I could care less about "suspicions of racism."
Yea, because as our past exchanges have revealed, you seem to think that any criticism of or weariness towards racism is just lefty political correctness.
It is indisputable fact that Jewish people are lobbying the US government to protect their homeland and that Arab people on the other side of the conflict have struck back.
As Ryan points out, you're making a sweeping collective generalization here. I was born of a Jewish mother myself and I oppose the Israeli state. There are also many other Jews who are critical of the Israeli state. I usually go out of my way to point out that opposition to Israel is not necessarily the same thing as anti-semitism, but you're doing nothing but reinforcing that impression here.
As the US increases its foreign interventions while continuing to import people from both sides of foreign wars, social conflict will increase.
As I already stated, characterizing illegal immigration as the government importing people is nonsensical. They're not being imported, the're being deported to the extent that the state is enforcing its own restrictive laws. Breaking the state's restrictive laws to come here is not "importation".
The US will respond by more intervention, more national security regulation, and more propaganda to obscure the fact that multicultural empires are held together by brute force.
What you're advocating is more intervention in reaction to the effects of previous interventions and no amount of obscurantism can get around that. Furthermore, you're going to have to do a lot of twisting and turning to argue that purely homogenous nation-states aren't held together by force when there are people within the territory who are perfectly willing to associate and integrate.
Byzantine: Brainpolice: What you're advocating is more intervention in reaction to the effects of previous interventions and no amount of obscurantism can get around that. Furthermore, you're going to have to do a lot of twisting and turning to argue that purely homogenous nation-states aren't held together by force when there are people within the territory who are perfectly willing to associate and integrate. I'm advocating people being left alone to associate or not associate as they please. So if the Muslims don't want your pig farm in their community, you will just have to find another community. This premise strikes at the heart of the secular US empire.
Brainpolice: What you're advocating is more intervention in reaction to the effects of previous interventions and no amount of obscurantism can get around that. Furthermore, you're going to have to do a lot of twisting and turning to argue that purely homogenous nation-states aren't held together by force when there are people within the territory who are perfectly willing to associate and integrate.
I'm advocating people being left alone to associate or not associate as they please. So if the Muslims don't want your pig farm in their community, you will just have to find another community. This premise strikes at the heart of the secular US empire.
State-imposed Immigration restrictions and uniformly legally mandatory discrimination laws are not defenses of free association. It constitutes institutional and forced segregation. Forced segregation is not a solution to forced integration. State-imposed immigration restrictionism, including going after employers and citezens who sell to immigrants or allow immigrants onto their property, amounts to forced segregation and police-backed or even paramilitary-backed protectionism.
"Secular"? The bulk of people in America are some denomination of christianity. If they're not christian, they're most likely some other religion. The co-existance of people of different religious backgrounds to any extent is not "secular". It might be "pluralistic" or "multi-religious", but not "secular". In either case, I hardly see how a bunch of mini-theocracies and forcefully segregated tribes is consistant with a free society.
Neither are civil rights laws, and guess which laws are the ones that get enforced?
Since I'm not advocating in favor of civil rights laws, this is irrelevant to the meat of the matter at hand.
This uneasy truce breaks down very quickly. For now, peace is maintained by an a-religious entity that declares, as it must, that diversity of faith, not a particular faith, is the ultimate virtue. For any sincere believer of whatever faith, this is a contradiction.
I fail to see how that logically follows from the mere co-existance of people from different religious backgrounds. The proposition that the only way to get any people whatsoever from different religious backgrounds to peacefully co-exist and cooperate is for this to imposed by a state is absurd and seems rather Hobbesian when it comes down to it. I fail to see how being of a particular religion makes it incumbent upon one to completely disassociate themselves from and refrain from all basic interactions with anyone from another religion. I fail to see how buying stuff from, selling stuff to, talking to and living in the same community with someone from another religion means that you must yield one's concept of virtue.
It is much more consistent with a free society than the US/EU/UN hegemonic model, because they will have to compete with each other for capital.
I fail to see what the US/EU/UN model has to do with what I'm talking about and advocating. It is erroneous to assume that any opposition to nationalism inevitably amounts to a defense or support for globalism. My objection is that internal to your prefered nation and by the very nature of nationalist policy, you're advocating something that violates liberty left and right. And no, theocracy and forced segregation is not consistant with a free society. What you advocate is forced segregation, theocracy and nationalism as a solution to forced intregration, marginally or vaguely multi-religious societies and internationalism. This is interventionism, and a very vulgar case of it.
