liberty student: ryanpatgray:You are starting to sound like a "911 Truther". I am a 911 truther. You trying to start something here?
ryanpatgray:You are starting to sound like a "911 Truther".
I am a 911 truther. You trying to start something here?
Truther in the sense of "The state lied/covered up what really happened and had some degree of indirect responsibility for 9/11" or truther in the sense of "ZOMG!!! The CIA planted explosives in the Twin Towers so that the Jews can take over!!!"?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
ryanpatgray: Juan:Well, do you think that a prediction made by (military) bureaucrats has any value ? The military is possibly the only government bureaucracy that produces quality products and "services". This does not justify their existence but there is indeed a difference between MilSpec and standard government quality. The same goes for intelligence. One difference is that their own lives are on the line - not just the lives of civilians. Walk into an Army/Navy surplus store sometime and examine the quality of the merchandise and you will see what I mean. When your own life is on the line you put more care into what you do. Juan:To me it sounds like the American state trying to scare people with talks about 'drugs' 'war' 'mafia' etc. On the other hand it may hint at who's the next target for the out-of-control American military...Maybe that was your point ? That too. It may be a pretext for another war.
Juan:Well, do you think that a prediction made by (military) bureaucrats has any value ?
Juan:To me it sounds like the American state trying to scare people with talks about 'drugs' 'war' 'mafia' etc. On the other hand it may hint at who's the next target for the out-of-control American military...Maybe that was your point ?
That's a bunch of crap. Tiny mercenary groups in the blood diamond wars were responsible for pushing back against a tyannical genocidal paramilitary thugs meanwhile thousand of hapless UN peacekeepers couldn't even defend themsleves and the people they were responsible for defending.
Given the performance of UN peacekeepers, I doubt the US military, with their hi-tech doodas, will be able to do such a competent job of beating the craps out of military-graded trained gangsters. Beside the US is in part responsible for creating this mess of bloody drug trade where extortion and death is the norm.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba:Why do we need to ban certain groups from immigrating and working in the states?
Because they recieve thousands of dollars in welfare. And they are all social democrats or Marxists who will vote for more handouts from the state. And they are all gang members who can't wait to go on a rampage of theft and murder through quiet Anglo-Saxon suburbs. And they practice icky alternative lifestyles. And they stink.
/sarcasm
wombatron: Truther in the sense of "The state lied/covered up what really happened and had some degree of indirect responsibility for 9/11" or truther in the sense of "ZOMG!!! The CIA planted explosives in the Twin Towers so that the Jews can take over!!!"?
Truther in the sense of "If you believe what the state tells you as the truth, about an incident that allowed them to spend, murder and destroy liberty with impunity, then you're the nut".
wombatron:Because they recieve thousands of dollars in welfare. And they are all social democrats or Marxists who will vote for more handouts from the state. And they are all gang members who can't wait to go on a rampage of theft and murder through quiet Anglo-Saxon suburbs. And they practice icky alternative lifestyles. And they stink.
Sans sarcasm, I think you nailed it. Not saying I agree, but then what you wrote wasn't totally unreal either.
ryanpatgray: Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008) report: Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.
Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008) report: Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.
Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.
Maybe instead of talking about immigration we should really be talking about American imperialism. They are building up a pretext to invade Mexico already. Not that they will do it tommorow. But they build a casus belli and store it for when the need arises. And such a brazen pretext as this one is useful even in itself without being used because it beams out the fact they can attack anyone whenever they want it for basicaly whatever reason they choose. Too much goverment, too little governement, too much freedom, too little freedom, you name it. If there is a regime they can invade to destroy the regime and if there is no regime they can invade to create one. There is only one constant. USA reserves for itself the right to stick her nose in everything. And from whichever perspective it pleases.
Marko: ryanpatgray: Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008) report: Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. Maybe instead of talking about immigration we should really be talking about American imperialism. They are building up a pretext to invade Mexico already. Not that they will do it tommorow. But they build a casus belli and store it for when the need arises. And such a brazen pretext as this one is useful even in itself without being used because it beams out the fact they can attack anyone whenever they want it for basicaly whatever reason they choose. Too much goverment, too little governement, too much freedom, too little freedom, you name it. If there is a regime they can invade to destroy the regime and if there is no regime they can invade to create one. There is only one constant. USA reserves for itself the right to stick her nose in everything. And from whichever perspective it pleases.
