Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

on voting

rated by 0 users
This post has 146 Replies | 16 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 141
Points 3,420
katja328 Posted: Mon, Jun 23 2008 10:01 PM

considering all of the offered options for the november election are horrible I am considering not voting at all. I just don't see who I could possibly vote for. Does anybody even read the write ins?

Am I, by not voting, throwing away my right to vote or am I sending a signal that I am really not happy with what's going on?

What are your plans for November?

 

Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 45
Points 810
DW89 replied on Mon, Jun 23 2008 10:25 PM

If I'm not mistaken, in most states a certain number of signatures have to be submitted and approved by the state before any write-in votes are counted for someone. I'm not sure who will receive that signal if you don't vote. Who's going to care? Especially given the low voter turnout in this country, you'd think "someone" would have taken notice by now. Then again, the statistical difference that a single vote makes in a national election is so small that the difference between voting and not voting is negligible. I don't think that I'll be voting this November.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 901
Points 15,900
wombatron replied on Mon, Jun 23 2008 10:31 PM

I am really not sure what I'm going to do.  I was originally planning on voting for or writing in Ron Paul, but his move right-ward in regards to immigration make me doubtful.  My second choice was the Libertarian candidate... who turned out to be Bob Barr.  Hell no.  Nader's consistently anti-war, but he is awful in economics and won't really gain any attention with St. Obama running.

I'll probably just write in my cat Leonidas Smile

 

Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

What move rightward?  He's the only candidate with a quasi-libertarian position on immigration.  In fact, I dare say he's better on immigration than any other candidate.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 15,105

My new theory is to vote for whatever third party candiate that 'steals' the Dem's vote just to irrate them.

Then they do all sorts of fun things like file 20+ harrassment lawsuits and misuse state cops to keep them out of presidential debates that they were invited to by independent media outlets and possed bona fide tickets to attend.

Good clean fun.

Or Plan A which is not to encourage them in the hopes they just go away.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930
kingmonkey replied on Mon, Jun 23 2008 11:46 PM

I think I'll end up voting for Bob Barr just because.  If he can really get the word out he MIGHT get around 400,000 votes so one more isn't really going to change anything.  I'd rather cut off my testicles, smoke dry them and wear them as a necklace than vote for McCain or Obama.

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Mon, Jun 23 2008 11:57 PM

In my opinion, you should vote for a third party--and encourage others to do likewise--because if we ever get a third party in office, it would send a dramatic message to the Republicans and Democrats that their days of running the show are over.  I can dream, can't I?

They say that third parties are "wasting your vote," but I think you are wasting you vote if you choose either the two main candidates.  Plus, with lower voter turnout, your and your friends' votes have greater weight.

wombatron:

 

I'll probably just write in my cat Leonidas Smile

 

I love cats!

 

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 12:00 AM

kingmonkey:

I think I'll end up voting for Bob Barr just because.  If he can really get the word out he MIGHT get around 400,000 votes so one more isn't really going to change anything.  I'd rather cut off my testicles, smoke dry them and wear them as a necklace than vote for McCain or Obama.

 

If the next President had an L after his name, even if he never did anything to advance libertarianism, it would send a message to the politicians and analysts that the forces of Liberty cannot be ignored.

Ohh, I can dream, can't I?

 

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

liberty student:

What move rightward?  He's the only candidate with a quasi-libertarian position on immigration.  In fact, I dare say he's better on immigration than any other candidate.

 

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930
kingmonkey replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 12:19 AM

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, even the immigration issue.  If we didn't have the welfare state we do then I would certainly take issue with "securing our borders."  But as long as we continue to give welfare to these people and take more money out of my pocket I don't have a problem with "securing our borders."

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

kingmonkey:

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, even the immigration issue.  If we didn't have the welfare state we do then I would certainly take issue with "securing our borders."  But as long as we continue to give welfare to these people and take more money out of my pocket I don't have a problem with "securing our borders."

 

 

Right, the logic of interventionism. Because intervention X has created problems, we thefore must support intervention Y as a solution. Let's just ignore Mises's criticism of interventionism in this particular case.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 12:33 AM

kingmonkey:

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, even the immigration issue.  If we didn't have the welfare state we do then I would certainly take issue with "securing our borders."  But as long as we continue to give welfare to these people and take more money out of my pocket I don't have a problem with "securing our borders."

