liberty student: 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.
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.
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.
"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
I am not too unhappy with "immigrants". Most of them work harder than some Americans. Some work two, three jobs to feed their family in to provide their children with hopes for a better life. As with everything in life, there are the bad apples that spoil it for everyone else. The ones who refuse to learn English and ride the gravy train and complain that back home everything was better. Then of course there are Americans doing the same thing. They hold their hand wide open for Uncle Sam to provide them with money, food and health care. And there are plenty of them!
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
I'm gonna write in an office and vote for myself as supreme dictator of the universe. Since no one else will be running for it, I should win.
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.
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.
I find it interesting that you argue against "radical libertarianism" as such, as if being a "moderate libertarian" is a good thing or has gotten the movement anywhere. "Radical" simply means consistant and certain. "Moderate" just means not having a backbone, being inconsistant and oppurtunistic.
I support saturating local governments with libertarians and anarchists to provide a margin of support between the higher levels of government and the counter-economy. Other than that, fail on voting. I wouldn't vote for another national election even if Rothbard's ghost were running.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I am most certainly not going to participate in this election. For instance, I would not participate in choosing a Chief Rapist, because I would be enabling someone to violate rights. So, all the more I would not choose a President, since he is the leader of a cartelizing monopoly on jurisdiction that may decide one's rights as it wishes, and in effect is just as much a ravisher.
ryanpatgray: 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: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.
I don't care if they are working in a orange grove but if they are on food stamps they are a leech. It's just that simple. Cold, perhaps, but that is how I view things. My enemy is the one who leeches off of me. I look upon the Mexican laboring the orange grove a little better than I do the lazy white trash who sit around drinking Keystone Light, rocking out to Lynard Skynard while they cash in their food stamps and take their welfare check to buy more beer and Pall Mall cigarettes but that doesn't change the fact that they have come here and started sucking off of welfare.
You might notice a recurring theme -- my violent opposition to welfare -- which is why I don't want more third world parasites to come up here and suck off of it.
ryanpatgray: 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
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
And here's another thing! And this is what pisses me off about people like you or anyone else that MIGHT take offense at something. Why is what I said any more offensive than saying "Tom, or Harry"!?!?!!?!?! Does that mean I should get in a huff just every time someone says that? Screw that crap! If someone doesn't like me because I say something that MIGHT offend someone else then they live in a sad little world where nothing will ever get done. I don't tip toe around bullsh*t like that. Screw those people. They can all go to hell.
"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.
kingmonkey: If someone doesn't like me because I say something that MIGHT offend someone else then they live in a sad little world where nothing will ever get done. I don't tip toe around bullsh*t like that. Screw those people. They can all go to hell.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Saying "Tito, Juan and Julio" is no more insulting than "Tom, and Harry." If they get upset over proper names then so can I. From now on I will be violently insulted if someone uses the phrase "Tom, and Harry" and will declare them to be racist pigs.
kingmonkey: Saying "Tito, Juan and Julio" is no more insulting than "Tom, and Harry." If they get upset over proper names then so can I. From now on I will be violently insulted if someone uses the phrase "Tom, and Harry" and will declare them to be racist pigs.
All insults exist because people give themselves permission to be insulted by them. Some, in fact, like being insulted. It gives them an excuse to act like a juvenile, because a grown-up doesn't even acknowlege such an offense.
Nitroadict: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).
Sorry. I have been annoyed lately that the conversations are rarely grounded in reality.
MacFall: All insults exist because people give themselves permission to be insulted by them. Some, in fact, like being insulted. It gives them an excuse to act like a juvenile, because a grown-up doesn't even acknowlege such an offense.
My point exactly.
The key here is context. Three people who were actually called Tito, Juan and Julio would not at all find it insulting if you called them by these names.
