Political Theory

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

JimS — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:14:25 GMT

edward_1313:
I believe if non-citizens are to cross over and make use of expropriated property because the state allows it, individuals are no more free then when the state makes it illegal for non-citizens to make use of such property.

This line of logic shows the classic folly that Mises illustrated: when one government intervention proves a failure, the statist instinct is not to rescind the first intervention but to come up with new interventions to "correct" the undesirable result of the first one, producing new failures in the process.

What you are saying on the topic is akin to argue that becauses businesses here are burdened by laws that allow unions to expropriate capital, all imports of goods should be banned because imports would take advantage of such expropriation (organized labor union members buying import goods with their loot) and put domestic capitalists at disadvantage all at the same time. What you end up with is national socialism, just like your advocacy banning immigration because there is socialism here. Nationalism is no cure for socialist ills. A new set of government intervention doesn't correct the errors of the previous interventions; new interventions can only exacerbate the economic and social condition.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

JimS — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:03:43 GMT

edward_1313:
Alright, this is indeed going no where. I would fervently disagree with the proposition that even a decent percentage of illegal immigrants are paying the equivalent of $50k to come over.

Please re-read my original post. You claimed that the immigrants were the poorest of the poor in their own countries (then apply your poor=stupid rule). They are certainly not the poorest of the poor (or even plain poor) in their own country. I said, the fees charged by the smugglers often amount to more than one year's income in their own countries. If the annual income in Mexico is $5000, a person who has that much money in cash savings in Mexico would have the similar relative social standing as those having $50k (equivalent to one year income) cash savings in the US.

edward_1313:

Riiiiiight. Mexico, Cuba, they've got great public schools, medical facilities, everything. You're probably gotten your info from Michael Moore's "Sicko" right? Cuba's got some fine health facilites! The reality is, their services are broken beyond repair. If you really think there's no difference between the public benefits in the US and Mexico, what I am to say?!

So in other words, you think "free" public school and public medical facilities are great success stories here, because they are run by a superior race of ubermensch? Perhaps you are not well versed in libertarianism, "free mediine and free education" means broken medicine and broken education. Which particular government runs it makes hardly any difference. The high illiteracy rate among high school graduates in the US bears that out in spades. Now, that's the average result of mostly English-speaking classrooms. What are the chances that classrooms run in different dialects of Spanish would produce far superior results to what the immigrant parents can get for their kids in their home countries (also "free")? Would that difference be worth more than one year's income (think $50k in our context, that's how much $5k is worth to a Mexican), or risking dying of exposure in the desert?

edward_1313:
I've always had respect for the argument that "free" immigration should be allowed because the person arguig for it thought it gave individuals more freedom. But to also argue that it's more practically advantageous, to me, shows a lack of insight.

That's because you lack the insight that should have come with a libertarian instinct. Perhaps contaminated by years of public education, you are at the core still a believer that the government can intervene in the market place and make it better. Collectivism dressed up as racial superiority ropes in a few dopes every generation.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

edward_1313 — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:24:50 GMT

Niccolò:
EDIT: Also, I've made my living, my life, my soul out of my refusal to compromise. I don't need to talk people over to my side, I don't need to be polite, because when the time comes to actually do something - when someone needs a lion in their corner, they don't look to the one willing to kneel down and suck the **** of the state; they look for someone who won't compromise their position.

Being civil and compromising are two utterly different things. I never suggested that you compromise your beliefs. I was merely suggesting that you be a bit more civil in expressing those beliefs. Many will will turn away from the idea of freedom if its most fervent adherents are believed to be madmen. It should be the goal of all who believe in freedom to make others aware of its greatness. When trying to attract others caught at the crossroads do you think it favorable for the cause of freedom to spit in their face and call them fools? Do you not think this will turn them towards the other way? I find it hard to believe that your firmly held beliefs have evolved merely as a result of your own selfishness. Those who believe in freedom believe in it because it will enhance that thing inside men which make them truly human. It will bring out everything that is good within them. Is this not your goal?