 

"Securing out borders" is a very unlibertarian stance, because it tramples on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of movement, and free trade--plus it is largely part of the war on drugs, another unlibertarian proposition.  How could any libertarian support incarcerating or shooting at third-world peoples for the crime of stepping over an arbitrary line defined by the state in search of a better life?

 

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

See, ama gi? It's not all about preaching to the choir here. There's plenty of internal conflict to flesh out.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930
kingmonkey replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 12:51 AM

ama gi:

borders" is a very unlibertarian stance, because it tramples on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of movement, and free trade--plus it is largely part of the war on drugs, another unlibertarian proposition.  How could any libertarian support incarcerating or shooting at third-world peoples for the crime of stepping over an arbitrary line defined by the state in search of a better life?

Because right now these sons of b*tches are costing ME money every day.  I have to pay for their kids health care, food, schooling and much, much more.  They are violating my rights by sucking off of me and everyone else.  Get rid of the welfare state and my opinion will change.  Until then keep them out or at least stop giving them welfare.  It's bad enough I have to have money stolen from me every couple of weeks to pay for the losers and lazy who refuse to do for themselves that were born here.  I don't think I should have to support the entire third world too.

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

kingmonkey:

ama gi:

borders" is a very unlibertarian stance, because it tramples on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of movement, and free trade--plus it is largely part of the war on drugs, another unlibertarian proposition.  How could any libertarian support incarcerating or shooting at third-world peoples for the crime of stepping over an arbitrary line defined by the state in search of a better life?

Because right now these sons of b*tches are costing ME money every day.  I have to pay for their kids health care, food, schooling and much, much more.  They are violating my rights by sucking off of me and everyone else.  Get rid of the welfare state and my opinion will change.  Until then keep them out or at least stop giving them welfare.  It's bad enough I have to have money stolen from me every couple of weeks to pay for the losers and lazy who refuse to do for themselves that were born here.  I don't think I should have to support the entire third world too.

 

You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal". 

I respect that you're tolerating difficult circumstances, but I have to disagree with your anger and position here.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930

Nitroadict:

You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal". 

I respect that you tolerating difficult circumstances, but I have to disagree with your anger and position here.

My anger and postion isn't directed towards immigrants.  I honestly don't really care that much about them (as a side note I have several good friends that are "illegal" immigrants).  My anger is more pointed towards the welfare state I am forced to support with my hard earned dollars and to the millions of people who suck off the government tit, including the millions upon millions of "illegal" aliens.  Until the welfare state is done away with I don't see why I should tolerate more people coming here only to place further burden on me, my family and the rest of the country.  The way I see it they have become aggressors against me and everyone else who pays this extortion money because the cause us all to have to pay more each year while they pay virtually nothing into this immoral welfare system.  Not just "them" exclusively but all leeches on society whether they are born here or not.

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

"The way I see it they have become aggressors against me "

The aggressor is the state, not welfare recipients. It is the state taxing you, not any immigrants. If your problem is with the welfare state, than advocate abolishing the welfare state, don't advocate further interventions elsewhere (interventionism). Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to view people NOT paying into the system as a bad thing. Shouldn't we encourage people to not pay? I also question the assumption that an illegal immigrant as such is necessarily a welfare leech. If anything, these people function more independantly from the state than most.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930

Brainpolice:

"The way I see it they have become aggressors against me "

The aggressor is the state, not welfare recipients. It is the state taxing you, not any immigrants. If your problem is with the welfare state, than advocate abolishing the welfare state, don't advocate further interventions elsewhere (interventionism). Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to view people NOT paying into the system as a bad thing. Shouldn't we encourage people to not pay? I also question the assumption that an illegal immigrant as such is necessarily a welfare leech. If anything, these people function more independantly from the state than most.