In some cases you are quite correct. I am certainly no fan of the kind of shakedown artist made famous by the likes of Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton. I am in no way advocating that we bend over to someone else's every whim. But there is a difference between being politically incorrect and being just plain rude. I find it quite unfortunate that some people in the past couple of decades have associated these two concepts as though they are one and the same. They are not. There is a difference between an airline asserting its right to not provide Halal meals (meals that prepared according to Islamic dietary guidelines) on every flight and that same airline mixing pork into every dish (even ones that appear to be vegetarian) and not informing the passengers until after the meal has been consumed. The first case is asserting a right – the second case is just plain rude. My original point was that if we want to persuade others of the benefits of a free society we need to, at the very least, be polite. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a monster. I would bet that many people on these forums at one time held viewpoints that are quite different from their viewpoints today.
wombatron:My second choice was the Libertarian candidate... who turned out to be Bob Barr. Hell no.
If you don't mind me asking, what is the problem with Barr? I honestly know almost nothing about his stances, but I had been planning on voting for him just because, as someone earlier had said, he had an L after his name. Unfortunately I've noticed many people claiming the libertarian title who aren't at all libertarians. Either way, I figured it would send a message if the libertarian party affected the national election enough to sway the vote democratic. The republicans might re-think their positions, or at least might change what they lie about.
Byzantine: Again, you need to bear in mind that you are working with people who are in the 90th (or more likely, the 99th) percentile back in their homelands. Ask them what they think about bringing over all those folks that they are spending blood and treasure to stay the hell away from.
Byzantine: They are also happy to consume whatever public services are on offer—
Byzantine: And when their children born on US soil grow up and vote, I can tell you it's not going to be for a libertarian candidate.
ryanpatgray: Byzantine: They are also happy to consume whatever public services are on offer— How is that different from most native-born Americans? Ever see the guy with the question mark suit on TV selling his book with info on “free money”?
You're missing the point. Don't focus on how they are the same or whatever focus on this one important point: We cannot support the people who are born here now so how the hell could we possibly support the millions of people who would move here and get on welfare?
And that is the root of my argument! We cannot support all of the lazy and worthless who are born here and get on welfare. If we cannot support them then why on God's green earth should I EVER support an idea that would allow MORE people from OTHER countries to come here, who CANNOT support themselves (unlike that 90th percentile), and who WILL get on some form of social service? The end result is more taxation, more inflation, more pressure put on the middle class and the destruction of MY way of life.
You have only two solutions to the problem. 1) End the welfare state completely for everyone or 2) try to keep as many of those people out of here until we can end the welfare state. It cost considerably less money to keep someone out than it does to support them for the rest of their life. For those of you who might say "We don't have the support them on welfare" or whatever argument you have try living in reality and not some fantasy world of theory. The reality is the government WANTS to take care of these people and they WILL raise taxes to do it. The reality is that most of the people in this country SUPPORT the welfare state and don't want it to go away. So while in THEORY I support open borders and the free movement of people the REALITY is that a support for that type of policy RIGHT NOW only means that I support MORE taxes, MORE welfare services, MORE state control, MORE inflation, a LOWER standard of living for myself, my family and everyone else. And it will only get worse when the Democrats create a national health care system. The young illegal immigrant will receive better care because he is younger whereas the older citizen of this country, who has worked all their life and paid this extortion money, will be treated far worse because they are old. That is the way things work. And how much more money am I going to have to send to the government when we do have universal health care and even MORE illegals come hopping across the border for medical treatment, which they can't be denied and which must be paid for by the taxpayer?
Open borders are an impossibility right now, no matter how much you want them. Open borders will mean more theft and more inflation more welfare and a lower standard of living. Get rid of the welfare state and we can fling open the doors and let everyone and anyone in (or out).
ryanpatgray: Byzantine: And when their children born on US soil grow up and vote, I can tell you it's not going to be for a libertarian candidate. I have met a great many Hispanic libertarians. Perhaps you simply do not know many Hispanics personally. I do. Some of the most active libertarians I have met are the children of “illegal immigrants”.
I have met a great many Hispanic libertarians. Perhaps you simply do not know many Hispanics personally. I do. Some of the most active libertarians I have met are the children of “illegal immigrants”.