Why would the American military be invading some no-name country given that our political credibility basically get shot by Iraq.
I would think that the US will sent special forces to help hunt down cartel members(which doesn't really solve anything) but a full-scale military invasion? That is quite unprecendented.
ryanpatgray: the government,politicians, police and judicial infrastructure... and criminal gangs and drug cartels.
the government,politicians, police and judicial infrastructure... and criminal gangs and drug cartels.
the government,politicians, police and judicial infrastructure...
and
criminal gangs and drug cartels.
Or does he repeat himself...
I've found I can't have a civil discussion about race with anyone except biologists. No one else seems to understand that any genetic differences that exist are a function of allele frequency within a populace. In other words race is about statistics. I have enever discriminated against individuals. But I don't turn a blind eye to trends just because they may have high correlations with race. This is what the education system has done with intelligence (IQ tests are illegal in many circumstances) and what our justice system has done with crime statistics.
In both cases the metric used is "unfairly targetting certain groups". Now we *can* have a discussion about what percentage of the differences are caused by environemntal factors. But if you're going to take the neurological uniformity of all humans as an a priori fact...well that's faith, not science.
wombatron: liberty student: ryanpatgray:You are starting to sound like a "911 Truther". I am a 911 truther. You trying to start something here? Truther in the sense of "The state lied/covered up what really happened and had some degree of indirect responsibility for 9/11" or truther in the sense of "ZOMG!!! The CIA planted explosives in the Twin Towers so that the Jews can take over!!!"?
Also the latter group are usually agent provacateurs. Given that the US government lied about entry into WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Iraq (I and II) it's not much a of a stretch to question if the US government organized/funded/planned/participated in/allowed the event.
Most truthers just want proper investigations and full disclosure.
liberty student: Also the latter group are usually agent provacateurs. Given that the US government lied about entry into WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Iraq (I and II) it's not much a of a stretch to question if the US government organized/funded/planned/participated in/allowed the event. Most truthers just want proper investigations and full disclosure.
True. It just happens that the crazies tend to overshadow the people who honestly just want to know what really happened.
liberty student: wombatron: liberty student: ryanpatgray:You are starting to sound like a "911 Truther". I am a 911 truther. You trying to start something here? Truther in the sense of "The state lied/covered up what really happened and had some degree of indirect responsibility for 9/11" or truther in the sense of "ZOMG!!! The CIA planted explosives in the Twin Towers so that the Jews can take over!!!"? Also the latter group are usually agent provacateurs. Given that the US government lied about entry into WWI, WWII, Vietnam and Iraq (I and II) it's not much a of a stretch to question if the US government organized/funded/planned/participated in/allowed the event. Most truthers just want proper investigations and full disclosure.
Didn't the US government basically created AI Queda or at least fund them? It seem that we unintentionally generate new threat all the time. It is not much of a leap to think that there is a real conspricy behind it.
Never mind the fact that the terrorist organizations are ineffective terrorists for they have not achevied anything stated in their goals. Attacking civilians is no way to win minds but they make convenient excuses for government to curtails liberty.
kiba: Why would the American military be invading some no-name country given that our political credibility basically get shot by Iraq.
kiba: I would think that the US will sent special forces to help hunt down cartel members(which doesn't really solve anything) but a full-scale military invasion? That is quite unprecendented.
wombatron: kiba:Why do we need to ban certain groups from immigrating and working in the states? Because they recieve thousands of dollars in welfare. And they are all social democrats or Marxists who will vote for more handouts from the state. And they are all gang members who can't wait to go on a rampage of theft and murder through quiet Anglo-Saxon suburbs. And they practice icky alternative lifestyles. And they stink. /sarcasm
Then there's the fact that open borders are a creation of the state and that open borders violates property rights. Of course, including that one wouldn't make the people you're parodying so silly, so I can understand why you didn't include that one.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: Then there's the fact that open borders are a creation of the state and that open borders violates property rights. Of course, including that one wouldn't make the people you're parodying so silly, so I can understand why you didn't include that one.