The aggressor is the person using the system which is stealing from me as well as the system that performs the theft.  It's no different than me hiring someone to steal from a neighbor for my own benefit.  They are using the State to steal money from me to buy food, clothing, education, health care, etc.  I'm fine with them coming here and working and trying to have a better life but don't suck off of me.  But that goes for everyone not just immigrants.  If their intent is to come up here to work and use our welfare system then in my opinion they have become an aggressor against me and everyone else.  They are hiring the State to steal from me and you for their benefit.  And again, get rid of welfare for them and everyone else and I don't give a crap.  So long as I'm being robbed at gun point I don't think I should have to support allowing more people in so they can further plunder me.

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

The aggressor is the person using the system which is stealing from me as well as the system that performs the theft.  It's no different than me hiring someone to steal from a neighbor for my own benefit.

It is very different because noone "hires" the state. No immigrant is actually aggressing against you by merely moving here. The act of moving here and buying a home isn't a rights violation. Using your exact same line of argumentation, one could argue that if I call the cops to pursue someone who raped my wife, I am stealing from everyone else since this is funded through taxation. Or that by driving on the public roads I am stealing from everyone. Nevermind the fact that the theft is done by the state and that as an average person existing in this society I have no choice in the matter and am not truly voluntarily patronizing anyone.

They are hiring the State to steal from me and you for their benefit. 

Again, this language is deceptive because noone actually "hires" the state for anything. The state imposes its services upon everyone. Noone "hires" the state. Everyone is essentially forced to consume the state's services in one way or another. All an illegal immigrant is doing is crossing unowned land and then buying a home from a willing seller. This in and of itself doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

Everyone, both legal citezens and illegal immigrants, have no choice but to make use of things such as the public roads. It is disingenous to speak as if we are voluntarily patronizing the state for these services. We have no choice but to use them. We are the victims, and so are the immigrants who also have no choice but to make use of some of these services.  

If their intent is to come up here to work and use our welfare system then in my opinion they have become an aggressor against me and everyone else.

I reject the assumption that this is the actual intent of most immigrants.

So long as I'm being robbed at gun point I don't think I should have to support allowing more people in so they can further plunder me.

Your proposed solution is to rob more people at gun point to fund your immigration bureaucracy and the police state apparatus necessary to try to control immigration, which of course violates rights in and of itself. You are not in a morally superior position here. You're proposing rights violations as a solution to rights violations and intervention as a solution to intervention.

This whole thing is a nothing but a silly interventionist crackdown on "free riders", or at least alleged "free riders".

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,056
Points 78,245

It is blatantly obvious that immigration control violates both rights and the necessary conditions of a free market. It cannot be reconciled with free association and property rights. It belongs in the dustbin of paleoconservative huffpuffery, not serious libertarian thought.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Brainpolice:
I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

Mary Ruwart is a lovely lady, very intelligent, but no one is ever going to take a radical libertarian seriously for the highest office in the world.

I think Paul has the rational position on immigration. First control the borders, then remove the welfare state, then look at a more laissez-faire policy.  The radical position doesn't play well with an electorate that is almost completely dumbed down.

I know the radical libertarian purists would have us remove the military, only minutes before an invasion by a foreign power, regardless if any PDAs are prepared, tested or even available, and see that as progress, but a more measured and tactical approach to problems has it's upside as well.

You and others on here who argue against politics seem to be attracted to a thread titled "voting" in an irrational manner.  And your understanding of Paul is very one-sided and regularly incorrect.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Nitroadict:
You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal".

This is another example of why radical libertarianism appeals almost exclusively to single young men.  It's easy to play games with the state with your own life.  Not so easy when you have a family that includes children to think about.  Not so easy to gamble while all of the theoreticians are on the sideline egging you on but not standing by your side.

 

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Brainpolice:

It is blatantly obvious that immigration control violates both rights and the necessary conditions of a free market. It cannot be reconciled with free association and property rights. It belongs in the dustbin of paleoconservative huffpuffery, not serious libertarian thought.

And what has serious libertarian thought ever accomplished, besides more serious libertarian thought?

If the world was all about thinking for love, for sustenance, for happiness, you guys would be happier than Cheney receiving his Haliburton dividend.

 

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

katja328:

Considering all of the offered options for the November election are horrible I am considering not voting at all. I just don't see who I could possibly vote for. Does anybody even read the write ins?
Am I, by not voting, throwing away my right to vote or am I sending a signal that I am really not happy with what's going on?
What are your plans for November?
 