I'm sure there are some libertarians who had "illegal immigrant" parents. But most of the ones I've met prefer the policies of the Democrats. Why? Because they come from socialist states where the government takes care of them. They want more welfare services here, they want universal health care here, they want everything their little Marxist eyes can behold and they want ME and YOU to give it to them. Maybe there is a difference between the Hispanics where you live and the ones in Texas but all of the ones I've ever met (and there are a lot) like Hillary, they like Obama and they like the type of "change" these two creatures would bring.
kingmonkey:The reality is the government WANTS to take care of these people and they WILL raise taxes to do it. The reality is that most of the people in this country SUPPORT the welfare state and don't want it to go away. So while in THEORY I support open borders and the free movement of people the REALITY is that a support for that type of policy RIGHT NOW only means that I support MORE taxes, MORE welfare services, MORE state control, MORE inflation, a LOWER standard of living for myself, my family and everyone else. And it will only get worse when the Democrats create a national health care system. The young illegal immigrant will receive better care because he is younger whereas the older citizen of this country, who has worked all their life and paid this extortion money, will be treated far worse because they are old. That is the way things work. And how much more money am I going to have to send to the government when we do have universal health care and even MORE illegals come hopping across the border for medical treatment, which they can't be denied and which must be paid for by the taxpayer?
Byzantine: They want more welfare services here, they want universal health care here, they want everything their little Marxist eyes can behold and they want ME and YOU to give it to them. Maybe there is a difference between the Hispanics where you live and the ones in Texas but all of the ones I've ever met (and there are a lot) like Hillary, they like Obama and they like the type of "change" these two creatures would bring.
Byzantine:Ah, right. They cross the Rio Grande with their copies of Human Action held aloft to keep them dry, and immediately ask for directions to the nearest Ron Paul campaign office.I live in Atlanta, and we have one of the largest Hispanic populations in the country. Maybe you could go to Buford Highway and let me know how the locals react to your exposition of libertarian political theory.
kingmonkey:We cannot support the people who are born here now so how the hell could we possibly support the millions of people who would move here and get on welfare?
Why do American citizens have any claim to welfare that immigrants don't? Because they were born in the USA?
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.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
ryanpatgray: At this point I think the fastest rout to a free society will be bankrupting the government while people who understand economics turn a lot of their assets into precious metal form.
At this point I think the fastest rout to a free society will be bankrupting the government while people who understand economics turn a lot of their assets into precious metal form.
Good luck with that. Argentina went broke...nope...the state still exist there. Soviet Union went broke...no...no anarchy in any of the former Soviet states or in Russia. A city out in California recently went bankrupt...but alas...the city government still exist. The state wont go away so long as people support it, bankrupt or not. You have to destroy the idea of the state, the myth of the state and convince people that the state is not needed. Bankrupting it wont do anything but give you more state since it will insist that it failed because it didn't have enough control over things.
ryanpatgray: Byzantine: They want more welfare services here, they want universal health care here, they want everything their little Marxist eyes can behold and they want ME and YOU to give it to them. Maybe there is a difference between the Hispanics where you live and the ones in Texas but all of the ones I've ever met (and there are a lot) like Hillary, they like Obama and they like the type of "change" these two creatures would bring. I live in Florida and many of these people understand what it is like to live under Marxist economic theory. Many of them built little rafts that carried them to Key West or Miami. These are brave souls who want nothing more than to live free and to warn others of the dangers of Communism.
Yeah, southern Florida is huge libertarian haven isn't it? Hmmm....with such a large libertarian population in Florida I wonder how many libertarians are in Congress from that state...let me check......oh! None. That's just because it's national politics. How about the State legislature? Hmmm....crap! Zero! I thought there would be at least ONE with such a large and active libertarian community! I do see quite a number of people elected to local office. Consider one John Simms who is a Councilman for Cooper City or Larry Bush and Aaron O'Brien who are on the Lee county Nuisance Abatement Board or Carl Strang who sits on the Workforce Development Board in Polk county. But we do have a mayor! Scott McPherson of New Port Richey is the one and only Libertarian mayor in Florida! Yes that massive libertarian community in South Florida is really doing a bang up job! I'm sure glad all those libertarians fled Cuba to come to Florida to make it better place!
