What has the alt-right accomplished?

[misterx]

We're not talking about defense.

We're talking about unprovoked aggression, for entertainment purposes.

President Trump wakes up one day and thinks it would be fun to see a mushroom cloud on TV, so he nukes Bulgaria.

Is this immoral - Yes or No?

I fail to see how this relates to immigration, unless you are going to make the parallel that we have a moral obligation to take care of immigrants.

How about you answer this: Is it immoral to feed your children three square meals a day while children in Africa are starving?

Yes or no?

[r3volution 3.0]

I fail to see how this relates to immigration, unless you are going to make the parallel that we have a moral obligation to take care of immigrants.

My point is to determine whether you really believe that non-Americans have no rights, as your earlier post implied.

How about you answer this: Is it immoral to feed your children three square meals a day while children in Africa are starving?

Yes or no?

No, not in the slightest

I have no moral obligation to feed them.

I do, however, have a moral obligation to not slaughter them for my own entertainment, because they have the same right to live as I do.

Agreed?

[misterx]

My point is to determine whether you really believe that non-Americans have no rights, as your earlier post implied.



No, not in the slightest

I have no moral obligation to feed them.

I do, however, have a moral obligation to not slaughter them for my own entertainment, because they have the same right to live as I do.

Agreed?

Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government. That doesn't mean we should slaughter them for fun. We don't refrain from slaughtering people for no reason because we are restrained by their rights. We refrain because our morality and human nature prevents us from harming others for no good reason. It wouldn't be in our interest to do so. It's in our best interest to have peaceful trade with them, not to blow them up for kicks.

I'm glad you agree that we have no moral obligation to support foreigners. Given that understanding, it stands that if their immigration does not benefit us then we are justified in not permitting it.

[TheCount]

I will say not tyranny but racism. They think they are oppressed by racists. They believe that racist cops beat Rodney King or that Zimmerman killed Trayvon out of racism. but either way there is no racism to ethnic minorities or tyranny/oppression of them in a country that is homogenous.

Oppression by a racist government would be a form of tyranny.

You seem to have avoided answering my claim 3 times.

The issue isn't whether or not race-based tyranny would continue in a ethnonationalist society, but as with other points, whether the cause of the societal problems is an issue inherent to race or not. If the cause is not race, then trying to solve the problem with a race-based solution will not be productive.

Again, multicultural countries can and do work, but they are inferior to homogeonous ones and have problems.

As opposed to superior, problem-free homogeneous ones?

I would rather live in a homogeonous country that is like Japan.

Speaking of countries with problems.

What do you mean?

As above, the claim is that they are selectively tyrannized for racial reasons. The tyranny is the cause of the riots, and race is supposedly the cause of the tyranny.

What worldview? I guess that can be true.

You've tried to frame my argument in a stereotypical liberal position wherein if I'm not supporting your side then I must present the opposing line of thought. Multiculturalism good vs. multiculturalism bad.

[TheCount]

Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government.

EDIT:
It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:

The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government.

So then it would not be a violation of anyone's rights if the US government randomly killed non-Americans?

I'm glad you agree that we have no moral obligation to support foreigners. Given that understanding, it stands that if their immigration does not benefit us then we are justified in not permitting it.

My neighbor painting his house green does not benefit me, and I don't like it, therefore I am justified in forcing him to paint it white - Agreed?

...or, is it within his rights to paint his house, and it makes no difference what I think about it?

[tod evans]

Yes, non-Americans have no rights under our government. That doesn't mean we should slaughter them for fun. We don't refrain from slaughtering people for no reason because we are restrained by their rights. We refrain because our morality and human nature prevents us from harming others for no good reason. It wouldn't be in our interest to do so. It's in our best interest to have peaceful trade with them, not to blow them up for kicks.

I'm glad you agree that we have no moral obligation to support foreigners. Given that understanding, it stands that if their immigration does not benefit us then we are justified in not permitting it.

This is where the sticky wicket of government comes in.......

A common theme argued is that it's governments responsibility to keep illegal foreigners out... Obviously this isn't working and hasn't worked, reasons be damned.

A more logical argument could be presented that government has no right or authority to prevent states/counties or even individuals from dealing with illegal foreign citizens as they see fit when they are found within that states/counties or individuals borders.