I am also, for this first time in my life since turning 18 seriously considering not voting. I may for a ballot initiative but I will not show up at the poles simply to vote for someone on the ballot. There have been a few cases where people have won through a write in vote so they do technically have to count them though I am not sure what they would do if Mickey Mouse won. There are also a few people who read the results in the newspaper and think they might get a laugh by reading what someone wrote down as a write in. I am thinking about voting Mises / Rothbard this year for my presidential ticket. Even in their current non-corporeal state they would make a better team than either Obama or McCain. If someone actually reads the results and gets curious enough that person might Google those two names and discover the LvMI as a result. It is worth a shot don’t you think?

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

Byzantine:

 In 1996 I voted a Republican ticket, voted against all the increase-the-local-sales-tax-for-the-children crap, but didn't like either Clinton or Dole so I left it blank.  I read in the paper the next day that all the ballots that didn't have every hole punched got discarded.  At that point I realized that US democracy was trending toward vote-counting, not voting.  I voted for the LP's Harry Browne in 2000, and the more I read his stuff, the more I realize he was the LP's last best hope.  Ron Paul didn't have a prayer anywhere, and least of all in Georgia, so I didn't bother.  Haven't voted since 2000 and don't intend to.  Liberty-minded people need to start withdrawing from public life.

 
I feel conflicted on this issue. Very conflicted. I agree with you for the most part but I also think that in order to have any hope of convincing enough people to abandon the myth of the beneficial state we must preserve at least some measure of the quasi-freedom we now have. We need enough so that we can at least have a website like this without being thrown in jail. Voting – or at least stating a willingness to do so under certain circumstances – is, in my view, an act of self defense when performed by people who accept the NAP. Until we can get a critical mass of people on our side we must use every tool at our disposal to at least preserve the few scraps of freedom we have left. I do not enjoy hitting people but I am willing to use my fists in self defense if I must. That stated it may not make a difference whether it is Obama or McCain in the oval office in 2009. Some day there may be a clear difference between the candidates.

 

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

Byzantine:

 At this point, I'm in favor of whoever will topple the house of cards more quickly.  Maybe I'll vote for McCain.

 Back when I was a conservative, some conservative friends of mine told me they were voting for Clinton rather than Dole in 1996. Their theory was that Dole would become what people thought of as Republican if he won - a prospect they did not like. They also said that Republicans in Congress are at their best when they have a Democrat to oppose in the White House. This kind of Reminds of that: Voting for someone you hate to get a desired outcome is an interesting strategy.

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930
kingmonkey replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 12:52 PM

Brainpolice:

It is blatantly obvious that immigration control violates both rights and the necessary conditions of a free market. It cannot be reconciled with free association and property rights. It belongs in the dustbin of paleoconservative huffpuffery, not serious libertarian thought.

And that's the problem we all face when dealing with theory and reality.  In theory I support no borders and the free movement of people.  Don't misunderstand me, I am all for that.  But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services.  I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.  More immigrants consuming more social services will only give you more welfare, more socialism and more taxation.  So in theory you can be whatever you want and believe in whatever you want but in reality we are both hypocrites.  Until the problem of welfare and socialism is dealt with I cannot with a good conscience support open borders which will only lead to more plunder here at home.

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

kingmonkey:

But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services. 

Many of these people contribute far more to society than they use. Some try to avoid government funded services altogether. My pragmatic stance is that recent immigrants, especially those who are harassed by government thugs on a regular basis, are potential allies. These people fundamentally understand the nature of government. They also often come from places that have a natural distrust of the police. When a libertarian comes out against “illegal aliens” it has a great potential to alienate potential allies. Liberty has enough enemies as it is. We do not need to make more of them.
kingmonkey:

I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.

Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 239
Points 4,590
Andrew replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 1:19 PM

I'd rather vote McCain than Obama. At least with McCain, you know what he is going to do. Obama is a turncoat and probably worse than McCain on war and intervention and (trade, McCain's only libertarian like quality. 

