a great deal of those people are, so WHY ADD MORE ENEMY VOTERS?

Oh



Then don't try to dress up your argument with talk of self-defense.

You aren't saying that Group X has the right to cage and kidnap members of Group Y for the purpose of self-defense.

You're saying they have the right to do this for any reason they like.

And the reverse, with Group Y doing this to Group X; you're an equal opportunity statist.



...which demonstrates that, in addition to the above, you're a communist, at least as to certain aspects of land ownership.

Only it is self defense and you are an enemy of freedom and free men.

We have a right to exist and defend what is ours, if that means excluding people who are harmful to it from entering our nation, so be it...

Your just a speg.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Guns and tanks? How many guns have immigrants taken from US citizens? Is that why they come here? For your guns, not for jobs?

An invading force, is an invading force, they do not have to have arms, stop lying you subversive, voting for the party of gun grabbing is supporting the disarming of Americans. But people like you, who are either, really really autistic or just liars can not see this because you are either really dishonest or just more loyal to your race then you are to freedom.

Either way, we will, no thanks to you, and really we will just deport people like you visa vi Hoppe.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Most immigrants living in the country and citizens eligible to vote are Hispanic. However, in recent years, most of the immigrants coming here are from Asia. Maybe we should be looking at how they may be voting in the future?

Far left, keep them out.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

What exactly was the point? That immigrants hate guns? That they intend to take them from you? Is that why they come to the US? The longer people are in the country the more they become just like everyone else.

They hate freedom, their votes show they do. Intent be damn, results matter. They come here for "free stuff", and to enjoy a standard of living they are not able to create because of their culture, etc.

No, the longer people are here, they more they effect it, and in the case of hispanics, clearly not for the better.

"Oh they will just become just like us"-Civc Nationalists circa 1965....Still waiting on that.

They can "become just like us" back where they live.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Alright, from here on out, I am totally sympathetic with NCLiberty's view of you. You are a troll.

Link to NCLiberty`s view on Liberty

[RestorationOfLiberty]

I just watched "Far and Away" starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman today. Great flick... American epic romantic adventure drama. Cruise and Kidman play Irish immigrants seeking their fortune in 1890s America, eventually taking part in the Land Run of 1893.

What I could not figure out is with all the thousands upon thousands of miles of open land that has never been homesteaded, how people are willing to stand in one spot and wait in line to pay a person they never met before, a sum of money for a slice of un-owned land.


I have private property with a private fence. I am also armed. I roam about outside of my property onto public land. It is none of my business who else is on that public land (as long as they have not committed a crime against a person or property). They have no right to restrict my freedom to travel, and I have no right to restrict theirs.

The difference is, anybody is free to come up to me and ask for a handout, and vice versa. Some have, and I have simply responded "NO", and then we each go our separate ways.

When government is involved, I am not able to say or respond "NO". Government uses force, will attach my wages, and/or threaten to jail me.

You have a choice: Support and defend the Bill of Rights, which separates us from other countries. Or not.

Monitoring, restricting, documenting, government eminent domain, etc. REJECT freedom and liberty, which is the ultimate goal of the NWO. If it takes "building a wall" to help achieve that goal, they will certainly do that, and spin the rhetoric to get more people on board with it.

And if you do not prevent people from entering the nation, they will just out number and out vote you, the fact you can not see this does not invalidate its truth.

"Walls might be used to keep you in"...When then we are armed to the hilt and will fight. If you want to "be free" take the walls off your home, and take down your fence if you believe this.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Oh look at the change of subject. There is no concern that your offspring will be disarmed.

People like Juan are not Americans, they are just paper citizens, nor do they care about freedom, they are just virtue signaling fools who would rather be high on their own supply then be free, because they are lesser men.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Your own children will change the way your grandchildren live. Your own children's lives are already different from yours. No immigrants required and stopping immigration does not stop change.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243797/...-gun-laws.aspx



Control, maybe. But not ban.

So adding more anti gun voters will do nothing to harm the 2nd Amendment? Ok, its official, you are a troll.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Wrong again.

The foreigners I personally know and work with want no more government than I do. They oppose over-regulation and taxation just as I do. They even assisted in getting Ron Paul delegates to win the various precincts that I coordinated, which we ultimately won by landslide. I still have the results of that election.

The only person attempting to impose more government on me is you.

"These handful of people I know agree with me, therefore the all must agree with me" Its called anecdotal evidence and the voting trends show they do not value Liberty.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

LOL. You are very funny. Not only that, but you are still wrong.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sour...&ictx=3&uact=3

[RestorationOfLiberty]

All walks of life, SwordShill, "Americans" and YOU included. But do not make blanket statements to me. They do not show your intelligence, and only prove that you are the STATIST that you are. You sound just like Dirty Uncle Sam.

Math shows they do vote commie by large margines. If 1 does for Libertardian and the other 99 vote Commie, guess what, that group votes 99% for the commies, but hey just focus on the lib vote and ignore how it means nothing or does anything in the end, you fools are great at that.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

More fake cliches from the Internet Forum Guidebook (where propaganda matters more than facts).

Do they all vote as a group? Are they all commies (which is sooo 1950's)

https://www.ppic.org/publication/rac...in-california/

If they love liberty as much as you claim, why is CA a commie $#@!hole then?

[RestorationOfLiberty]

I work the precincts every election, whether I vote or not, depending on who is running. I can tell you that voter corruption at the local level, if at all, is extremely insignificant compared to the corruption at the state/fed level where "red-blooded Americans" hold office and control the outcome.

Natural Rights are simple and finite. When one is affected, a cascade failure results which directly leads to tyranny.

In your case as a Statist Restrictionist - in order to restrict, one must define a new set of rules contrary to Natural Rights in order to limit or cease. In order to do that, you need resources to enforce those new rules. In order to do that, groups, and money is needed, such as via taxation, and from there "documentation" in order to "identify" repeat offenders. Repeat offenders becomes a natural drain on the enforcer which requires another set of rules, and more tax money, and so on and so forth, in order to "enforce".

The only logical solution is to stand principled. NOWHERE do Natural Rights state that money must be taken or stolen, to transfer wealth to other groups of individuals (government), whatever your cause - that is a fundamental violation that you seem not to understand. Otherwise, you shall reap exactly what you sow.

Tell that line to the invaders, I am sure they will understand and accept it/s

[nikcers]

Tell that line to the invaders, I am sure they will understand and accept it/s

Just think about the amount of immigrants that will come here if the left gets their "universal income".

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Just think about the amount of immigrants that will come here if the left gets their "universal income".

"THEY JUST WANT A BETTER LIFE!"-$#@!libs

[r3volution 3.0]

And how many invaders and future welfare voters will be allowed to flood in before that.

I'd wager that you and your relatives cost the taxpayer dramatically more than the average immigrant and his relatives.

...social security, medicare, medicaid, student loans, government employment (including the military).