Study: 56% of Germans feel like "strangers in their own land"

[Anti Federalist]

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...smus-1.4199261

44.1 percent of respondents think that Muslims should be prohibited from immigrating to Germany. In the new federal states, even every second person sees it that way. The proportion of those who "feel like a stranger in their own country because of the many Muslims" also increased in 2018 throughout Germany. The reservations about asylum seekers have remained the same - but equally high. Four out of five respondents say that decisions on asylum applications should not be made generously. The researchers regard this as a criticism of refugees, but not on the behavior of the administration, which decides on asylum applications.

[r3volution 3.0]

Smith is causing Jones displeasure (but not harm) by his presence in the neighborhood?

Well, clearly the state should employ violence (lethal, if necessary) to remove Smith.

Jones, after all, has a right to be happy at the expense of the life, liberty, and property of his neighbors.

[Swordsmyth]

Smith is causing Jones displeasure (but not harm) by his presence in the neighborhood?

Well, clearly the state should employ violence (lethal, if necessary) to remove Smith.

Jones, after all, has a right to be happy at the expense of the life, liberty, and property of his neighbors.

There is a lie in your premise.

[timosman]

There is a lie in your premise.

rev3.0 is a flasher. He likes new audience.

[r3volution 3.0]

There is a lie in your premise.

Are you in favor of deporting only those Muslims duly convicted of having harmed Germans?

...a rhetorical question, the answer to which is a resounding "no," in which case my point stands.

[Swordsmyth]

Are you in favor of deporting only those Muslims duly convicted of having harmed Germans?

...a rhetorical question, the answer to which is a resounding "no," in which case my point stands.

I am in favor of deporting all of those that entered illegally and ending asylum status for those who were imported that way, an invasion by any other name is still harm, the crimes they commit already are nothing compared to what they will do when they take over.

[r3volution 3.0]

Are you in favor of deporting only those Muslims duly convicted of having harmed Germans?

...a rhetorical question, the answer to which is a resounding "no," in which case my point stands.

I am in favor of deporting all of those that entered illegally and ending asylum status for those who were imported that way, an invasion by any other name is still harm, the crimes they commit already are nothing compared to what they will do when they take over.

That would be a no.

So, as I said, my point stands.

Smith is causing Jones displeasure (but not harm) by his presence in the neighborhood?

Well, clearly the state should employ violence (lethal, if necessary) to remove Smith.

Jones, after all, has a right to be happy at the expense of the life, liberty, and property of his neighbors.

If you simply wanted to protect Jones from harm, you would deport (or otherwise punish), you know, the people trying to harm him.

But you don't want that; you believe Jones has a right to use violence to ensure that his neighborhood looks the way he wants.

[Swordsmyth]

That would be a no.

So, as I said, my point stands.



If you simply wanted to protect Jones from harm, you would deport (or otherwise punish), you know, the people trying to harm him.

But you don't want that; you believe Jones has a right to use violence to ensure that his neighborhood looks the way he wants.

To ensure his neighborhood is run the way he wants, the invaders don't believe in freedom.

You can pretend that the invaders won't persecute and tyrannize the natives but nobody will believe you.

[r3volution 3.0]

To ensure his neighborhood is run the way he wants, the invaders don't believe in freedom.

You can pretend that the invaders won't persecute and tyrannize the natives but nobody will believe you.

I'll say again:

you believe Jones has a right to use violence to ensure that his neighborhood looks the way he wants

You may also believe (wrongly) that deporting Muslims is necessary to protect Jones, but you support Jones' right (or, more accurately, the right of the majority of the residents) to deport the Muslims simply because they don't like them, whether or not this is necessary to protect the other residents. You've admitted this many times before. Will you deny it now?

[Swordsmyth]

I'll say again:



You may also believe (wrongly) that deporting Muslims is necessary to protect Jones, but you support Jones' right (or, more accurately, the right of the majority of the residents) to deport the Muslims simply because they don't like them, whether or not this is necessary to protect the other residents. You've admitted this many times before. Will you deny it now?

They have a right to control their territory and who is allowed into it, men are not omniscient so they have a right to err on the side of caution.
If few outsiders are allowed in they can't take over and tyrannize/kill the natives, if too many are allowed in they may.

[r3volution 3.0]

They have a right to control their territory and who is allowed into it, men are not omniscient so they have a right to err on the side of caution.
If few outsiders are allowed in they can't take over and tyrannize/kill the natives, if too many are allowed in they may.

...