At least we have a free traitor vs. a fair traitor

Kudos to Kucinich for saying " I've never heard of illegal people ", when asked about immigration

Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots

 

If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930

Brainpolice:

The aggressor is the person using the system which is stealing from me as well as the system that performs the theft.  It's no different than me hiring someone to steal from a neighbor for my own benefit.

It is very different because noone "hires" the state. No immigrant is actually aggressing against you by merely moving here. The act of moving here and buying a home isn't a rights violation. Using your exact same line of argumentation, one could argue that if I call the cops to pursue someone who raped my wife, I am stealing from everyone else since this is funded through taxation. Or that by driving on the public roads I am stealing from everyone. Nevermind the fact that the theft is done by the state and that as an average person existing in this society I have no choice in the matter and am not truly voluntarily patronizing anyone.

I never said they are aggressing against me or you or anyone by moving here.  They are the aggressor because they move here and then use the social welfare services.  They aren't being forced to use them and they certainly aren't paying for them therefore they have employed the State to steal from me and you and everyone else.  And I would support the idea that calling the police is an act of aggression because you are now supporting the State and their institutionalized theft scheme.  Why not?  It works for agorist.

Brainpolice:

They are hiring the State to steal from me and you for their benefit. 

Again, this language is deceptive because noone actually "hires" the state for anything. The state imposes its services upon everyone. Noone "hires" the state. Everyone is essentially forced to consume the state's services in one way or another. All an illegal immigrant is doing is crossing unowned land and then buying a home from a willing seller. This in and of itself doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

No one forces them to use welfare either.  That is how they become an aggressor -- they have taken it upon themselves to go down and file the paperwork to receive food stamps and free education and all other manner of welfare.

Brainpolice:

Everyone, both legal citezens and illegal immigrants, have no choice but to make use of things such as the public roads. It is disingenous to speak as if we are voluntarily patronizing the state for these services. We have no choice but to use them. We are the victims, and so are the immigrants who also have no choice but to make use of some of these services. 

I'm not talking about public roads.  I'm talking about the things they can voluntarily use.  I will give you this that there are certain things we are all forced to use such as police, fire services, public roads, etc.  But NO ONE is forcing these people to use Medicaid, SCHIP's, public education, food stamps, etc.  Those are all things they can freely chose to not use.  Those are the things I am railing against here.  More immigrants who sign up for these services means more money out of my pocket that could have stayed there.  But that applies to the worthless and lazy who are born here as well.  I've got no use for a person who consumes welfare services.

Brainpolice:

If their intent is to come up here to work and use our welfare system then in my opinion they have become an aggressor against me and everyone else.

I reject the assumption that this is the actual intent of most immigrants.

Yeah, some don't even plan on moving here to consume our welfare services.  Some just come here to use the health care services, go home and stick us with the bill.

Brainpolice:

So long as I'm being robbed at gun point I don't think I should have to support allowing more people in so they can further plunder me.

Your proposed solution is to rob more people at gun point to fund your immigration bureaucracy and the police state apparatus necessary to try to control immigration, which of course violates rights in and of itself. You are not in a morally superior position here. You're proposing rights violations as a solution to rights violations and intervention as a solution to intervention.

This whole thing is a nothing but a silly interventionist crackdown on "free riders", or at least alleged "free riders".

I never said I support border enforcement either.  I don't know how you can control the flow of people between the border without further aggression.  I know I DO NOT support them coming here.  I don't know how to stop them.  I do, however, support ending welfare for them.  The wonderful thing about living in a fantasy world of theory and logic is that you can say anything you want and believe however you wish.  The problem I face living in a border State is reality.  More crime, higher taxes, over crowded schools, hospitals that must charge more because of everyone (not just immigrants) who use their services and don't pay the bill, more pressure on the state budget to meet the expenses incurred with these socialist systems of welfare -- essentially I live in reality where theory comes second. 

My reality is that more immigrants means more money stolen from me.  I've said it a hundred times before:  Stop giving them and everyone else welfare and I'll support open borders and the free movement of people.

 

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services. 

Many of these people contribute far more to society than they use. Some try to avoid government funded services altogether. My pragmatic stance is that recent immigrants, especially those who are harassed by government thugs on a regular basis, are potential allies. These people fundamentally understand the nature of government. They also often come from places that have a natural distrust of the police. When a libertarian comes out against “illegal aliens” it has a great potential to alienate potential allies. Liberty has enough enemies as it is. We do not need to make more of them.

