Originally Posted by Cabal
So why import more serfs who do not understand nor support reducing the state?
Why should New Hampshire allow Massachusetts liberals who don't agree with reducing government?
Not the question, Americans have the right to travel with the nation, no one has the right to immigrate to the United States but nothing.
If you intentionally misconstrue the argument, it is no wonder that you can't take it seriously.
Why not try getting the argument correct and considering that idea, instead?
There is no proposal to "place sole and exclusive authority to employ violence". It is very specifically "placing sole and exclusive authority to employ violence" for the well-defined and sharply limited set of responsibilities for which there is no better alternative than to have a state.
When you leave out that last part it completely changes the character of the argument, and of course becomes advocacy of open-ended use of the monopoly on violence for any purpose - an advocacy completely at odds with libertarianism.
It's not an optional part of the argument - it is absolutely essential to the nature of what libertarianism is, and the very thing that differentiates libertarianism from other philosophies of government.
Who said anything about importing anyone?
How is encouraging State violence and the State's claim to property rights going to reduce the State, exactly?
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
Stop making sense, Cabal.
There is no spoon.
Open borders are ideal if you're a globalist cuck.
But if you're a nationalist, a category which most people in the United States fall under, they're an anathema.
How is importing tens of millions of welfare voters going to do that?
Careful loving your nation, culture, Liberty, and people is "racist"!. (sarcasm)
If people here think open borders are a good ideas, why do they not the walls and doors off their homes?
We've already been through this, but you are simply not sophisticated enough to make a consistent argument. Are people in Europe less free than Americans? Is a libertarian in Canada less free than a Marxist American?
You see, you don't have a philosophy of rights that makes freedom natural to men. You propose rights that are granted by the state. This alone should render you a laughingstock on this board, but sadly this board is bereft of real libertarians nowadays.
No, you keep making that statement as you are not capable of making an a point. Yes they are less free, they do not have protected right to speak freely, can and are arrested for speaking their mind, they can not keep and bare arms without a ever growing number of hoops to jump through will the Arab/African hordes flood their nation and smuggling in AK, RPG, and sheer numbers of persons as to change the entire make up of their nations and destroying their culture.
No, I do have a philosophy of rights namely the right of self preservation, open borders and mass immigration harmful to that and all other rights so we are going to prevent it from happening.
You moralist/cultural relativist fail to understand the some cultures/peoples/ can not, and will never understand and value freedom, that does do not will be keep out as do protect Liberty and those that value it.
People like you who would fall on your sword rather then swing it at the enemy are a joke.
Again, who said anything about importing anyone?
So far, you haven't been able to adequately respond to anything, particularly where your advocacy of State violence and State property rights is concerned. Are you going to reconcile these things at all, or are you just an unapologetic statist?
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
You were aware when people immigrate they tend to you know, move to another nation?
Once again you have not given any ideas so until you do you have less then no right to call out anyone for their ideas.
Can they be reconciled?
Do you see the state having any role in society? Yes or no? If no then you are an anarchist.
But, then again, you've already stated that it is your wish that our country falls.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
^^^
Some people are more free than others, and people have rights because a government declares it so.
You are a Marxist.
This is the wrong website for you.
Some people want to see progress toward actual liberty, regardless of the consequences to the state. Others want what's best for the state, and hope some of your rights are left afterwards. Whatever floats your boat.
So what abo
What about the millions of people that would flood in and vote to recreate the welfare state after we just abolished it?
Did we always have a welfare state? No, we go it after we let in a bunch of Eastern Europeans, most of which were supportive of redistribution of wealth, odd is it not? Its like they change the culture/political nature of the nation by being in it?
Why that is what happened.
No, you are a person that can not understand self interest and how it is illogical to work against your own, mass immigration is against our interests as it imports tens of millions of people that will support leftist ideals/politics and will reshape our demographics as to insure we never have any real power.
