Molyneux the Nationalist

[r3volution 3.0]

But not people Like Johnson who supports open borders

Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?

As for guns, his VP is soft on them, true. And, as certain Trumplings never tire of pointing out, Gary himself is soft on homosexual baked goods.

Nonetheless, he is orders of magnitude more libertarian than Trumpllary, taking the right position on all the important issues.

...the fed, spending, regulation, wars, due process, etc.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?

As for guns, his VP is soft on them, true. And, as certain Trumplings never tire of pointing out, Gary himself is soft on homosexual baked goods.

Nonetheless, he is orders of magnitude more libertarian than Trumpllary, taking the right position on all the important issues.

...the fed, spending, regulation, wars, due process, etc.

No, it is not the right position as it destroys liberty, but hey do not whine about being out voted and losing elections.


Good luck getting any of that when you can not get elected because of the population that has shifted via mass immigration.

Hope you like what CA is like because if we do not secure the border, deport illegals, reduce legal immigration that is where we are headed...

[RestorationOfLiberty]

It doesn't MATTER how good you are on tax cuts, spending, entitlements, crime, trade, you name it, if you favor, either openly or de facto, endless massive Third World immigration.
Because such immigration causes demographic change that shifts the electorate heavily and permanently Left, undoing forever any gains you might deliver in your relatively brief term in office.
Immigration is EVERYTHING.

[tod evans]

Immigration is EVERYTHING.

Then why do you keep pushing for government action?

Every time government acts regarding immigration it cost the taxpayer money and results in more immigrants.

If you truly wanted to curb immigration you would personally evict immigrants and the government employees who support them.

Government does't have a problem with anything that grows government and your approach to your pet issue is a perfect case in point.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, it is not the right position as it destroys liberty, but hey do not whine about being out voted and losing elections.

We libertarians are already being outvoted by people like yourself who vote for social democrats like Trump.

Good luck getting any of that when you can not get elected because of the population that has shifted via mass immigration.

The fed, the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, the wagner act, the civil rights act...

^^^massive expansions of government which occurred before mass third world immigration



^^^tell me how the government started growing in 1965?

[LibertyEagle]

We libertarians are already being outvoted by people like yourself who vote for social democrats like Trump.

You really should stop calling yourself a libertarian. You are a world government-loving globalist; not a libertarian.

[r3volution 3.0]

You really should stop calling yourself a libertarian. You are a world government-loving globalist; not a libertarian.

LOL, you just posted this in another thread....

I guess I'll repost my response.

I'm not necessarily for world government, but I'm open to the idea. There's a reasonable debate to be had (though not with you obviously) over how the advantages (no more war) compare to the disadvantages (knowledge problems due to scale, lack of inter-state economic competition). Anyway, free trade agreements are not about world government, and even if they mostly promote cronyism rather than free trade, could not possibly do 1% the damage that Trump and his ilk have been doing, from our national capital, with your enthusiastic support.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

We libertarians are already being outvoted by people like yourself who vote for social democrats like Trump.



The fed, the income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, the wagner act, the civil rights act...

^^^massive expansions of government which occurred before mass third world immigration



^^^tell me how the government started growing in 1965?

So why make things worse?

Why pour gasoline on the fire?

[RestorationOfLiberty]

LOL, you just posted this in another thread....

I guess I'll repost my response.

The only thing you will get is a global Gulag.

[tod evans]

So why make things worse?

Why pour gasoline on the fire?

Gasoline or kerosene......

Government of any magnitude makes life intolerable for those who must support it.

Continually screaming for a government that governs 350+ million people to do your bidding makes just as much sense as screaming for a world government, none!

Both are too large and disconnected and your incessant blather about how you and that mouse in your pocket are going to affect either one by voting in some talking head has long since ceased being comical.

Even LE admits that elections, at this point, are akin to opening the door of a run away car and dragging your foot...

If changing drivers while barreling down the hill is going to have any effect on the outcome at the bottom of the hill it makes sense to pick a driver that'll slow the car by whatever means necessary instead of increasing its speed.

At this point, given the choices, picking the driver that'll crash soonest will let the healing begin..........You could try framing your position in that light, it'd certainly influence more people.

[r3volution 3.0]

So why make things worse?

Why pour gasoline on the fire?

What the cited facts imply is that it wouldn't make thing worse.

....that whites are just as likely to grow government as Hispanics.

....that it doesn't matter.

....that focusing on race is a distraction from the real drivers of state growth.

[undergroundrr]

....that whites are just as likely to grow government as Hispanics.

More likely per capita worldwide. Almost 100% more likely to devise hair-brained governing schemes that result in pan-global collectivist oppression and war.

[idiom]

Open borders is the right and libertarian position, so why would a libertarian be angry about that?

As for guns, his VP is soft on them, true. And, as certain Trumplings never tire of pointing out, Gary himself is soft on homosexual baked goods.