Trust me I know all about "illegal" immigrants.  I've got more than a few friends that are in that situation (from Mexico to Ireland to Thailand).  I don't need to be lectured on how immigrants "contribute" to society.  In one neighborhood I lived in which was made up of mostly "illegals" and their familes from Mexico, most of whom I was good friends with (BBQ's on Sunday, soccer games in Spanish, etc.) about half of them were using some form of welfare or another.  Most of them were on food stamps, their kids were on Medicaid and SCHIP's, etc.  Yeah, I know all about there contributions.  Cheap slave labor and higher taxes for me and you.  But let's not discount the poor white trash I'm around as well.  At least Mexicans work!

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.

Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.

I agree.  But if the government was giving away free cocaine to be paid for with my extortion dollars I could not support the idea of people moving here and receiving the free cocaine.  It's bad enough the government gives "free" cocaine to people who were born here but it's worse that they are now giving that "free" cocaine to every Tito, Juan and Julio who moves here.

Again, get rid of welfare and then I can support open borders.  I shouldn't have to pay for everyone who moves here.  It's hard enough to pay for the ones who are born here.

 

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 142
Points 1,760
Mlee replied on Tue, Jun 24 2008 1:51 PM

wombatron:

I am really not sure what I'm going to do.  I was originally planning on voting for or writing in Ron Paul, but his move right-ward in regards to immigration make me doubtful.  My second choice was the Libertarian candidate... who turned out to be Bob Barr.  Hell no.  Nader's consistently anti-war, but he is awful in economics and won't really gain any attention with St. Obama running.

I'll probably just write in my cat Leonidas Smile

 

 

 He shall rule with an Iron Paw!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

kingmonkey:

Yeah, I know all about their contributions.  Cheap slave labor and higher taxes for me and you.  But let's not discount the poor white trash I'm around as well.  At least Mexicans work!

In case you are unaware, slavery (except by the government) is illegal in this country. Working for a wage that you would not be willing to work does not equal slavery. Food prices have been increasing recently. Imagine how expensive they would be if it were not for these “illegal immigrants”.
kingmonkey:

I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.

ryanpatgray:

Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.

kingmonkey:
I agree.  But if the government was giving away free cocaine to be paid for with my extortion dollars I could not support the idea of people moving here and receiving the free cocaine.

Your assumption is that at least part of their motivation is that they can receive free goodies courtesy of a pointed gun. I have met enough recent immigrants to know that is not their motivation.
 
kingmonkey:
. . to every Tito, Juan and Julio who moves here.

This is the kind of language that has the potential to alienate people. I will not call you a bigot because I am fairly certain that you are not. However, a recent immigrant from Latin America could easily assume you are with that sort of phraseology. I am not “politically correct” by any stretch of the imagination. Far from it. But at the same time it is important to understand the power of language.

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

Byzantine:

And I too am glad that so many engineers and doctors have chosen to come here from India and China.  The ability to cull the 90th percentile from the rest of the world has contributed greatly to the US economy.

 

I work in a medical college and I know a great many such people. Some from Africa and elsewhere as well. They are almost all wonderfull people who I am proud to share a continent with.

Byzantine:
I'm guessing you have in mind immigrants from Central and South America, and you are right:  they understand that government is a spoils system because back home they weren't allowed a shot at the spoils.  But under social democracy, they can turn such things to their advantage quicker than you can say blood is thicker than water.  And so they do.

 

Not if they don't vote. Illegal immigrants cannot vote in the United States (at least not for U.S. Elections, sometimes Mexico, durring thier elections,  provides voting booths on U.S. soil for their citizens here. No joke, they sometimes do.)

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 301
Points 5,930

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

Yeah, I know all about their contributions.  Cheap slave labor and higher taxes for me and you.  But let's not discount the poor white trash I'm around as well.  At least Mexicans work!

In case you are unaware, slavery (except by the government) is illegal in this country. Working for a wage that you would not be willing to work does not equal slavery. Food prices have been increasing recently. Imagine how expensive they would be if it were not for these “illegal immigrants”.