Actually you will find that the borders are a creation of the state. You know "state borders"?
liberty student: wombatron:Because they recieve thousands of dollars in welfare. And they are all social democrats or Marxists who will vote for more handouts from the state. And they are all gang members who can't wait to go on a rampage of theft and murder through quiet Anglo-Saxon suburbs. And they practice icky alternative lifestyles. And they stink. Sans sarcasm, I think you nailed it. Not saying I agree, but then what you wrote wasn't totally unreal either.
Whether left-libertarians choose to ignore it or not open borders is a double edged sword, even if is closer to libertarian than closed borders. Not that I agree with 100% of what wombatron said either, though.
Marko:Actually you will find that the borders are a creation of the state. You know "state borders"?
I guess this whole private property thing is a creation of the state too then?
sicsempertyrannis:Whether left-libertarians choose to ignore it or not open borders is a double edged sword, even if is closer to libertarian than closed borders. Not that I agree with 100% of what wombatron said either, though.
How are open borders a double-edged sword?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
GilesStratton:I guess this whole private property thing is a creation of the state too then?
No, that is the state recognizing something. Without the state, private property would still exist, but state borders would not.
GilesStratton: I guess this whole private property thing is a creation of the state too then?
GilesStratton:Then there's the fact that open borders are a creation of the state and that open borders violates property rights. Of course, including that one wouldn't make the people you're parodying so silly, so I can understand why you didn't include that one.
Open borders is not the same as no property lines.
Spideynw: Open borders is not the same as no property lines.
Forbidding communities from establishing their own residency policies, however, is.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Spideynw: sicsempertyrannis:Whether left-libertarians choose to ignore it or not open borders is a double edged sword, even if is closer to libertarian than closed borders. Not that I agree with 100% of what wombatron said either, though. How are open borders a double-edged sword?
For most of the reasons sarcastically quoted by wombatron. They will come here, demanding 'civil rights', welfare, more socialism, etc. I dont see why it should simply be ignored. Note that it is just an observation, I do not advocate a closed border police state like paleocons want.
Spideynw:No, that is the state recognizing something. Without the state, private property would still exist, but state borders would not.
And how do you figure these immigrants get from place to place? State owned roads. Furthermore these communities can't reject these individuals because the state won't allow them. In fact, most businesses are forced to do business with the immigrants they don't want there in the first place. If all property were private then somebody would have to be invited somewhere to be able to reside there. Due to open borders they don't, they can go anywhere they like as a result of state owner roads and no community can kick them out because of the state.
Spideynw:Open borders is not the same as no property lines.
Not entirely no. However, the state allows individuals into the country who would never be allowed in if it were contingent upon certain things, as it would be in a free society.
Moreover, they get from place to place using state owned roads and state owned public space.
sicsempertyrannis: Spideynw: sicsempertyrannis:Whether left-libertarians choose to ignore it or not open borders is a double edged sword, even if is closer to libertarian than closed borders. Not that I agree with 100% of what wombatron said either, though. How are open borders a double-edged sword? For most of the reasons sarcastically quoted by wombatron. They will come here, demanding 'civil rights', welfare, more socialism, etc. I dont see why it should simply be ignored. Note that it is just an observation, I do not advocate a closed border police state like paleocons want.
Wait. I thought only lazy intellectual and middle class people who don't understand where the money come from demand such things. I guess my collectivist thinking is shot now.
GilesStratton: And how do you figure these immigrants get from place to place? State owned roads. Furthermore these communities can't reject these individuals because the state won't allow them. In fact, most businesses are forced to do business with the immigrants they don't want there in the first place. If all property were private then somebody would have to be invited somewhere to be able to reside there. Due to open borders they don't, they can go anywhere they like as a result of state owner roads and no community can kick them out because of the state.
GilesStratton: Spideynw:No, that is the state recognizing something. Without the state, private property would still exist, but state borders would not. And how do you figure these immigrants get from place to place? State owned roads. Furthermore these communities can't reject these individuals because the state won't allow them. In fact, most businesses are forced to do business with the immigrants they don't want there in the first place. If all property were private then somebody would have to be invited somewhere to be able to reside there. Due to open borders they don't, they can go anywhere they like as a result of state owner roads and no community can kick them out because of the state.
Who's rejecting them? Some hypothetical white dudes that hate migrant workers because they took jobs away from them, which is by the way, a bunch of HOGWASH.
