Welfare state isn't coming down anytime soon. Past foreign policy disasters nor backward cultures can't be remedied. Walls need to go up and maybe we'll all survive this coming madness.Originally Posted by nikcers
Warfare state is what I am talking about, you are the one straw manning the welfare state destroying all of those countries and then putting up our walls is the political equivalent of throwing a live grenade at our political enemies.
We really just need pre-crime, am I right?! You know, to find the “liberty-haters”!! Or we can just use their religion. Because we all know, everyone who has a religion is exactly the same as everyone else who shares that religion!
And you think you understand liberty? YOU want to protect liberty?!
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Still using the same posting methodology I see. The fact that you continue on this path and fail to refute your posting history below once confronted, why not just admit you are a Muslim immigration activist? I doubt it would change your ability to post here but at least be honest about it.
Last edited by kahless; 11-05-2017 at 01:28 PM.
Ok cool. That might be a productive view under the current circustances.
Silverlining here may be that American voters will think harder next time before supporting elective freedom invasion of countries like Iraq that did not attack us... having seen the result of last Iraq invasion that resulted in son of an African Muslim man running America for last 8 years as liberal punishment for Iraqi freedom.
Syria/Benghazi freedom interventions have already brought in many more Muslim refugees. Saw Drudge headline yesterday that Muslims have surpassed Jewish population in the US now. Hopefully Trump would avoid Bush's blunders. Won't be surprised if aftermath of a future major Iraq like US freedom war resulted in son of an Arabic Islamic man running America in another ironic twists to spreading our freedoms.
All the wars supporters could be surprised to hear this annoucement in future.
Ladies and gentlemen, please stand up for historic President Al Assad Syriani Hussein Libyani who has refused to take oath using Bible.
Related
Muslims to soon beat out Jews in U.S. population - Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-us-population...
4 days ago
Kerry says U.S. will take Syrian refugees
The fall of Assad is inevitable, US to air strikes agaisnt Syria. Sen John McCain
West will pay for 'supporting al-Qaeda in Syria', Assad warns
Last edited by enhanced_deficit; 11-05-2017 at 01:45 PM.
MAGA Allies: 'Bully Israel with undeclared nukes steals land'
Dangerous conspiracy theories on Right claim MAGA fake frontgroup
Poll: Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 80s?
Obama-Clinton Years: A Violent Chapter in World History
Trump: If (Neocon) Adelson Backs Rubio "He'll Have Total Control" Over Him
Delta variant, death of 9 Chinese engineers in terror attack led to airport chaos & quick Kabul fall?
Not sure how collectivism would be considered a libertarian ideology.
^^ This. Just as how we shouldn't be in so many countries fighting wars for them as our own falls apart (though there's many other reasons we shouldn't be), we cant be taking in more people until we're in a better position, regardless of religion. If you are poor and struggling to make ends meet, are you going to adopt a kid and put them in that situation on top of the added financial strain to yourself?
Last edited by ds21089; 11-05-2017 at 05:04 PM.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Emotions after high profile acts of violence can cause many people to throw "libertarian" ideas out the window. Fear is powerful emotion. But rationally, there is plenty evidence that any single group does not have monopoly over horrible acts of violence.
OP argument is weak even if it may appeal to some natural instincts. Recent events like largest mass killng in Las Vegas and today in Texas make such narratives even harder to defend.
Devin Kelley
Kelley received a diploma from New Braunfels High School. [2] He is a veteran of the US Air Force where he worked with logistics and supply [2].
In 2013, he briefly volunteered as a teacher's at Kingsville FBC, teaching 4-6 year old children about the Bible. [2]
Sutherland Springs Mass Shooting
On November 5, 2017, at around 11:30 a.m. local time, Kelley allegedly walked into the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX and opened fire killing at least 25 people. [3] [5] [7]
Kelley apparently died following a short police pursuit. It was not immediately clear whether he was killed by officers or if his wounds were self-inflicted. [3] [7]
https://everipedia.org/wiki/devin-kelley-1/
MAGA Allies: 'Bully Israel with undeclared nukes steals land'
Dangerous conspiracy theories on Right claim MAGA fake frontgroup
Poll: Should US apologize for financing radicalization of Afghan children in 80s?