Yes I am quite aware of that.  I was using a common phrase in our language that is used to illustrate substandard wages no matter how freely accepted.

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.

ryanpatgray:

Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.

kingmonkey:
I agree.  But if the government was giving away free cocaine to be paid for with my extortion dollars I could not support the idea of people moving here and receiving the free cocaine.

Your assumption is that at least part of their motivation is that they can receive free goodies courtesy of a pointed gun. I have met enough recent immigrants to know that is not their motivation.

It might not be the motivation for their coming here but they certainly take advantage of it once they get here.  And just so you understand I don't think ALL immigrants do that.  But there is enough of them that do to harm the rest of us.

ryanpatgray:

 
kingmonkey:
. . to every Tito, Juan and Julio who moves here.

This is the kind of language that has the potential to alienate people. I will not call you a bigot because I am fairly certain that you are not. However, a recent immigrant from Latin America could easily assume you are with that sort of phraseology. I am not “politically correct” by any stretch of the imagination. Far from it. But at the same time it is important to understand the power of language.

The language used only reflects the fact that 90% of the immigrants coming to the United States come from Central and South America.  If someone should find offense with common names in those countries I really don't care.  I take greater offense to them coming here and sucking off of welfare.

 

 

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,645

kingmonkey:

It might not be the motivation for their coming here but they certainly take advantage of it once they get here.  And just so you understand I don't think ALL immigrants do that.  But there is enough of them that do to harm the rest of us.
I have more respect for an illegal immigrant who works hard in an orange grove and collects food stamps to supplement his income than I do a native-born American who watches TV all day and collects welfare without even trying to get a job. Before we start (rhetorically) beating up on migrant workers lets work on getting some of these truly lazy people to at least try to get a job.
kingmonkey:
If someone should find offense with common names in those countries I really don't care.
I assume that you want a free society at some point in the future – preferably in both our lifetimes. Unless we take care with the manner in which we word our arguments that is not going to happen. Words mean things. I know that it is easy to get frustrated by the state of the world today but unless we are careful how we communicate our ideas it will not improve. Right now those who support true liberty are few in number and we need to persuade others. Not caring if you offend others essentially means not caring if you persuade others. If I may, I would like to recommend you listen to something. It is cheap – only $5.00 – but it has the potential to change the way you communicate and will help you persuade others that freedom is to their benefit. It is called The Essence of political Persuasion. Sometimes if I include a link these posts get delayed - so I will paste the URL as black type and you can paste it into your browser if you want to:

http://www.theadvocates.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LS&Product_Code=EPP&Category_Code=AUD

 

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

liberty student:

Nitroadict:
You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal".

This is another example of why radical libertarianism appeals almost exclusively to single young men.  It's easy to play games with the state with your own life.  Not so easy when you have a family that includes children to think about.  Not so easy to gamble while all of the theoreticians are on the sideline egging you on but not standing by your side.

 

 

Your assumption is idiotic.  I more or less said it wouldn't be easy, which can mean next to impossible for some, depending on circumstances.     

Don't give me this "think of the children & family" argument, because you are not countering an unsympathetic & cold radical libertarian whom ignores obvious problems in living ethics of radical libertarianism while trying to maintain a standard of living for oneself & others (family included).

I am sympathetic, and I while I cannot imagine what it is like to have children, I'm not foolish as to pretend it doesn't affect how one would live, especially in regards to the concflict of providing for your family vs. living your ethics, whatever they may.  As a parent, whether it's by abiding by Statism or not, you have to provide for them & be the best parent you can be.

Anything further regarding parenthood would be beyond my experience, though, so I apologize if I'm being assumptious in anyway.      
I will not pretend in thinking that I know how difficult it is, because my situation is different, but I will not point my finger at you and yell that you aren't trying hard enough;  I'm pretty sure I didn't do that in regards to kingmonkey's situation.

Your post is an example of jumping the gun a little, honestly.  The way I see it, you do the best you can, especially if you have a family that may or may not hold the same views as yours.

With regards to living ethics, a fairly good thread was started here: http://mises.org/Community/groups/apolitical_libertarianism_and_agorism/forum/t/2525.aspx

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 4 (147 items) 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS