We agree about almost everything.Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener
Last edited by undergroundrr; 03-06-2017 at 09:56 PM.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Each individual's culture is what he chooses it to be. That's called free agency.
Their own race? Really? Did you get kicked out or something?
What is "their own country". Generally even a wealthy individual doesn't own more than some quantity of acres.
Their own "kind?" Mine are music-fixated introverts. Thank goodness I'm not consigned to a fixed space with them.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Yeah, I get it: no such thing as race, as culture, as loyalty to a country. That much I get. I understand you on that, even though I differ, strongly.
Where I get lost is why it's so hateful/racist/evil in your mind -- and many many others on the left, it's not just you -- to have people distributed. To have Switzerland remain Swiss. Are the Swiss really committing hate crime and genocide by simply not inviting the population of the world to invade their country? It seems like their prerogative. I mean, if the Swiss govt refused to let me enter, that would be unjust and unlibertarian, but it's hard for me to get too worked up about it. Those Swiss politicians have no right to do that, it's not their country, but it's not mine either! If 90% of the Swiss don't want me there, that's awfully close to the unanimous consent libertarianism would technically require. Am I really being oppressed by simply not being given the privilege of entering their mountain refuge? I don't think so. It's not a big oppression.
I just don't get it.
Maybe you can explain it to me?
But did you notice I agreed with you *on immigration*? And on your objections to its restriction by the Federal government?
There are more than a few nations that are not ethnically or culturally "pure" as it stands now. The only thing that "unites" these diverse populations are artificial borders, brightly colored flags, state-contolled economies, and jurisdiction enforced by violence.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
You're addressing the same aspects that undergroundrr did in his reply -- the part I understand. He focused on culture and race; you focused on nations. Again, I get it. Nations are artificial; race is imaginary; culture doesn't matter. OK. Great! The nation part I even agree with, to an extent.
But what is so "hateful" about not wanting your country, artificial or not, invaded by millions of people? And particularly if the invaders are largely, if you are honest you'll admit it, too: riff-raff. It's a libertarian snafu, it's true; but in the scheme of things it is very low on the "how much oppression and aggression is happening here?" scale. At least it seems to me. I get to continue living in the same place I've lived all my life and no one bothers me at all? It's just that Country X didn't let me move in there? Not much oppression in that.
And hate? Look, there's a whole lot of people I know. None of them do I want moving into my house with me. Does that mean I hate them? No. Many of them are my friends. I like them. I just don't want them moving in. Does that make sense?
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 03-07-2017 at 07:24 AM.
Immigrants aren't invaders. Go read a dictionary if you don't understand the difference.
Secondly, you don't own the land the "nation" sits on. Your right to limit the movement of anyone across any land begins and ends with land you directly and privately own. Your assertion of the power to regulate land you do not own is tyranny, the assumption of a power you do not have and which you force on other through violence.
Thirdly, you're oppressing the people in your nation as much a syou are the immigrant by demanding the right to regulate my property, my money, and my association rights, as well as overthrowing the free market and thus oppressing my rights to buy and sell with whomsoever I wish by ending the free flow of human capital. Not to mention your large national government empowered to force its will on people will not stop with immigration.
You own your house. You do not own the nation. Therefore it doesn't matter what you want. It only matters what you have a right to do. This is what separates us from the Progressives. We recognize that inalienable rights means the government can't just force something on people because the most people "want it."
Finally, my Mexican neighbor's Cinco de Mayo celebration doesn't prevent me from celebrating Independence Day. My Chinese neighbor's celebration of Chinese New Year doesn't change my ability to celebrate the New Year on Jan. 1st. I can be fully myself while everyone else does their own thing. So can you. Therefore your argument makes no sense.
Last edited by PierzStyx; 03-07-2017 at 01:29 PM.
You can really say things like "have people distributed" batting an eyelash? Distributed by whom? By what means? According to what criteria? I'm not really so concerned about the "racism" aspect of it. Whatever categorization you use, it sounds like you're herding animals into pens. Leaving aside the concept of human rights, caged humans tend to want to overthrow their captors. It's just not a good formula for world peace. I think freedom of movement, freedom of association and freedom of commerce will work better.
People keep bringing up Switzerland, but I don't think Switzerland is quite the example you're looking for.
The Swiss have maintained economic prosperity by wisely staying independent from the EU and keeping free trade as open as possible with every other country on Earth that would allow it. Yes, in 2014, they barely (50.3% vote) put some rule-of-thumb immigration guidelines in place. But freedom of movement has always been an abiding principle there. Like the US, they are an immigrant nation and have recognized the benefits of influx. They've had sustained periods of free immigration (late 40s to early 60s, a period when millions had been displaced by war) but for the most part have been like the US, semi-restrictive with a divide in the populace between "liberals" and "conservatives" on the issue. The recent "crackdown" on immigration (such that it is) there is politically driven by escalating unemployment, it's fairly tepid, and nobody knows what what effect it will have in the long term if any.
And they give immigrants tons of social welfare, in my opinion a bad idea.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/free-mov...aders/37835956For example, an Italian who arrives in Switzerland with an open-ended employment contract has the right to a five-year, renewable residence permit. If he loses his job, he can get unemployment insurance – as long as he can show he has worked at least 12 months in the past two years – and in case of need he can get social welfare.
For Parmelin, those who are no longer contributing should have to go back to their own countries soon instead of “burdening the social welfare system”.
There's also a tangled mess between state-level and federal-level welfare. Same as here.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Like the NAP world peace is a good and noble idea..
In reality though.................There's too damn many people and not enough dirt.
My argument isn't about "hate". You are free to hate whoever you want, as am I.
My interest is protecting your rights. My rights.
To use your "90 percent, near unanimous", example:
If 90% of your local jurisdiction passed a law that required you to gain their approval of who you sold your property to, who you employed, who you sold goods to, or who you leased your property to, would you object? On what grounds?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
If you had *read* any of the perhaps one hundred posts (guessing) I've written on this subject over the past ten years, including one thread devoted to the subject, you might have:
1) Any slightest bit of an idea what I believe on this subject
2) The right to an opinion on whether what I believe makes sense or not
Also, please note: I made no argument in post $486 above. Just chatting. If I was making an argument, you would know it.
I counted five arguments in that post.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
They have NO arguments to make. They lie, they deny facts, they really do project their values/views as universal. Any facts or experience with prove them wrong are not valid because "MUH FEELS".
Just a confuzzlement. You took distributed as a verb, not an adjective, active, not passive. I just mean to let people continue to be distributed throughout the world, just as they are now. As opposed to having a mass super-exodus to the United States (and Europe).
That's all!
By not allowing a person to migrate to and take up residence in the United States, the "pen" that they are "trapped" in by such action is:
The Entire Rest of the Universe
And the subsequent behavior of the "captors" in relation to him, the behavior that so violates his "human rights" is:
They leave him completely alone and have no interaction with him whatsoever.
Sounds like not so bad a deal. No US IRS collecting income taxes. No US environmentalists forcing you to comply with nonsense torture. No US gays destroying your business with lawsuits. No US cops in your yard, shooting your dog. Would that we could all be so lucky! Can you deal me in for some of that "oppression"?
Please replace "Switzerland" with "Swaziland" (or Mozambique!) in my purely hypothetical thought experiment and see if you can see your way to understanding my question.
And maybe answer it! I honestly wonder your opinion/feelings/thoughts. I guess there's two questions on the table now:
Why do you associate immigration limitation with necessarily being filled with hatefulness, and
Would you, personally, really feel all that "oppressed" if Bhutan refused to let you into their country?
If I am arguing for something.... what is it?
What is my position?
Pray tell.
Do you remember the part when I agreed with all substantive points you have made in this thread regarding immigration?
And then you stone-walled, totally ignored it and decided to pretend it didn't happen?
Remember that?
Good times.
Lower wages
Lower standard of living
Lower trust and unity
Higher crime rates
Higher Poverty
Higher distrust
Higher terrorism
Higher welfare usage
Higher rates of Immigrants voting in marxists who promise them 'free" stuff.
Trying wearing a shirt with a US flag on it to school on Cinco de Mayo in CA, See what happens to you. Try having a Christmas Play or Party at work or school, see what happens.
Also America is clearly more mine/my factions then it is yours. If America does not belong to you/anyone then we are free to take it and protect it from the insanity of open border zealots /cultural relativists.
Right on, then. Me, too.