Obama-Clinton Years: A Violent Chapter in World History
Trump: If (Neocon) Adelson Backs Rubio "He'll Have Total Control" Over Him
Delta variant, death of 9 Chinese engineers in terror attack led to airport chaos & quick Kabul fall?
Removed bad source.
Last edited by kahless; 11-05-2017 at 07:03 PM.
"African carps" - good summation.
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
And as for the ban not being "Libertarian" .... For reference:
https://www.lp.org/platform/
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
"This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens." Civil liberties do not extend to those that wish to exterminate Liberty and Freedom. Civil liberties are reserved for those who want to follow the NAP. Otherwise extending civil liberties to those who wish to destroy the very premise that granted them those civil liberties is just suicide by stupidity. Islam is NOT compatible with Liberty, by any stretch of the imagination. Islam is about compliance, control, and obedience.
Example:
As well as: https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/....html?src=vidm (that one was an eye opener. Animals)
There are more videos.
It is a fools errand to welcome someone into your home, giving them a key, when they wish to exterminate you through time and slow conquest. An abusive spouse, a thief, or a government entity hell bent on spying and forced compliance. Part of the defense of Liberty and Freedom must mean we also defend against a political movement/ideology/aggression - veiled as a religion - that is the antithesis of Freedom and Liberty. If you do not see that, then you are no defender of Freedom and Liberty. But an accomplice to the demise of Freedom and Liberty.
And yes, we should get out of the middle east (and most other places for that matter.) Should have a long time ago.
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
Um... Yeah... You don't know what "liberty" means.
"When THEY wish to exterminate you..." They?! Are you really suggesting that there is no diversity of opinion in the Muslim world?! So if some of them mean you harm, it means that ALL of them mean you harm?! And since some of them commit violence, you feel justified in using pre-crime to exclude them all?! Well, I'm pretty sure you can apply that to, oh I don't know, EVERY religion in the world! So yeah, you either do what AF suggests or you treat people as individuals - with their own free will and freedom of thought.
I take it you don't have any Muslim friends. Or maybe you think they secretly wish you dead and are just waiting for the right time. "Liberty" is an individual state of being - not a group state of being. You may not understand this, but your means ensure that your ends will never be achieved.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Smells an awful lot like Antifa rhetoric.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
a :the power to do as one pleasesUm... Yeah... You don't know what "liberty" means.
b :freedom from physical restraint
c :freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d :the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e :the power of choice
And Islam is counter to those points.
You didn't watch the first video did you?
No muslim friends. No desire.
And the group state of being protects the individual state of being to exist, as long as it is protected. Fail to protect it, and it is lost for all. The group and the individual.
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
LOLz
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
Quite the opposite. One the main planks Antifa has been protesting is against vetting of immigrants entering the US, against the 5 Muslim majority country immigration restrictions, nor any restrictions on refugees, ICE targeting illegals, against deportation and against anti-Sharia protests. Ultimately they support open borders and are a pro-Muslim activist organization among other things.
If you hate the welfare state then you should love open immigration. Racial and ethnic diversity is one of the big reasons the American welfare state is so small as compared to Europe, Asia, and everywhere else.
Conservative and libertarian critics of immigration like to cite Milton Friedman’s observation that “[y]ou cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state,” which co-blogger Ken Anderson recently endorsed. The fear is that, given relatively open borders, immigrants from poor countries will flock to wealthy ones and undermine their economies by consuming huge amounts of welfare benefits.
The greater ethnic diversity of the US is one of the main reasons why we have a smaller welfare state than most European nations.
I am a great admirer of Friedman and his scholarship. But he was not an expert on immigration, and, as far as I can tell, he never systematically studied the evidence on the impact of immigration on political support for the welfare state. That evidence overwhelmingly shows that ethnic heterogeneity greatly reduces support for welfare state spending because voters are less willing to support welfare programs if they believe that a large percentage of the money is going to members of a different racial or ethnic group.
I cite some of the relevant studies in a recent article in the International Affairs Forum on Immigration (pg. 43). The research shows that this effect holds true even in a strongly left-wing country like Sweden. This book by political scientists Donald Kinder and Cindy Kam presents the evidence for the United States (and to a lesser extent, several European countries). Historically, the greater ethnic diversity of the US is one of the main reasons why we have a smaller welfare state than most European nations; the evidence on that point is summarized in a well-known study by Edward Glaeser and Alberto Alesina. Because people are most likely to support welfare programs when the money goes to recipients who are “like us,” immigration actually undermines the welfare state rather than reinforces it. Even if the new immigrants themselves vote for expanded welfare state benefits (which is far from always a given), their political impact is likely to be offset by that of native-born citizens who are generally wealthier, more numerous, and more likely to vote and otherwise participate in politics.