GilesStratton: kingmonkey:We cannot support the people who are born here now so how the hell could we possibly support the millions of people who would move here and get on welfare? Why do American citizens have any claim to welfare that immigrants don't? Because they were born in the USA?
I never said American citizens have any claim to welfare. I said we can't support the ones born here so how on earth can we support the ones who move here. Try reading with comprehension before you spout off.
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.
kingmonkey: Argentina went broke...nope...the state still exist there. Soviet Union went broke...no...no anarchy in any of the former Soviet states or in Russia. A city out in California recently went bankrupt...but alas...the city government still exist. The state wont go away so long as people support it, bankrupt or not. You have to destroy the idea of the state, the myth of the state and convince people that the state is not needed. Bankrupting it wont do anything but give you more state since it will insist that it failed because it didn't have enough control over things.
kingmonkey: Yeah, southern Florida is huge libertarian haven isn't it? Hmmm....with such a large libertarian population in Florida I wonder how many libertarians are in Congress from that state...let me check......oh! None. That's just because it's national politics. How about the State legislature? Hmmm....crap! Zero! I thought there would be at least ONE with such a large and active libertarian community! I do see quite a number of people elected to local office. Consider one John Simms who is a Councilman for Cooper City or Larry Bush and Aaron O'Brien who are on the Lee county Nuisance Abatement Board or Carl Strang who sits on the Workforce Development Board in Polk county. But we do have a mayor! Scott McPherson of New Port Richey is the one and only Libertarian mayor in Florida! Yes that massive libertarian community in South Florida is really doing a bang up job! I'm sure glad all those libertarians fled Cuba to come to Florida to make it better place!
kingmonkey: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.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with the sentiment to some extent. However, supporting closed borders hurts the libertarian movement in the long run. Lets look at all possible scenarios, since you agree that open borders is more libertarian, just not practical given the welfare state.
Right now if you suppose closing the borders up then you will save some in welfare payments and medicare, medicaid and all that. More specifically, the government will save that money in that area, but they'll still find plenty of places to spend it on others. Meanwhile, the state's power has increased in two ways; because you will necessarily need to increase state power in order for them to shut down the borders, and also public sentiment (should they succeed) will cause more people to believe the state should be fixing other problems as well.
Now supposed we give them the power to try and they fail, as they have before. This is the most likely scenario in my mind. Then the worst of all possibilities happens. The government's power has increased, they will demand more money for their failed programs, and you are spending more money on illiegal immigrants coming across the borders anyway.
Really, as you said, it doesn't matter too much if you support open borders because realistically it isn't going to happen any time soon. But I would be for opening the borders or cutting off the welfare state in either order, because one will lead to the other. We can't afford to support the people in this country forever, but we can do it for a long time. On the other hand, we can't afford to support every needy person in the world even for a small time period. Open up the borders and it will crush the welfare state much quicker.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Not as high as South Florida where I live and I actually HAVE talked to Hispanics where I live about libertarianism. Have you? I've yet to detect any interest in libertarian political philosophy in Atlanta's immigrant populace. And I don't think the first and second generation Cubans you're talking to in your social class are exactly representative. Isn't the Mises Institute ground zero for libertarian thought in the US? That place is whiter than the Piedmont Driving Club.
ryanpatgray:Not as high as South Florida where I live and I actually HAVE talked to Hispanics where I live about libertarianism. Have you?
I've yet to detect any interest in libertarian political philosophy in Atlanta's immigrant populace. And I don't think the first and second generation Cubans you're talking to in your social class are exactly representative.
Isn't the Mises Institute ground zero for libertarian thought in the US? That place is whiter than the Piedmont Driving Club.
HACER, The Hispanic American Center for Economic Research, is not Piedmont Driving Club: http://www.hacer.org/whoweare.php
You may find them interesting.
