Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: Turkey demands visa free borders with Europe.

  1. #1

    Turkey demands visa free borders with Europe.

    Or else they will flood the EU with migrants...

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tu...-idUSKCN10B0SK
    https://www.rt.com/news/354094-turke...isa-ultimatum/
    (there are more sources)

    My opinion on this matter is, don't talk or make deals with people who you can't trust.
    "I am a bird"



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Last edited by timosman; 08-01-2016 at 12:06 AM.

  4. #3
    Lets see... turkey will grant every middle easterner turkish citizenship and send them to europe. Turks already trying to give citizenship to 300k syrians.

    So free travel for turkish citizen... gg. Gg europe.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Or else they will flood the EU with migrants...

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tu...-idUSKCN10B0SK
    https://www.rt.com/news/354094-turke...isa-ultimatum/
    (there are more sources)

    My opinion on this matter is, don't talk or make deals with people who you can't trust.
    Simple solution: reduce Turkey to a burned out cinder. Sadly, the Europeans have no stomach for such things.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  6. #5
    And why not?? NATO bichez!! /sarc
    There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
    -Major General Smedley Butler, USMC,
    Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner
    Author of, War is a Racket!

    It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours.
    - Diogenes of Sinope

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Simple solution: reduce Turkey to a burned out cinder. Sadly, the Europeans have no stomach for such things.
    There is a serious problem with that, there are Turks in Western European countries in SIGNIFICANT numbers... They are on the point of raising hell. Not that we should accept that... But with what ? 5% of the population or so being of Turkish background, it's a serious thing.
    "I am a bird"

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    There is a serious problem with that, there are Turks in Western European countries in SIGNIFICANT numbers... They are on the point of raising hell. Not that we should accept that... But with what ? 5% of the population or so being of Turkish background, it's a serious thing.
    "Serious" does not translate directly and automatically into "problem".

    I do believe that given the current state of human thought, multiculturalism is a proven disaster. I further believe that in order for any nation expecting to survive as itself, this bull$#@! needs to be put to rest once and for all. If Germans, for example, wish to remain as such rather than as some mongrelized culture where so-called "identity" is lost in a torrent of change, they need either to remove the Muslim elements by conveyance or by sword.

    It is one thing for a culture to slowly mutate from one state to another over the course of many generations. Most cultures appear to do this. It is a very different thing to have vast change foisted upon people in one or two generations, sometimes less. It also depends on the nature of the change in question. The point here is that some change is of a "natural" quality, while others are very identifiably forced. Once again we see the destructive nature of force when applied to humans and the Muslim infiltration of Europe is perhaps the perfect contemporary example of this. Germany and its neighbors are literally staring into the maw of destruction, culturally speaking. Doing nothing is not a good solution if Germans wish to remain as such. IMO, my cultural identity is very much worth saving and if I have to take up a rifle and shoot 1000 men who threaten that identity, then so be it.

    If Germany, et al, allow themselves to be consumed by the Muslim horde, I will be sorry that it became so but will reserve no whit of pity for them. I can spare none for those who show so deep a lack of sense and self-respect.

    Were I king of France or whatever hamlet you care to name, I would boot every foreigner out. If they refused, I would show them the door at the ends of barrels. I would march the Turks back to Turkey and I would let that nation know that they'd better behave themselves lest a wave of genocidal destruction be loosed upon them - and I would mean every syllable. It is a shame that things must be this way, but diplomacy, statesmanship, and reason have all gone on extended vacations, a great bulk of political humanity having adopted insanity and rank stupidity as their standards of comportment. As for those of foreign "identity", the message would be unequivocal: toe the line of the land, whatever it may be, or be exiled. In a free land, that would mean that you abide by the principles of proper human relations or you go to live elsewhere, PERIOD. There will be no bombings, shooting while shouting "Allahu akbar!" and all that nonsense. And I would set in place strict and non-negotiable controls on immigration. There would be no H1B nonsense. No wandering across the border. No hiring ditch diggers from Turkey because nobody in country is willing to do it for 10 francs/hour. If the market demand is that high, employers would be required to meet the labor demand in the honest way by raising wages and perhaps prices, rather than scraping the barrel of $#@! holes like Turkey. If digging ditches is that important, people will pay to have them dug. Otherwise, the ditch digging businesses will become extinct and the diggers will have to find other ways to occupy themselves. There are no guarantees in this life.

    There are clear paths to prosperous living. Basic economics is NOT rocket surgery and if people would cut the $#@! with all the hair splitting, others would be able to get on with the business of making good lives for themselves while contributing to the so-called "greater good". None of this is mysterious and proper freedom is a win-win for all willing to make their own ways.

    But cultures can be delicate things and people become their culture in many ways. Destroying a culture during a man's lifetime threatens great harm to him, but it is his choice whether to settle for destruction or to fight. I would fight and I would kill, especially when the interlopers are of a nature such as we find with these Muslim filth who have no respect for others while demanding it from all. Screw them and the bitches who whelped them. I would see them murdered to the man to save my own because they have brought fight to me and not I to them. I will lay down for no man, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    "Serious" does not translate directly and automatically into "problem".

    I do believe that given the current state of human thought, multiculturalism is a proven disaster. I further believe that in order for any nation expecting to survive as itself, this bull$#@! needs to be put to rest once and for all. If Germans, for example, wish to remain as such rather than as some mongrelized culture where so-called "identity" is lost in a torrent of change, they need either to remove the Muslim elements by conveyance or by sword.

    It is one thing for a culture to slowly mutate from one state to another over the course of many generations. Most cultures appear to do this. It is a very different thing to have vast change foisted upon people in one or two generations, sometimes less. It also depends on the nature of the change in question. The point here is that some change is of a "natural" quality, while others are very identifiably forced. Once again we see the destructive nature of force when applied to humans and the Muslim infiltration of Europe is perhaps the perfect contemporary example of this. Germany and its neighbors are literally staring into the maw of destruction, culturally speaking. Doing nothing is not a good solution if Germans wish to remain as such. IMO, my cultural identity is very much worth saving and if I have to take up a rifle and shoot 1000 men who threaten that identity, then so be it.