Niccolò:
So go ahead and play your political games. Look towards the state and obey with the same smile on your face as the wife who's forced into a choke hold during intercourse - it's gotten you this far! - I, however, will take a different path.

Wow. That'll help the cause. Draw lots of followers. Oh but wait, you're not concerned with any of that. It's Niccolo against the world!

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

Niccolò — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:16:55 GMT

edward_1313:
Are libertarians who disagree with unhindered immigration really the enemy?

No, but only because it's a contradiction in ideology.

EDIT: Also, I've made my living, my life, my soul out of my refusal to compromise. I don't need to talk people over to my side, I don't need to be polite, because when the time comes to actually do something - when someone needs a lion in their corner, they don't look to the one willing to kneel down and suck the **** of the state; they look for someone who won't compromise their position.

So go ahead and play your political games. Look towards the state and obey with the same smile on your face as the wife who's forced into a choke hold during intercourse - it's gotten you this far! - I, however, will take a different path.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

edward_1313 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:52:16 GMT

JimS:
Not at all. There is often a huge fee to be paid to the smugglers, often equivalent to more than a year's wage in their home countries. Would you consider someone with $50k cash savings (a year's income in the US) very poor in the US?

Alright, this is indeed going no where. I would fervently disagree with the proposition that even a decent percentage of illegal immigrants are paying the equivalent of $50k to come over. Did you hear a couple of stories about it? If you have, well, yippeeee! Do you have statistics on this somewhere? No. That sort of statement is absurd.

JimS:

Such is not the case. On top of that, most countries where they come from have government benefits, such as free medicine and free education; by skipping out their home countries, they have proven a track record of not pursueing government benefits.!

Riiiiiight. Mexico, Cuba, they've got great public schools, medical facilities, everything. You're probably gotten your info from Michael Moore's "Sicko" right? Cuba's got some fine health facilites! The reality is, their services are broken beyond repair. If you really think there's no difference between the public benefits in the US and Mexico, what I am to say?!

I've always had respect for the argument that "free" immigration should be allowed because the person arguig for it thought it gave individuals more freedom. But to also argue that it's more practically advantageous, to me, shows a lack of insight.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

edward_1313 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:27:44 GMT

Niccolò:

Jim, forget talking to these people; you won't break through to them. They're the residuals of the disgusting nationalism libertarians try to fight day in and day out. This has become unfruitful, so why not do something more beneficial to eradicating humanity of this type of scum?

You're really going to start a movement with sort of talk Niccolo! Flocks of libertarians will surround you as call them scum!!!! I apologize for my incredible ignorance. I don't really see why you've argued about this topic to begin with if you're so above it. For us morons who haven't decided to ignore the law and do as we please could you at least maintain a certain level of civility? You're lunacy will scare all away who would want to methodically and rationally come up with ways of combating the state (and I don't mean politically). I find a certain amount of pleasure arguing over this topic because, at least in my view, it's not as clear cut as other areas. I know you transcend such petty arguments but for those who have not ascended to your level could you atleast humor us?

I apologize but I simply don't equate free immigration with precisely that, free immigration. I believe if non-citizens are to cross over and make use of expropriated property because the state allows it, individuals are no more free then when the state makes it illegal for non-citizens to make use of such property. I know this supposes a certain level of power possessed by the state. But that's not synonomous to saying its virtuous or legitimate!

I know you consider me a prisoner of myself, but I consider it unwise to ignore the law without discretion or prudence. A cavalier may be fierce but he will not end up doing much if he is overly brash. I'm but one person; the majority over whelms me. I think things can be done but i think it will take time and careful preparation, NOT anger and disgust. Contrary to what you think, I think we're far closer to being allies then enemies. We both believe in freedom. Perhaps on some things you believe I am mistaken and that I dwell on topics which error in the first place by acknowledging the state.