Brainpolice: The co-existence of people of different religious backgrounds to any extent is not "secular". It might be "pluralistic" or "multi-religious", but not "secular".
Byzantine: This uneasy truce breaks down very quickly. For now, peace is maintained by an a-religious entity that declares, as it must, that diversity of faith, not a particular faith, is the ultimate virtue. For any sincere believer of whatever faith, this is a contradiction.
Brainpolice: In either case, I hardly see how a bunch of mini-theocracies and forcefully segregated tribes is consistent with a free society.
Byzantine: It is much more consistent with a free society than the US/EU/UN hegemonic model, because they will have to compete with each other for capital.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
I think that people should vote for the LP this election and every election. The more people that vote for the LP candidates the more attention they're going to get from the media and the general public.
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.
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.
I'd really like to see that.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: I think that people should vote for the LP this election and every election. The more people that vote for the LP candidates the more attention they're going to get from the media and the general public.
I have always viewed the LP as an educational tool and not a normal political party in the sense that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are. This is why I care more about a candidate being true to libertarian principles than I do someone who could get ellected. Bob Bar may have changed his views since voting for the Patriot Act or supporting the War on Drugs - I do not know - I cannot look into his heart. What I do know is that people who see his name associated with the word Libertarian may come away with a tainted view of what it means to be libertarian.
krazy kaju: I think that people should vote for the LP this election and every election. The more people that vote for the LP candidates the more attention they're going to get from the media and the general public. 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. I'd really like to see that.
I'll avoid that nasty scenario as much as possible. I've grown quite attached to them.
"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.
ryanpatgray: Guess who keeps bailing out failed states – The United States! Even our former enemies! We bail them out, set up government institutions and turn them into nations whose populations hate the U.S. but whose governments support our government. Now, what happens if the U.S. goes bankrupt? Hmmm, who will bail out our elected mafia?I will agree with one part of what you say though. For the state to remain permanently dead and not resurrect itself it is necessary to destroy the concept of the beneficial state.
Guess who keeps bailing out failed states – The United States! Even our former enemies! We bail them out, set up government institutions and turn them into nations whose populations hate the U.S. but whose governments support our government. Now, what happens if the U.S. goes bankrupt? Hmmm, who will bail out our elected mafia?I will agree with one part of what you say though. For the state to remain permanently dead and not resurrect itself it is necessary to destroy the concept of the beneficial state.
The state will never go bankrupt so long as they have a monopoly on money. They can always print more dollars. While they might not be good for international trade they can always force the population to accept them. Which is what all of those bankrupted countries did.
ryanpatgray: Two things: Libertarian Party and libertarian are not synonymous. Secondly, not all libertarians support the concept of voting. Some libertarians refuse to vote on principle. There is a thread that was started recently on that subject called “ON Voting”. I once thought that line of thinking was foolish but I am less and less convinced that real change can occur through the political system. I think real change will have to occur independently of government institutions. It has been said that organizing libertarians is like trying to herd cats. We are, as a group, mostly independent minded. This is not a weakness however, it is one of our great strengths. Not everyone will be convinced in the same way. We need many approaches the problem of government to succeed.
Two things: Libertarian Party and libertarian are not synonymous. Secondly, not all libertarians support the concept of voting. Some libertarians refuse to vote on principle. There is a thread that was started recently on that subject called “ON Voting”. I once thought that line of thinking was foolish but I am less and less convinced that real change can occur through the political system. I think real change will have to occur independently of government institutions. It has been said that organizing libertarians is like trying to herd cats. We are, as a group, mostly independent minded. This is not a weakness however, it is one of our great strengths. Not everyone will be convinced in the same way. We need many approaches the problem of government to succeed.
I agree. But like I said perhaps there is a difference between the Cubans and the Mexicans because here in Texas Obama and Hillary are gods to these people.
kingmonkey:I agree. But like I said perhaps there is a difference between the Cubans and the Mexicans because here in Texas Obama and Hillary are gods to these people.
Cubans want democracy, not capitalism.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
kingmonkey:The state will never go bankrupt so long as they have a monopoly on money. They can always print more dollars. While they might not be good for international trade they can always force the population to accept them. Which is what all of those bankrupted countries did.
kingmonkey: I agree. But like I said perhaps there is a difference between the Cubans and the Mexicans because here in Texas Obama and Hillary are gods to these people.
BlackSheep: kingmonkey:I agree. But like I said perhaps there is a difference between the Cubans and the Mexicans because here in Texas Obama and Hillary are gods to these people. Cubans want democracy, not capitalism.
I don't know how many Cubans there are where you live - but where I live there are many. They tend to be very entrepreneurial. Many of them open up little sandwich shops. That is evidence of a capitalist spirit.
ryanpatgray: kingmonkey:The state will never go bankrupt so long as they have a monopoly on money. They can always print more dollars. While they might not be good for international trade they can always force the population to accept them. Which is what all of those bankrupted countries did. There will come a point when the state workers who print the money will no longer accept wheelbarrows full of paper stamped with the words “Eine Milliarde Mark” as payment. The system will break down.
Again, history proves your theory wrong. Germany after WWI saw hyperinflation. I've seen pictures of women lighting their wood burning stoves with paper money but the German state did not collapse. In fact we got a more centralized and totalitarian state that went on to become of the worse human rights violators in history. Currently Zimbabwe is experiencing inflation that is that government claims is 165,000% but some independent estimates put it as high as 4 million percent. And yet their government still stands.
ryanpatgray: kingmonkey: I agree. But like I said perhaps there is a difference between the Cubans and the Mexicans because here in Texas Obama and Hillary are gods to these people. The people you seem most concerned about, people classified as illegal immigrants, do not even have the right to vote in U.S. elections.
No, but their anchor baby children do.
ryanpatgray: I don't know how many Cubans there are where you live - but where I live there are many. They tend to be very entrepreneurial. Many of them open up little sandwich shops. That is evidence of a capitalist spirit.
Starting a business doesn't make you a capitalist. Marxist and social democrats who started and run businesses as well and I wouldn't classify them as capitalist.
Why not keep americans form returning then?
kingmonkey:Starting a business doesn't make you a capitalist. Marxist and social democrats who started and run businesses as well and I wouldn't classify them as capitalist.
It does. Owners of capital are capitalists.
scineram:It does. Owners of capital are capitalists.
Wouldn't that make every person who has every owned anything a capitalist?
kingmonkey: Again, history proves your theory wrong. Germany after WWI saw hyperinflation. I've seen pictures of women lighting their wood burning stoves with paper money but the German state did not collapse. In fact we got a more centralized and totalitarian state that went on to become of the worse human rights violators in history. Currently Zimbabwe is experiencing inflation that is that government claims is 165,000% but some independent estimates put it as high as 4 million percent. And yet their government still stands.
ryanpatgray: The people you seem most concerned about, people classified as illegal immigrants, do not even have the right to vote in U.S. elections.
kingmonkey: No, but their anchor baby children do.
kingmonkey: ryanpatgray: I don't know how many Cubans there are where you live - but where I live there are many. They tend to be very entrepreneurial. Many of them open up little sandwich shops. That is evidence of a capitalist spirit. Starting a business doesn't make you a capitalist. Marxist and social democrats who started and run businesses as well and I wouldn't classify them as capitalist.
Owning a business means that you understand how capital works. It also gives you an incentive to support an economic system that preserves your enterprise. In the case of a small business with no government connections that means capitalism.
scineram: kingmonkey:Starting a business doesn't make you a capitalist. Marxist and social democrats who started and run businesses as well and I wouldn't classify them as capitalist. It does. Owners of capital are capitalists.
Don't be so dense. It's obvious kingmonkey meant capitalists as in advocating capitalism. A lot of business men advocate all kinds of protections, regulations, taxation, public services, etc. Warren Buffer says regularly in interviews that taxes for the rich are too low -- that he pays less taxes relatively to his income than his secretary.
BlackSheep: A lot of business men advocate all kinds of protections, regulations, taxation, public services, etc. Warren Buffer says regularly in interviews that taxes for the rich are too low -- that he pays less taxes relatively to his income than his secretary.
ryanpatgray:And why do you assume that they will have their parents’ political views? After a lifetime of living in the U.S. with only stories about the "old country" to connect them to the land of their parents they are not necessarily going to have the political beliefs of their parents. In the U.S. children often REBEL against the political views of their parents.
Byzantine:Well we'll just have to see how this unprecedented experiment in social engineering will work out.
Byzantine: My money's on this low IQ population having high time preferences and voting accordingly.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Interesting, I assume that you have conducted sophisticated studies of the intelligence quotient of children of recent “illegal immigrants”. I haven't but others have. Mestizos and indigenous Central Americans are near the bottom of the barrel. That doesn't mean there can never be such a thing as a mestizo or Amerindian molecular biologist, but they are going to be very, very rare.
ryanpatgray:Interesting, I assume that you have conducted sophisticated studies of the intelligence quotient of children of recent “illegal immigrants”.
I haven't but others have. Mestizos and indigenous Central Americans are near the bottom of the barrel. That doesn't mean there can never be such a thing as a mestizo or Amerindian molecular biologist, but they are going to be very, very rare.
Do you mind providing us with references to these amazing and path breaking studies by modern phrenologists?
From wikipedia on Tatu Vanhanen:
Finland’s Ombudsman for Minorities Mikko Puumalainen, who said he feared the former professor’s remarks would boost racism. "Whereas the average IQ of Finns is 97, in Africa it is between 60 and 70. Differences in intelligence are the most significant factor in explaining poverty," Vanhanen had said. Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen told journalists he did not intend to engage in a public debate with his father. Eventually, the police decided not to press charges.
What a weird reaction...
Byzantine: Google Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. Or just google Hispanic dropout rates.
Google Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. Or just google Hispanic dropout rates.
A couple of things. The people you cited did studies on nations, not ethic groups. National IQ can be impacted by diet, education, health care etc. etc. A child born into a new nation will have a different set of circumstances to grow up in. As for Hispanic drop out rates perhaps you are unaware of this but of all the countries in Central America, only Belize is an English speaking nation. It is a little more difficult to stay in school if you do not understand the teacher and xenophobes have pressured school districts to cut back on ESL training.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Interesting, I assume that you have conducted sophisticated studies of the intelligence quotient of children of recent “illegal immigrants”. I haven't but others have. Mestizos and indigenous Central Americans are near the bottom of the barrel. That doesn't mean there can never be such a thing as a mestizo or Amerindian molecular biologist, but they are going to be very, very rare. Contrast them with Ashkenazi Jews, Indians, Japanese and Koreans.. Incidentally, the immigration into the Northeast was a fraction of the current numbers and more importantly, it was eventually restricted greatly, incentivizing the assimilation of these immigrant groups. Of course, I could do without the cultural and classical Marxism they also brought along.
I haven't but others have. Mestizos and indigenous Central Americans are near the bottom of the barrel. That doesn't mean there can never be such a thing as a mestizo or Amerindian molecular biologist, but they are going to be very, very rare. Contrast them with Ashkenazi Jews, Indians, Japanese and Koreans..
Incidentally, the immigration into the Northeast was a fraction of the current numbers and more importantly, it was eventually restricted greatly, incentivizing the assimilation of these immigrant groups. Of course, I could do without the cultural and classical Marxism they also brought along.
Of course, like all conservatives, you engage in the fallacy of attributing all such statistics to nature in a deterministic sense while pretty much ignoring nurture and thinking that correlation equals causation. You almost seem to think as if "cultural marxism" is an inevitable trait of such people, as if that has nothing to do with the effects of their political systems and everything to do with their inherent "nature" as a group.
In either case, the relative statistical merits of people from these groups in terms of intelligence and whatnot is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they have negative rights and may own property in America or Europe. So throw all of the kooky eugenicist statistics you want at me, it's entirely irrelevant to the principle of this matter. I could care less if they are stupid, lazy and believe in the flying spagetti monster.
Maybe if they grow up that very environment. However, their surroundings, influence of society, education and social environment do have an impact on how a child's brain develops.
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
katja328: Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Interesting, I assume that you have conducted sophisticated studies of the intelligence quotient of children of recent “illegal immigrants”. I haven't but others have. Mestizos and indigenous Central Americans are near the bottom of the barrel. That doesn't mean there can never be such a thing as a mestizo or Amerindian molecular biologist, but they are going to be very, very rare. Contrast them with Ashkenazi Jews, Indians, Japanese and Koreans.. Incidentally, the immigration into the Northeast was a fraction of the current numbers and more importantly, it was eventually restricted greatly, incentivizing the assimilation of these immigrant groups. Of course, I could do without the cultural and classical Marxism they also brought along. Maybe if they grow up that very environment. However, their surroundings, influence of society, education and social environment do have an impact on how a child's brain develops.
Which is what conservatives like Byzantine like to rather conveniently ignore and go on to characterize all such negative attributes to biology or physiology.
kingmonkey: GilesStratton: Your support of the US government's right to build a wall implies that you agree they have ownership of the land inside their wall/ borders as you're claiming that they have the right to decide who is allowed on this land. Surely if you claim this you have no right to complain about taxes? In any case you're legitimising the government by supporting closed borders. Did I ever say anything about a wall? I don't think I did. So shut you mouth about that. And I have every right to complain about taxes because I pay them. I don't legitimize government by suggesting we should not take the money stolen from me to give to some immigrant family who can't afford to care for themselves here. We can't afford the people born here so we certainly cannot afford anyone else who might move here. It's about legitimizing not taxing me to death that I'm talking about here. I've said it a thousand times and please LISTEN this time. Get rid of the welfare state and then I would support open borders! I don't feel like paying for every third world Marxist to come up here just so they can make $2.50 an hour and get on food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIPs and whatever other welfare service they can get on. It's bad enough I have to support the worthless and lazy here. I shouldn't have to support the whole third world as well.