Permitting the federal government to oversee or have authority over how states/counties or individuals deal with these people is the issue, the federal governments authority should begin and end with granting or denying citizenship and even that authority should be subject to revocation..

[misterx]

So then it would not be a violation of anyone's rights if the US government randomly killed non-Americans?



My neighbor painting his house green does not benefit me, and I don't like it, therefore I am justified in forcing him to paint it white - Agreed?

...or, is it within his rights to paint his house, and it makes no difference what I think about it?

Sigh. Your interrogations are tiresome and tedious. I don't have time to run around in circles with you. We have the right to do anything to anyone who is not within our government if we are prepared to invite the consequences of it. This is how things work in the real world. Think about how life was before borders, and why we created governments and borders in the first place. They reduce conflict, they don't increase it. Before governments and borders were instituted there was constant clashing of tribes that had no respect for the philosophical rights of others. You really need to go back to the basics, because you don't seem to understand the very concept of the nation-state.

[misterx]

This is where the sticky wicket of government comes in.......

A common theme argued is that it's governments responsibility to keep illegal foreigners out... Obviously this isn't working and hasn't worked, reasons be damned.

A more logical argument could be presented that government has no right or authority to prevent states/counties or even individuals from dealing with illegal foreign citizens as they see fit when they are found within that states/counties or individuals borders.

Permitting the federal government to oversee or have authority over how states/counties or individuals deal with these people is the issue, the federal governments authority should begin and end with granting or denying citizenship and even that authority should be subject to revocation..

It hasn't worked because our government is run by people who don't want it to work. It works just fine for countries like Japan and Korea.

If an individual wants the protections afforded by government, then he has to respect the rules of that government. If he believes the government has no legal authority over him he must abdicate its protection, and live elsewhere by the law of the jungle.

[r3volution 3.0]

We have the right to do anything to anyone who is not within our government if we are prepared to invite the consequences of it.

Well, thank you for finally answering my question.

I can't agree with your monstrous, homicidal nationalism, but I do appreciate your honesty.

[tod evans]

It hasn't worked because our government is run by people who don't want it to work. It works just fine for countries like Japan and Korea.

If an individual wants the protections afforded by government, then he has to respect the rules of that government. If he believes the government has no legal authority over him he must abdicate its protection, and live elsewhere by the law of the jungle.

Or he fights to regain the freedom his forefathers won with their blood, on the land they fought for.

The government we suffer under is not what my forefathers fought for, this land I live on however is.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Good question, for which I don't have a satisfying answer.

...fighting the welfare state is a Sisyphean task in a democracy.

What I do know, however, is that deporting millions of immigrants, who are no more likely to support welfare than natives, won't help.



The first thing that you might do is not vote for candidates like Trump, who are even more pro-welfare than the typical GOPer.

We have already prove they will vote/do vote left in greater number, and use welfare at a great rate, it will help to send the back.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

The concept that Americans must grant non-Americans rights is patently ridiculous.

Any idea how was can shut down this mistake of a belief?

[TheCount]

Any idea how was can shut down this mistake of a belief?

It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:

The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.


As to how we can shut down the mistaken belief, anyone who genuinely believes that people derive their rights from their government is a raging statist and isn't worth arguing with. Others who don't actually believe this but see it as politically expedient for their (statist) goals just need to realize that 1) letting government decide who has rights and who does not means that everyone is only one piece of paper away from tyranny, and 2) there is a long history of the frightened giving their government a power to use against "those" people (for various kids of "those") only to later find that power used against them. See also: PATRIOT act, etc.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Anyway, I assumed that the public property which you didn't want immigrants accessing was transportation infrastructure, which libertarians think should be privatized.

Yes but also anything public like public lands like state parks, public schools etc. etc.

So, for us, the response to "immigrants have no right to use public roads" is "eliminate public roads," rather than restrict immigration.

I assume you are an anarchist?

No, I have a right to decide who goes on my land, you have a right to decide who goes on your land, etc.

Yes. That is my point.

What you're proposing, that Americans collectively (by voting, I suppose) decide who can enter the US is communal ownership of land.

Yes.

Because those laws are unjust; they violate the rights of both natives and immigrants.

Why?

How so?

What rights are you talking about for natives and immigrants?

Borders define legal jurisdiction; on this side of the line, the US government has jurisdiction: on that side, the Mexican government.