I apologize if this offends you. I know immigration is simple for you. If I had it my way it would be simple too, abolish the state altogether. There would be no borders and people would go as they please and exclude as they please. I believe it becomes more complicated given the state exists and even more complicated as more property is expropriated. I am simply arguing from the point of view that the state does have power and that it won't go away terribly soon. Given that context I have laid down my argument. I agree, to give no power to the state in the first place would leave no room for such an argument. But it seems to me that the state has power because so many believe it has power. It does not matter whether I believe it to not be legitimate, too many already do, and it maintains its power from their mistaken belief in its legitimacy. So once again, a bit of civility please? Are libertarians who disagree with unhindered immigration really the enemy?

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

JimS — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:48:00 GMT

edward_1313:
If you really see a parrellel between the segregation of the Jews by the *** and the existence of American ghettos in the present day than this argument can indeed go no further. You're ignorance is grotesque.

Really? Do you know that Jewish Ghettos existed in Europe long before the rise of the Nazi's, by, oh, a few centuries? Ghettos are the products of political pressure, today, during the reign of the Third Reich, and for centuries before the Nazi regime. I prefer to refrain from commenting on the grotesqueness of your ignorance.

edward_1313:
This is just a bizarre statement. The intelligent control the government? I suppose if you equate political deftness to intelligence.

Government is nothing more than a human invention to control and exploit other human beings.

edward_1313:
It's power depends on its ability to elicit and promote certain ideas. Handouts is good way of doing so and it is typically done by targeting certain races or classes, especially lower classes since they're more apt to approve of redistributional policies.

Such as advancing an agenda of racial superiority, redistributing wealth to the poor whites in the form of "job protection" . . . you know, "only Germans can hold certain jobs; Germany for Germans."

edward_1313:
1. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of immigrants who illegally make their way to the US typcially come from a very poor situation, even in the context of their own country?

Not at all. There is often a huge fee to be paid to the smugglers, often equivalent to more than a year's wage in their home countries. Would you consider someone with $50k cash savings (a year's income in the US) very poor in the US?

edward_1313:
2. Would agree that if such is the case, they'll be far more apt to make use of government benefits?

Such is not the case. On top of that, most countries where they come from have government benefits, such as free medicine and free education; by skipping out their home countries, they have proven a track record of not pursueing government benefits.

edward_1313:
3. Would you agree that given our welfare state, the ability of such peoples to escape from this immediate use of the welfare state and integrate into society is terribly unlikely and irrational in their own context?

Perhaps you missed the point that they already made the "irrational" choice of skipping the welfare state in their own countries in pursuit of opportunity? Did you notice that, the overwhelming majority of immigrants, legal or illegal, are not elderly ready to retire (and receive benefits) but young people ready to work?

edward_1313:

4. Would you agree that as a result of these immigrants being so dependent on the state they would vote in favor of the state?

They are not dependent on the state. They are not even legal under the laws of the state. Many of them try to avoid interaction with the representatives of the state, such as police, altogether. If they do get the vote, the only way they'd vote for statists would be if statists are the only ones protecting them from eminent danger from violent racists. Their track record of smuggling (themselves) goes to show that they are not real respectors of the state. Let's not forget, this country is founded by tax protestors and smugglers (of tea) . . . how did it ever become a nation of sheeples that believe "the law is the law therefore it must be enforced"??? That's why I have been saying that conservatives are committing political suicide if they embrace racialistic politics. We lovers of liberty and small government should be making common cause with immigrants, legal and illegal, because their very track record of not being bound to the state like chattels prove that they are more likely individualists.

edward_1313:
5. Would you agree that 15-20 million immigrants who have already come over illegally only represent a fraction of the number that would come over were it legal?

Perhaps, if we have a reasonable level of job growth rate.

edward_1313:
6. Would you agree that this would change everything dramatically?