You may also believe (wrongly) that deporting Muslims is necessary to protect Jones, but you support Jones' right (or, more accurately, the right of the majority of the residents) to deport the Muslims simply because they don't like them, whether or not this is necessary to protect the other residents. You've admitted this many times before. Will you deny it now?

So, no, you don't deny it.

QED

[Swordsmyth]

...



So, no, you don't deny it.

QED

It is necessary to protect the natives as I just explained.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is necessary to protect the natives as I just explained.

If it weren't necessary to protect the natives, you would oppose it?

[Swordsmyth]

If it weren't necessary to protect the natives, you would oppose it?

In a universe where 1+1=3 how old would you be?

[oyarde]

Why did they let them in ?

[r3volution 3.0]

In a universe where 1+1=3 how old would you be?

Suppose that there were two societies, one with a "good culture" and one with a "bad culture."

You can define those terms however you like, in terms of crime rates, voting behavior, etc.

Now, suppose some people from the good culture want to migrate to the country of the bad culture.

Do the latter have the right to refuse them entry?

[Swordsmyth]

Why did they let them in ?

The leaders let them in to change the makeup of those that they ruled or to provoke them to go to war for revenge, the people let them in to prove how nice they were and to pay penance for sins they never committed because they were brainwashed.

[Swordsmyth]

Suppose that there were two societies, one with a "good culture" and one with a "bad culture."

You can define those terms however you like, in terms of crime rates, voting behavior, etc.

Now, suppose some people from the good culture want to migrate to the country of the bad culture.

Do the latter have the right to refuse them entry?

Yes, they too have a right to own territory and run it in a manner that suits them.

You don't get to steal your neighbor's property because you think you can use it better.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, they too have a right to own territory and run it in a manner that suits them.

So then, once again...

You may also believe (wrongly) that deporting Muslims is necessary to protect Jones, but you support Jones' right (or, more accurately, the right of the majority of the residents) to deport the Muslims simply because they don't like them, whether or not this is necessary to protect the other residents. You've admitted this many times before. Will you deny it now?

QED

[Swordsmyth]

So then, once again...



QED

It is necessary to protect their people, they believe that they are running things correctly and that the other culture is a threat.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is necessary to protect their people, they believe that they are running things correctly and that the other culture is a threat.

Oh, so it's a subjective standard...

If the bad culture people believe that the good culture people are a threat, they're justified in using violence to "defend" themselves...

Now, that's a nice, new, sophistical twist to your theory to save you from having to admit the contradiction with libertarianism, but it doesn't quite work. Here's the problem: on the libertarian view (or really anyone's view), whether violence is justified depends on objective reality, not the beliefs of the actor. E.G. If I believe (totally irrationally) that the girl scout is going to murder me, and I shoot her, I should be committed, not praised. Belief has to reasonable based on the objective facts of the situation. That, in any event, is the libertarian (and only sane, I would argue) view, but you're free to stick to a purely subjective standard for judging action - just don't claim it's consistent with libertarianism.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, so it's a subjective standard...

If the bad culture people believe that the good culture people are a threat, they're justified in using violence to "defend" themselves...

Now, that's a nice, new, sophistical twist to your theory to save you from having to admit the contradiction with libertarianism, but it doesn't quite work. Here's the problem: on the libertarian view (or really anyone's view), whether violence is justified depends on objective reality, not the beliefs of the actor. E.G. If I believe (totally irrationally) that the girl scout is going to murder me, and I shoot her, I should be committed, not praised. Belief has to reasonable based on the objective facts of the situation. That, in any event, is the libertarian (and only sane, I would argue) view, but you're free to stick to a purely subjective standard for judging action - just don't claim it's consistent with libertarianism.

You are willing to use deadly force in order to make them follow your rules, they have a right to defend themselves against you.
You have no justification for forcing your will on them because your rights are already secure in your own country.

[r3volution 3.0]

You are willing to use deadly force in order to make them follow your rules, they have a right to defend themselves against you.
You have no justification for forcing your will on them because your rights are already secure in your own country.

1. That is a non-response to my last post, despite the fact that you quoted it. Are you conceding that your proposed subjective standard for judging action is crazy? If not, explain to me why that's better than an objective standard. Consider also internal political decision-making. We agree (I think) that the state is justified in imposing taxes (for instance) as necessary to provide the security apparatus required to protect individual rights (which would be violated much more in anarchy). Is that too to be judged on your subjective standard? E.G. If the state decides that it should tax people at 89% of their income, when objectively 1% would do to fund the required police and courts, is that okay?

