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.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
On the libertarian view, a threat has to be sufficiently imminent to justify violence in the name of self-defense. Two obvious extremes might be a girl scout approaching the door (not an imminent threat justifying violence) and a guy pointing a gun in your face (imminent threat justifying violence). You're claiming that violence against the good culture immigrants is justified because they pose a sufficiently imminent threat.
Let's explore that:
Suppose you're a white guy, and you learn that an Asian guy moved in down the street. You know nothing about this person as an individual, no reason to believe that he individually is a threat. All you know is that he belongs to a demographic group which on average commits fewer crimes than your own. So you go and drag him out of his house, put him in a van, drive far away, and dump him somewhere. Self-defense or kidnapping? And, if self-defense, surely it would also be self-defense to do the same to all of your fellow whites in the neighborhood (who must pose a greater threat, as far as you know, i.e. based on demographic statistics alone)?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-10-2018 at 10:52 PM.
1 it is a question of who has a right to be in the country, those who don't have a right to be in the country may be held to a stricter standard of caution when granting them permission to enter the country.
2 Assuming the Asian guy is a foreigner rather than a citizen who happens to have Asian ancestry I would point out that Asian cultures tend to be much more totalitarian than ours so even if he is likely to commit less crimes he is likely to vote for bigger government, since he doesn't have a right to be here we have a right to limit the risk to our liberty by limiting how many of his countrymen (including him) are allowed to come here.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Your reasoning is circular.
To say that a person doesn't have the right to be in the country presupposes that the residents had the right to exclude him.
But that is the very issue in question; do the residents have the right to exclude the person in the first place.
Let's say he's of Singaporean ancestry (Singapore being much more free than the US).2 Assuming the Asian guy is a foreigner rather than a citizen who happens to have Asian ancestry I would point out that Asian cultures tend to be much more totalitarian than ours so even if he is likely to commit less crimes he is likely to vote for bigger government, since he doesn't have a right to be here we have a right to limit the risk to our liberty by limiting how many of his countrymen (including him) are allowed to come here.
It is not circular, they own the territory and have a right to keep people out in order to defend themselves, because the foreigner doesn't own the territory he has no right to be there and therefore the owners may hold him to a stricter standard of caution before granting him permission to enter than they can hold eachother to when dealing with native threats.
That last part is disputable, a debate about it could be had when determining how many people from Singapore should be allowed to come.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
If Smith uses violence against Jones, it is either aggression or self-defense. There is no basis, within libertarian ethics, for creating two standards, such that whether the act by Smith is aggression or self-defense depends on whether Jones is or is not a foreigner. We might as well hear a communist say that the question depends on whether Jones is or is not a kulak (it's self-defense to shoot him if he is, murder if he isn't - preposterous nonsense). Equality under the law is a central principle of libertarianism. Nor is there anything within libertarian ethics which recognizes this collective "ownership of the territory" by the natives in the first place. You're proving my point that your theory is in conflict with libertarianism.
On another note:
Does this mean that the natives don't have the right to exclude any immigrants for any reason they want?
They can only exclude immigrants when it is objectively necessary to defend themselves?
That is, there are conceivable circumstances in which you would say that a native-chosen restriction of immigration is unjust?
On the contrary, there is plenty of room in libertarianism for group ownership (like a partnership) and plenty of libertarians recognize the nation-state and its place in the world.
Mises on Nationalism, the Right of Self-Determination, and the Problem of Immigration
They have a right to enact an absolute ban on immigration if they wish but it might not be wise, it is a question of how much profit (monetary or otherwise) they wish to give up in return for ever diminishing added security.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Partnerships (and other forms of libertarian-recognized group ownership) arise through contract (i.e. voluntarily).
The nation-state (or any other kind of state) does not.
The state can only be justified on pragmatic grounds, not by resort to the half-baked social contract theory.
That is just as preposterous as the divine right of kings.
If (1) the natives are justified in restricting immigration only in order to defend themselves,They have a right to enact an absolute ban on immigration if they wish
and (2) the natives are always justified in banning all immigration,
then, it must be the case that either:
(a) all immigrants always pose a threat sufficient to justify the use of violence against them
or (b) the standard is subjective (i.e. what matters is whether natives believe the immigrants pose a sufficient threat)
...
If (a), then you must oppose all immigration in all circumstances (which is absurd).
If (b), then other, equally absurd consequences follow, as already explained in an earlier post.
Notice that I never said that the state arose through a voluntary contract, but the state does exist and must exist, those subject to it share a collective ownership of it and libertarianism does recognize collective ownership.
(a) is correct but in small enough numbers they don't pose a sufficient threat vs. their potential benefit to make an outright ban wise or the best management of the collective interests of the citizens.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
You cited the partnership as an analogue of the state, implying that states (like partnerships) arise through contract.
They don't.
...which no one is questioning, and has no relevance to this discussion.but the state does exist and must exist
Libertarianism recognizes collective ownership arising through contract.those subject to it share a collective ownership of it and libertarianism does recognize collective ownership.
The collective ownership of the national territory does not arise through contract (you even admit this).
So the one thing has nothing to do with the other.
And yet you say the natives have an absolute right to ban them anyway.(a) is correct but in small enough numbers they don't pose a sufficient threat vs. their potential benefit to make an outright ban wise or the best management of the collective interests of the citizens.
Hence, you're taking position (b) - the subjective standard.
It was not my intention to imply that, I specifically gave it as an example of collective ownership and said nothing about contracts.
But it is quite relevant, since it must exist then it doesn't matter whether it is the result of a voluntary contract.
They do have to do with eachother, they are both examples of collective ownership, the state must own and control its territory in order to protect the citizens from enemies foreign and domestic, contrary to what you claim libertarianism doesn't preclude collective ownership of territory via the state.
They do pose a sufficient threat to justify an outright ban if the natives so choose, I said only that in small enough numbers they didn't pose a sufficient threat TO MAKE THAT A WISE CHOICE.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
That's fine, but then it doesn't support your argument for collective ownership of the national territory in any way.
It matters a great deal. On the social contract theory of the state, one can claim that the state has the right to do all kinds of unlibertarian things: namely, whatever things it was allegedly granted the right to do by this imaginary contract. Whereas, on the pragmatic-libertarian theory of the state, the state only has the power to do what is necessary to maximize individual liberty (aka minarchism).But it is quite relevant, since it must exist then it doesn't matter whether it is the result of a voluntary contract.
Communism also talks about a form of collective ownership; it doesn't follow that communism is consistent with libertarianism.They do have to do with eachother, they are both examples of collective ownership
How collective ownership arises (through contract, as in libertarianism, or otherwise, as in your theory or communism) is the whole issue.
On the one hand, we can think of the state as a kind of owner:the state must own and control its territory in order to protect the citizens from enemies foreign and domestic
If the purpose of the state is to protect individual rights, then the state has the right to do certain things with respect to the people: e.g. to collect taxes from them. It would be misleading to say that the state "owns" the people, since that implies that the state has the right to do whatever it likes with them, but the state could be said to have limited property rights in the people (i.e. sufficient to do the things which are necessary, like collect taxes).
On the other hand, there's really no need to think of the state as an owner:
The same idea is expressed by saying that the state has the right to do what is necessary to protect individual rights.
On a third hand, even if we think of the state as a kind of owner, collective national ownership in your sense does not follow:
The state has those property rights corresponding to the actions which it needs to take to secure individual rights, nothing else.
Again, subjective standard.They do pose a sufficient threat to justify an outright ban if the natives so choose
And yet you say they have the right to do it anyway, however unwise (another term might be: unjustified by the facts) it may be.I said only that in small enough numbers they didn't pose a sufficient threat TO MAKE THAT A WISE CHOICE.
...subjective standard!
It does support the existence of forms of collective ownership.
And controlling access to national territory is necessary to maximize individual liberty.
How it arises is not relevant, what its scope is is relevant.
As I said above controlling access to the national territory is something that is needed to secure individual rights so it doesn't matter whether you choose to quibble about "ownership" but it is a form of limited ownership.
A subjective choice but not a subjective standard, the objective standard gives the natives the right to make the subjective choice.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
LOL, that's precisely what I mean by a subjective standard.
An objective standard would say: they have the right to use violence when it is necessary for self-defense.
Your subjective standard says: they have the right to use violence when they believe it is necessary for self-defense.
This subjective standard is not consistent with libertarianism, which permits violence only when it is actually necessary for defense (not whenever the actor irrationally believes that it is). The subjective standard is also absurd on its face, as you implicitly admit when you say that it shouldn't apply between natives and that, among natives, the normal, sane, objective standard should apply.
So why have you tried to redefine self-defense by inventing this subjective standard? Because you want to allow natives to use violence against non-threatening foreigners, while maintaining the pretense that those policies would be justified in self-defense. While your real reason for wanting to allow natives to use violence against foreigners has nothing to do with self-defense at all; it's this collective ownership stuff, which, as I've demonstrated, is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Foreigners are a threat and they don't have a right to enter the natives' territory, the natives have a right to determine how much exposure they are willing to have to that threat, you are attempting to force them to expose themselves as much as you BELIEVE is necessary but it isn't your decision.
The natives have a right to be in their territory and must be given their rights until they do something to cause them to lose them.
Collective ownership of national territory is real and not in conflict with libertarianism, its purpose is self defense.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
It’s the same way that the people of Oakland feel as they are pushed out and replaced...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Gentrification
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
It’s not just Muslims. It’s the way local governments have disenfrancised hard working lifelong citizen residents who pay ridiculous taxes.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
What is happening in the Untied (not a typo) States, and the larger Western World, is, by any measure, an invasion.
You have a right to defend yourself, your family, your property and your community from invasion.
Anything short of that is globalist anarcho-blarg.
Last edited by Anti Federalist; 11-11-2018 at 12:33 PM.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
Not only that, there is always an agenda, often hidden. Everyone has a vested interest in their position. They believe it will benefit them in some way. Even those who want a moratorium on immigration want that because they believe it is in their best interest, although they tend to be the most open and honest about their agenda.
Businesses (and GOP) want cheap and pliable labor. Democrats want voters and new people who will depend upon them and government for support. Many people want to bring over more of their family or what they think of as “their people”. Others with vested interests consider themselves global in nature. Religious and political groups are the biggest in that category. Religions don’t want borders that will hinder the expansion of their religion. They believe that new immigrants are ripe for conversion, especially if they are aided in their immigration. Political ideologies, like religious ones, also want to convert, and being global in nature, they often want to convert foreign lands to their ideology, often by force.
Look to the hidden agenda...
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Connect With Us