Nonetheless, he is orders of magnitude more libertarian than Trumpllary, taking the right position on all the important issues.

...the fed, spending, regulation, wars, due process, etc.

A) Being law abiding is a libertarian position too.
B) He isn't running for President of a minarchist utopia.

[TheCount]

The only thing you will get is a global Gulag.

Aren't government limits on travel the defining feature of a gulag?


That would mean that it's actually the closed-border crowd that wants to create a gulag.

[Occam's Banana]

A) Being law abiding is a libertarian position too.

No it isn't.

For instance, I see no libertarian justification whatsoever for abiding by laws that require one to snitch on "victimless criminals." And that is just one of myriad examples in which "being law abiding" would not only not be "a libertarian position," but would actually be an anti-libertarian position.

Law-abidingness per se is orthogonal to libertarianism. (And the same is true with respect to any "ism" that does not assert that whatever happens to be the law must always be obeyed without exception.)

B) He isn't running for President of a minarchist utopia.

He isn't running for President of a maxarchist utopia, either.

(See? Other people can do that, too ... )

[r3volution 3.0]

A) Being law abiding is a libertarian position too.

Blind obedience to the law, whatever it is, is certainly not consistent with libertarian principles.

B) He isn't running for President of a minarchist utopia.

...not sure what you mean.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Aren't government limits on travel the defining feature of a gulag?


That would mean that it's actually the closed-border crowd that wants to create a gulag.

And bring in leftist voters will not do even more damage?

Also Gulags had running water, there for any place that has running water is a Gulag, see, that is what you are doing.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

What the cited facts imply is that it wouldn't make thing worse.

....that whites are just as likely to grow government as Hispanics.

....that it doesn't matter.

....that focusing on race is a distraction from the real drivers of state growth.

No whites support smaller government in larger numbers...


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...he-future.html

[TheCount]

Also Gulags had running water, there for any place that has running water is a Gulag, see, that is what you are doing.

Yeah... that's not what defining feature means.


A gulag won't work as a gulag if people can just leave, or not go there in the first place.

[r3volution 3.0]

No whites support smaller government in larger numbers...

No, they say they do when polled.

When it comes time to actually vote, ~99% of them vote for a big government candidate.

[idiom]

No, they say they do when polled.

When it comes time to actually vote, ~99% of them vote for a big government candidate.

Not here they don't. Its a feature of the populace not the system.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not here they don't. Its a feature of the populace not the system.

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said...

My point was that there is no evidence that whites are more likely to support small government than non-whites.

[idiom]

Blind obedience to the law, whatever it is, is certainly not consistent with libertarian principles.

...not sure what you mean.

Open immigration would have the same effect as building a wall. It would make all new immigrants legal.

The question remains whether high immigration levels are a good idea within the current system.

New Zealand has secure borders and high levels of immigration. I don't know why libertarians are so adamant about enabling illegal behaviour.

Do you want high levels of legal immigration? Or high levels of illegal immigration? If you are actually after high levels of illegal immigration then your motives are kinda suspect.

[idiom]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Mine is that there is no evidence that whites are more likely to support small government than non-whites.

Everybody likes small government eventually.

[r3volution 3.0]

Everybody likes small government eventually.

There's no reason to think the population will just naturally move towards liberalism.

The truth has no advantage in democratic politics, it's a battle of sophistry.

...determined largely by money.

...and the incentives driving that money tend naturally to be illiberal.

I'm very happy that New Zealand liberalized, but you're drawing too broad a conclusion from that one case.

[r3volution 3.0]

New Zealand has secure borders and high levels of immigration. I don't know why libertarians are so adamant about enabling illegal behaviour.

What are you talking about?

If immigration is unrestricted, there is by definition no such thing as illegal immigration.

If libertarians are advocating for free immigration, they are not advocating for illegal behavior.

...they're advocating for the legalization of behavior which is currently illegal.

Do you want high levels of legal immigration? Or high levels of illegal immigration

I don't want high or low levels of immigration, I want free immigration.

...which would, I say again, be legal by definition.

What exactly is your point...?

[idiom]

There's no reason to think the population will just naturally move towards liberalism.

The truth has no advantage in democratic politics, it's a battle of sophistry.

...determined largely by money.

...and the incentives driving that money tend naturally to be illiberal.

I'm very happy that New Zealand liberalized, but you're drawing too broad a conclusion from that one case.

Nearly every country, except notably the US, is becoming more liberalised, broadly speaking. Because it works, and authoritarianism has failed miserably.

There is a giant looming hiccup in that story with the anti-globalist backlash, but it was largely the story of the last two decades.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nearly every country, except notably the US, is becoming more liberalised, broadly speaking.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

And you people wonder why and how Pinochet came to power....

[r3volution 3.0]

What Pinochet Did For Chile