That's politics, folks: get socialism out, lock the door, and there it comes back, breaking the window (nice Bastiat-like image, isn't it?).
I'm speaking about Ron Paul here. For, what the hell does this mean :
"No more student's visas from terrorist nations" (http://reason.com/blog/show/124149.html) ?
What is a terrorist nation ?
I thought people think and act separately, individually. I even thought this individualism was a great part of libertarianism...
Indeed, it is. But, then, if you are a libertarian, how can you treat people according to their belonging to their People? But, wait... Do people even belong to their People? Do "People" even exist? Well, yes: if you are a socialist--or, more precisely, a national-socialist.
Paul's entire immigration plateform is inconstant with a libertarian stand, imo. Don't know how he got from consistent individualism to collectivst thinking on immigration. He ought to drop it.
You're right. In fact, I could understand the argument according to which any move from the status quo towards a less statist situation = a move in the good direction, and an improvement. But, the move we are talking about, here, is a move in the american voting minds for future elections (Ron Paul has not even a chance to get to the final race, right?).
So, the point is: why not support a real libertarian candidate? Wouldn't the benefice of the bigger effects that Pau's campaign will have be more than balanced by the spread of a better (and, as you said, clearer) message?
i.e. isn't supporting R.P. a loss for a libertarian?
So, another question: aren't there better, real libertarian candidates to support?
Most of Ron Paul's message is libertarian, and he's reaching a lot of people we wouldn't be able to reach otherwise. So, I think its a very good thing he's out there and campaigning. If he dropped the anti-immigration nonsense, he'd have a message I could completely get behind and he'd stop alienating his core support base.
As a matter of fact, you may be right: i simply do not know.
As for the core support : maybe is his immigration nonsense very profitable for him, politically speaking, even though terrible, from a lib. point of view.
Maybe that's why he gets so much more attention that a real lib. candidate would.
But, are those people the first that should be reached? -Given that they are the farthest from a lib. position.
Ron Paul is not 100% Liberterian and has quite a few statist positions. Immigration is one of them.
The issue here is degree. Ron Paul has a platform that is significantly more pro-liberty than any other candidate for either party in my life time certainly and probably you would have to look back to the founding of the country or at least into the 19th century to find one on the level of Ron Paul.
Please don't let immigration hang you up. He has so many pro-liberty stances that he is the only choice for a future of liberty and prosperity for the entire world. Here are the biggies: 1. Anti-Federal Reserve, 2. Anti-Intervention, 3. Anti-UN/IMF/WB/all super-governmental organizations, 4. Pro-Individual Trade with others in and out of the country, 5. Pro-Travel of US Citizens abroad. 6. Anti-Security State.
We should delve into Ron Paul's immigration stance more deeply as well. When he ran in 88 he said there shouldn't be any quotas on immigration, but we may be faced with an invasion if the status quo continues. Think about the way he wants to stop illegal immigration. He's against the fence and even called it offensive, he wants to get rid of the incentives. How is it fair to tax someone to give that money to someone who's breaking the law? Paul supports immigration, it's the welfare state he has a problem with, an illegal immigration is mostly an offshoot of that.
Jeremie Rostan:What is a terrorist nation ?
Nations which seem to be the disproportionate source of terrorists. When you're on a plane and you hear someone scream, "To our homeland, or we will all die!", it's usually not with an Irish brogue. Only a fool would not notice that. The guys who parked the first bomb in the bottom of the World Trade Center weren't Scandanavian. And while I'm sure somewhere there has to be a black transexual midget who is just dying to strap on a bomb belt and run into a disco somewhere, that's the general demographic of Howard Stern guests, not the one of which terrorists are made. We could out of pure principle or political correctness not notice that, but then that's a bit of a stupid thing to do. If young men from the middle east tend to want to blow up your citizens at a much higher rate than say 70 year old caucasian visiting professors of Old English literature from Oxford, you'd be a moron to treat both groups equally.
I think even though his policy is pretty statist its one that can be understandable in these times since as someone has already mentioned the welfare state is out of hand and it has to be controlled somehow. After its able to be completely taken out I'm sure his 1988 stance on immigration will be what he endorses.
xahrx:Nations which seem to be the disproportionate source of terrorists.
So, shall we ban students from Egypt? after all, that's where Mahamed Atta came from. Then what visa shall we give to the son or grandson of Hosni Mubarrak after he helps us torture suspected terrorists? What about Pakistan? (where Taleban is from, and where Osama himself is hiding) What visa shall we give to the sons and daughters of Musharaff and Bhutto when they want to study at Harvard?
After you answer these questions, here's another one: do you think the US will have better relationship with Egypt and Pakistan if we limit ourselves to be in contact with only the power elite of these countries instead of promoting private contact and trade with the people of those countries.