Byzantine: Stolz2525:Meanwhile, the state's power has increased in two ways; because you will necessarily need to increase state power in order for them to shut down the borders, and also public sentiment (should they succeed) will cause more people to believe the state should be fixing other problems as well. Here is what the State does: it imports people to increase economic activity and expand the tax base necessary to fund its welfare schemes, and it justifies its existence as the arbiter of social conflict caused by the compulsory association of divergent and even outright antagonistic cultures. Thus, the US imports Jews, who lobby in favor of their ancestral homeland in its thousand-year struggle against Arabs. The US imports Arabs, who hijack aircraft and kill people. The US responds with more national security regulation, more anti-discrimination laws, and more intervention in Arab and Jewish homelands. The US imports Serbians and Albanians. The US intervenes overseas on the side of the Albanian Kosovars against the Serbian nationalists. The US intervenes in Somalia. The US imports Somalians. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Stolz2525:Meanwhile, the state's power has increased in two ways; because you will necessarily need to increase state power in order for them to shut down the borders, and also public sentiment (should they succeed) will cause more people to believe the state should be fixing other problems as well.
Here is what the State does: it imports people to increase economic activity and expand the tax base necessary to fund its welfare schemes, and it justifies its existence as the arbiter of social conflict caused by the compulsory association of divergent and even outright antagonistic cultures.
Thus, the US imports Jews, who lobby in favor of their ancestral homeland in its thousand-year struggle against Arabs.
The US imports Arabs, who hijack aircraft and kill people.
The US responds with more national security regulation, more anti-discrimination laws, and more intervention in Arab and Jewish homelands.
The US imports Serbians and Albanians.
The US intervenes overseas on the side of the Albanian Kosovars against the Serbian nationalists.
The US intervenes in Somalia. The US imports Somalians.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Sorry, characterizing illegal immigration as the state "importing" people is absurd on its face. These people are breaking the state's laws to come here and settle. It's an entirely agoristic activity. The state's laws are not "importing" these people, it is saying "you cannot come here" and they're coming anyway. That's why many of them are actually heroes in my book. To hell with the nation-worshipers and the labor unions who are trying to stop these people from fleeing their own countries and finding employment here.
Furthermore, sweepingly characterizing these groups (such as the jews and the arabs) in mass as having bad intent is highly vulgar and I don't see why you would wonder why people have suspicions of racism.
Byzantine: Great. Let's bring all these people who have no idea about the rule of law here.
ryanpatgray: Byzantine: Great. Let's bring all these people who have no idea about the rule of law here. Is the "rule of law" your ultimate goal? Perhaps a fresh perspective by people who do NOT understand the "rule of law" could be beneficial?
The exact same thing came to my mind as well. Is "the rule of law" one's goal or is liberty one's goal? They're not necessarily the same thing, especially considering what and who's "law" it is that we're talking about here.
Brainpolice: Furthermore, sweepingly characterizing these groups (such as the Jews and the Arabs) in mass as having bad intent is highly vulgar and I don't see why you would wonder why people have suspicions of racism.
Brainpolice: The exact same thing came to my mind as well. Is "the rule of law" one's goal or is liberty one's goal? They're not necessarily the same thing, especially considering what and who's "law" it is that we're talking about here.
Thank you Brainpolice, I for one would welcome someone who was "unfamiler" with the assumption that to be moral an action must be legal.
Byzantine: I could care less about "suspicions of racism."
Byzantine: 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.
Byzantine: ryanpatgray:Thank you Brainpolice, I for one would welcome someone who was "unfamiler" with the assumption that to be moral an action must be legal. You can be ruled by law or you can be ruled by people.
ryanpatgray:Thank you Brainpolice, I for one would welcome someone who was "unfamiler" with the assumption that to be moral an action must be legal.
You can be ruled by law or you can be ruled by people.
Or, at some point in the future, neither.
Let's introduce some intellectual honesty into this. The rule of law is an apologetic device for the rule of men. Laws do not rule all on their own, as if they are in some separate platonic realm of forms or something. They are created and enforced by men.