Perhaps the new comers will work and enable the baby boomers to retire, instead of having the entire obligation falling on the shoulders of a smaller demographic of working age population to support the humongous retiring generation. The $50 trillion obligation that has accrued in the last 70 years, according to the GAO head, has to be repaid somehow. Unless you are looking forward to Japanese-style decades-long depresion due to aging demographics, we have to import young people to work for our economy somehow; why not let the free market system work on its own to solve this problem.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

Niccolò — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:20:25 GMT

Byzantine:
Again, the practical reality is that the welfare-warfare state uses immigration to expand its constituency and its tax base. That's why neo-conservatives and social democrats all favor it.

I hate buzz words. Buzz words like "welfare-warfare state" are adolescent and amateur. Please stop using them.

In any case, I couldn't care less about why the state wants immigrants. I don't pay for their programs and I don't obey their commands; you do, that's your problem.

Byzantine:
I think most anarchists at least subconsciously favor government immigration because in an actual anarcho-capitalist society, they know that vagrants and unassimilable ethnic minorities would face the consequences of their pathological conduct.

Government immigration? Since when are "governments immigrating?"

Unassimilable? To what? Your definition of the best civilization, the best language, the best colour? What? You people are a disgrace; stop calling yourselves libertarians if you grant the state authority to violently oppress human beings.

----------------

Jim, forget talking to these people; you won't break through to them. They're the residuals of the disgusting nationalism libertarians try to fight day in and day out. This has become unfruitful, so why not do something more beneficial to eradicating humanity of this type of scum?

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

edward_1313 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 06:55:50 GMT

JimS:

Well, isn't that the precise racial undertone of the word "ghetto"? I'd be very surprised to find any "Aryan German" in the 30's and 40's believing in superior intelligence among Jews living in ghettos because they were discriminated against. It would be as proposterous to them as suggesting that because Hispanic gang and Black gang members have a high mortality rate and that successful gang members tend to get laid with more women and produce more offsprings, over time they may produce a super race of super intelligent human beings from the gang warfare :-) As superficially logical as it may sound, I'm not entirely sure any of us would believe that any more than "Aryan Germans" would believe that Jews were more intelligent because their genetic pool was culled every few generations. To them, Jewish ghettos meant high criminality and degeneracy.

If you really see a parrellel between the segregation of the Jews by the *** and the existence of American ghettos in the present day than this argument can indeed go no further. You're ignorance is grotesque.

JimS:

with the caveat of course that the more intelligent would be more apt to make use of government benefits (after all, it's the intelligent who controls the government for their own benefit, right?). In any case, it's not race-dependent, or immigration-status dependent.

This is just a bizarre statement. The intelligent control the government? I suppose if you equate political deftness to intelligence. As you know, the state earns its legitimacy from those who it governs. It's power depends on its ability to elicit and promote certain ideas. Handouts is good way of doing so and it is typically done by targeting certain races or classes, especially lower classes since they're more apt to approve of redistributional policies.

Just to see where you stand:

1. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of immigrants who illegally make their way to the US typcially come from a very poor situation, even in the context of their own country?

2. Would agree that if such is the case, they'll be far more apt to make use of government benefits?

3. Would you agree that given our welfare state, the ability of such peoples to escape from this immediate use of the welfare state and integrate into society is terribly unlikely and irrational in their own context?

4. Would you agree that as a result of these immigrants being so dependent on the state they would vote in favor of the state?

5. Would you agree that 15-20 million immigrants who have already come over illegally only represent a fraction of the number that would come over were it legal?

6. Would you agree that this would change everything dramatically?

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

JimS — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:35:51 GMT

edward_1313:
When people refer to the ghetto in modern society they're not only referring to segregated communites but typically poor communities characterized by crime and degeneracy.