2. To the first of your points above, you said: "You are willing to use deadly force in order to make them follow your rules, they have a right to defend themselves against you." Why would people engaged in robbery (for instance) have a right to defend themselves against a person attempting to use force to prevent them from robbing? Since when do criminals have a right to commit crimes?

3. To the second of your points above, you said: "You have no justification for forcing your will on them because your rights are already secure in your own country." Why should robberies and other crimes be allowed to occur over there, just because I'm secure over here? Is the purpose of political philosophy for me to secure my own rights, or for human beings in general to have their rights secured? ...that should be a rhetorical question.

[Swordsmyth]

1. That is a non-response to my last post, despite the fact that you quoted it.

It is not, it is a direct response, you claimed again that it wasn't a case of defending themselves, I made it clear that they were defending themselves and you were threatening their lives.

Are you conceding that your proposed subjective standard for judging action is crazy? If not, explain to me why that's better than an objective standard. Consider also internal political decision-making. We agree (I think) that the state is justified in imposing taxes (for instance) as necessary to provide the security apparatus required to protect individual rights (which would be violated much more in anarchy). Is that too to be judged on your subjective standard? E.G. If the state decides that it should tax people at 89% of their income, when objectively 1% would do to fund the required police and courts, is that okay?

My standard was never subjective, as I pointed out YOU are an objective threat to the foreigners under discussion and they have an objective right to keep you out.

2. To the first of your points above, you said: "You are willing to use deadly force in order to make them follow your rules, they have a right to defend themselves against you." Why would people engaged in robbery (for instance) have a right to defend themselves against a person attempting to use force to prevent them from robbing? Since when do criminals have a right to commit crimes?

They have a right to defend themselves against anyone who doesn't have a right to attack them, you do not have a right to attack them.

3. To the second of your points above, you said: "You have no justification for forcing your will on them because your rights are already secure in your own country." Why should robberies and other crimes be allowed to occur over there, just because I'm secure over here? Is the purpose of political philosophy for me to secure my own rights, or for human beings in general to have their rights secured? ...that should be a rhetorical question.

The purpose of political philosophy is for every man to secure his own rights, if you have secured yours but nobody on the other side of the river/mountain range/ocean has secured theirs it is none of your business and even if someone over there asks for your help you have no right to tax or draft others to help you help the foreigner.

[r3volution 3.0]

It is not, it is a direct response, you claimed again that it wasn't a case of defending themselves, I made it clear that they were defending themselves and you were threatening their lives.

My standard was never subjective, as I pointed out YOU are an objective threat to the foreigners under discussion and they have an objective right to keep you out.

Hold on...

How is our hypothetical good culture a threat to our hypothetical bad culture?

[Swordsmyth]

Hold on...

How is our hypothetical good culture a threat to our hypothetical bad culture?

You want to march in and kill them until they obey you.

How is that not a threat?

[r3volution 3.0]

You want to march in and kill them until they obey you.

How is that not a threat?

You might be getting your threads crossed...

Here we're talking about good culture people migrating to bad culture country (not about state intervention in another country).

The good culture people commit no crimes, work hard, make the country more prosperous, etc.

Yet you say the bad culture people have to a right to restrict their immigration because they're a threat.

How are they a threat? They're threatening to make the country, ...better?

[Swordsmyth]

You might be getting your threads crossed...

Here we're talking about good culture people migrating to bad culture country (not about state intervention in another country).

The good culture people commit no crimes, work hard, make the country more prosperous, etc.

Yet you say the bad culture people have to a right to restrict their immigration because they're a threat.

How are they a threat? They're threatening to make the country, ...better?

Aren't you an example of the "good culture"?
Would you be willing to simply live among them under their system without starting an uprising to force them to run their society as you dictate?
Might there not be other members of the "good culture" who would start an uprising if you did not?
Do they have any way to be sure it won't happen?

[r3volution 3.0]

Aren't you an example of the "good culture"?
Would you be willing to simply live among them under their system without starting an uprising to force them to run their society as you dictate?
Might there not be other members of the "good culture" who would start an uprising if you did not?
Do they have any way to be sure it won't happen?

So all immigration, whatever the character of the immigrants, ought to be banned, just in case they try to make the country better?

...this is the position which you wish to hang your hat on?

[Swordsmyth]

So all immigration, whatever the character of the immigrants, ought to be banned, just in case they try to make the country better?

...this is the position which you wish to hang your hat on?

Immigration ought to be limited just in case the immigrants pose a threat to the lives or liberty of the natives.