If you can not understand this it is your problem and all the name call and cries of "racist" or "Marxist" does not change it.
Cucknservativism and Libertardism are done, if Liberty is to survival we will restore sanity, and we are not going to do i nicely as doing things nicely got us into the situation that we are in.
When has anarchy led to Liberty? How did that work out well in any nation since oh I do not know..Rome? The French Revolution, Spain, Russia, China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, How is Liberty in the middle East?
What's the difference? If we have the right to cross state lines, why should national borders be treated any differently?
None of those are examples of anarchy. All of them followed your left-wing closed border policies.
Why do you say "our interests," as if my interests have to be the same as yours?
How about you pursue what you think your interests are, and you don't interfere with me pursuing what I think my interests are. If I want to hire a so-called illegal immigrant to work for me, you have no right to get involved in any way.
It occurs to me that you are somewhat new here, and to have a better understanding of your argument, I'd like to know how you define "liberty".
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Those are states within a nation. Because different nations of different people, with different cultures and different political values and some are just superiority to others, those that are superiority should not be brought down by those that are inferior.
Not all people, ideals, values, and politics are conducive to Liberty.
It's ironic that a xenophobe has taken as his screen name a swarthy-skinned people that invaded a fair-skinned one.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
So does Switzerland, yet a peaceful nation. You understand leftist are for open border as they can import future welfare voters, collapse the system and reboot with millions of voters with no loyalty to the nation, culture, and people right?
Do you value having a say? Do you value not having your wealth/property stolen at a faster and faster right?
Do you value not being a made a minority in your own nation, your culture displace, subverted or destroyed?
Do you value having self determination over your future/nation, culture, etc?
Do you value not being stripped of the few rights/freedoms you have left?
Seeing how they are using roads, hospitals, services that they and their kids use that we,I pay for as do most Americans, we do get a say, and we say no way.
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
The people in some states are less conducive to liberty than people from other states. Therefore, travel must be restricted, and people must be deported.
Again, who said anything about importing anyone?
This is the first time you've made such a criticism of me in this exchange. "Once again" doesn't apply. You're not the greatest with words, and their meaning, are you?
Also, I have every right to call you out on your flagrant promotion of State violence and State property rights. What do you know about rights, anyway? You think the State has property rights, and the right to initiate violence. Your understanding of rights is clearly, and unfortunately quite lacking.
Of course the State has no legitimate role in society. The only way the State could ever conceivably have a legitimate role in society is when it has achieved universal, unanimous consent from those it would mean to govern.
So what if I'm an anarchist? That doesn't make your promotion of State violence and property rights any more compatible with liberty.
Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. - M. Rothbard
No. Open borders is a libertarian position. Leftists have always been for closed borders.
Over what other people do with their own property? No. I have no right to have a say in that. And they don't have a right to have a say over what I do with mine.
Yes. That's why I oppose laws that entail the state effectively taking over my property by telling me who I may or may not allow onto it.
No. Not one bit. I am an individual, just like you are. And the individual will always be a minority in any nation.
How? The fact that someone else wants to eat a taco doesn't keep me from eating a hamburger. My culture will survive for as long as I choose to observe it. So will yours. You need to disabuse yourself of this left-wing victim mentality you have.
Yes. Ergo, the state must not be permitted to regulate culture.
Yes. That's why I oppose your continual insistence on stripping me of these rights.
No we don't. You might. But we don't. You worry about yourself and leave the rest of us alone.
Illegal immigrants pay for those services just as much as natural born citizens do. Some of them don't. And some citizens don't (you in particular I'm guessing). None of those things should be paid for by taxes. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.
Last edited by erowe1; 01-05-2016 at 11:20 AM.
No?
You just said:
1. some people are more free than others
2. people get rights from government
You are a MARXIST. Those are MARXIST ideas. You do not, in any way, support liberty or freedom.
You are one of those useless numbskulls who globs on to state-generated slogans, never understanding your own slavery.
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us