There's nothing modern in that perception. That's exactly the perception of Jewish Ghettos in the eyes of "Aryan Germans" some 60-70 years ago. Criminality is often proportional to the degree of irrational intervention that the government has enforced upon the society. "Degeneracy"? Well, isn't that the precise racial undertone of the word "ghetto"? I'd be very surprised to find any "Aryan German" in the 30's and 40's believing in superior intelligence among Jews living in ghettos because they were discriminated against. It would be as proposterous to them as suggesting that because Hispanic gang and Black gang members have a high mortality rate and that successful gang members tend to get laid with more women and produce more offsprings, over time they may produce a super race of super intelligent human beings from the gang warfare :-) As superficially logical as it may sound, I'm not entirely sure any of us would believe that any more than "Aryan Germans" would believe that Jews were more intelligent because their genetic pool was culled every few generations. To them, Jewish ghettos meant high criminality and degeneracy.

edward_1313:
So while it may sound sort of absurd, not giving everything to a certain race may actually be more beneficial for them.

That's assuming there is a concept called "them." I don't think anyone getting culled from the gene pool would be benefitting from the culling. Nor is it clear that the members who survive the culling actually benefit at all. Suppose, you are in the top 10% in terms of intelligence among (assuming you are) white; how does the death of the other 90% benefit you in any way or shape? The "benefit" only accrues when one is standing as an outside observer and dealing with numbers in terms of "them." The "them" doesn't exist for "them." :-) It's rather silly to live a life in terms of a beauty contest among racial averages.

edward_1313:
What Byzantine has said isn't really racist it's more so on the lines of --typcially lower class peoples are less intelligent, less independent, and more apt to make use of government benefits (is this really that off?).

Then say so: less successful people tend to be less intelligent, less independent and more apt to qualify for government benefits in a society that offers government benefits to the poor . . . with the caveat of course that the more intelligent would be more apt to make use of government benefits (after all, it's the intelligent who controls the government for their own benefit, right?). In any case, it's not race-dependent, or immigration-status dependent. In fact, if immigrants are kept out of legal job market, the non-immigrant lazy would be deriving benefit from a government policy at the expense of employers.

edward_1313:
Your comments or reflection on others comments are far more evidently racist and bigoted.

Really?? How so? I never attached individual merit or demerit to race (aside from sacasm), whereas you and Byzantine have been equating race with the quality of individuals numerous times.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

edward_1313 — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:14:37 GMT

JimS:
Ever heard of laws against illegal immigrants? The very laws that you are supporting and advocating strengthening. That's why there are neighborhoods of concentrated Hispanics: many of them are not legally allowed to work in this country, so a neighborhood that would allow them to work without keeping tab on them is naturally attractive to them. As for black neighborhoods, it hasn't been long since the end of the legal discrimination in this country; judging by your writings, I suppose racial discrimination is still live and well. White neighborhoods? Perhaps among white trailer park trashes. What used to be very white wealthy neighborhoods are no longer "white" per se. I live in one of the neighborhoods that used to have one of the most white/blue-blood demographic in the country. As I look around, there are numerous Jews, Asians, Hispanics and middleasterners, all much higher than their respectie ratio in the general population of the country as a whole. Why relatively low black count? My theory is that, as I mentioned before, successful blacks in this country in the decades and centuries past had a high rate of "passing" into "whitehood" by marrying with other relatively light-skinned blacks. I'd be very surprised if half the self-declared whites in this country can pass the one-drop-of-blood test. None of the whites that I know of who can trace more than five generations of lineage can, and 90+% of my friends and acquaintances identify themselves as "white/caucasian."

Especially with regard to blacks, I would say that ghettos have not resulted because of racial discrimination in the least. It's happened because of the opposite; free handouts, special rights, etc. When people refer to the ghetto in modern society they're not only referring to segregated communites but typically poor communities characterized by crime and degeneracy.