If American farmers want a cheap source of labor, let them have it! Screw border patrols and high walls!
kiba: Who's rejecting them? Some hypothetical white dudes that hate migrant workers because they took jobs away from them, which is by the way, a bunch of HOGWASH. If American farmers want a cheap source of labor, let them have it! Screw border patrols and high walls!
Who here advocated border patrols or border fences?
For one thing, if roads were private owners would charge a toll to use them. I am pretty certain the road owner wouldn't care who used the road as long as they paid their toll. If they did care well, their loss of money and I'm sure there would be plenty of non bigoted road owners that would love their business.
If a property owner decides to sell or rent their property to one of these "unwanted' how would this community reject them? In my experience someone selling their house doesn't care who buys it as long as they have the money. If they are renting out the property, of course, you would be a bit more selective because you don't want any damage done to your property, this is done through criminal checks, etc. If they do care who buys or rents the house, well, their loss again, as I'm sure there would be somebody else perfectly willing to sell or rent them a place. In this case how does the community get rid of them? They can't as it would violate their property rights.
Businesses are forced to do business with immigrants? HA. Businesses want to do business with anyone that gives them money. They also love the cheap labor that immigrants provide. The free flow of labor is important to any free society.
I must be in a different realm of what a free society is. Because to me a free society is completely open and free. But I guess to some a free society is an "us vs them, let's wall up in closed paranoid xenophobic communities." I am sure there would be some of this in a completely free society but I hope that my vision is closer to what the reality would be, because I would hate to live in such a world as I dont' see that to be any better then the nationalism we face today.
sicsempertyrannis: Who here advocated border patrols or border fences?
Marko:Ironic, coming from someone who defended the traffic code for punishing people for having snow on their license plates. He seems to only mind the parts of the trafic code that allow Mexicans into the country.
Actually both debates are part of a bigger picture, I'm of the opinion that the state should act as a buisness to the greatest extent possible. I'd quite like to see you disagree with that stance since the conclusion is that the state ceases to be a state.
The fact is that the state should act in the best interest of those that reside within "its" (for lack of a better word) territory. This means preserving their property values, and I hate to break it to you but immigrants generally don't do wonders for house values.
Marko:Isn`t a hill billy moving into a city as much of an immigrant?
Yes, but that's not the point here.
Now, can we drop the petty race baiting? We all know I'm a racist here (really, I am).
kiba:Who's rejecting them? Some hypothetical white dudes that hate migrant workers because they took jobs away from them, which is by the way, a bunch of HOGWASH.
Are you really telling me that people are fine with immigrants?
kefka888:Wow, I see so much bias in this post. You talk about being an "anarchist" but your words reek of protectionism.
Protectionism? Try reading what I'm saying, at least if you don't agree with my arguments you'd do me the favour of not misrepresenting me. No, my argument has nothing to do with protectionism, nor statism, rather it has to do with property rights. By the way, as a side note, I'm quite keen on dropping the term anarchist.
kefka888:For one thing, if roads were private owners would charge a toll to use them. I am pretty certain the road owner wouldn't care who used the road as long as they paid their toll. If they did care well, their loss of money and I'm sure there would be plenty of non bigoted road owners that would love their business.
You're quite correct, Hoppe makes this point in fact. Owners of ports, roads, airports generally wouldn't be too restrictive in regards to who they let on to their roads. The problem comes when they try to get off the road and into a community. So they could quite easily drive on the roads as far as they like, it's just the getting off the roads that may prove problematic. Moreover, if we grant that communities will be restrictive in regards to who they let in (which they will, if they like the value of their property, which they do) they're not going to be too content with roads letting "immigrants" use them, and since these roads will largely rely on such communities they're going to take that into consideration.
kefka888:If a property owner decides to sell or rent their property to one of these "unwanted' how would this community reject them?
Communities will generally be owned by a single entrepreneur. But this isn't the place for this particular discussion, search for the topic "Feudal Land Arrangements Under Anarcho Capitalism" for that discussion.
kefka888:In my experience someone selling their house doesn't care who buys it as long as they have the money.
That's where contracts come in handy.
kefka888:Businesses are forced to do business with immigrants? HA. Businesses want to do business with anyone that gives them money
Yes, once again, you're correct. But this isn't necessarily the case with business such as restaurants, where allowing immigrants will irritate the more regular customers.
kefka888:They also love the cheap labor that immigrants provide. The free flow of labor is important to any free society.