On top of that, think of individuals as zombies of the state is itself a very collectivist logic . . . incidentally the same logic that came to the conclusion that bombing WTC and killing thousands of innocent people in the process was somehow a way of punishing the US foreign policy.
It's impossible for a statist to be a 100% consistent individualist, even one as comparitively libertarian as Paul. He's just the best cross between the radical and the electable, for the time being. Whether you think that justifies voting for him or not is another discussion, though...
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
That was an unfortunate ad.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
So terrorist nations are "disproportionate source of terrorists" ?
But, are nations the "source" of their members? Well, no, just the reverse...
Do you know there are radical-islamic would-be terrotists with french, english, swiss, dutch, german, etc. passports?
Or maybe a nation is something else than that: maybe Paul ought to ban muslim englishmen, too, because, hey, there are much more terrorists among "english muslims" than among many other "groups" : that's statistics... "only a fool would not notice that"...
Even, with the same pseudo-argument, why not ban all muslims? For, all muslim terrorists are muslims, no? Isn't that religion a "disproportionate source of terrorists"?
Final cut: after all, just to be sure, why not ban all believers? for monotheism is a disproportionate source of terrorists: i never heard of an atheist wearing a bomb belt...
DrunknMunky - You know, everyone keeps making that argument, and I always ask why then don't you eliminate the tax supported benefits from non-citizens? Seems like a real obvious answer without harming those who are really in the U.S. to better their lives through hard work.
Jeremie Rostan: But, wait... Do people even belong to their People? Do "People" even exist? Well, yes: if you are a socialist--or, more precisely, a national-socialist.
But, wait... Do people even belong to their People? Do "People" even exist? Well, yes: if you are a socialist--or, more precisely, a national-socialist.
Quick precision: "national-socialist" does not refer to the nazi-support affair, of course, but to the fact that ALL statist socialism is a national-socialism, except for internationalists who defend the idea of One Big WorldWide State. Those socialists believe in "mankind" as a whole; all the other believe in the existence of "peoples". Libertarians (i argue) beliveve that individuals, and individuals only, exist.
I think he was playing politics on that one. I doubt that was his real position.
The question I believe was along the lines of the following: "What is a terrorist nation?" And my post answered that question. Now, perhaps you could stop assuming you know my positions when I point out, simply enough, that rhetorical BS questions like, "What is a terrorist nation?" and parallel ones like "How do you fight a war on a word?" and what not have simple, practical, and relevant answers, and that perhaps not everyone who thinks differently than anarcho capitalists is a complete moron.
Where in my post did I suggest banning them? I merely pointed out the obvious, that people of a certain ethnic background, which despite exceptions, who tend to come from certain nations, make up the bulk of terrorists. Where in my post did I suggest a policy action towards them or specifically defend RP's proposal? You know that famouns saying about the word assume which parses the word a bit?
The general point, which maybe you guys will get after you've had your asses handed to you politically for another few thousand years, is that sitting around nudging each other in the ribs and beguiling yourselves with your own wonderous rhetorical skills and trivia, is that people of considerable brain power disagree with you and their positions are not entirely without merit. The sooner you learn that and stop asking BS questions like "What is a terrorist nation?", which do nothing but cement your ideological purity with others of your ilk and vault you to the heights of the Mises Forum fame for Standing On Principle, and start actually engaging with people in the real world, you might make some progress in getting the US and the world to move towards a more individual liberty oriented way of doing things.
More to the point, RP as president would be vastly better than anyone else as president. He is not a Libertarian, he is not running as one. And while he commits the apparently unforgivable sin of being less than perfect in his application of anarcho capitalist principle to any and every possible scenario, would you rather live in his America or Clinton's? The perfect is the enemy of the good. And what amazes me is why in a place where people should be more economically oriented in though people don't seem to understand that capital, all capital including political capital, has to be created and accumulated. It doesn't just pop into existence for everyone to use and benefit from. And how you expect to accumulate that capital by forming internet cliques and amazing yourselves with how superior you are to people who disagree with you I have no idea.
Practical reality: most terrorists are of middle eastern background. Yes there are subtleties. Yes there are exceptions. The rule holds true enough that not acknowledging it is at the very least stupid, if not reckless and negligent. That fact does not translate into a set policy of banning students and/or all immigrants. It is just a reality, which I believe you asked for clarification on. Do I want all immigration from terrorist nations banned? No. But I do want more stringent standards on immigration from those countries and specifically young Muslim men from anywhere, at the very least until we can get foreign policy changed and stop pissing off young Muslim men so much that a goodly number of them seem to be willing to combust to take a few US citizens out. Until that changes I don't see it as unreasonable to let fact inform policy decisions.
Wowww... "ethnic background"... And, here we are !
In fact, you didn't answer the question at all. Take the population of a country, compare to how many terrorists have those countries passports, and... well i do not know the results, of course, but i am sure those countries are europeans, not asian, or middle-asian.