90% ain't 100%. I'm with you, man. I am. It's just, in the scheme of things, even though all the things that 90% decides to do will be technically against libertarianism, some things they could decide to do will be far, far worse than other, more relatively benign things.
I can see both sides. I certainly am not an RoL clone, despite undergroundrailroad's attempt to shoehorn/lump me in with him. I'm deeply, passionately for freedom, and against oppression. That sums up my political philosophy. But I also tend to / try to have proportionate rage against oppressions depending on just how oppressive and important they really are. Don't you think that's reasonable?
Letting hundreds of millions of people who want to come to the US just stay where they are instead seems to me a really (really, really) unimportant oppression to prioritize. Fighting that battle is not going to Win Victory for Liberty. In fact, as much as you may not like it, there is a place for consequentialism in philosophy, for actual practical considerations, and in this case there is extremely strong reason to believe that fighting this particular minor oppression and continuing to leave the floodgates open will be the doom and death of any freedom from all other types of oppression (much more important, oppressive types).
I want Freedom. I don't want to just impotently talk about freedom. Big difference.
The Alt Right wing of the GOP (Nationalist, populist, etc) Wing differ massively
Myopicness...Classic. Ignore everything that could prove you wrong.I was talking about this forum specifically.
1924-1934Because it's not like the next decade would be terrible for liberty in America, right?
Where largely good times...Until the Stock Market tanked, The Depression struck, the Bonus Army was massacred by the army, and the fools elected a crippled marxist to high office who only mad things even worse.
We compared to the bombings/terror campaigns led by immigrant terrorists, things where better, wages rose, jobs were plentiful, you are just mad more and more are seeing that mass immigration is a racket, and 1924 produced massive benefits on America, its culture, and the American people themselves.
You want open borders? Take of the doors of your home..You wont, and we all know why.
The answer to 1965 is 1924.
You sum up why open border Libertarian is a self defeating fantasy.
Yes potent talk about freedom is much more constructive.
MAGA, bitches.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Yes potent talk about freedom is much more constructive.
MAGA, bitches.
Compared to people who want to bring in welfare voters from the 3rd world with IQs around room temperature, she just talking is more constructive then you because your actions are highly destructive.
You aren't the sharpest advocate of nativism. Your interests would be better served by letting "her" speak on your behalf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Autism speaks....Through you.
And which members of the alt-right hold power? Y'all couldn't even get 5% of the vote in the one Senate race you competed in.
I made a statement about this website, and you expanded in into the entire world.Myopicness...Classic. Ignore everything that could prove you wrong.
So it looks like the immigration act didn't work too well with regards to protecting liberty.1924-1934
Where largely good times...Until the Stock Market tanked, The Depression struck, the Bonus Army was massacred by the army, and the fools elected a crippled marxist to high office who only mad things even worse.
We compared to the bombings/terror campaigns led by immigrant terrorists, things where better, wages rose, jobs were plentiful, you are just mad more and more are seeing that mass immigration is a racket, and 1924 produced massive benefits on America, its culture, and the American people themselves.
You want open borders? Take of the doors of your home..You wont, and we all know why.
The answer to 1965 is 1924.
Stop believing stupid things
Ha, ha, ha!Yes potent talk about freedom is much more constructive.
MAGA, bitches.
I prefer action. Not potent talk but potency. What's constructive is construction.
Thank you for the interesting discussion. From a country entering a multi-cultural mode...
Have you seen some of the newest members of the GOP/members of Trump`s team? Bannon alone is shaping the future, soon we will have total control over the leadership of the GOP.
How many LOLteratians hold office?
Yeah because that is were life happens.I made a statement about this website, and you expanded in into the entire world.
[/QUOTE]So it looks like the immigration act didn't work too well with regards to protecting liberty.
It kept out terrorists, criminals, burdens, "cheap" labor, marxists, future trouble makers. Immigration limitations does not solve all problems.
otherone's argument is identical to undergrr's.
Undergrr focused on culture and race. otherone focused on nations.
The country is being invaded by millions of people.
These "invaders" are riff-raff.
Oppression is relative.
You're arguing for a lesser of two evils - That restricting the movement of individuals is less oppressive than your having to share line of sight, smell & hearing with those you personally consider riff-raff whenever you're within the borders of US Fedgov.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Would they look down on that? If so, they're onto something.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us