    If Germany, et al, allow themselves to be consumed by the Muslim horde, I will be sorry that it became so but will reserve no whit of pity for them. I can spare none for those who show so deep a lack of sense and self-respect.

    Were I king of France or whatever hamlet you care to name, I would boot every foreigner out. If they refused, I would show them the door at the ends of barrels. I would march the Turks back to Turkey and I would let that nation know that they'd better behave themselves lest a wave of genocidal destruction be loosed upon them - and I would mean every syllable. It is a shame that things must be this way, but diplomacy, statesmanship, and reason have all gone on extended vacations, a great bulk of political humanity having adopted insanity and rank stupidity as their standards of comportment. As for those of foreign "identity", the message would be unequivocal: toe the line of the land, whatever it may be, or be exiled. In a free land, that would mean that you abide by the principles of proper human relations or you go to live elsewhere, PERIOD. There will be no bombings, shooting while shouting "Allahu akbar!" and all that nonsense. And I would set in place strict and non-negotiable controls on immigration. There would be no H1B nonsense. No wandering across the border. No hiring ditch diggers from Turkey because nobody in country is willing to do it for 10 francs/hour. If the market demand is that high, employers would be required to meet the labor demand in the honest way by raising wages and perhaps prices, rather than scraping the barrel of $#@! holes like Turkey. If digging ditches is that important, people will pay to have them dug. Otherwise, the ditch digging businesses will become extinct and the diggers will have to find other ways to occupy themselves. There are no guarantees in this life.

    There are clear paths to prosperous living. Basic economics is NOT rocket surgery and if people would cut the $#@! with all the hair splitting, others would be able to get on with the business of making good lives for themselves while contributing to the so-called "greater good". None of this is mysterious and proper freedom is a win-win for all willing to make their own ways.

    But cultures can be delicate things and people become their culture in many ways. Destroying a culture during a man's lifetime threatens great harm to him, but it is his choice whether to settle for destruction or to fight. I would fight and I would kill, especially when the interlopers are of a nature such as we find with these Muslim filth who have no respect for others while demanding it from all. Screw them and the bitches who whelped them. I would see them murdered to the man to save my own because they have brought fight to me and not I to them. I will lay down for no man, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
    And how do you propose to stop it. It is a religion. Do you lock up all the brown people and throw them in a camp? Maybe just execute them? How do you intend to prove they are Muslim? What if they are brown skin but are Christians? Do you let them live? What if they are white skinned blue eyed Muslims? Do you execute them? Did you think about that when you wrote up that gigantic wall of text?
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Dupe
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    California To Proclaim August "Muslim Appreciation And Awareness Month"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...wareness-month
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  13. #11
    I would not let the Turks out if I bordered them.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    And how do you propose to stop it. It is a religion. Do you lock up all the brown people and throw them in a camp? Maybe just execute them? How do you intend to prove they are Muslim? What if they are brown skin but are Christians? Do you let them live? What if they are white skinned blue eyed Muslims? Do you execute them? Did you think about that when you wrote up that gigantic wall of text?
    What kinda solutions would you suggest against this threat? They will send millions of people into your country. It seems no matter what you do, they will send the hordes into Europe under the guise of friendly pretense.

    What do you do when a country threatens you with a human tsunami?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard13mm View Post
    What kinda solutions would you suggest against this threat? They will send millions of people into your country. It seems no matter what you do, they will send the hordes into Europe under the guise of friendly pretense.

    What do you do when a country threatens you with a human tsunami?
    You praise the virtues of multiculturalism.

  16. #14
    I just don't get how come Europe does not just build a wall along its eastern border.. a DEPENDABLE WALL with armed guards? Give audio and visual warning in arabic, persian, and english. Then use non-lethal force like paintball gun or pepper guns. Then shoot live rounds at the ground in front of the crowd. Then finally lethal rounds if they try to breach the wall.

    For the southern border.. they can.. you know stop rescuing boats or tow their butt back to Libyan waters.

    Of course.. those that want to deport foreigners already in the country, it will be very invasive and destructive. France and Germany are already gone.. No way in heck you can uproot 5-10% of the population without causing bloodshed and civil war. Without committing mass atrocities.

    Best thing to do is to stop more from coming in. Stop until you can properly assimilate and integrate the "new people" or foreigners into your culture, tradition, country, etiquette and laws.

    Multiculturalism is a hindrance to proper assimilation of new immigrants.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    And how do you propose to stop it. It is a religion. Do you lock up all the brown people and throw them in a camp? Maybe just execute them? How do you intend to prove they are Muslim? What if they are brown skin but are Christians? Do you let them live? What if they are white skinned blue eyed Muslims? Do you execute them? Did you think about that when you wrote up that gigantic wall of text?
    This is the best you can come up with? Seriously?

    Six paragraphs is a "gigantic wall of text"? Pitiful.

    Go away.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    This is the best you can come up with? Seriously?

    Six paragraphs is a "gigantic wall of text"? Pitiful.

    Go away.
    I didn't think you would have a reply after that large wall of garble you posted. Spend all day thinking about stupid $#@!.
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard13mm View Post
    What kinda solutions would you suggest against this threat? They will send millions of people into your country. It seems no matter what you do, they will send the hordes into Europe under the guise of friendly pretense.

    What do you do when a country threatens you with a human tsunami?
    How about you look at a map? Perhaps Germany and the EU should leave NATO or not participate in the overthrowing of Assad in Syria that is causing this problem for starters? Have you thought about that? That would be the easiest solution no? Then look at all the other countries that those Syrians will have to pass through. Perhaps deal with those countries first?

    Do I need to write a thesis paper like Osan over here to illustrate this or what? Thinking is hard huh?