And the "ethnic background" argument (sic) is no answer, for a nation is not based on an ethnical backgound (consider the english, french, belgian, dutch, etc. populations).
Jeremie Rostan:Wowww... "ethnic background"... And, here we are !
Indeed, here we are! Amazing, but I am not the example of the perfectly pure anarcho capitalist idealist! Behold, your amazing discovery. What's you next act of massive brilliance and insight, you gonna invent the spork or something?
Of course we all know ethnicity and nationality are not perfectly aligned. But last time I went overseas it seemed people of similar colors, religions, ethnicity, etc., still tended to group together rather than mix for the most part. And anyway, reread the post as I've expanded it. Bottom line is for every hundred immigrants from Iran I don't think the percentage of Scandanavian English professors over 70 will be significant. Of course if you insist on talking about things in only absolute terms, that kind of limits the discussion.
xahrx: last time I went overseas it seemed people of similar colors, religions, ethnicity, etc., still tended to group together rather than mix for the most part.
last time I went overseas it seemed people of similar colors, religions, ethnicity, etc., still tended to group together rather than mix for the most part.
...yeah, it's not as if America ever existed
Plus, they do not "group together" : they are raised that way, and sometimes move and change, when not forbidden to.
Oh, and i accepted your relative statistical terms (even if such terms are not consistent with my individualist opinions). What about:
N. Ireland: IRA
Spain: ETA
France : Action directe, Eta, Corse,
Germany: FAR
They are not islamic groups, for sure, but we're talking about terrorist nations, right?
(Edit: i forgot Italy and its BR, but that was back in the 70's. Indeed, europeans were "communist terrorist nations", by that time...
Outside europe, there are so many. Let's say "columbia"... wow! that is a *** terrorist nation!
Jeremie Rostan:...yeah, it's not as if America ever existed
Nope, they tend to group together here too.
Jeremie Rostan:They are not islamic groups, for sure, but we're talking about terrorist nations, right?
Technically yes. However the IRA isn't trying to kill American citizens last I checked. Once more you let your ideology get in the way of recognizing a simple, practical fact: terrorists tend to be young Muslim men. So the rather simple scenario arises: You're working for US immigration and you have two people before you. One is a young Muslim man who you know is a religious and political extremist, who you know was trained in an Afgan terrorist camp, whose brother walked into an Israeli disco and exploded, and he is now waiting in the next room with smoke coming out of his pants and an odd ticking noise coming from his luggage. The other is a red headed Irish chick with six screaming kids, a BA in Finance and an invitation to work as the CFO of a well known company. Who would you pay more attention to?
Take your time on this one, it's tough I know.
xahrx,
What happened to the xahrx that was demanding practical answers, instead of rhetorics? Notice, I never even used the label "anarcho capitalist," not even to describe myself. On the issue of "banning student visa to terrorist nations," there is only one valid definition to the phrase "terrorist nations"; i.e. whose students should be categorically refused visa. (Yes, "visa" means stamp of entry pass to the USA in their passports, not the creditcard; and "passports" means exit ID document not a Microsoft.net account). If you can't even decide Eypt (where Mahamed Atta came from) and Pakistan (where Osama is hiding) fit that definiton, then you ought to see just how hopeless that policy proposal is. Propping up a vernacular meaning of the phrase in a different context is just silly . . . as silly as if someone demanded of Obama what he "change" is and some of his supporters replied everyone should know what changes are: the penny, nickel, dime and quarter token metal discs.
xahrx: Jeremie Rostan:...yeah, it's not as if America ever existed Nope, they tend to group together here too. Jeremie Rostan:They are not islamic groups, for sure, but we're talking about terrorist nations, right? Technically yes. However the IRA isn't trying to kill American citizens last I checked.
Technically yes. However the IRA isn't trying to kill American citizens last I checked.
You're not very coherent... when i talk about us immigration, you say this topic is about the definition of a "terrorist nation", and when i show you northern ireland would be one according to your definition, you say that doesn't matter for us policy...
The point is: if a us "citizen" and a non-us citizen agree on an exchange, and you want to forbid it manu militari because the non-us "belongs" to a "terrorist nation" (even though there are statistically no chance that HE is a terrorist, and HE is not responsible for what Other people having a similar passport could do), then i cannot see how you can pretend to be a libertarian and defend individual freedom and rights.
Edit: (oh, and what's that: is N.Ireland 'technically" a terrorist nation? and france too, and england, and the usa (remember mc veigh and co). So, in fact, according to you, all nations are terrorist nations...)
Jeremie Rostan:You're not very coherent... when i talk about us immigration, you say this topic is about the definition of a "terrorist nation", and when i show you northern ireland would be one according to your definition, you say that doesn't matter for us policy...