Once again, you're correct, but it doesn't follow that from wanting to do business with somebody you'll want to live with them. In any case, you're going off on a tangent.
kefka888:I must be in a different realm of what a free society is. Because to me a free society is completely open and free.
Well that's where you're wrong.
GilesStratton:In fact, most businesses are forced to do business with the immigrants they don't want there in the first place.
Poor american employers are being forced to employ cheap labor instead of over-paid,over-regulated cartelized labor. It's such a tragedy.
GilesStratton: kiba:Who's rejecting them? Some hypothetical white dudes that hate migrant workers because they took jobs away from them, which is by the way, a bunch of HOGWASH. Are you really telling me that people are fine with immigrants?
Some people like me are fine with them. I don't see what so scary about a Catholic hispanic family that live down the street, do you?
I would wager that most Americans are just indifferent. They don't really know who is their next door neighbors anyway.
Perhaps I am biased. After all, I am an immigrant, myself. I certainly did not have to endure crossing scorching desert to find jobs and evade border patrols but I know what it like to be poor and living in a very foreign land(Not that I remember all that well). I am sympathatic to them.
GilesStratton: Actually both debates are part of a bigger picture, I'm of the opinion that the state should act as a buisness to the greatest extent possible. I'd quite like to see you disagree with that stance since the conclusion is that the state ceases to be a state. The fact is that the state should act in the best interest of those that reside within "its" (for lack of a better word) territory. This means preserving their property values, and I hate to break it to you but immigrants generally don't do wonders for house values.
Yes it is a part of a bigger picture. And you commit a fallacy in the bigger picture that then has consequences in specific scenarios. Your mistake is that implicitly lend the state some validity. You are not being doctinarian enough. You are tricked into putting outcomes before principles.
Yes I agree with the conclusions many libertarians make that a stateless society would see less and different migration than we see today, but for that to lead you to attacking "open borders" is fallacious. The borders should not only be open they should be erased. To speak for closed borders (or defend the people that do so) is commiting a fallacy. No the state should most definetely not act in the best interest of those that reside within its territory, the state should be destroyed! Right now! The state should be opposed in doing anything that is illegitimate and that includes closing the borders. Principles before outcomes. That is the only way to defeat the state rather than implicitly lend it support and legitimacy (provided it is pursuing the outcomes you approve of).The fact is that the state actually does sometimes suceed in outcomes, sometimes even where free society could not. It can rapidly industrialise a huge country (at a great cost in human suffering and institution of slavery), it can send a man on the moon (at a far too great cost monetary cost) it can socialy engineer a new nation in a matter of decades (unfortunately). Thus you can not consistently oppose the state on the basis of outcomes, only on basis of principle.
GilesStratton: Marko:Isn`t a hill billy moving into a city as much of an immigrant? Yes, but that's not the point here. Now, can we drop the petty race baiting? We all know I'm a racist here (really, I am).
Marko:It has squat all to do with race. I`m pointing out the inconsistency of your thinking. If the state should not keep the federal border open, then it should not keep the state borders open, the city limits open, the county limits open and the borough limits open. Close them all. Keep the hillbilly immigrants out, they`re violating property rights or something. They`re using state roads, the horror!
Do you honestly beleive that there would be as much 'immigration' if the state didnt exist? How about when George Bush starts little colonies of Iraqis in towns that dont want them? Or is that another instance of the state 'suceed(ing) in outcomes'?
kiba:Some people like me are fine with them. I don't see what so scary about a Catholic hispanic family that live down the street, do you?
You're missing the point. By and large most people tend to view with immigrants with suspicion. Perhaps you come from a family that behaves different to most, I don't know.
Without the state it would have not been so easy for you to find a property and to move in.
kiba:I would wager that most Americans are just indifferent. They don't really know who is their next door neighbors anyway
Yes, and I'd wager that that is a result of the state.
sicsempertyrannis: Do you honestly beleive that there would be as much 'immigration' if the state didnt exist? How about when George Bush starts little colonies of Iraqis in towns that dont want them? Or is that another instance of the state 'suceed(ing) in outcomes'?
Marko: Yes I agree with the conclusions many libertarians make that a stateless society would see less and different migration than we see today...
Yes I agree with the conclusions many libertarians make that a stateless society would see less and different migration than we see today...