    Last edited by twomp; 08-01-2016 at 10:08 PM.
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    How about you look at a map? Perhaps Germany and the EU should leave NATO or not participate in the overthrowing of Assad in Syria that is causing this problem for starters? Have you thought about that? That would be the easiest solution no? Then look at all the other countries that those Syrians will have to pass through. Perhaps deal with those countries first?

    Do I need to write a thesis paper like Osan over here to illustrate this or what? Thinking is hard huh?
    Many """refugees""" are from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Emirates, Libya. I think evne if you stop overthrowing Assad, people will still pour in.. kinda like the current constant stream of people from Mexico/South America/Central America. Pandora's box has been opened. The promise of a new life, with a new house, an allowance, free education and medicine. But then you'd probably say.. end all those programs .

    As for the countries bordering Turkey.. Sure you can build a wall, but then people will [female dog] about freedom of movement/travel and other crap like that. There are quite a lot of area to cover in Italy/Greece and those two countries are idiots for rescuing those boats.

  22. #19
    @osan

    The only reason you say that is because you got your two acres of paradise and are content and have no interest in economic pursuits or owning properties elsewhere. If you wanted to own a gold mine in South America you better believe you'd be rightfully saying you have the right to own property anywhere you can find a willing seller. And you better believe you'd be rightfully saying that you have the right to employ whoever who wish at your property including finding foreign workers (for any $#@!ing reason) when domestic workers wouldn't supply labor at the expense (you $#@!ing like) you need to run a profitable operation. What you are arguing for is in the same principle as a minimum wage, except you are advocating restricting the labor pool instead of an individuals ability to accept a negotiated lower wage. You want to $#@! on the businessman's rights because you are scared of Muslims.

    But cultures can be delicate things and people become their culture in many ways. Destroying a culture during a man's lifetime threatens great harm to him, but it is his choice whether to settle for destruction or to fight. I would fight and I would kill, especially when the interlopers are of a nature such as we find with these Muslim filth who have no respect for others while demanding it from all. Screw them and the bitches who whelped them. I would see them murdered to the man to save my own because they have brought fight to me and not I to them. I will lay down for no man, but that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
    What the $#@! are you smoking? You realize what you'd be doing if you were a Muslim and practised what you're preaching? You'd be an ISIS member chanting 'death to the Christians, they're all guilty!' along with the usual snackbar $#@!. Maybe you ought to respect them for having the cojones you apparently lack.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    @osan

    The only reason you say that is because you got your two acres of paradise and are content and have no interest in economic pursuits or owning properties elsewhere. If you wanted to own a gold mine in South America you better believe you'd be rightfully saying you have the right to own property anywhere you can find a willing seller. And you better believe you'd be rightfully saying that you have the right to employ whoever who wish at your property including finding foreign workers (for any $#@!ing reason) when domestic workers wouldn't supply labor at the expense (you $#@!ing like) you need to run a profitable operation. What you are arguing for is in the same principle as a minimum wage, except you are advocating restricting the labor pool instead of an individuals ability to accept a negotiated lower wage. You want to $#@! on the businessman's rights because you are scared of Muslims.
    Oh for Christ's sake, get your underwear out of a knot.

    Your right to hire whom you please stops at the ends of other people's noses, to borrow, and mildly torture, the old adage. I, as a businessman, do not have the right to hire in ways that threaten the rights of my fellows. Furthermore, mass invasions of people from cultures that are at fundamental odds with that of the host nation is proving itself to be the danger-soaked clustercopulation that it is right now as we type. The logic of your position says that if I want to hire convicted serial murderers from Russia, it is my right to do so. FAIL. Need this be explained?

    As for "scared of Muslims" - you are talking nonsnense. Firstly, my wife was raised Muslim and can cite you chapter and verse. She will tell you that the only way to deal with these people is to kill them [those who advocate Islamic global domination] because they are warrior people and will under no circumstance be tamed or otherwise dissuaded from their beliefs, which call them to action. Probably 60-70% of my family, by marriage, is Muslim. Yeah, I'm just terrified.

    What the $#@! are you smoking?
    This is the best you can do? To the best of my knowledge, I've not jumped up on your kitchen table this morning, whipped out my enormous penis and proceeded to piss in your cornflakes. So why the venom? If you disagree, present your case and leave the bile at home. I see no need for it. Perhaps you are unhappy with yourself.

    You realize what you'd be doing if you were a Muslim and practised [sic] what you're preaching?
    Non sequitur. I am not bringing a fight to anyone. I am speaking in advocacy of rational self-defense against a culture that calls for the elimination or enslavement of anyone who does not accept their so-called "faith". What you are asserting here has nothing to do with what I have addressed.

    You'd be an ISIS member chanting 'death to the Christians, they're all guilty!' along with the usual snackbar $#@!. Maybe you ought to respect them for having the cojones you apparently lack.
    And the moon is made of green cheese. It would seem you need a better outlet for your frustrations because you are making no sense at all.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard13mm View Post
    Many """refugees""" are from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Emirates, Libya. I think evne if you stop overthrowing Assad, people will still pour in.. kinda like the current constant stream of people from Mexico/South America/Central America. Pandora's box has been opened. The promise of a new life, with a new house, an allowance, free education and medicine. But then you'd probably say.. end all those programs .

    As for the countries bordering Turkey.. Sure you can build a wall, but then people will [female dog] about freedom of movement/travel and other crap like that. There are quite a lot of area to cover in Italy/Greece and those two countries are idiots for rescuing those boats.
    Look at the countries you listed. What do they have in common? What countries have we been bombing? That is the catalyst. NATO and the EU shook up the Middle East and this is the blowback they are getting. You reap what you sow.
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Oh for Christ's sake, get your underwear out of a knot.