There are a great many viruses out there, but I guess instead of concentrating on only the ones that threaten humans doctors should be studying all of them by your standards? The incoherence is yours, and your refusal to admit simple, observable facts. Might Ireland qualify as a terrorist nation? Yes. But, like a virus that only attacks mice, I'm not going to worry about it unless it starts attacking US citizens. That is perfectly coherent. Not only is it coherent, it's funny to watch people, who once more are supposedly so economically oriented, use ideology to demand categorical decisions be made when an allocation of resources otherwise derrived is what makes more sense. Young Muslim men are where the threat to US citizens is coming from. As such a devout Protestant red headed chick from Ireland isn't going to be a worry of mine.
Jeremie Rostan:The point is: if a us "citizen" and a non-us citizen agree on an exchange, and you want to forbid it manu militari because the non-us "belongs" to a "terrorist nation" (even though there are statistically no chance that HE is a terrorist, and HE is not responsible for what Other people having a similar passport could do), then i cannot see how you can pretend ti be a libertarian and defend individual freedom and rights.
Perhaps reading lessons are in order here. If you would, please reread my posts where I suggested we deny all immigration from terrorist nations. Please, I wait with baited breath. That is RP's position, or so you've said. If I recall correctly he was against student visas being used by people from those nations, which is not a categorical denial of entry. The original question was "What is a terrorist nation/", which is obvious to anyone who hasn't stuffed PC nonsense in his ears and shot ideological heroin into his veins and thus enstupidated himself to the point where he can't recognize a simple fact. In fact, I think I wrote quite clearly that I was not in favor of cutting off all such immigration. So once more it seems the ridiculous level of ideological blindness of the residents of these boards has attributed to anyone who disagrees with them positions which they don't necessarily hold. The standard answer to which is to get a good grip on your shoulders and forcefully pull your head out of your ass and get a good look at the world around you before you post again.
And once more, where did I say I was a Libertarian, with an upper or lower case "l"? And where did RP say he was? Last I'd heard, he is running on the Republican ticket and has said flat out that he is a Republican. So you've pointed out that neither RP or myself are Libertarians. Congratulations. Got that spork worked out yet, yes or no?
xahrx: Might Ireland qualify as a terrorist nation? Yes. ... The original question was "What is a terrorist nation? ", which is obvious to anyone who hasn't stuffed PC nonsense in his ears and shot ideological heroin into his veins and thus enstupidated himself to the point where he can't recognize a simple fact.
Might Ireland qualify as a terrorist nation? Yes.
...
The original question was "What is a terrorist nation? ", which is obvious to anyone who hasn't stuffed PC nonsense in his ears and shot ideological heroin into his veins and thus enstupidated himself to the point where he can't recognize a simple fact.
Is THIS a simple fact? Is it a fact that "N.Ireland" is a "terrorist nation"? And Spain (ETA)? and France, etc?
It is too easy to refuse to define your terms saying "everyone knows", when you just cannot define them without silly consequences (like, all european countries being terrorist nations).
As for US immigration, R.P's idea is just ridiculous, for you only need a tourist visa to enter the usa--and this is sufficient in order to commit a terrorist attack once their.
As for ressource allocation : yes, refuse student visas to individuals from morroco, algery, tunisia, egypt, saudi arabia, yemen, pakistan, indonesia, and co. this is economically such a great idea for us people...
(By the way, RP ran for the libertarian party too, and it is his support by libertarians which was at stake, here).
Jeremie Rostan: N. Ireland: IRASpain: ETAFrance : Action directe, Eta, Corse, Germany: FARThey are not islamic groups, for sure, but we're talking about terrorist nations, right?
Your list is missing some important ones too...
The NLF in India.
The Freedomites in Canada.
Christian Identity, ARA, Alpha 66, KKK, Army of God, ELF, BLA, all American killing terrorist groups, all in the USA.
All the above groups (except ELF and BLA) consider themselves primarily christian groups.
Wikipedia has an interesting list of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States...
Terrorism in the US
And than there is the oft argued over page...
Allegations of State Terrorism Committed by the US
You're of course right. In fact, given that all countries have terrorist groups, the less terrorist nations, according to the "disproportionate rate" criterium are simply the more populated...
JimS:What happened to the xahrx that was demanding practical answers, instead of rhetorics?
I'm right here. Practical reality: terrorists of the type US citizens need to worry about tend to be young Muslim men. Practical answer: young Muslim men coming into this country need more scrutiny that other groups of people.
JimS:On the issue of "banning student visa to terrorist nations," there is only one valid definition to the phrase "terrorist nations"; i.e. whose students should be categorically refused visa. (Yes, "visa" means stamp of entry pass to the USA in their passports, not the creditcard; and "passports" means exit ID document not a Microsoft.net account). If you can't even decide Eypt (where Mahamed Atta came from) and Pakistan (where Osama is hiding) fit that definiton, then you ought to see just how hopeless that policy proposal is. Propping up a vernacular meaning of the phrase in a different context is just silly . . . as silly as if someone demanded of Obama what he "change" is and some of his supporters replied everyone should know what changes are: the penny, nickel, dime and quarter token metal discs.