I'm actually a believer in the hypothesis that Jews are, on average, more intelligent than other folk and the reason for this is because they've been truly discriminated against for thousands of years. A genetic selection process (created by humans unknowingly) has essentially chosen for Jews of higher intelligence and that is why they boast an astronomical amount nobel prize winners, geniuses, etc in relation to their incredibly small population. So while it may sound sort of absurd, not giving everything to a certain race may actually be more beneficial for them. The black community was evolving and integrating into society quite successfully until Martin Luther King came along and Lyndon Johnson decided that the blacks should be compensated for what the evil whites had done to them. What has happened to them? It's ruined them. Stupidity rather than intelligence is being breeded under the rules government has set up. The same will apply to the hispanics as they will start out and remain in the never ending cycle of the welfare state. It's a sad state. Over just a couple of generations the people who evolve out of these sorts of programs are much different than regular people. They're more aggressive, less independent, sexually hyper, the list goes on. The reason black ghettos exist as they do is not because of discrimination it's because of something that is utterly opposite.

Why do you want to promote the propagation of these sorts of people (and I'm not referring to any race specifically; I'm referring to welfare bred peoples in general)?!

One more point. I enjoy the bluntness of Byzantine with regard to race. Far more progress would be made if people would just speak what they truly thought instead tiptoeing around it. What Byzantine has said isn't really racist it's more so on the lines of --typcially lower class peoples are less intelligent, less independent, and more apt to make use of government benefits (is this really that off?). They're no less human but more like children (higher time preferences). The fact that you interpret everything as bigoted or racist shows your own bent perception about everything. Your comments or reflection on others comments are far more evidently racist and bigoted.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

JimS — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 00:05:32 GMT

Byzantine:

Correct, but now instead of mostly Northern and Western Europeans, we are importing mostly the Third World. There is a qualitative difference, as one can tell when one visits the Third World.

That must have been why Greenland and Wales are so much more prosperous than Sigapore; also why so many Swedes have gone to places like Sigapore, Hongkong, Taiwan and Dubai to work as office secretaries in the last quarter century as Swedish economy stagnated under socialism.

Less than a decade and half ago, Eire (Ireland) was deemed the third world basket case of Europe . . . people ascribed all sorts of unflattering reasons why that was the case: from too much potato consumption, to chronical alcohol poisoning, to Catholicism, to historical British culling of Irish intelligentsia . . . yet today, Eire has one of the highest per-capita income in Western Europe, higher than any of the major Western European countries (Germay, France, Italy, Spain and the UK). If the "drunk Irish" can do it (and wag their success in the face of their erstwhile British oppressors), I'm pretty sure that almost all humanity is capable enjoying the reward of free trade and less government.

Re: On immigration: Reply to Hoppe

JimS — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:42:55 GMT

Byzantine:

Please point me to a single statutory provision responsible for the fact that HIspanics generally live among other Hispanics, blacks among blacks, whites among whites, etc.

Ever heard of laws against illegal immigrants? The very laws that you are supporting and advocating strengthening. That's why there are neighborhoods of concentrated Hispanics: many of them are not legally allowed to work in this country, so a neighborhood that would allow them to work without keeping tab on them is naturally attractive to them. As for black neighborhoods, it hasn't been long since the end of the legal discrimination in this country; judging by your writings, I suppose racial discrimination is still live and well. White neighborhoods? Perhaps among white trailer park trashes. What used to be very white wealthy neighborhoods are no longer "white" per se. I live in one of the neighborhoods that used to have one of the most white/blue-blood demographic in the country. As I look around, there are numerous Jews, Asians, Hispanics and middleasterners, all much higher than their respectie ratio in the general population of the country as a whole. Why relatively low black count? My theory is that, as I mentioned before, successful blacks in this country in the decades and centuries past had a high rate of "passing" into "whitehood" by marrying with other relatively light-skinned blacks. I'd be very surprised if half the self-declared whites in this country can pass the one-drop-of-blood test. None of the whites that I know of who can trace more than five generations of lineage can, and 90+% of my friends and acquaintances identify themselves as "white/caucasian."