    Your right to hire whom you please stops at the ends of other people's noses, to borrow, and mildly torture, the old adage. I, as a businessman, do not have the right to hire in ways that threaten the rights of my fellows. Furthermore, mass invasions of people from cultures that are at fundamental odds with that of the host nation is proving itself to be the danger-soaked clustercopulation that it is right now as we type. The logic of your position says that if I want to hire convicted serial murderers from Russia, it is my right to do so. FAIL. Need this be explained?

    As for "scared of Muslims" - you are talking nonsnense. Firstly, my wife was raised Muslim and can cite you chapter and verse. She will tell you that the only way to deal with these people is to kill them [those who advocate Islamic global domination] because they are warrior people and will under no circumstance be tamed or otherwise dissuaded from their beliefs, which call them to action. Probably 60-70% of my family, by marriage, is Muslim. Yeah, I'm just terrified.



    This is the best you can do? To the best of my knowledge, I've not jumped up on your kitchen table this morning, whipped out my enormous penis and proceeded to piss in your cornflakes. So why the venom? If you disagree, present your case and leave the bile at home. I see no need for it. Perhaps you are unhappy with yourself.



    Non sequitur. I am not bringing a fight to anyone. I am speaking in advocacy of rational self-defense against a culture that calls for the elimination or enslavement of anyone who does not accept their so-called "faith". What you are asserting here has nothing to do with what I have addressed.



    And the moon is made of green cheese. It would seem you need a better outlet for your frustrations because you are making no sense at all.
    hahaha, that's what I call the 'hit the bear in the face and run' move... please don't take any offense from it. I honestly don't have time to compare dicks with you right now, you know I'm right anyways!

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    hahaha, that's what I call the 'hit the bear in the face and run' move... please don't take any offense from it. I honestly don't have time to compare dicks with you right now, you know I'm right anyways!
    If I knew you were right, I would have said as much, conceded the point, and cowboyed up. I always own up to my $#@! ups. Always.

    There is SOME validity to your points, but I see it as rather limited.

    That said, you have a good day. I need to go outside and do some more digging before the sun is gone.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Look at the countries you listed. What do they have in common? What countries have we been bombing? That is the catalyst. NATO and the EU shook up the Middle East and this is the blowback they are getting. You reap what you sow.
    It is rather interesting isnt it? We bomb them to fight them there... but at the same time we import them here where they or their children can retaliate. Just wonderful .



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Your right to hire whom you please stops at the ends of other people's noses, to borrow, and mildly torture, the old adage. I, as a businessman, do not have the right to hire in ways that threaten the rights of my fellows. Furthermore, mass invasions of people from cultures that are at fundamental odds with that of the host nation is proving itself to be the danger-soaked clustercopulation that it is right now as we type.
    I have 0 problem giving all of the blame for what we are seeing now on governments. From the militarism which drove the people from their homes and homeland to the welfare which is being offered to them that attracts them to their destinations. It cannot be said to prove anything about absolute adherence to private property rights because it is the absolute disregard for private property rights which shapes the world today.

    So let's look at immigration from a free market standpoint.

    Individual's will immigrate because they already have better prospects where they wish to immigrate (a job lined up, the resources to open a business of their own, a property they wish to homestead, etc) or they believe the area will offer better prospects (labor shortages). As can be heard from around the world, if those better prospects end up not panning out, individual's return to their homeland and tell others not to go, because there is nothing to be gained.

    One of the most frequent scenarios I hear from those opposed to immigration is some individual bringing in millions of people. And that is unrealistic. But it is true that cargo movers are going to want to move cargo, and humans qualify just as much as any other goods as cargo. So what is the scenario, the cargo shipper tells these people that he will get them jobs and sustain them until such a point? If the cargo shipper does not carry through with this, then the individual's which he served have legitimate recourse against the shipper, for the sustainment and a return home for those who couldn't find jobs. Now if the shipper is just serving demand, the ship-full of people heard of better prospects and want to pay him for his services so they can reach their desired destination, but it ends up being false, then as I said in the above paragraph, people return to their homeland and tell the others that the area offers no greener grass. Maybe some will resort to crime but it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, as it is the outlier and not the rule in free market immigration. These are people following the market to make a better life for themselves.

    The logic of your position says that if I want to hire convicted serial murderers from Russia, it is my right to do so. FAIL. Need this be explained?
    It does, it does.

    To have a state capable of documenting every individual that comes into a country would probably be more of a disservice to the people than a business owner hiring Russian serial killers.

    The way the dots are connecting in my head, I think you do absolutely have the right to hire any individual, including Russian serial killers. You do not have the right, though, to hire Russian serial killers with the intent they will kill more people. At that point you are a party to the murderous scheme. Short of that, one, as an employer you wouldn't necessarily know they are killers, and two, even if you know about the individuals past (and we have already discluded the knowledge of further murdering) the only interest you have in that individual is in their labor. What they do on their free time is of their own doing, and their own responsibility. Also a factor, the individual who hires these killers with the knowledge of their past takes risk in hiring them, for they may spend the money transporting these individuals from Germany to America, helping them to survive in the short term, and then training them to employ them, only to wake and find them all in jail awaiting punishment for their former crimes.

    Non sequitur. I am not bringing a fight to anyone. I am speaking in advocacy of rational self-defense against a culture that calls for the elimination or enslavement of anyone who does not accept their so-called "faith". What you are asserting here has nothing to do with what I have addressed.
    What I mean is that, if you look at the world for the last century or so, it is the European 'Christian' nations that have been meddling and warring in the 'Muslim' nations. Whom at this point is bringing the fight to who? You say that you would slay every last one (collectivist) if they were the ones to bring to fight to you, but tarnish those that wish to slay every last one of us (collectivist) for bringing the fight to them.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    I have 0 problem giving all of the blame for what we are seeing now on governments. From the militarism which drove the people from their homes and homeland to the welfare which is being offered to them that attracts them to their destinations. It cannot be said to prove anything about absolute adherence to private property rights because it is the absolute disregard for private property rights which shapes the world today.
    We agree fully, especially on the bold text.