I'm more than aware of what a visa is, and where did I specify which nations fall under the terrorist label? I think I've differentiated between nations that might qualify and ones that are active threats to the US. Are we forgetting to read posts before responding again? If you want to parse words and definitions until you reach some kind of philosophic bliss, be my guest. The fact of the matter is US citizens are being targetted by young Muslim men, not members of the IRA. A fool ignores this, a smart person acts upon it. Were we living in an ideal world and all property here was privately owned I don't think anyone here would have a problem with a near unilateral denial of entry to young Muslim men so long as it came about naturally and voluntarily based on experience, where no one in the US would want to be source of a invite or sponsorship for a person who ended up killing a lot of people. Yet somehow when people suggest government action based on the same criteria, it's cause for revolution. Pure nonsense.
xahrx: And once more, where did I say I was a Libertarian, with an upper or lower case "l"? And where did RP say he was? Last I'd heard, he is running on the Republican ticket and has said flat out that he is a Republican. So you've pointed out that neither RP or myself are Libertarians. Congratulations. Got that spork worked out yet, yes or no?
Then why should any of us support RP? Instead of say, any other Republican candidate? Personally, I'm glad that RP is tuning down the anti-immigration rhetoric in the lastest debate; hanging back on the issue, and describing the issue as "fundamentally an economic problem" when prompted by the host to make comment. Indeed, "illegal immigration" is an economic issue (government deficit and excessive money printing causing an unbalanced inflow of goods and labor in exchange for the outflow of the paper money), not really a security issue.
There are numerous ways to enlarge the government, a short list being proposed this campaign season includes:
(1) Various nanny state programs, the most prominent of which being national healthcare; preferred road to serfdom by the Democrats;
(2) Waging wars overseas in the name of the American emperialism; a preferred road to serfdom by practically all the other Republicans;
(3) Waging an unwinnable prohibitionist war against "illegal" immigrants in addition or in lieu of War on Drugs. This is also a road to serfdom. I'm waiting to see if Ron Paul actually believes this plank, or would inadverdently/opportunisticly get into a Falstian bargain that brings big government and the national security state through the back door.
xahrx:where did I specify which nations fall under the terrorist label? I think I've differentiated between nations that might qualify and ones that are active threats to the US.
where did I specify which nations fall under the terrorist label? I think I've differentiated between nations that might qualify and ones that are active threats to the US.
Again, 2 different questions.
/terrorist nation: you do not have to specify, that's what definitions are meant for: they are general terms. You said "disproportionate source of terrorists", and do not have to say more, but be coherent and accept that 50% of the world population belong to such a nation.
/threat on the us: Indeed, islamic terrorism is #1, by far. But this makes a lot of countries (morroco, algery, tunisia, egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, indonesia, etc., etc.). So /this question, RP's idea seems... irrealistic.
xahrx: Last I'd heard, he is running on the Republican ticket and has said flat out that he is a Republican. So you've pointed out that neither RP or myself are Libertarians. Congratulations.
Last I'd heard, he is running on the Republican ticket and has said flat out that he is a Republican. So you've pointed out that neither RP or myself are Libertarians. Congratulations.
that's a lot of "last i'd heard", "travelled", etc... but, RP ran for the libertarian party...
xahrx:Practical reality: terrorists of the type US citizens need to worry about tend to be young Muslim men. Practical answer: young Muslim men coming into this country need more scrutiny that other groups of people.
Perhaps, if you think like a dumb bureacrat or politicians hoping to get dumb votes but will probably lose more votes in reality than gaining:
(1) Muslims account for somewhere around 1/4 the word's population, so in practice it's not much narrowing at all; picking on men only helps to cut it down to 1/8, but that's still way too broad a target for reasonable allocation of resources, not to mention only workable until the next attack by muslim women. Typical government solutions that close the door after the horse has left the barn.
(2) Speaking of closing the door after the horse has left the barn, until about 1989, our dreaded bogeyman was a secular Palestinian terrorist; PLO, PFLP and ANO were all secular socialist organizations. Muslims fundamentalists were our friends fighting the commies in Afghanistan.
(3) Mahamed Atta did not wear a turban, shaved, and drank like a fish. Aside from posthumerous recognition by the cavemen club, no one really knows if Atta was even a practicing muslim; if ever asked that question by a US immigrant official, his answer probably would have been no.
There are far more effective methods to identify men like Atta without the useless feel-good over-generalizing labels: his travel history to Afghanistan, odd behaviors reported by the private sector such as trying to learn how to fly airlines without learning how to land. We do not need to use over-generalizing labels that might upset our potential friends both foreign and domestic in order to identify the odd men out like that. In fact, the lower our profile among the muslim communities, the more likely we are to get information that may help us.
So, would Egypt get the ban or not? how about Pakistan? Are you proposing a description that no nation would fit? Otherwise, give us the list, and let's see just exactly what they are. My guess is that, you know as well as I do, that it's plain illogical to have any nation on that list.
xahrx:The fact of the matter is US citizens are being targetted by young Muslim men, not members of the IRA
That's what you think now. Back in the early 1990's, the hysteria was targetted against the IRA; remember "The Patriot Game"? Had IRA not signed up for the Belfast Agreement, there would still be far more effective ways to stop IRA than stopping every Irishmen.
xahrx:Were we living in an ideal world and all property here was privately owned I don't think anyone here would have a problem with a near unilateral denial of entry to young Muslim men so long as it came about naturally and voluntarily based on experience, where no one in the US would want to be source of a invite or sponsorship for a person who ended up killing a lot of people. Yet somehow when people suggest government action based on the same criteria, it's cause for revolution
Student visa is usually not related to any invitation by the US government. Obviously, you do not understand how the visa system works. Student visas are typically issued because individuals are invited by private educational institutions; financial sponsorship by private individuals or institutions here in the US are indeed required before student visas are issued.
What's truely ironic is that, on the extremely rare occasions where the US government was involved in the invitation, often for military training programs run by the government, it's quite often that the trainee turns out to be potential terrorist or terrorist-related. that includes the mujahedin fighters trained in the US for Afghanistan, the son of Somali warlord Mahamed Aideed (the target of Black Hawk Down fiasco), and the son of Laurent Kabila (a socialist revolutionary in Congo-Zaire). Goes to show just how poor the judgement of government officials are, and you want more of their involvement in private exchanges.
JimS:Then why should any of us support RP? Instead of say, any other Republican candidate?
Why should you do anything but curl up in isolation with a copy of Human Action in one hand and your pud in the other? Because he is better than the alternatives and closer to the ideal. If you're in New York and you want to go to Florida, why should you head south? Because that's the direction you want to go in, and immediate teleportation is not an option.
JimS:(1) Various nanny state programs, the most prominent of which being national healthcare; preferred road to serfdom by the Democrats;
Which RP opposes last time I checked.
JimS:(2) Waging wars overseas in the name of the American emperialism; a preferred road to serfdom by practically all the other Republicans;
JimS:(3) Waging an unwinnable prohibitionist war against "illegal" immigrants in addition or in lieu of War on Drugs.
One out of three, two out of three in favor. Gee, I guess I do wonder why you would support him rather than Clinton, Rudy McRomney, or even Stalin. After all they are all the same...
As for the rest of your post I have no idea what Falstian means admittedly, so I can't answer. But of course the point arises: unless you want the immediate and total elimination of all government and will accept nothing less, then you must accept its continued existence and your existence under it for some time at least. Which leads one to wonder why you reject the good, lumping it in with every level of bad, in favor of the unreachable perfect.
Or more to the point, if someone has you cornered and gives you two options, a kick in the balls and a whack on the back of the hand with a ruler, you could pontificate about how it's all coersion and thus all the same, or you could take some time to consider the true, practical different between a foot to the nuts and a slap on the wrist.
JimS:Perhaps, if you think like a dumb bureacrat or politicians hoping to get dumb votes but will probably lose more votes in reality than gaining: (1) Muslims account for somewhere around 1/4 the word's population, so in practice it's not much narrowing at all; picking on men only helps to cut it down to 1/8, but that's still way too broad a target for reasonable allocation of resources, not to mention only workable until the next attack by muslim women. Typical government solutions that close the door after the horse has left the barn.
Or if you're a moron and don't understand the difference between an entire category and a pool. All Muslims need not be the target. Only the ones who try to get into this country. So unless the entire Muslim world is planning on emmigrating and showing up here some time soon, the 1/4 the world's population argument doesn't quite cut it.
JimS:(2) Speaking of closing the door after the horse has left the barn, until about 1989, our dreaded bogeyman was a secular Palestinian terrorist; PLO, PFLP and ANO were all secular socialist organizations. Muslims fundamentalists were our friends fighting the commies in Afghanistan.
Once more making assumptions about my positions. I do not nor did I ever support any foreign intervention.
JimS:(3) Mahamed Atta did not wear a turban, shaved, and drank like a fish. Aside from posthumerous recognition by the cavemen club, no one really knows if Atta was even a practicing muslim; if ever asked that question by a US immigrant official, his answer probably would have been no.
Ah, I see. Because I favor more stringent constraints on Muslim immigrants I must be one of those mouth breathing hicks who don't know dat dem der Mooslims don't always have dem towels on dar heads. Yuck yuck yuck. See previous post about parsing the word "assume."
JimS:That's what you think now. Back in the early 1990's, the hysteria was targetted against the IRA; remember "The Patriot Game"? Had IRA not signed up for the Belfast Agreement, there would still be far more effective ways to stop IRA than stopping every Irishmen.
Indeed. I should have known you got your history through the movies.
JimS:Student visa is usually not related to any invitation by the US government. Obviously, you do not understand how the visa system works. Student visas are typically issued because individuals are invited by private educational institutions; financial sponsorship by private individuals or institutions here in the US are indeed required before student visas are issued.
No sh*t sherlock. And the issuing authority is????? Harvard doesn't write out a visa and get people into the US without oversight. The government has to approve, issue the document and record it. I have to access these documents on a daily basis in my line of work because my employer employs a lot of foreign born citizens. Other institutions can be involved depending on the type of visa, the issuing authority is still the government, and the government can decide not to issue the visa for any number of reasons and no matter who signs off on it at whatever educational institution.
I was very satisfied with Ron Paul's explanation of his immigration policy today in his town hall meeting. Still not what I'd consider very libertarian but certainly not mean spirited like his ads.
" Or if you're a moron and don't understand the difference between an entire category and a pool. All Muslims need not be the target. Only the ones who try to get into this country. So unless the entire Muslim world is planning on emmigrating and showing up here some time soon, the 1/4 the world's population argument doesn't quite cut it."
Yes, we are talking about people trying to get into this country, legally through the visa programs no less, dah! The significance of 1/4 the world's population being muslim means that roughly that proportion of people seeking entry through the visa programs would be muslims, too. That's still a huge number.
You missed the point that any single one of the three bottomless pit agendas (socialist war on poverty/inequality; imperialist war overseas; prohibitionist war on "illegal" drugs or humans) will be sufficient condition for building a government of unlimited size. To the extent that a prohibitionist war is a war waged directly on the domestic inhabitants' civil liberties, it's all the more atrocious. Personally, I have spent quite a lot of resources and time in favor of RP's presidentail bid, so you don't have to lecture me on the least of evils theory. However, this is a make-or-break issue for me because any real hard domestic crackdown on illegal immigrantion will entail nationl ID's, which is a far more dangerous program than anything else that has been proposed so far; RP is against national ID's, but realisticly unless RP is just paying lip service to immigration enforcement, there is no way enforcement can be accomplished without a thorough naitonal ID system. RP's earlier proposal of revoking birthright citizenship is also far more radical than anything else that has been proposed so far. We are literally talking about disenfrachising people. History seems to indicate that if we get started on that slippery slope, it's ony a short time before another group gets its turn, and soon we'd be well on our way to totalitarianism.
It should be noted however, his explanations in today's Town Hall meeting is much more encouraging. The real question is of course, what's his short-term policy instinct before the the problem is solved (if ever) by a more vibrant economy under a smaller government. After all, we are still waiting for the fulfillment of FDR's promise of small government, which was supposed to be in place after the Great Depression emergency passed. If the short-term policy instinct is for more enforcement, then the government will never be small and the economy will never get more vibrant. Big Brother will be busy breaking down doors on prohibition raids, and breaking the domestic economy in the process. While blowing up a bridge in Iraq is expensive, and so is rebuilding the bridge, the redirection of the same resources to breaking up the economic bridge between labor and capital in this country would be far more costly.
JimS:You missed the point that any single one of the three bottomless pit agendas (socialist war on poverty/inequality; imperialist war overseas; prohibitionist war on "illegal" drugs or humans) will be sufficient condition for building a government of unlimited size.
Of course no one is talking about a bottomless pit. Once more the fanatical BS attachment to a perfect anarchist society leads you to judge any and all positions aside from that as 'socialism' or 'collectivism' or a 'bottomless pit.' Once more, to use your analogous policies, there's a difference between a legal drinking age and out and out alcohol prohibition. Just as there's a difference between saying let's mine the borders, set up gatling gun emplacements every 50 feet along land and sea borders and shoot the crap out of anyone or anything that tries to cross, and saying perhaps young Muslim men should be scrutinized more than other immigrants, even up to denying entry to the country. At least so long as the proportion of people who fly planes into buildings and strap dynamite belts on and explode in discos, trains and buses, and who are young Muslim men, stays curiously high.
JimS:RP's earlier proposal of revoking birthright citizenship is also far more radical than anything else that has been proposed so far.
Is there a particular Libertarian argument for birthright citizenship and all the benefits it comes with right now, some of which are a 'right' to other people's money?
JimS: Big Brother will be busy breaking down doors on prohibition raids, and breaking the domestic economy in the process.
True, Big Brother is raiding speak easies as we speak. Oh wait, he isn't. Hmmmmm. One might think that a middle ground is possible. Of course, no middle ground is possible with ideologues. And if no middle ground is possible, then there is no way to reach a specified goal other than instantaneously or not at all.
Middle ground is, in fact, all we have and are likely to ever have. There will never be a perfectly tyrannical state, there will never be a perfectly voluntary anarcho capitalist society. Those of us who fight to make the perpetual middle ground we inhabbit resemble more the ideal of voluntarism are 'socialists' and 'collectivists' in your view because some trade offs are seen as a practical necessity or inevitable. In my view they're a hell of a lot smarter than a bunch of ideologues who constantly *** and moan about how imperfect the world is, and never accomplish anything because when someone who does come along who will at least move our society closer to the ideal, they lambast and denegrate him and nit pick his positionsand *** and moan over how far from their perfect ideal they are. It's a very simple idea to follow: the ideal world would be anarcho capitalist. It's not happening now or any time soon. So your choice is always between degrees of compromise from that ideal. Who are you supporting in the current campaign? Anyone? Who is the Libertarian candidate? Are his views perfect and totally in line with the AC Utopia? If not how do you justify his compromises as better than RPs, especially since the LP candidate's chances of getting elected are about as substantial as a mouse's fart in a hurricane. RP has a chance. A small chance, one that could have been made larger if, instead of bitching a moaning about one or two sticking points, he got some support from the people on these boards and those like them, who it seems prefer to beguile themselves with their own ideological pureness and trivia rather than taking a real and measurable step, however small, toward a better society.
xahrx:Once more, to use your analogous policies, there's a difference between a legal drinking age and out and out alcohol prohibition.
Drinking age law hasn't exactly been a success. We have far higher rate of teenager and college binge drinking than any country where alcohol is legal and not age-limited. What's more, the drinking age law is routinely ignored by both the law enforcement and society at large. Nobody is proposing strict enforcement of existing drinking age laws: breaking down house parties, arresting parents and relatives who serve alcohol to minors. Nobody is advocating a national ID so that any time alcohol is served, the store clerk or the party hostess in a private home has to dial in the national ID number and check if the person is eligible for alcohol consumption. What little enforcement there is at the store counter has already spawned a thriving fake ID industry.
xahrx:Is there a particular Libertarian argument for birthright citizenship and all the benefits it comes with right now, some of which are a 'right' to other people's money?
You need to brush up on your libertarianism. Citizenship should not come with the "right" to other people's money. One of the big ideas of libertarianism is that the state should not grant special political advantages to any particular group of people; the "all men are created equal" idea that no one should have special feudal privilege. Personally, I don't think there should be federal citizenship at all that is not derived from state citizenship. However, so long as we have federal citizenship, everyone living in this country should have an equal chance of getting it just like the original state citizenship of "these united states" had. If we are to have any discrimination against newcomers at all, let such dintinction expire at the second generation at the latest, lest we develop a system of hereditory political privileges, which would be tantamount to feudalism. You can't build a libertarian society based on institutions of feudal political privileges. In more practical terms, advocacy of disenfranchising anyone who already has the voting right is political suicide.
xahrx:Those of us who fight to make the perpetual middle ground we inhabbit resemble more the ideal of voluntarism are 'socialists' and 'collectivists' in your view
Since when did I call voluntarism "socialist" or "collectivist"? If the actions are truely voluntary, there's nothing wrong with it at all. I routinely donate to private charities, and frankly believe that in a truely libertarian society, voluntary charities put together by prosperous and free individuals can do a much better job of taking care of the poor than our current system of tax and redistribution.
xahrx:RP has a chance. A small chance, one that could have been made larger if, instead of bitching a moaning about one or two sticking points, he got some support from the people on these boards and those like them
Perhaps you never bothered to read my earlier posts? Not only do I support RP's candidacy, I have donated money and time for his candidacy; I have even actively converted other people, people who never heard of RP, to consider and even endorse RP. The point I have been making all along is that advocacy of strong anti-immigration enforcement gets in the way of his campaign and his chance of winning what votes he can get. People with a brain screwed on right will realize that law enforcement is never free and non-intrusive, therefore enforcing laws against victimless crimes is inadvisable; on top of that, the immigrant vote is automaticly in jeopardy, and many of them would have been very receptive to RP's message (after all, men and women like Mises, Hayek and Rand were all immigrants; no reason to suspect the current generation would be substantially different; people who are not enterprising do not pick up themselves and move; remember the joke about inner city delinquents who have never been ouside the six blocks from their place of birth in their whole lives?). Anti-immigrantion has been a recipe for political suicide for the Republican Party for some time: there are gazillions of issues in an election, the single-issue voters on immigration are far more likely to be those who may be hurt by anti-immigration policies than those who might benefit from enforcement. Besides, there are several other republican candidates on the bandwagon already; if a voter wants an "efficient" fascist state to enforce political privileges, Ron Paul can't realisticly get the vote anyway. What's more, I'm not even advocating RP coming out advocating the abolishment of state (and consequently its borders); all he needs to do is keep mum and ambiguous on the issue. Focus on the issues that people can agree with on the message of liberty and freedom; stay away from the issues that are essentially the use of government power to rip somebody off, because the use of government power is inevitably divisive.
What a day. Was immigration a red flag?