This feedback effect creates a difficult dilemma for liberals and leftists who support immigration but also want to expand the welfare state. Paul Krugman calls the welfare-immigration tradeoff an “agonizing issue” for liberal Democrats. But for libertarians and other supporters of economic liberty, immigration is a win-win game. It is both an important exercise of economic freedom in its own right, and has the secondary effect of constraining the welfare state.
In more diverse societies, the public supports relatively lower benefits because of a perception that too much of the money goes to racial or ethnic “others.”
It may be lamentable that immigration fails to expand the welfare state primarily because of ethnic bias. I would rather that voters had more admirable motives. But in politics, we often face tradeoffs where it’s better to do the right thing for the wrong reason than not do it at all. Moreover, it is no more bigoted to oppose welfare state benefits because they go to members of other ethnic groups than to support them because they go to members of your group. For example, Kinder and Kam find that strongly “ethnocentric” white voters are more likely to support Social Security benefits than other whites, because they see it as a program that primarily benefits non-Hispanic whites like themselves. In relatively homogeneous states, voters tend to support higher levels of welfare benefits than they would otherwise because they see them as supporting members of their own ethnic or racial group. In more diverse societies, the public supports relatively lower benefits because of a perception that too much of the money goes to racial or ethnic “others.” The former attitude is no less biased than the latter.
Finally, it’s worth noting, as Bryan Caplan emphasizes, that we need not choose between limiting immigration and cutting welfare benefits across the board. We can, instead, selectively deny such benefits to new immigrants and/or require them to pay special taxes to offset any fiscal burden they might impose on natives. Conservative critics of immigration who recognize these alternatives fear that they won’t be politically viable. But the feedback effect discussed above implies that their political prospects are quite good. Most voters are quite happy to support cutting welfare benefits for recent immigrants or making the latter “pay for themselves.” That’s why the extensive restrictions on immigrant welfare embedded in the 1996 welfare reform act were very popular, as are similar measures proposed in various European countries.
Some on the left fear that such measures are inhumane or unfair to immigrants. That may be so; I’m not an unequivocal fan of these policies myself, particularly the taxes (I’m more sympathetic to welfare restrictions). But they’re a lot less unjust than consigning would-be migrants to a life of Third World poverty and oppression, which is what happens to those whom we deny the right to enter in the first place.
https://fee.org/articles/if-you-hate...e-immigration/
Last edited by PierzStyx; 11-06-2017 at 01:08 PM.
FTFY
(And seriously? you have no desire to make friends with someone because they have a different religion? so glad you judge the individual based on their personality.)
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
It is true that Antifa want more open borders. But then they're also fools. It is why they're Antifa. They don't understand that open borders would destroy the welfare state.
But otherone was correct that Thor was spouting Antifa rhetoric. The Antifa are against immigration bans. But they are not for Islam. The hard core of the Anmtifa are all devout Socialists and Communists. And not in the mamby-pamby Obama way either. They're full blown Marxists and hate all religion, seeing religion itself as their enemy that needs to be wiped out. Thor's fallacious characterization of Islam is exactly what Antifa believe about all religion. Their "defense" of Muslims now is merely a convenience as a way to oppose Trump and his fascist cronies in the Alt. Left. Given time and power, Antifa will turn on Muslims just like everyone else. And creating laws that will allow the State to target and eliminate people for their religion -such as Islam- now only plays into Antifa's long term goals, laying the foundation to go after Christianity tomorrow. Thor is therefore spouting propaganda that only strengthens Antifa's long term goals.
Last edited by PierzStyx; 11-06-2017 at 01:10 PM.
FIFY
a :the power to do as one pleases unless yer goal is to stop others from doing as they please
b :freedom from physical restraint unless yer a mooslim trying to remove freedom and liberty from others
c :freedom from arbitrary or despotic control no matter the source, especially when your religion tells you gain that control
d :the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges yeah, but only for certain people, amirite? Yes you are, it is for anyone and everyone who wishes that enjoyment be maintained for all to cherish. Keyword is POSITIVE enjoyment. Islam is NOT positive.
e :the power of choice but only approved choices - not to choose a different God to pray to! Not if that god you want to pray to tells you to go out and conquer non-believers, stone apostates, implement a law world wide that demands obedience, subjugation, and compliance.
Again, islam is counter to the original definition of Liberty. Islam is not congruent with the thinking of Liberty. Perhaps you misunderstand Liberty?
Just because Liberty allows one the freedom to worship whatever god they want, does not give those who would violate the NAP and who have a goal of control and removal of freedom and liberty, the rights to use the very same tool of freedom and liberty to their advantage to therefore take away freedom and liberty. Extending those rights to those who wish to remove your rights is like supplying a plethora of advanced weapons, with training on how to use them, to your known enemy before a battle. Only an idiot would do that.
Would you allow a confirmed and confessed child rapist to babysit your kids? You are taking away their Liberty if you don't.
I don't hang out in circles where muslims hang out. That is not to say I have not met and interacted with many. Many are very nice... but the religion, like most, is flawed and as a follower of a flawed religion, then I see no commonality to which a friendship can be based. Just like I am not good friends with evangelical christians. I find most dedicated followers of religions (any) to not be people I want to hang out with. However, with Muslims, the premise of Islam is a far bigger problem than any other religion. Just about every other religion wants to live and leave in peace and co-exist. Except 1 religion. As the buddhist monk in the video above so succinctly put it, African carp.(And seriously? you have no desire to make friends with someone because they have a different religion? so glad you judge the individual based on their personality.
Speaking of videos, which of the ones I posted did you watch?
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
Again LOLz
I have seen through it all... the system is against us. ALL OF IT.
What the hell are you even talking about?! You really think there is no individuality in the Muslim faith?! Talk about a serious collective mentality! Sheesh! I know many Muslims and none of them fit this caricature you've created in your head. My doctor is Muslim. Our kids used to go to the same school. I've played cards with him and we've had each other over for dinner on multiple occasions. He is by FAR more liberty-oriented than you. He sees people as individuals like I do. He doesn't make rash and false judgments about people based on what some boogeyman may have done. In other words, he's not a moron. (well, he doesn't eat bacon. So, obviously, he's not all put together. But, at least we can joke about it.)
Nice segue into child-raping, too! I suppose those strawmen are a great substitute for the boogeymen.
Man, where are these people coming from? In order to violate the NAP, there needs to be an aggression. The only aggression I'm seeing by an individual is by some of the posters in this thread. (not the sane ones, mind you, just the scaredypants that have been convinced brown people are trying to kill them and eat their babies.)
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Which is more ironic?
"anti-fascists" who use violence to deny freedom of expression, or "libertarians" who believe that's what government is for?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
So you know a secular Muslim's that have since assimilated. What does that have to do with the 70-90% of foreign born that demand Sharia law and/or from regions that pose a significant jihadist threat?
The Islamic government belief system is the antithesis of the libertarian belief system. Yet you expect to grow the libertarian movement by opening the flood gates of immigration to people that oppose your beliefs?
Hold on a minute. Neither you nor I as individuals, nor any other individual, nor any group of us collectively have the just authority to "extend those rights" to any individual, nor to remove them from any individual unless and until that individual has violated the rights of another causing provable damage in real life, in the here and now. Rights are inherent in the individual and no outside agency has any just authority over them except in those very narrowly defined situations. You cannot act in prior restraint, based upon some fictional scenario that may or may not ever occur in real life at some undetermined point in the future. And you certainly have no just authority to use the violence of the state to assuage you own fears at the expense of the rights of others. Either we adhere to this simple, irrefutable truth or what we're supporting is something quite different from liberty.
Since child rapists have no inherent right to babysit anyone's kids, your analogy is epic fail and amounts to a straw man.
<snip>
Chris
"Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon
"...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul
No one has an inherent right to immigrate or naturalize 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
No. I expect to promote liberty by, you know, promoting liberty. Treating each person as an individual instead of prejudging them by what you say 70-90% of other people that look like them may do.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Then go preach liberty in their lands, don't bring them here to destroy liberty and then try to MAYBE convert them and rebuild it.
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
What a bunk.
But correlation and coincidence both equal causation, right?What a bunk.
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us