    So let's look at immigration from a free market standpoint.
    Assuming we agree on what constitutes a properly free market, of course.

    Individual's will immigrate because they already have better prospects where they wish to immigrate (a job lined up, the resources to open a business of their own, a property they wish to homestead, etc) or they believe the area will offer better prospects (labor shortages). As can be heard from around the world, if those better prospects end up not panning out, individual's return to their homeland and tell others not to go, because there is nothing to be gained.
    In theory, yes. In practice it has not worked out this way. That, of course, must be taken in the context of the fact that our markets are not free and many of the nations from which such people immigrate are dangerous $#@! holes. Welfare state conditions must also be taken into account. But even in a perfect free market I doubt things would work out this way a often as theory would have us believe. People are often not that simple in terms of the motives that drive them to act.

    One of the most frequent scenarios I hear from those opposed to immigration is some individual bringing in millions of people.
    It is a valid concern. Look no further than Europe to bear first-hand witness to the implosion of ancient cultures in a matter of a few decades due to the mass influx of those whose fundamental world views are not only different from that of the host nation, but violently incompatible. Successful immigration for Germany must perforce mean that as a statistical gestalt the immigrant population must wish, intend, and act to become Germans, rather than to turn Germans into them. The latter is cultural imperialism of the first order.

    And that is unrealistic.
    Not so fast. Firstly, a man like George Soros is well capable of making such things happen due to his position of market power. Now, if you speak of the average businessman, I would agree. But the reality has been that governments have been doing the do, resulting in the piecemeal destruction of nations to which we are all now bearing witness.

    As to whether men like Soros or governments would exist with respect to the powers wielded in a true free market, I suppose not. Otherwise, the market would by definition fail to be free. It is all well and fun to speculate in the vacuum of pure theory, but at some point the realities of application in the world need to be addressed.

    But it is true that cargo movers are going to want to move cargo, and humans qualify just as much as any other goods as cargo. So what is the scenario, the cargo shipper tells these people that he will get them jobs and sustain them until such a point? If the cargo shipper does not carry through with this, then the individual's which he served have legitimate recourse against the shipper, for the sustainment and a return home for those who couldn't find jobs. Now if the shipper is just serving demand, the ship-full of people heard of better prospects and want to pay him for his services so they can reach their desired destination, but it ends up being false, then as I said in the above paragraph, people return to their homeland and tell the others that the area offers no greener grass. Maybe some will resort to crime but it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, as it is the outlier and not the rule in free market immigration. These are people following the market to make a better life for themselves.
    This may well prove the case, if ever we institute actual free markets, meaning there would be no welfare state to attract the parasites. But I would contend that immigration quotas might still be a practical necessity in order to prevent the dissolution of the host culture. It is one thing to augment the prevalent culture with elements of others over the course of generations. It is a very different issue altogether to have what amounts to a foreign invasion come and thoroughly disrupt that which had been the established civilization.


    It does, it does.

    To have a state capable of documenting every individual that comes into a country would probably be more of a disservice to the people than a business owner hiring Russian serial killers.
    In practical reality, you are probably right. However, there are countless examples of people engaging in various behaviors for the purposes of disrupting the rightful choices of those around them. Sometimes it is the result of bitter resentment for any of a million and one reasons... mommy didn't love junior enough or failed to potty-train him properly. The reasons and excuses are as numbered as the grasses.

    I would add that all this presupposes the rationality of the immigrant mindset. In the case of the Muslims, this is far from the case. Once again witness what is happening in Europe. Muslims enter France en masse and demand France adopt sharia law and so forth. Is it your contention that in a free market reality this would not happen? Are you perhaps saying that the Muslims are within their rights to impose their culture upon the indigenous people of France; to destroy the extant culture therein?

    There is a big difference between immigrants seeking life in France who wish to become French and those seeking to force France to become them.

    The way the dots are connecting in my head, I think you do absolutely have the right to hire any individual, including Russian serial killers.
    Even if it can be proven that to do so places your fellows in physical danger? If so, how is this any different from me producing large clouds of cyanide that waft across my yard and into that of my neighbors?

    You do not have the right, though, to hire Russian serial killers with the intent they will kill more people.
    How does good intention mitigate the reality of murder? If I run willy nilly with a pair of scissors, trip, and stab you through the heart and you die, are you any less dead because I did do unintentionally v. having done so with malevolence of intention? If I kidnap you, tie you up, and bleed you with leeches because I absolutely, firmly, and honestly believe you are possessed of evil humors and seek only to save your life, am I any less guilty of kidnapping, perhaps murder, than if I did so with the expressed intention of bringing you to unjust harm?

    In my book, intention counts for absolutely nothing. It is the excusing of the outrageous because of the good intentions of the criminals acting that has largely gotten us into the world of eye-ball deep $#@! in which we now find ourselves.

    At that point you are a party to the murderous scheme.
    So then what you are saying is that so long as my intentions are honorable, the fruits of my actions are essentially meaningless. You may not have meant this, but it is the inescapable logic you have expressed. Are you sure this is what you mean, because I do not accept this in any measure whatsoever. To accept the least epsilon of this is to accept in principle any degree of it because bright and non-arbitrary lines cannot be drawn in that sand.

    Short of that, one, as an employer you wouldn't necessarily know they are killers,
    Do not alter the parameters. I specifically stated that one is knowingly and purposefully hiring serial killers. You have said that yes, I hold that right. I must strongly disagree.

    and two, even if you know about the individuals past (and we have already discluded the knowledge of further murdering) the only interest you have in that individual is in their labor.
    That may be your only interest, but it is not your only responsibility.

    What they do on their free time is of their own doing, and their own responsibility.
    That is not categorically true. If you bring such men into the nation knowing they are dangerous and cannot be trusted, you bear responsibility for the results of your choices.