What is wrong with this?

Immigration is a separate issue.

How so?

In no way does free immigration eliminate the borders or end national sovereignty.

It undermines it. Its a threat.

That's called democratic socialism and is inconsistent with private property rights.

Whats wrong with democratic socialism if they respect private property rights? You know Hitler respected private property.

Any attempt at mass deportation will cause riots, and that is indeed a reason to oppose that policy.

They will riot if you let them. There will be no riots if the police/people wont tolerate it. Historically, with operation wetback, there were no riots when the government decided to enforce immigrant law.

I don't like your moral reasoning. If something is right, true, moral and correct you need to do it. IT doesn't matter if someone threatens violence of ill doing.

But the civil unrest it would generate is not the only reason to oppose immigration restrictions.

The entire world will come to America if the government let people come. I think its crazy and out of touch to argue that private individuals can keep hordes of people off their land. I am not a military man and I am not even trained to deal with that.

It violates the rights of both immigrants and natives, and won't lead to the benefit you envision.

Id like it if youd explain this to me.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

This is where the sticky wicket of government comes in.......

A common theme argued is that it's governments responsibility to keep illegal foreigners out... Obviously this isn't working and hasn't worked, reasons be damned.

That is only partially true. Most countries of the world have reasonable immigrant laws and enforce them. Mexico enforces their laws strictly. The insanity is really only limited to whites. Also, as I pointed out before the government was reasonable in the past until they cleansed the racists out of government and decided to have a NWO by killing my race.

A more logical argument could be presented that government has no right or authority to prevent states/counties or even individuals from dealing with illegal foreign citizens as they see fit when they are found within that states/counties or individuals borders.

That's correct.

We can do that. I support both views.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Oppression by a racist government would be a form of tyranny.

That is not what I argued, again.

The issue isn't whether or not race-based tyranny would continue in a ethnonationalist society, but as with other points, whether the cause of the societal problems is an issue inherent to race or not. If the cause is not race, then trying to solve the problem with a race-based solution will not be productive.

Everyone agrees the problem is racism. There is no need to repeat this, but for the last time how can a single race be racist against their own race? Its only racial diversity that causes racism. Racism cant exist within a country that is 100 percent homogenous.

As opposed to superior, problem-free homogeneous ones?

Again, not my argument.

What racial problems or racism do minorities suffer in a homogenous country if they are excluded? IT doesn't even make sense what you are arguing. Its impossible.

Speaking of countries with problems.

What is wrong with Japan? Its a first world country and they accomplished that with limited resources.

As above, the claim is that they are selectively tyrannized for racial reasons. The tyranny is the cause of the riots, and race is supposedly the cause of the tyranny.

IF racism is the cause of the riots then we have to remove ethnic diversity from society. You should agree with me. The leftists have no solution except to persecute whites and expand government power to do it which only creates racism from whites to minorities.

You've tried to frame my argument in a stereotypical liberal position wherein if I'm not supporting your side then I must present the opposing line of thought. Multiculturalism good vs. multiculturalism bad.

Yes. I am doing that because I don't see how you cant have the opposing liberal position. To me, its a two sided issue.

If you don't mind tell me where do you stand on the issue?

[tod evans]

That is only partially true. Most countries of the world have reasonable immigrant laws and enforce them. Mexico enforces their laws strictly. The insanity is really only limited to whites. Also, as I pointed out before the government was reasonable in the past until they cleansed the racists out of government and decided to have a NWO by killing my race.




That's correct.

We can do that. I support both views.

Oh really?

Who is this "we"?

And how do you propose wrenching control from the feds?

I'm all ears.........

[Ron Paul in 2008]

http://austrianeconomics.org/sites/d...s/lp-3-1_3.pdf

Attachment 5136

I bookmarked this and I will read and think about the privatization of public property. But I admit that its hard for me to imagine doing this as I have never thought about it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I assume you are an anarchist?

Minarchist

Yes. That is my point.

Yes.

Either each property owner decides who can use his property, or Americans collectively decide who gets to use all their property.

Private property or democratic socialism.

It can't be both.

What rights are you talking about for natives and immigrants?

To reiterate:

The landlord has a right to rent to whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.
The business owner has a right to employ whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.
ICE agents do not have a right to assault, cage, or kidnap Jose for the non-crime of being in the country without their permission.

It undermines it. Its a threat.

How?

Whats wrong with democratic socialism if they respect private property rights?

Democratic socialism by definition does not respect private rights.

To own property means to have the right to decide who can use it.

If a democratic majority gets to decide who can use your property, you don't get to decide.

....don't know how to put it any more clearly.

You know Hitler respected private property.

LOL, no, he didn't. The NAZI economy was highly interventionist, just short of outright socialism.

...not to mention the millions of innocent people he slaughtered and robbed.

I think its crazy and out of touch to argue that private individuals can keep hordes of people off their land.

Are there hordes of Mexicans trying to use your land? Trying to move into your house?

Or are they just walking around town, working for businesses, renting apartments, shopping, etc, like everyone else?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Oh really?

Who is this "we"?

People.

And how do you propose wrenching control from the feds?

By educating people to be racist and only to vote for racist people like in the past and by attacking political correctness. Do you think that a government of racists will allow immigrants to invade their land and sully their daughters bloodlines? I think not. Of course, if we elect a bunch of anti-racist cucks who only pay lip service to securing the borders the problem will never be solved. They are traitors.

[tod evans]

People.



By educating people to be racist and only to vote for racist people like in the past and by attacking political correctness. Do you think that a government of racists will allow immigrants to invade their land and sully their daughters bloodlines? I think not. Of course, if we elect a bunch of anti-racist cucks who only pay lip service to securing the borders the problem will never be solved. They are traitors.

The fed has already protected itself from such behavior with both law and policy..

In fact they claim those laws and policies extend to the states and even some private businesses.

And you're here trumpeting voting........

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The fed has already protected itself from such behavior with both law and policy..

In fact they claim those laws and policies extend to the states and even some private businesses.

What do you mean? Please be specific.

And you're here trumpeting voting........

Well, voting is also a way to mobilize people and group people and get them together. I do agree with Thomas Jefferson that voting works if people are educated. There are examples of people voting and having success. I don't think voting is hopeless or futile.

[Spikender]

Well, voting is also a way to mobilize people and group people and get them together. I do agree with Thomas Jefferson that voting works if people are educated. There are examples of people voting and having success. I don't think voting is hopeless or futile.

Perhaps. But voting can only be helpful if the system itself isn't stacked against any meaningful results from it. This is why there is a huge disdain for being loyal to the voting process, especially among the libertarian right. When the media and schools constantly brainwash people and there are countless examples of vote-rigging or behind-the-scenes mischief by the two major parties, it does tend to make one pessimistic toward the entire concept of voting.

Granted, the problem is much worse at the national level of voting than the local level, but my point still stands.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Minarchist

Okay I will study that.

Either each property owner decides who can use his property, or Americans collectively decide who gets to use all their property.

Agreed.

Private property or democratic socialism.

It can't be both.

I have to disagree. I am going to have to leave it at that.

To reiterate:

The landlord has a right to rent to whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.

If the person is illegal and doesn't belong here.

The business owner has a right to employ whomever he likes; you would deny him this right.

Same as above.

ICE agents do not have a right to assault, cage, or kidnap Jose for the non-crime of being in the country without their permission.

What right does he have to be here? They are only enforcing the law and our legal rights to choose who uses our public property.

How?

To own property means to have the right to decide who can use it.

Yep.

If a democratic majority gets to decide who can use your property, you don't get to decide.

....don't know how to put it any more clearly.

I am taking about public property.

LOL, no, he didn't. The NAZI economy was highly interventionist, just short of outright socialism.

I am not talking about the economy. My grandfather lived under Hitler and Hitler never took his house or possessions. But Hitler did rob from the jews though.

...not to mention the millions of innocent people he slaughtered and robbed.

I am not saying that you are doing this, but most people who point that out are politically correct and think we need to foreit our race to foreigners because of what Hitler did which is insane.

Are there hordes of Mexicans trying to use your land? Trying to move into your house?

Public yes. Go to a public park and public school. ITs swarming with them.

Or are they just walking around town, working for businesses, renting apartments, shopping, etc, like everyone else?

Yes.

I believe in the principle of nationalism. We ought to stick together and not believe in ideologies such as diversity and multiculturalism.

[misterx]

EDIT:
It's apparent to me by a rep and this quote that I did a poor job of communicating here, so I'm going to rephrase:

The idea that the rights of non-Americans come from an American piece of paper is patently ridiculous.

Then where do they come from? There are no rights in nature except that who is stronger will get his way.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Perhaps. But voting can only be helpful if the system itself isn't stacked against any meaningful results from it. This is why there is a huge disdain for being loyal to the voting process, especially among the libertarian right.

How did Ron Paul and Rand get elected?

When the media and schools constantly brainwash people and there are countless examples of vote-rigging or behind-the-scenes mischief by the two major parties,

Do you have any examples?

it does tend to make one pessimistic toward the entire concept of voting.

I have an open mind to voting because Donald Trump was elected to be the Republican nominee along with other media/government enemies such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul and tea party members. If the voting was rigged why did these people get elected?

Granted, the problem is much worse at the national level of voting than the local level, but my point still stands.

yeah.

[r3volution 3.0]

I am taking about public property.

No, you're also talking about private property.

....about businesses being forced not to employ immigrants, landlords being forced not to rent to them, etc.

As for public property, to reiterate, most of it should be privatized, which would make the issue moot.

But with regard to whatever public property remains, why would natives have a right to use it and not foreigners?

I am not talking about the economy. My grandfather lived under Hitler and Hitler never took his house or possessions.

That's swell, and anecdotal and irrelevant.

Hitler's regime centrally planned the German economy from the start, getting worse during the war.

It was a national socialist party, remember; they utterly rejected free market capitalism.

And, again, they murdered, robbed, and enslaved millions of people.

To say that Hitler respected property rights is truly on of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard.

I am not saying that you are doing this, but most people who point that out are politically correct and think we need to foreit our race to foreigners because of what Hitler did which is insane.

Any sane human being would be appalled by the mass slaughter of millions and millions of innocent men, women, and children.

I believe in the principle of nationalism. We ought to stick together and not believe in ideologies such as diversity and multiculturalism.

And I believe in the principle of private property.

I'm not interested in socialism, whether of the nationalistic or proletarian variety.

[r3volution 3.0]

Then where do they come from? There are no rights in nature except that who is stronger will get his way.

The world is the way it is at any given moment because that's the way the people with the might want it to be.

The world is not the way you want it to be because you and like-minded persons don't have the might to make it that way.

If might is right, then the status quo is always right. Is that your position?

...which is another way of saying that "might is right" is an asinine moral principle, amounting to "whatever happens is good."

[Spikender]

How did Ron Paul and Rand get elected?

Local level elections with plenty of support. Notice that Ron and Rand are two of the very few principled liberty candidates that somehow got into Congress, in the House of Reps and the Senate respectively. Just because the system is rigged and corrupt doesn't mean that principled candidates can't get into office, it just becomes insanely hard to do so.

Notice, however, that members of the House Freedom Caucus have come under fire, such as Tim Huelskamp losing his primary. The establishment has realized that letting these people attain office has backfired and is now coming after them.

Do you have any examples?

The DNC'S behind the scenes plotting against Bernie Sanders as well as the RNC changing the delegate rules in 2012 are easy examples of both parties doing everything they can to prevent change. Even if you're not a Donald Trump supporter, you can see how both parties are doing everything to destroy Trump with assistance from the media.

As for the schools, they are infested by Marxist professors who are brainwashing youths with regressive ideas about white privilege and about socialism and special privileges for minorities is the way to go. All of the issues in our K-12 schools and Universities are easy to research; look at the website "campusreform.org" for more stories on this social infection in our education system.

I have an open mind to voting because Donald Trump was elected to be the Republican nominee along with other media/government enemies such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul and tea party members. If the voting was rigged why did these people get elected?

As I said before, it is more often than not that corrupt politicians get elected than anyone with actual principles. Just because the system is corrupt and constantly rigged in favor of the establishment does not mean that people who are in favor of liberty or have principles cannot get elected, especially when they have massive public support. They are not above it; Ron Paul lost the nomination in 2012 due to the media blacking him out openly, leaving his name out of polls that he either won or did well in, and constantly pushing the meme that he was "unelectable" and "running for the wrong party". The Republican Party obviously had it out for him considering they misreported polling numbers in several districts and changed the rules just to keep him away from the nomination. There are several Youtube videos and articles discussing this you can look up.