GilesStratton: Your support of the US government's right to build a wall implies that you agree they have ownership of the land inside their wall/ borders as you're claiming that they have the right to decide who is allowed on this land. Surely if you claim this you have no right to complain about taxes? In any case you're legitimising the government by supporting closed borders.
Your support of the US government's right to build a wall implies that you agree they have ownership of the land inside their wall/ borders as you're claiming that they have the right to decide who is allowed on this land. Surely if you claim this you have no right to complain about taxes? In any case you're legitimising the government by supporting closed borders.
Did I ever say anything about a wall? I don't think I did. So shut you mouth about that. And I have every right to complain about taxes because I pay them. I don't legitimize government by suggesting we should not take the money stolen from me to give to some immigrant family who can't afford to care for themselves here. We can't afford the people born here so we certainly cannot afford anyone else who might move here. It's about legitimizing not taxing me to death that I'm talking about here. I've said it a thousand times and please LISTEN this time.
Get rid of the welfare state and then I would support open borders! I don't feel like paying for every third world Marxist to come up here just so they can make $2.50 an hour and get on food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIPs and whatever other welfare service they can get on. It's bad enough I have to support the worthless and lazy here. I shouldn't have to support the whole third world as well.
If you don't support a Berlin wall what do you support? Signs politely asking them to not cross?
My point about taxes is this, if you claim that the government should follow a closed border policy, you're arguing that the government has the right to decide who has the right to live inside its borders, that implies ownership. As you live on this land, surely the government has every right to tax you?
You claim that at this current time the government should act to discourage immigration, that legitimises government, especially as it means you recognise the borders.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Yes, the immigration restrictionist view inherently legitimizes the state's territorial dominion. They're advocating its reinforcement by force.
Brainpolice: Yes, the immigration restrictionist view inherently legitimizes the state's territorial dominion. They're advocating its reinforcement by force.
I'm advocating getting rid of welfare. I don't like to pay for the people who are born here and I certainly don't want to pay for those who want to move here. That is my argument. End welfare and I'll support open borders. I cannot and will not do that until welfare disappears.
GilesStratton: If you don't support a Berlin wall what do you support? Signs politely asking them to not cross? My point about taxes is this, if you claim that the government should follow a closed border policy, you're arguing that the government has the right to decide who has the right to live inside its borders, that implies ownership. As you live on this land, surely the government has every right to tax you? You claim that at this current time the government should act to discourage immigration, that legitimises government, especially as it means you recognise the borders.
Say whatever you like but I live in the real world of real problems and not the theoretical world of perfect ideological purity. Reality is far from perfect and pure. The reality is that more immigrants mean more welfare and more taxes. I don't know how to stop them from coming because I don't support the idea of spending more tax dollars to fund more Border Patrol. But I know I don't want them here if they are going to get on welfare. I've cut off members of my family for getting one welfare! I don't talk to my sister anymore because she is on food stamps and SCHIPS. You know, I grow 75-80% of the food I consume a year in my own garden and I offered to show her how which would have taken an hour of her time a day, she would be self-sufficient and have enough food for her two kids and the pride that she did it on her own. I don't see why others can't do the same. Why have a lawn when you can grow your own food? But that's a side point and I'm rambling. I know apartment dwellers can't do that. My point is that I can't support open borders because I know the reality of what will happen. I don't support more border enforcement either so here I sit in an imperfect un-pure ideological quagmire. Which is why I chose to preach against the welfare state and not the millions of immigrants who are flowing across our border bankrupting everyone. My position remains unchanged -- no immigrants if they are going to get on welfare.
Byzantine:I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this. How does one go about getting rid of the welfare-warfare state so long as it is allowed to enlarge its constituency?
Surely not by advocating that the state expand its power?
Byzantine: That is the premise of public schooling: equality of inputs will yield equality of outcomes. But simply observing a class in progress will show that not all humans are equally educable. And even though you can get 5-10 IQ points out of nutrition and environment you are still starting with a lower baseline.Society is created by human beings; it's not dropped on them from the sky. The culture of a low IQ demographic will be different than the culture of a high IQ demographic. Culture shapes breeding patterns, and the results are visible to observation.