    Also a factor, the individual who hires these killers with the knowledge of their past takes risk in hiring them, for they may spend the money transporting these individuals from Germany to America, helping them to survive in the short term, and then training them to employ them, only to wake and find them all in jail awaiting punishment for their former crimes.
    While true, that issue is completely orthogonal to that of one's right to knowingly import such people into the land. The one has nothing to do with the other, perforce.

    What I mean is that, if you look at the world for the last century or so, it is the European 'Christian' nations that have been meddling and warring in the 'Muslim' nations.
    As stated, this is arguable. However, even if we accept it on its face as pure truth, compare that 100 years with the 1300 years of Muslim aggression against the "infidels". The only reason the Muslims did not do far more damage than they did and that Europe was in fact spared the fate of being forced into Islam was that Genghis Khan deeply trimmed their numbers after they earned his wrath after having had either two or three of his envoys slain by Muslims. That REALLY pissed him off and the Khan nearly succeeded in achieving genocidal victory. His failure became the world's loss for which we now suffer.

    Whom [sic] at this point is bringing the fight to who [sic]?
    In the broader context, it is not readily identifiable. I can speak only for myself. There are those whose intent it is to bring the fight to me. I will deal with it as I choose if and when the time comes.

    You say that you would slay every last one (collectivist) if they were the ones to bring to fight to you,
    That I would slay every man intending upon enslaving or killing me renders me a collectivist? OK, you will have to explain that one to me. If circumstance required that I slay one million people in order to protect that which is rightly mine, I would kill them to the man without compunction, hesitation, or the least shred of regret. To judge this as anything other than fully just is to imply that someone, somewhere, holds a claim to my life and other property that is superior to my own. It directly implies that my rights diminish in the face of the demands of others as the volume of people making such demands grows. This flies in the face of all reason with respect to the definition of rights. It implies that rights are additive, which in turn assassinates the very notion of a "right", rendering it null and void as such in favor of arbitrary demands made in numbers.

    but tarnish those that wish to slay every last one of us (collectivist) for bringing the fight to them.
    I have brought no fight to them. If they wish to go head to head with the various military forces of NATO and the United States, have at it. That is between the parties in question. I have had nothing to do with the foreign policy decisions of the so-called "west". I would further point out that while our foreign policy has in many ways been questionable, the resource agreements between parties regarding petroleum may in fact be valid and justly defensible. Back when the men of western companies secured certain resource rights to oils in the ground. The local "authorities" were happy to sell them. They were little more than camel-humping sand-fleas who had neither the capacity nor the interest in such things. Having entered into those arrangements, they were equally to blame for the outcomes against which they now so bitterly complain. I would also point out that this is a great example of how one generation cannot justly oblige as yet nonexistent generations to be bound by the stipulations of contracts into which they were given no choice in terms of becoming parties thereto.

    IOW, there is plenty of blame to go around. The sand-fleas of yore entered willy nilly, or tyrannically, into agreements to which their posterity has been held obliged. That is not on US. That is on their own ancestors, who are well known to history to have been savage tyrants and the respecters of no man save he who is strong and might slay them were they to get any cute ideas. The rest are essentially chattel in the eyes of such people.

    All that aside, I reiterate that I have had no hand in these affairs and share in none of the blame. Therefore, the Muslims have no just complaint against me and any war they bring, they do so without justice.

    Finally, your assumption that the Muslim agenda is driven by the perception of injustice against them. This is at best only partly true, and a very small part at that. The fundamentalist Muslim agenda is to impose Islam upon the entire world regardless of the state of welcome it may enjoy. Have you ever read Qur'an? I've read two different interpretations, and the call to conquer is clear as a bell. There is no hiding it or explaining it away. If you are not Muslim, you are either to be killed or rendered a slave. This is the central pillar of Islam. The praxeological implications of this are unequivocal and inescapable: if you are a "true" Muslim, you will convert, enslave, or murder the kaffirs. It is as plain and as simple as that. This is, therefore, a world-view to which one must either surrender, must be contained, or must be wiped from the earth. There is no peaceful coexistence with Islam. If such coexistence is evident, then you are not dealing with Muslims, but rather those who label themselves as such but fail to practice the full measure of the commandments therein.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    We agree fully, especially on the bold text.

    In theory, yes. In practice it has not worked out this way. That, of course, must be taken in the context of the fact that our markets are not free and many of the nations from which such people immigrate are dangerous $#@! holes. Welfare state conditions must also be taken into account.
    As we agreed above the state’s intervention into the free market, which includes the welfare state, is to the greatest extent responsible for shaping the world today, including where people reside. This point cannot be understated! Not because ‘the state’s interventionism into immigration has caused huge problems’ is a reason for free-market-unrestricted immigration, but because arguments saying ‘look at what is happening today’ is not a reason against free-market-unrestricted immigration. And this is an all to common argument made by those wishing to restrict immigration, as you have many time below.

    But even in a perfect free market I doubt things would work out this way a often as theory would have us believe. People are often not that simple in terms of the motives that drive them to act.
    ‘Doubt’ is not a significant enough reason to restrict an individual’s freedom. Doubting the ability of the ultimate respect for individual liberty to provide the best solutions is why we are where we are.
    It is a valid concern. Look no further than Europe to bear first-hand witness to the implosion of ancient cultures in a matter of a few decades due to the mass influx of those whose fundamental world views are not only different from that of the host nation, but violently incompatible. Successful immigration for Germany must perforce mean that as a statistical gestalt the immigrant population must wish, intend, and act to become Germans, rather than to turn Germans into them. The latter is cultural imperialism of the first order.
    Here is one of those examples I denoted above. The warfare and welfare state is largely responsible for the outcomes we are seeing.

    Not so fast. Firstly, a man like George Soros is well capable of making such things happen due to his position of market power. Now, if you speak of the average businessman, I would agree.
    Now here I will agree with you. If an individual such as Soros is just shipping people in, knowing they have no means to get home, no prospects of gainful employment to sustain themselves, leaving them with the option to starve or steal, and the individuals he is shipping are aware of this, then yes he should be stopped. But that is for bleeding-heart fehgy reasons. The principled thing to do would be to let them starve themselves or punish them for theft. Soros would not violate anyone’s rights in this scenario, therefore he would be within his right to do so. Luckily it is very unlikely to happen in free-market immigration.

    But the reality has been that governments have been doing the do, resulting in the piecemeal destruction of nations to which we are all now bearing witness.
    Agreed.

    As to whether men like Soros or governments would exist with respect to the powers wielded in a true free market, I suppose not. Otherwise, the market would by definition fail to be free. It is all well and fun to speculate in the vacuum of pure theory, but at some point the realities of application in the world need to be addressed.
    Yes, I do not think that encouraging or discouraging immigration is a task for the state. I have no problem assuming that individual’s could gain riches comparable to Soros in a free-market. That doesn’t lead to the conclusion though that they are going to act erratically, or aim to harm other individual’s rights.
    This may well prove the case, if ever we institute actual free markets, meaning there would be no welfare state to attract the parasites. But I would contend that immigration quotas might still be a practical necessity in order to prevent the dissolution of the host culture.
    The only thing the state should be interested in is the preservation of property rights and punishment of violators. So long as that is the case then, may the best man win.

    It is one thing to augment the prevalent culture with elements of others over the course of generations. It is a very different issue altogether to have what amounts to a foreign invasion come and thoroughly disrupt that which had been the established civilization.
    Is this a common occurrence in free-market immigration? Foreign invasions? I mean, if they manage to do it without violating anyone’s property rights why should we seek to stop them? What right do you have to stop them?

    In practical reality, you are probably right. However, there are countless examples of people engaging in various behaviors for the purposes of disrupting the rightful choices of those around them. Sometimes it is the result of bitter resentment for any of a million and one reasons... mommy didn't love junior enough or failed to potty-train him properly. The reasons and excuses are as numbered as the grasses.

    I would add that all this presupposes the rationality of the immigrant mindset.
    The decision to immigrate is quite a conscious one. If there is no nanny-state at your destination it is made with the knowledge the individual is going to sink or swim. Why should we suppose the immigrants are actually coming?

    In the case of the Muslims, this is far from the case. Once again witness what is happening in Europe. Muslims enter France en masse and demand France adopt sharia law and so forth. Is it your contention that in a free market reality this would not happen?
    Yes. What you are pointing out is the effect of the state. IMO your understanding of what immigration is is largely based off of what immigration is when directed by the state.

    Are you perhaps saying that the Muslims are within their rights to impose their culture upon the indigenous people of France; to destroy the extant culture therein?
    If imposing their culture means violating another individual’s rights, then of course not. If it means they preached the ‘wonders of their culture’ and the French individual's decided they liked the Muslim culture better, then of course they do.

    There is a big difference between immigrants seeking life in France who wish to become French and those seeking to force France to become them.
    Assimilation shouldn’t be a concern, only respect for property rights.

    Even if it can be proven that to do so places your fellows in physical danger? If so, how is this any different from me producing large clouds of cyanide that waft across my yard and into that of my neighbors?
    If it can be proven that to do so places your fellows in physical danger then it is a plot. How far do you extend this principle? Is the landlord who rents to a person who has stolen in the past responsible if the tenant steals from his neighbors? How about the parents that gave birth to the child? If they hadn’t given birth to the child the individual would not have existed to commit the crime in the first place. Maybe it is really them who is responsible.

    How does good intention mitigate the reality of murder? If I run willy nilly with a pair of scissors, trip, and stab you through the heart and you die, are you any less dead because I did do unintentionally v. having done so with malevolence of intention? If I kidnap you, tie you up, and bleed you with leeches because I absolutely, firmly, and honestly believe you are possessed of evil humors and seek only to save your life, am I any less guilty of kidnapping, perhaps murder, than if I did so with the expressed intention of bringing you to unjust harm?
    How does hiring someone make you responsible for their actions?
    In my book, intention counts for absolutely nothing. It is the excusing of the outrageous because of the good intentions of the criminals acting that has largely gotten us into the world of eye-ball deep $#@! in which we now find ourselves.
    Agreed. So you should probably stop advocating for the state to do X, with your good intentions. What makes you different from any of them at this point?

    So then what you are saying is that so long as my intentions are honorable, the fruits of my actions are essentially meaningless. You may not have meant this, but it is the inescapable logic you have expressed. Are you sure this is what you mean, because I do not accept this in any measure whatsoever. To accept the least epsilon of this is to accept in principle any degree of it because bright and non-arbitrary lines cannot be drawn in that sand.
    Yes, those damn parents, they wanted to do the honourable thing and have a child, and the fruits of them having a child lead to the crime.


    That may be your only interest, but it is not your only responsibility.
    So employers are responsible for their employees actions? What are these responsibilities the state ought to burden an employer with for hiring an individual?

    That is not categorically true. If you bring such men into the nation knowing they are dangerous and cannot be trusted, you bear responsibility for the results of your choices.
    All individuals are dangerous, and no individual can be trusted. Obviously parents fault, their choice to have the kid.

    As stated, this is arguable. However, even if we accept it on its face as pure truth, compare that 100 years with the 1300 years of Muslim aggression against the "infidels". The only reason the Muslims did not do far more damage than they did and that Europe was in fact spared the fate of being forced into Islam was that Genghis Khan deeply trimmed their numbers after they earned his wrath after having had either two or three of his envoys slain by Muslims. That REALLY pissed him off and the Khan nearly succeeded in achieving genocidal victory. His failure became the world's loss for which we now suffer.
    Then make the argument.

    In the broader context, it is not readily identifiable. I can speak only for myself. There are those whose intent it is to bring the fight to me. I will deal with it as I choose if and when the time comes.
    I really doubt they know who you are.
    That I would slay every man intending upon enslaving or killing me renders me a collectivist? OK, you will have to explain that one to me. If circumstance required that I slay one million people in order to protect that which is rightly mine, I would kill them to the man without compunction, hesitation, or the least shred of regret. To judge this as anything other than fully just is to imply that someone, somewhere, holds a claim to my life and other property that is superior to my own. It directly implies that my rights diminish in the face of the demands of others as the volume of people making such demands grows. This flies in the face of all reason with respect to the definition of rights. It implies that rights are additive, which in turn assassinates the very notion of a "right", rendering it null and void as such in favor of arbitrary demands made in numbers.
    Yawn…. My apologies if I misunderstood you. It seemed as you were saying you would kill all Muslims, not just those that are aggressing on individual rights.

    I have brought no fight to them. If they wish to go head to head with the various military forces of NATO and the United States, have at it. That is between the parties in question. I have had nothing to do with the foreign policy decisions of the so-called "west". I would further point out that while our foreign policy has in many ways been questionable, the resource agreements between parties regarding petroleum may in fact be valid and justly defensible. Back when the men of western companies secured certain resource rights to oils in the ground. The local "authorities" were happy to sell them. They were little more than camel-humping sand-fleas who had neither the capacity nor the interest in such things. Having entered into those arrangements, they were equally to blame for the outcomes against which they now so bitterly complain. I would also point out that this is a great example of how one generation cannot justly oblige as yet nonexistent generations to be bound by the stipulations of contracts into which they were given no choice in terms of becoming parties thereto.
    Hence: (collectivist) in the comment you were responding to.

    IOW, there is plenty of blame to go around. The sand-fleas of yore entered willy nilly, or tyrannically, into agreements to which their posterity has been held obliged. That is not on US. That is on their own ancestors, who are well known to history to have been savage tyrants and the respecters of no man save he who is strong and might slay them were they to get any cute ideas. The rest are essentially chattel in the eyes of such people.

    All that aside, I reiterate that I have had no hand in these affairs and share in none of the blame. Therefore, the Muslims have no just complaint against me and any war they bring, they do so without justice.

    Finally, your assumption that the Muslim agenda is driven by the perception of injustice against them. This is at best only partly true, and a very small part at that. The fundamentalist Muslim agenda is to impose Islam upon the entire world regardless of the state of welcome it may enjoy. Have you ever read Qur'an? I've read two different interpretations, and the call to conquer is clear as a bell. There is no hiding it or explaining it away. If you are not Muslim, you are either to be killed or rendered a slave. This is the central pillar of Islam. The praxeological implications of this are unequivocal and inescapable: if you are a "true" Muslim, you will convert, enslave, or murder the kaffirs. It is as plain and as simple as that. This is, therefore, a world-view to which one must either surrender, must be contained, or must be wiped from the earth. There is no peaceful coexistence with Islam. If such coexistence is evident, then you are not dealing with Muslims, but rather those who label themselves as such but fail to practice the full measure of the commandments therein.
    Cool story, bro. I’d invite you to have a discussion on the matter but at this point I have so little faith you can stay on topic or focus on reality rather than your imagination I am quite assured it would get nowhere.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    ...
    Methinks the source of your chafe with my positions is that I am speaking from the positive POV whereas you speak normatively. Nothing you wrote is particularly disagreeable, normative-wise. But the real world is what it is, and in order to get to what I believe would be OUR normative ideal would take a goodly amount of time. Why? Because there are people out there who wish our destruction. As I believe you agree, we cannot have open borders AND a welfare state. It is simply not workable for anything better than short-terms, and entropy always wins that game, sooner or later.

    So the practical question, assuming the genuine desire of going from what we have to what we say we want, is how does the world transition from what it is to what it could be? Can it even be done, or can the ideal only be approximated? Can the enemies of freedom be whittled down to so insignificant a minority that the few weekly bombings from those quarters could be readily absorbed as part of the noise we must endure in a truly free land with no real harm brought to the gestalt?

    Or is it your contention that we should simply fling open the doors yesterday, and all will be ducky?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  33. #29
    "We will take the illegal migrants from you if you will give our citizens visa-free travel in your country. Then we will make them citizens so they can go to your country legally."

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Methinks the source of your chafe with my positions is that I am speaking from the positive POV whereas you speak normatively. Nothing you wrote is particularly disagreeable, normative-wise. But the real world is what it is, and in order to get to what I believe would be OUR normative ideal would take a goodly amount of time. Why? Because there are people out there who wish our destruction. As I believe you agree, we cannot have open borders AND a welfare state. It is simply not workable for anything better than short-terms, and entropy always wins that game, sooner or later.

    So the practical question, assuming the genuine desire of going from what we have to what we say we want, is how does the world transition from what it is to what it could be? Can it even be done, or can the ideal only be approximated? Can the enemies of freedom be whittled down to so insignificant a minority that the few weekly bombings from those quarters could be readily absorbed as part of the noise we must endure in a truly free land with no real harm brought to the gestalt?

    Or is it your contention that we should simply fling open the doors yesterday, and all will be ducky?
    My position is, with mind that it is the state's actions that are causing the problems, eliminating the state's actions that attribute to these problems. Incrementally speaking, in agreement that the 'world is what it is': this includes eliminating the ability for immigrants to receive housing, food, education, healthcare, and any other welfare benefits from the state, includes eliminating the state's transportation of immigrants to and within the country, and includes elimination of the warfare state. This is probably not an exhaustive list, and I don't think it is all a function for the federal government to do; better would be to get the federal government out of education, welfare, immigration, etc, etc, and then have the state legislatures restrict immigrants from receiving taxpayer dollars. Maybe that is to 'fantasy world', and it would be better for the federal government to restrict tax dollars going to immigrants... I dunno. I think hashing this out, how to progress forward in a libertarious fashion while dealing with the problems of the day, is how the discussion should be focused. The presence of nationalist on this board really retard this discussion.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •