Andy Jacobs Interviewed Again, This Time By San Diego Reporters

Andy Jacobs OK

Found in Voice of San Diego

Sacramento Report: Signature-Gatherers Cheer the New Voter Registration Rules

By Sara Libby and Scott Lewis
October 16, 2015

One of the most significant pieces of legislation lawmakers and the governor agreed to last session was the so-called New Motor Voter bill, by San Diego Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez. Now, when citizens sign up for a driver’s license or an identification card through the Department of Motor Vehicles, the state will automatically register them to vote.

Signature-gatherers — quickly becoming another branch of government in California and San Diego — took notice. The measure may be a boon for the industry. I got in touch with Andrew Jacobs, a professional petition-circulator and coordinator for 15 years, who told me it could be huge but eventually might be a negative for signature-gatherers who do a lot of work in California.

Sacramento Report logoJacobs said if everyone becomes registered to vote, it will increase the validity rates on the petitions he and his counterparts gather. That is, fewer of the signatures they gather will be thrown out. Signature-gatherers will also be more productive — bagging far more per hour than they could now.

The rest of the article can be read here.

366 thoughts on “Andy Jacobs Interviewed Again, This Time By San Diego Reporters

  1. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt Post author

    October 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    Do you have one you’d rather I use?”

    No, that’s OK. I just figured that I should mention that that picture was not taken in California, as it was also used in an article here about Oklahoma, which is where it was taken.

  2. Andy

    “steve m

    October 18, 2015 at 9:43 pm

    So what is the Oklahoma status?”

    If more money does not materialize for the LP petition drive in Oklahoma, it will be in jeopardy of failing.

  3. Andy

    “paulie

    October 18, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    About 12k collected so far.”

    Just to be clear, this is around 12,000 raw signatures, not 12,000 valid signatures. The signature requirement for an unqualified party to attain ballot status in Oklahoma calls for 24,745 valid signatures by March 1st.

    I do not know what the validity rate on the 12,000 signatures collected so far is. I do know that Oklahoma is a more difficult than average state for validity for the following reasons:

    1) Only 52% of the population of Oklahoma is registered to vote.

    2) We have been told that we cannot register people and have some sign petitions the same day (some states allow this, and it is a good way to bump up validity rates and number of signatures collected per day in those states).

    3) Party ballot access petitions in Oklahoma have to be separated by county, and there are 77 counties in Oklahoma, and to make matters worse, there are multiple cities in Oklahoma that are in more than one county, and some of the people who live in these places do not know which county they live in, and if a person signs the wrong county page, their signature will be disqualified.

    4) Having to separate lots of county pages makes it more difficult to spot check signatures as people are signing. Some states have petitions where everyone in the state can sign the same page. Other states requires petitions to be separated by county, and a few by city/town, and if you are in one of these states, it means a petition circulator has to carry lots of pages on their clip boards. If several people are signing at once, and none of them are from a county that is on top of your clip boards, it means that they can a petition page, and hand you the clip board back after folding the pages back, and then they walk of quickly. A petition circulator can increase their validity rate by looking at the person’s signature and making sure they signed it properly and that the printed sections are legible before the signer walks away, and if the petition is not filled out properly, or if the printed sections are not legible, they can ask the person to fix it before they walk away. If the petition circulator has lots of pages of paper they have to flip through to find the page where the person signed due to a state with a lot of counties requiring the petitions to be separated by county, they will encounter more situations where people did not fill out the petition properly and/or they had illegible printing and they are not able to have them fix it because they flipped the pages over and walked away and the petition circulator did not have a chance to examine their signature before they left.

    5) Lack of access to locations with public foot traffic where one can gather petition signatures without being run out by the police, security guards, bureaucrats, store managers, etc… This not only has a negative affect on the number of signatures brought in on average per day, it also has a negative affect on validity, because it means there are places where a higher than average percent of Oklahomans are registered to vote (signatures collected in areas where a higher percent of the population are registered to vote tend to have a higher validity rate than signatures collected in places where a lower percent of the population is registered to vote) where petition circulators will not be able to find a place that has foot traffic where they can ask these people to sign without being run out of these locations.

    I estimate that the LP will probably have to collect 40,000-50,000 raw signatures in order to ensure that the drive is successful.

    Petition circulators could ensure a validity rate of 100%, or very close to it, if they were provided with walking list of registered voters and they walked door-to-door in neighborhoods to gather the signatures, however, this would have to pay more than double the rate of what is currently being offered for signatures, maybe even triple the rate. Door-to-door is a slower method of gathering signatures so it needs to pay a higher rate. The benefit of this is that the validity rates on door-to-door gathered signatures is higher, so you don’t need to gather as many extra signatures for padding to survive a validity check. Petition circulators would also have to be provided with walking lists of registered voters, because it is a waste of time to knock on somebody’s door if they are not registered to vote (and note that in Oklahoma, we have been told that we cannot have people fill out registrations and have them sign the petition the same day). So the party would have to pay to print up walk lists of registered voters. I suppose that walk lists could be put on iPads, not everybody has an iPad, so some people would have to buy them, and then there’d be the problem of what if somebody drops it and it breaks. I think that it is probably easier just to print the walk lists up on paper.

    Another plus for collecting petition signatures door-to-door with a walking list of registered voters is that it means that petition circulators will have a lot more locations where they can work (there is no shortage of doors to knock on), however, on the negative side, there are less hours of the day when one can gather signatures door-to-door, as you can really only do it from around 4 PM to 9 PM Monday – Friday, and from maybe around 11 AM – 9 PM on Saturday and Sunday.

    I have put out the suggestion that a higher pay rate per signature be offered for door-to-door gathered signatures off of a walking lists of registered voters (which the party would have to provide), but so far nobody has taken any steps to implement this.

    Nobody in the Libertarian Party has done anything to alleviate the access to locations with public foot traffic for petition signature gathering problem in Oklahoma either, in spite of multiple LP officials and attorneys be alerted about the problem.

    I think that the amount of money that the LNC budgeted for the petition drive in Oklahoma was unrealistically low. Illinois requires 25,000 valid signatures for state wide ballot access (which is about the same as the current requirement in Oklahoma), and the Libertarian Party spent $100,000 on that petition drive last year, and it needs to be pointed out that Illinois is an easier state to fulfill this signature collection requirement in for the following reasons:

    1) Illinois has a population of 12,880,580. Oklahoma has a population of 3,878,051.

    2) Approximately 65% of the population of Illinois is registered to vote. Only 52% of the population of Oklahoma is registered to vote.

    3) The petition pages in Illinois to place a state wide party slate on the ballot in Illinois do not have to be separated by county or city/town, which means that everyone in the state can sign the same page. The state wide party ballot access petitions in Oklahoma have to be separated by county, and as I said above, there are 77 counties in Oklahoma, and there a multiple cities that are in more than one county.

    4) There are a lot more places that carry public foot traffic in Illinois as compared to Oklahoma, and although there are certainly some access problems for petition circulators in Illinois, the access problems for petition circulators at locations with public foot traffic is actually worse in Oklahoma than it is in Illinois.

    I have worked on petition drives in both Illinois and Oklahoma, and my experience has been that Oklahoma is a more difficult state (on average) to collect petition signatures in than Illinois is.

    So if the LP had to spend $100,000 to qualify for the ballot in Illinois, I do not think that it is realistic for them to think that they can get on the ballot in Oklahoma for $60,000.

    There is the X factor of the volunteer Medical Marijuana initiative petition circulators working on the Libertarian Party petition in Oklahoma (there is a Medical Marijuana initiative petition that recently started up in Oklahoma, but this campaign has no money behind, so the only people collecting signatures on it are unpaid volunteers), but so far these people have not gathered many signatures on the Libertarian Party petition, and I question how reliable they are going to be on the LP petition. If they start bringing in big numbers of the LP petition, it could save the LP petition drive, but from I have seen from them so far, I am skeptical that they will do this.

    Another factor is that we are in the early stages of what is generally the busiest season for petition signature gathering, which are usually presidential election seasons. There are not only lots of candidates and parties trying to get on ballots, but also lots of initiatives (and often times referendums and recalls as well) trying to get on ballots. So it is much harder to hire petition circulators during these busier seasons as there is more competition for them. There have only been 5 experienced pro petition circulators who have worked on this LP drive in Oklahoma, and 3 of them have already left the state, as in they quit the petition drive and went to work on higher paying petition drives in other states (they all said that they probably will not return to Oklahoma unless the pay goes up). Several other experienced petition circulators have been told about the LP petition drive in Oklahoma and all of them have turned the job down because they say that it is not paying enough (as in they said that they would only go to work on the LP drive in Oklahoma if the pay increases).

    I think that more money will probably have to materialize for the LP petition drive in Oklahoma or there’s an above average chance that it will fail.

  4. Andy

    “and have some sign petitions the same day”

    Should read, “and have them sign petitions the same day…”

  5. Andy

    “jim

    October 19, 2015 at 12:17 am

    Do illegal aliens who get driver’s licenses automatically get registered to vote?”

    Not as far as I know. The California DMV has records on who is an American citizen and who is not. The only people who should be able to vote under this are American citizens who are California residents and who are at least 18 and who are not on parole for a felony.

  6. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Actually, the furor seems to be because undocumented immigrants can be registered. I don’t know how that will work yet, though.

    I NEVER call human beings “illiegal aliens”, BTW.

  7. Andy Craig

    CA issues “AB60” licenses to immigrants who lack proof of citizenship or legal status, but otherwise have proof of identify and of CA residency. These licenses are marked “FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY” and though they are equally valid for all state purposes, the federal government doesn’t accept them for federal purposes. So it isn’t like the state doesn’t distinguish them from regular licenses that citizen residents get.

    It really isn’t a problem, any more than the practice (which every state has) of letting legal resident aliens get drivers licenses, and 16 and 17 year olds for that matter, or in some states convicted felons, without allowing any of them to register to vote under existing Motor-Voter.

  8. jim

    Jill: I forgot to mention: To call them “undocumented immigrants” is nonsense. Most of them have some form of “documents”. They may be FORGED documents, or maybe documents that they have been given (illegally) by Obama, but they do indeed have “documents”.

  9. paulie

    Undocumented migrants is the correct term. It means the act of migration was not “documented” by state regime gangs and their byzantine bureaucracies and phony lines in the sand to mark their self-claimed turf.

    Calling them “illegal aliens” is nonsense. They are human, not alien, and calling undocumented migration “illegal” is an insult to the law. No victim, no crime. Yes, some undocumented migrants commit actual crimes, but so do some native born citizens and documented migrants. The state regime is not the property owner of the whole country, so it isn’t trespass. In fact, not even the regime defines it as a crime of trespass, or they would have to provide due process. It’s a civil infraction. It shouldn’t even be that, it should just be legal period. Only legitimate individual property owners should have the right to define who is or is not trespassing on their individual property. They have no right to make such decisions for their neighbors.

    “Illegals” is an even crazier term. It completely obliterates the humanity of people and defines their whole existence as objects that have violated the sacredness of the state’s all powerful and divine right to regulate who may enter its sacred temple through the divinations of its priesthood of bureaucrats. This absurd and abhorrent term “illegals” is so far beyond nonsense on stilts that it boggles the mind that it has to be explained repeatedly, yet somehow it does.

  10. paulie

    Do you call people who have committed a crime, “criminals”? Same concept.

    Undocumented migrants haven’t broken any legitimate law, thus are not “criminals,” and even the term criminals is far less dehumanizing than “illegals.” Criminal is just a way to make a living or indulge hobbies, “illegal” is anathema, like “parasite” or “virus” or “vermin.”

  11. paulie

    Not as far as I know. The California DMV has records on who is an American citizen and who is not. The only people who should be able to vote under this are American citizens who are California residents and who are at least 18 and who are not on parole for a felony.

    Duh! Yet another transparent canard being peddled by the xenophobia racketeers and shills.

  12. paulie

    I do not know what the validity rate on the 12,000 signatures collected so far is.

    The only tentative report I have heard is about 50%, but that was only from the first little batch checked. I was told Andy and I had about 65%, which is very low for us, and we were the best of the bunch, with some people being significantly lower. There were 4 of us here at one point from out of state, one left a while back and one is leaving this weekend and not coming back. Andy and me will be the only ones left here after that, plus the local part timers.

    Really I have been a part timer here, between all the problems with finding decent locations and my health issues, I’ve worked so little that I have actually lost money every single week I have been here, and almost every day with very few exceptions. I have been passing up much better paying work elsewhere and trying to do everything I can to make this project succeed, including sounding the alarm repeatedly and suggesting all kinds of ideas to make it work (most of which have not been tried), but I am running out of credit to keep borrowing money to stay here and not producing much to show for it, so I may have to leave soon. And even if that was not a problem, Andy is looking at offers elsewhere, and if he leaves I won’t have transportation or a way to get paid so I would have to leave too. But even if he stays I may not be able to afford to stay here much longer at this rate.

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    When did “voter registration” become a thing in the first place? I suspect Richard Winger would have the answer to that. My personal guess is “some time after the adoption of the Australian ballot.”

    If there’s going to be “voter registration,” it should be require an affirmative decision that one wants to register, not just be “automatically” triggered by some other action.

  14. paulie

    There have only been 5 experienced pro petition circulators who have worked on this LP drive in Oklahoma, and 3 of them have already left the state, as in they quit the petition drive and went to work on higher paying petition drives in other states (they all said that they probably will not return to Oklahoma unless the pay goes up).

    Oops, that is correct, I said 4…. forgot the one guy who was here less than a week. So actually Andy is right, 3 have left.

  15. paulie

    If there’s going to be “voter registration,” it should be require an affirmative decision that one wants to register, not just be “automatically” triggered by some other action.

    There shouldn’t be any voter registration. North Dakota and many foreign countries get by just fine without it. If it does exist, making it opt out instead of opt in is a good idea, so at least we get as close as possible to the ideal state of not having any voter registration at all. It is simply a vestige of different ways to keep less well off, younger, less stably housed, and on average less white people from being able to vote at all due to unnecessary paperwork hassles and hoops. In the past other methods employed for this purpose included poll taxes, literacy tests, property ownership requirements, 21 to vote before it was changed to 18, etc. Felony disenfranchisement, voter ID laws, reducing polling places and hours, making absentee voting more difficult – all these are still being used for the same purpose. Voter registration is just another one of these nefarious methods to limit the “wrong” people from voting.

    So having it triggered by some other action, while not as good as getting rid of voter registration completely, is better than the “affirmative action” of having to make a separate decision, and worse yet a separate trip, to register to vote. Motor Voter is an improvement over what some states like Wyoming do (and it was even worse before Motor Voter because states that did not have election day voter registration could also make everyone register to vote in person at the courthouse as well). Automatic voter registration with opt-out is another improvement. Best of all would be no voter registration at all, like in ND.

    Likewise, there is a wide range of felony disenfranchisement rules between states. The best are Maine and Vermont, which are the only US states that actually allow people to vote even while incarcerated. However, many other countries allow it.

  16. paulie

    Andy @12:01 am is way too long, but if anyone cares about what is happening with the Oklahoma drive and why you should read it anyway.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I agree that there shouldn’t be any voter registration.

    I don’t agree that people should be registered unless they kick out. That’s not closer to the ideal of no registration, that’s just putting people into yet another new system without their active consent.

  18. paulie

    Look at it this way. Being in that system does not obligate them to do anything whatsoever. You still have the right to not vote. You have the right to opt out if it really bothers you. But on the other hand, many people actually do get excluded from voting because they did not fully understand the paperwork requirements or did not bother to find out exactly what they are until it turned out to be too late (which they did not know) or kept putting it off until it was too late. A lot of people are busy and there just may not be a convenient time, and they may not know where to find forms etc. People who work a lot or are in less than stable situations may be particularly having a hard time with it. What exactly do you lose by being put into a voter registration system unless you actively opt out? All it does is confirm that you have the right to vote if you decide you want to do so. If you don’t, that’s still your choice.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I agree that if there’s going to be voter registration, two things should apply:

    1) It should be very easy (as easy as checking an additional box that has to be printed on most other government forms); and

    2) If there’s any question about the validity of your registration, the burden of proof should be on the state to prove that you’re ineligible rather than on you to prove that you’re eligible.

    That said, what one loses by being put into a voter registration system unless one actively opts out is that one’s consent to that system is assumed instead of requested.

  20. paulie

    Well then, perhaps it should be a nonvoter registration system instead. Anyone with documents proving their identity and residency would just be assumed to be allowed to vote unless they are on the registry of people who are underage, not US citizens, residents of a different jurisdiction, deemed mentally incompetent to vote by a court of law, disqualified by felony in the states that do that (grrrrr), or chooses to voluntarily register as a nonvoter. If you show up with something that says who you are and where you reside and appear to be qualified on those grounds, and you are not a registered nonvoter, here you go, here’s your ballot.

  21. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp

    October 19, 2015 at 6:39 am

    Paulie,

    I agree that if there’s going to be voter registration, two things should apply:

    1) It should be very easy (as easy as checking an additional box that has to be printed on most other government forms); and

    2) If there’s any question about the validity of your registration, the burden of proof should be on the state to prove that you’re ineligible rather than on you to prove that you’re eligible.

    That said, what one loses by being put into a voter registration system unless one actively opts out is that one’s consent to that system is assumed instead of requested.”

    I don’t see one being acknowledged by the state as being qualified to vote meaning that is consenting to the system. It just means that if one decides to vote, that they will be able to vote, without having to fill out additional paper work.

    There is an opt out of the voter rolls form that people will be able to fill out if they so desire. Also, just because a person is recognized by the state as being qualified to vote, it does not mean that they have to vote.

    There are 7 states that have election day voter registration, and technically, one of those states does not really have voter registration at all in North Dakota, where all one has to have to vote is proof that they are legally qualified to vote, which is documentation that says that they are at least 18, an American citizen, and that they have lived in North Dakota for at least 30 days prior to the election (this documentation could be a driver’s license or state ID card, but they do accept other forms of documenting these things).

    I think that a system that makes it easier for people to vote is actually a good thing for minor party or independent candidates. A lot of the types of people who are more inclined to vote for minor party or independent candidates are the types of people who are not registered to vote, and who are not as likely to go to the trouble to make sure that they fill out of a voter registration form before the cut off to register to vote to be able to vote in the election (which is usually between 30 days to 2 weeks prior to the election). Minnesota has election day voter registration, and this played a big role in Jesse Ventura being elected Governor of that state, as a good number of the people who voted for him were people who registered to vote at the polling places on the day of the election.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I don’t see one being acknowledged by the state as being qualified to vote meaning that is consenting to the system.”

    And I don’t see automatically adding someone to a government list without asking them whether they want to be added to that list or not as mere “acknowledgement” of anything.

    Question: Should draft registration be automatic too? After all, it would be more convenient than having to say “I’ve chosen to register for the draft.” And hey, everyone would avoid all those penalties for not registering. What’s not to like — other than the fact that the decision to register or not register (even if the latter entails penalties) should be MINE, not the state’s.

  23. Andy

    Paul said: “Voter registration is just another one of these nefarious methods to limit the ‘wrong’ people from voting.”

    Actually, I would ideally like to see limits on who could vote. I’d like to see anyone who receives money from the government, be they recipients of various forms of welfare, government employees, or government contractors, barred from voting, or from donating to political campaigns.

    If the only people who could vote and take part in politics were those who did not receive anything from the government, I think that there’d be a lot more freedom in this country right now.

    Allowing people who get stuff from the government to vote and to take part in politics turns what is supposed to be the servant into the master a lot more so than it would be otherwise.

  24. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Jim asked “Jill: Do you call people who have committed a crime, “criminals”? Same concept.”

    It depends. If the individual murdered someone, even if they were in the military, I might refer to him or here as a criminal. If the individual was tried and convicted of having pot or soliticiting sex from another adult, heck no.

    Just because the government and a corrupt justice system calls someone a criminal, doesn’t make them one.

  25. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp

    October 19, 2015 at 11:02 am

    ‘I don’t see one being acknowledged by the state as being qualified to vote meaning that is consenting to the system.’

    And I don’t see automatically adding someone to a government list without asking them whether they want to be added to that list or not as mere ‘acknowledgement’ of anything.”

    You don’t seem to get it. The “list” is merely an acknowledgement that people are legally qualified to vote. The government ALREADY has these records when people get a driver’s license or a state ID card. So this is not giving the state government something that that they do not already have anyway. It is just taking a list of people from one government agency (the DMV in California) and using it for records to qualify who can legally vote, and this is actually something that is already done anyway, as one of the ways to qualify to vote is by providing one’s driver’s license or state ID card information. This just simplifies the process. It does not force anyone to do anything, and it allows for an “opt out” form for people who do not want their driver’s license or state ID records to be used for voter qualification.

    Now one could make an argument against driver’s licenses and state ID cards, and I’d agree with those arguments, in particular when it comes to driving, but the fact of the matter is that most people, myself included, already have a driver’s license or a state ID card. I have a driver’s license, not because I agree with the concept of having a state driver’s license (I do not agree with it, and I do not think that it is legally valid), but rather so I do not invite more police harassment on myself. I agree with people like Michael Badnarik and Adrian Wyllie who have protested state driver’s licenses, but I just find that particular battle to be more trouble than it is worth. Sure, it would be nice if a critical mass of the population burned their state driver’s licenses, but saying this is a heck of a lot easier than actually making it a reality.

    North Dakota has had something similar to this for years and it is really not a problem in that state.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    “You don’t seem to get it.”

    Oh, I get it. I was just too nice to SAY it unless pushed. But since you insist:

    “Automatic voter registration” means higher petition signature validity rates and, depending on the basis for calculating how many signatures are required for what kind of petition (e.g. “X% of registered voters), possibly more signatures to be gathered.

    Higher petition signature validity rates and higher numbers of signatures required means more and/or easier money for Andy Jacobs.

    QED, “automatic voter registration” is da bomb.

    Sorry to make you drag it out of me.

  27. Andy

    Paul and I rang what should be a major alarm bell above about the Libertarian Party petition drive in Oklahoma. The drive is at risk of failing, which, if it happens, will mean yet another election where the Libertarian Party failed to get on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, and yet another election where there was no other party on the ballot besides Democrat and Republican for Oklahomans. Failure would also mean that it would be yet another election where Oklahomans had nobody else to vote for in the presidential race besides Democrats and Republicans since Oklahoma is one of the few states that does not allow for write in votes (there ought to be a law suit over this).

    There have only been five experienced pro petition circulators who have worked on the LP petition drive in Oklahoma, and three of them have left the state, and are not likely to return (unless the pay goes up). Several other experienced petition circulators have been told about the job and have turned it down because they think that they pay rate being offered is too low (I just thought of 13 people in this category, and there are probably more people who have been offered to job and have turned it down of which I am aware).

    So nobody is “beating down the door” to work on the LP petition drive in Oklahoma. Experienced petition circulators who have been told about the job ARE TURNING IT DOWN in favor of other options.

    There are a few local LP volunteers who are collecting signatures, but they are not getting very many. There are also the volunteer Medical Marijuana initiative petition circulators who have been offered pay by the LP to collect signatures on the LP petition, but so far they have not produced much on the LP petition, and I question who reliable these people are going to be on the LP petition. Sure, they MIGHT start to bring in big numbers on the LP petition, but they’ve had it for a few weeks now, and so far I have not seen evidence that indicates that they will bring in big numbers on the LP petition. Maybe this will change, but I’m in the skeptical category about this.

    So this leaves Paul and I, and I’m not sure if either of us are going to continue to stay in Oklahoma or not. I could have already left for other options, and perhaps I should have. I am not sure what I am going to do at this point, but I am considering leaving.

    There is still time to salvage the LP petition drive in Oklahoma (the deadline is March 1st), but I’ve seen no effort from the LNC to raise more money or to do anything to alleviate the location problems. Paul and I have put forth multiple suggestions to help with the situation and so far nobody has done anything.

    The LNC was really foolish to delay starting the petition drive in Oklahoma for as long as they did, and they were also foolish to ignore something I have suggested multiple times, which is that they work on making sure that petition circulators have locations with public foot traffic where they can ask people to sign without getting run out BEFORE the petition drive starts. The LNC should have people contacting the police, city attorneys, county attorney, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, etc…, BEFORE a petition drive even starts to clarify where we can go to gather signatures. Libertarian Party officials typically do nothing, and just throw petition circulators – both paid and unpaid volunteers – “to the wolves” so to speak, in that they do nothing to assist with getting locations, so what frequently happens is that petition circulators get run out of spots that carry foot traffic, which reduces the number of signatures brought in per day on the petition drive. This is one of the biggest reasons why petition drives fail, and this is something that has caused numerous Libertarian Party candidates to not get on the ballot over the years. The LNC and LP national office staff have been made aware of this problem (on multiple occasions over the years), yet they have done little or nothing to try to fix this reoccurring problem.

    If Paul and I did not give a damn if the petition drive in Oklahoma was successful or not, we would not ring this alarm bell, and we both would likely have already left, or we may not have come to Oklahoma at all.

    Like I said above, I am skeptical that the Medical Marijuana initiative petition circulators (and once again, the Medical Marijuana campaign HAS NO MONEY) are going to “save the day” in Oklahoma. So barring this happening, I think that the LP needs to do two things:

    1) Come up with more money for the drive.

    2) Work on solving the location problems.

    If the Medical Marijuana petition circulators do not pick up their production on the LP petition, and if the LP does not implement #1 and/or #2 of what I just suggested above, do not be surprised if the LP fails to qualify for the ballot in Oklahoma again.

  28. Andy

    “they think that they pay rate being offered ”

    Should read, “they think that the pay rate being offered…”

    “and I question who reliable these people are”

    Should read, “and I question how reliable these people are…”

  29. jim

    Paulie: You said, “Well then, perhaps it should be a nonvoter registration system instead. Anyone with documents proving their identity and residency would just be assumed to be allowed to vote unless they are on the registry of people…”
    What and where is this “registry of people”? Does it really exist, in one location?

  30. Andy

    “paulie

    October 19, 2015 at 5:39 am

    I do not know what the validity rate on the 12,000 signatures collected so far is.

    The only tentative report I have heard is about 50%, but that was only from the first little batch checked. I was told Andy and I had about 65%, which is very low for us, and we were the best of the bunch, with some people being significantly lower.”

    A 65% validity rate is actually not bad by Oklahoma standards.

  31. jim

    Paulie: You said, “Undocumented migrants is the correct term. It means the act of migration was not “documented” by state regime gangs and their byzantine bureaucracies and phony lines in the sand to mark their self-claimed turf.”

    Don’t play the trick of using the term “is THE correct term”. suggesting that there is no other valid term. For YOU, YOU want people to use ONE SPECIFIC term. But don’t pretend that other terms aren’t valid.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, the term you were using was “illegal.” And since Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution forbids Congress to regulate immigration, making all such regulations null and void, that term ISN’T valid.

  33. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: You said, ” And since Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution forbids Congress to regulate immigration, making all such regulations null and void, that term ISN’T valid.”

    Here is Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution:

    Section 9: Limits on Congress[edit]
    The ninth section of Article One places limits on Congress’ powers:

    The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

    The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

    No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    [end of quote]

    I am unable to find in here something which “forbids Congress to regulate immigration”, at least not after 1808.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I am unable to find in here something which ‘forbids Congress to regulate immigration’, at least not after 1808.”

    Correct.

    Article I, Section 9 forbade Congress to regulate immigration before 1808.

    Article V forbade amending that section before 1808.

    After 1808, if Congress wanted to regulate immigration, it was free to propose a constitutional amendment to the states empowering it to do so. Absent such a constitutional amendment, the 10th Amendment reserved that power to the states or to the people. And that’s exactly how it was for another 70-odd years, until an activist Supreme Court magically miracled up that non-existent federal power.

  35. Thomas L. Knapp

    William,

    “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

    It’s not at all unclear.

  36. William Saturn

    That’s a very strange interpretation. Where does it say that Congress has to propose a constitutional amendment after 1808 rather than simply passing a bill?

  37. Andy Craig

    Nothing in Section 9 grants a power to Congress, either. If you want to find a constitutional justification for immigration prohibition, you have to be able to point to a clause in the document giving that power to Congres– a clause which doesn’t exist.

    The 1808 clause did restrict (uniquely only as to “states now existing”) Congress’s ability to prohibit persons pursuant to their enumerated powers The international slave trade, the main object of the clause, was covered the power to punish offenses against the law of nations and on the high seas, like piracy. Likewise, excluding enemy aliens (nationals of a country we’re at war with) is reached from the war power, by way of necessary and proper. Declaring foreign diplomats persona non grata likewise falls under the power to receive ambassadors and conduct foreign relations. So there are certain discreet categories of persons or activities Congress can forbid from entering the country, and that’s what was restricted pre-1808.

    The only power grant that speaks to immigration in general, however, is that Congress can establish the uniform rule of naturalization, i.e. how a person becomes a citizen. It’s dubious that prohibiting unauthorized residency or presence in the United States is a “proper” corollary of that, and it certainly is not a “necessary” one, as shown by the seven decades when we had a uniform rule of naturalization but not such a thing as “illegal immigration.”

  38. Thomas L. Knapp

    As explained above, in the 10th Amendment. And it’s not an “interpretatation.” It’s what the fucking thing says, and what it clearly meant based on the debates leading up to the Constitution’s ratification (the southern slave states wouldn’t ratify unless they were allowed to keep importing slaves, and Pennsylvania wouldn’t ratify if it couldn’t keep bringing in cheap immigrant labor; so, no ban on federal immigration regulations, no Constitution).

  39. Andy

    Tom, you obviously did not read the article very closely above.

    If you actually read and understood what I said, you’d notice that I said that more people being registered to vote leading to more people voting, thus increasing signature requirements could potentially be a negative thing.

    Why? Because increased signature requirements could mean that some would be petition proponents would end up getting priced out of being able to get on the ballot, which means that some of them would not even attempt to do a petition drive.

    Also, like I said above, petition coordinators in California typically pay on a 75% minimum validity threshold. After this thing goes into practice, the coordinators in California could increase the validity threshold to say 90%, or maybe 100%, or they could use it as an excuse to lower the pay.

    So petitioners may not end up making any more money off of this than they are making now.

  40. William Saturn

    ” shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight.” So after 1808 why is it not within Congress’s powers under Section 8 to restrict the naturalization of certain persons? Was the Naturalization Act of 1790 and those following somehow unconstitutional?

  41. William Saturn

    “Illegal” is defined as “not according to or authorized by law.” Aliens in the United States who are “not according to or authorized by law” to be here because they are not naturalized or lack a visa/green card are therefore “illegal.”

  42. Andy

    Another factor with increasing the signature requirements in direct ratio to voter turn out is that it could mean that coordinators will have to hire more petition circulators, and it will certainly mean that petitions in California will get just as “burned out” as they do now, as in in the latter stages of a petition drive when lots of people have already signed, it becomes more difficult to get the remaining signatures.

  43. jim

    Andy Craig: You said, “Nothing in Section 9 grants a power to Congress, either. If you want to find a constitutional justification for immigration prohibition, you have to be able to point to a clause in the document giving that power to Congres– a clause which doesn’t exist.”

    Well, there are a lot of things which Congress seems to do that are based on vague connections, say “The Commerce Clause” is one of the biggest. (Necessary and proper, for another.)
    It is not surprising that “nothing in section 9 grants…”, specifically because that Section is intended as a LIMITATION on Congress’ power.

    I would sure like to have the SC declare that the regulation of (currently illegal) drugs is improper, just because there does not appear to be anything within the Constitution to justify it.

  44. jim

    I agree with William Saturn’s specific statement, “That’s a very strange interpretation. Where does it say that Congress has to propose a constitutional amendment after 1808 rather than simply passing a bill?”

  45. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Question: Should draft registration be automatic too? After all, it would be more convenient than having to say ‘I’ve chosen to register for the draft.’ And hey, everyone would avoid all those penalties for not registering. What’s not to like — other than the fact that the decision to register or not register (even if the latter entails penalties) should be MINE, not the state’s.”

    Getting drafted into military service forces a person to do something, and there are strong arguments that the military draft is unconstitutional. The Constitution does says that the federal government can, “Call forth the Militia,” but it does not say that they can force people to join the Militia or the military.

    Being recognized as a person who is legally eligible to vote does not force a person to vote, or to do anything, and as mentioned above, it does have an opt out form for people who do not want their driver’s license or state ID card to be used for voter qualification purposes.

    Really, considering that we are living in the computer age, there is no reason why there cannot be some kind of election day voter registration mechanism in every state. It does not take that long to figure out if a person is legally qualified to vote.

  46. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “Higher petition signature validity rates and higher numbers of signatures required means more and/or easier money for Andy Jacobs.”

    Funny how Tom periodically puts out these accusations against me that paint me out to be some guy that is just out for money. See my comments above in this thread, OR READ THE ARTICLE ITSELF to see where I already pointed out that more registered voters is not necessarily going to be a good thing for petition circulators in California.

    Once again, if this causes signature requirements to go up a lot, it will end up pricing some would be petition proponents out of being able to get on the ballot.

    Let’s say that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party and some other minor party or independent candidate supporters want to place an initiative on the ballot to repeal the Top Two Primary. Richard Winger said that it would take a constitutional amendment initiative to repeal Top Two Primary in California, so this would currently require 585,407 valid petition signatures. Let’s say that a coalition of minor parties and independent candidate supporters was formed to do this, but let’s say that it took them a long time to get organized and to raise money to do this, and that by the time they were ready to do this, it was after the 2018 Gubernatorial race (the signature requirements in California are based on how many people vote in the Governor’s race). Let’s say that due to this automatic voter registration law voter turn out in the Governor’s race increases significantly. So let’s say that the signature requirement for a constitutional amendment initiatives goes up from 585,407 valid signatures to 1,053,807 signatures. This could easily price the minor party and independent candidate coalition to repeal Top Two Primary from being able to raise enough money to place there initiative on the ballot, and it could actually cause these would be petition proponents to throw in the towel.

    If some would be petition proponents are priced out of doing petitions by greatly increased signature requirements, that would mean less work for petition circulators.

    If you follow ballot access for both issues and candidates/parties, you will find that the states that have the highest petition signature requirements in ratio to population tend to have less petition work than the states with lower petition signature requirements in ratio to population.

    Also, like I said above, increasing the validity rates will not necessarily help petition circulators make more money, because it could lead to lower pay rates, or increases validity standards for pay, or less extra signatures collected for padding.

    So contrary to Tom’s accusations, this may not be as wonderful a thing in the long run for petition circulators in California as Tom Knapp is making out to be.

    It is also rather ironic that I’m one of the few people in the petition business that is not solely motivated by money, yet Tom Knapp has accused me of this on multiple occasions. If I was “only in it for the money,” I would not be working on the LP petition drive in Oklahoma. I would have either left Oklahoma weeks ago, or I would not have gone to Oklahoma at all. I’d almost certainly be making more money right now if I were working on petition drives that are going on right now in Massachusetts, Florida, or South Dakota.

    I’ve actually TURNED DOWN thousands and thousands of dollars in potential earnings over the years by refusing to work on numerous campaigns that were anti-liberty, and I’ve also spent thousands of dollars out of my pocket on libertarian activism, yet Tom Knapp keeps popping up every so often with this snide comments where he asserts that I’m just out for money.

    Sure, I like to make money, but REALITY is that if money was my sole motivation, I’d have a lot more of it right now.

  47. paulie

    . If I was “only in it for the money,” I would not be working on the LP petition drive in Oklahoma. I would have either left Oklahoma weeks ago, or I would not have gone to Oklahoma at all. I’d almost certainly be making more money right now if I were working on petition drives that are going on right now in Massachusetts, Florida, or South Dakota.

    You can sure say that again. I feel like a real chump still being here. People keep telling me how much money they are making in those other states. Meanwhile I am losing money every single week, and almost every single day, since I have been here. I am running out of money as well as credit to keep borrowing more, 3 out of 5 petitioners have already left this petition drive, I am having serious health problems and no money or medical insurance, the good weather will end soon, the fair is already in the past, yet another event we could have worked at the Botanical Gardens yesterday (situation still unresolved), and the drive is looking more and more like it will fail because nothing is being implemented to change the situation. So what am I killing myself for? I feel really stupid for still being here right now.

  48. paulie

    more registered voters is not necessarily going to be a good thing for petition circulators in California.

    Once again, if this causes signature requirements to go up a lot, it will end up pricing some would be petition proponents out of being able to get on the ballot.

    Biggest issue would likely be that pay per signature on the streets would go down. More petitioners hired due to higher signature requirements, getting in each others’ way more, more burned out public… it could actually mean less money for petitioners, not more.

  49. Andy Craig

    “there is no reason why there cannot be some kind of election day voter registration mechanism in every state.”

    I’m so glad that same-day registration, and petitions that require only ‘eligible’ voters rather than registered ones, make so many of these problems not an issue in Wisconsin. There’s no need for voter registration drives, because for all intents and purposes registered or not doesn’t matter.

    “Registered” in WI just means you’ve voted at a given location with same address before, and so you’re on their list and don’t have to show proof of address again. If you’ve moved, just go through the simple same-day registration at your new polling location before you vote (and there’s no partisan registration to worry about either). The only people who aren’t eligible to sign petitions, that aren’t in prison, are those on parole or probation, or who don’t live in the relevant district.

    I have other gripes about Wisconsin election laws (every candidate petitioning individually and no filing fee option is itself a stupid system I think, and the thresholds are deliberately set higher than they need be). But in many respects, it’s not as bad as other states. At least the big-two have to get the same number of signatures, even if they have a much easier time paying for them, and that helps keep things relatively reasonable.

  50. paulie

    I would sure like to have the SC declare that the regulation of (currently illegal) drugs is improper, just because there does not appear to be anything within the Constitution to justify it.

    Same is true with migration restrictions.

  51. paulie

    Getting drafted into military service forces a person to do something, and there are strong arguments that the military draft is unconstitutional. The Constitution does says that the federal government can, “Call forth the Militia,” but it does not say that they can force people to join the Militia or the military.

    Being recognized as a person who is legally eligible to vote does not force a person to vote, or to do anything, and as mentioned above, it does have an opt out form for people who do not want their driver’s license or state ID card to be used for voter qualification purposes.

    Really, considering that we are living in the computer age, there is no reason why there cannot be some kind of election day voter registration mechanism in every state. It does not take that long to figure out if a person is legally qualified to vote.

    Exactly.

  52. Andy Craig

    I’m sorry to here things aren’t going well in OK. Hopefully national, or whoever’s responsible, will take some action to fix that. After making the decision to go in on OK, primarily so we can get 50-state in 2016, they need to have the follow-through to get it done. Otherwise that is an absolutely unconscionable amount of money they’ve wasted.

  53. paulie

    Andy Craig: You said, “Nothing in Section 9 grants a power to Congress, either. If you want to find a constitutional justification for immigration prohibition, you have to be able to point to a clause in the document giving that power to Congres– a clause which doesn’t exist.”

    Well, there are a lot of things which Congress seems to do that are based on vague connections, say “The Commerce Clause” is one of the biggest. (Necessary and proper, for another.)
    It is not surprising that “nothing in section 9 grants…”, specifically because that Section is intended as a LIMITATION on Congress’ power.

    Right, so since it’s not on the list of things congress can do, it’s one of the things it can’t do. And the fact that congress does lots of things it is not supposed to do all the time does not justify it in any way.

  54. paulie

    I’m sorry to here things aren’t going well in OK. Hopefully national, or whoever’s responsible, will take some action to fix that. After making the decision to go in on OK, primarily so we can get 50-state in 2016, they need to have the follow-through to get it done. Otherwise that is an absolutely unconscionable amount of money they’ve wasted.

    True. We keep ringing the alarm and no one seems to think the situation is as urgent as we say.

  55. Andy

    “Andy Craig

    October 19, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    I’m sorry to here things aren’t going well in OK. Hopefully national, or whoever’s responsible, will take some action to fix that. After making the decision to go in on OK, primarily so we can get 50-state in 2016, they need to have the follow-through to get it done. Otherwise that is an absolutely unconscionable amount of money they’ve wasted.”

    Sadly, it would not be the first time they’ve wasted money, and it would not even be the largest amount of money that they’ve wasted.

    One plus note here in Oklahoma is that I’ve encountered lots of people who are interested in the Libertarian Party. I’ve already signed up around 40 people to be on announcement list for the Libertarian Party (as in these are all people who have said that they want to be contacted by the Libertarian Party) and I’ve done this without even pushing it that hard. A bunch of Libertarian Party flyers and pamphlets and bumpers stickers have also been handed out as well.

  56. Andy

    Paul said: “True. We keep ringing the alarm and no one seems to think the situation is as urgent as we say.”

    Earlier today I spoke to another petition circulator I know and I told this person about the LP petition drive in Oklahoma. They gave me the same response that everyone else I’ve talked to about it has given, which is something along the lines of, “Let me know if they pay goes and then maybe I’ll be interested in going there.”

  57. Andy

    “Earlier today I spoke to another petition circulator I know and I told this person about the LP petition drive in Oklahoma. They gave me the same response that everyone else I’ve talked to about it has given, which is something along the lines of, ‘Let me know if they pay goes and then maybe I’ll be interested in going there.'”

    Above I mentioned there being 13 experienced petition circulators that I know who have turned down working on the LP drive in Oklahoma. Well, the person referred to in the post above this one brings this number to 14.

  58. paulie

    So after 1808 why is it not within Congress’s powers under Section 8 to restrict the naturalization of certain persons?

    Naturalization and migration are two different things.

  59. George Phillies

    “Article I, Section 9 forbade Congress to regulate immigration before 1808.” This sentence only make sense as a restriction if Congress otherwise would have had the power to regulate immigration in the indicated years.

  60. paulie

    “Illegal” is defined as “not according to or authorized by law.” Aliens in the United States who are “not according to or authorized by law” to be here because they are not naturalized or lack a visa/green card are therefore “illegal.”

    The edict is illegitimate, therefore not truly law. Since the edicts restricting migration are both unconstitutional and immoral, it would be more accurate to call those who pass and enforce such edicts as “illegals,” as opposed to those who rightfully flout such illegitimate and immoral edicts.

  61. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Since the edicts restricting migration are both unconstitutional and immoral, it would be more accurate to call those who pass and enforce such edicts as ‘illegals,’ as opposed to those who rightfully flout such illegitimate and immoral edicts.”

    +9000

  62. paulie

    Don’t play the trick of using the term “is THE correct term”. suggesting that there is no other valid term

    I didn’t say it it is the only correct term. I did point out why it is correct, refuting your spurious deflection as to why you think it isn’t, and went on separately to explain why the terms “illegal alien” and “illegal(s)” and any permutation of “illegal” as applied to non-regime permited migrants are not valid.

  63. paulie

    Well then, perhaps it should be a nonvoter registration system instead. Anyone with documents proving their identity and residency would just be assumed to be allowed to vote unless they are on the registry of people…”
    What and where is this “registry of people”? Does it really exist, in one location?

    It would be just like the registry of voters that exists now.

  64. paulie

    You don’t seem to get it. The “list” is merely an acknowledgement that people are legally qualified to vote. The government ALREADY has these records when people get a driver’s license or a state ID card. So this is not giving the state government something that that they do not already have anyway. It is just taking a list of people from one government agency (the DMV in California) and using it for records to qualify who can legally vote, and this is actually something that is already done anyway, as one of the ways to qualify to vote is by providing one’s driver’s license or state ID card information. This just simplifies the process. It does not force anyone to do anything, and it allows for an “opt out” form for people who do not want their driver’s license or state ID records to be used for voter qualification.

    Exactly!

  65. paulie

    Actually, I would ideally like to see limits on who could vote. I’d like to see anyone who receives money from the government, be they recipients of various forms of welfare, government employees, or government contractors, barred from voting, or from donating to political campaigns.

    How about people who hold government bonds? Those who own shares in companies that make money from government contracts? Those who own shares in companies that benefit in one way or another from government actions of some sort? This can get dicey in a hurry.

  66. paulie

    Question: Should draft registration be automatic too? After all, it would be more convenient than having to say “I’ve chosen to register for the draft.” And hey, everyone would avoid all those penalties for not registering. What’s not to like — other than the fact that the decision to register or not register (even if the latter entails penalties) should be MINE, not the state’s.

    Draft registration implies an obligation to show up for military service if the draft is enacted. Voter registration carries no obligation.

  67. paulie

    I think that a system that makes it easier for people to vote is actually a good thing for minor party or independent candidates. A lot of the types of people who are more inclined to vote for minor party or independent candidates are the types of people who are not registered to vote, and who are not as likely to go to the trouble to make sure that they fill out of a voter registration form before the cut off to register to vote to be able to vote in the election (which is usually between 30 days to 2 weeks prior to the election). Minnesota has election day voter registration, and this played a big role in Jesse Ventura being elected Governor of that state, as a good number of the people who voted for him were people who registered to vote at the polling places on the day of the election.

    Agreed.

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Draft registration implies an obligation to show up for military service if the draft is enacted. Voter registration carries no obligation.”

    There is no draft at the moment. There COULD be a draft any time Congress wants to pass a law enacting a draft, and it has been discussed many times (not too long ago, it was suggested — IIRC, he even made theatrical motions toward introducing a bill — by US Representative Charles Rangel).

    There is no legal requirement to vote at the moment. There COULD be a legal requirement to vote any time Congress wants to pass a law requiring people to vote, and it has been discussed many times (recently, it was publicly suggested by a guy you may have heard of, US president Barack Obama).

    The only difference between “automatic” draft registration and “automatic” voter registration is that AT THE MOMENT the advocates of the latter claim you can opt out. But that tune will change if the US follows Australia down the mandatory voting road.

    I’d be perfectly fine with ditching “voter registration” as such altogether and just letting people vote unless someone challenges their right to and can prove why they shouldn’t be allowed to.

    But “automatic” voter registration allows the state to pretend to a much higher level of consent and participation than it actually enjoys, at the expense of people who may have neither asked for nor want the designation of “registered voter.”

  69. Andy Craig

    @George Phillies

    ““Article I, Section 9 forbade Congress to regulate immigration before 1808.” This sentence only make sense as a restriction if Congress otherwise would have had the power to regulate immigration in the indicated years.”

    They did as to certain discreet categories under their enumerated powers, the most relevant one being the international slave trade (which would have been ‘importation’, not ‘migration’). The relevant powers do not have to be as broad as encompassing total prohibition of immigration (“friendly aliens” as Jefferson would have put it), to still be affected by the limitation in the 1808 clause. Before 1808, Congress couldn’t ban importation of slaves into the original 13 states, and after 1808 they could under the power to punish offenses against the law of nations and on the high seas. Before 1808, a state could have (in theory) trumped the feds declaring a foreign diplomat PNG and allowed them to stay in that state regardless, a point never tested but which was raised by some with regards to a French Revolutionary ambassador that were popular in some states but opposed by Washington’s administration. Before 1808, Congress could not have prohibited migration of enemy or hostile nationals against a state’s wishes (a point Jefferson raised against the Alien and Sedition Acts).

    However, both before and after 1808, there was no general power granted to prohibit immigration, for no other reason or justification than limiting their total number. Even though Congress does have particular powers that can reach prohibiting the entry of some foreigners, the vast majority of immigrants aren’t covered by any of them.

  70. Andy

    Just because a person is listed as being qualified to vote under this new law in California it does not mean that they have to vote.

    Also, once again, the new law includes an opt out form that must be provided to everyone, which allows the to opt out of having the driver’s license or state ID card information being used to add them to the qualified voter rolls.

  71. Mark Axinn

    Jim,

    Unfortunately, individuals from other planets without the imprimatur of the State are not permitted to vote in the crony-fascist USA.

    It’s a pity we let people vote at all. They actually think it is some wonderful right and therefore love to battle each other over picking their masters, as opposed to the charade we all know it to be.

  72. jim

    Paulie, you said: “How about people who hold government bonds? Those who own shares in companies that make money from government contracts? Those who own shares in companies that benefit in one way or another from government actions of some sort? This can get dicey in a hurry.”

    A person “who holds government bonds” is loaning money to the government, and receiving in turn interest. In a free market, this is an unbiased relationship. Similarly for government contracts: In a free market, with competition, a person who participates in that market is doing so in an equal, unbiased position.

  73. paulie

    The only difference between “automatic” draft registration and “automatic” voter registration is that AT THE MOMENT the advocates of the latter claim you can opt out. But that tune will change if the US follows Australia down the mandatory voting road.

    If that did happen, they already have all the information they need to make as many people as they could possibly make now vote. The lack of a pre-existing voter whitelist or blacklist would in no way hinder that. Unless and until that happens that “at the moment” is a very significant difference.

    I’d be perfectly fine with ditching “voter registration” as such altogether and just letting people vote unless someone challenges their right to and can prove why they shouldn’t be allowed to.

    So would I. As a practical matter all this does is take a big step in that direction.

    But “automatic” voter registration allows the state to pretend to a much higher level of consent and participation than it actually enjoys, at the expense of people who may have neither asked for nor want the designation of “registered voter.”

    It doesn’t let them pretend much if they don’t get good turnout. Anyone can opt out of that status and having that status does not force anyone to vote.

  74. jim

    Mark Axinn: You said, “Unfortunately, individuals from other planets without the imprimatur of the State are not permitted to vote in the crony-fascist USA. It’s a pity we let people vote at all. They actually think it is some wonderful right and therefore love to battle each other over picking their masters, as opposed to the charade we all know it to be.”

    You sound highly confused. Most people forget that until the 14th Amendment, citizenship and authority to vote wasn’t defined as a part of the US Constitution.

    So the issue isn’t, “Is voting a right”, but instead “Who has the right to vote?”

  75. jim

    Thomas L. Knap: You said, “In a free market, there’s no such thing as a “government contract.””

    I was thinking of the situation where there is adequate and fair competition during the granting of the contract.

  76. paulie

    In a free market, there’s no such thing as a “government contract.”

    Duh! And what could be further from our present reality than “with competition, a person who participates in that market is doing so in an equal, unbiased position.” You’d have to be extremely naive if you thought that was even close to being the case.

    In any case, all that misses the thread extrapolating from Andy’s comment completely.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    If you think “automatic voter registration” is a “huge step” in the direction of people securing voting rights, I’ve got some oceanfront property to sell you, out in the Mojave.

    The states that are adopting “automatic voter registration” are the states that already make voting easy and don’t get in very many voters’ way. The states that try to suppress e.g. minority voting aren’t adopting “automatic voter registration” at this time, and if forced to they’ll just find other ways to make it hard to vote.

    “Automatic voter registration” is nothing but a giant hand job when it comes to any positive effects. Andy has pointed out some of the possible negative effects on referendum and candidate petitioning. I’ve pointed out that “opt out” is bullshit. My affirmative consent, not just my failure to opt out, should be required to put me into a class of government registrants.

  78. Andy

    “jim

    October 19, 2015 at 10:05 pm

    Paulie, you said: ‘How about people who hold government bonds? Those who own shares in companies that make money from government contracts? Those who own shares in companies that benefit in one way or another from government actions of some sort? This can get dicey in a hurry.’

    A person ‘who holds government bonds’ is loaning money to the government, and receiving in turn interest. In a free market, this is an unbiased relationship. Similarly for government contracts: In a free market, with competition, a person who participates in that market is doing so in an equal, unbiased position.”

    Government contractors receive tax payer funding. They are not engaged in a free market transaction, and they have a vested interest in taxation and government spending because they make money off of it. Therefore, I would include government contractors in with people should be barred from voting and from donating money to political campaigns

    If I could go back in time to when the Constitution was drafted, and if I could have been a delegate there, I’d have lobbied hard for a clause like this to be added to the Constitution.

  79. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    You write:

    “I was thinking of the situation where there is adequate and fair competition during the granting of the contract.”

    And no such situation can exist with respect to “government contracts.”

    Even if the competition is fair INTERNALLY (which seldom happens), it remains a fact that EXTERNALLY, everything competing with government for “hey, how does this money get spent” is excluded at gunpoint.

    If the government decides to build a bridge, sure, it could bid that job openly and fairly. But the guy who wanted to build an ice cream stand instead doesn’t get to compete with the government for the money that’s being spent. The taxpayers don’t get to decide to invest with the ice cream stand entrepreneur instead of with the bridge-building bureaucracy.

  80. paulie

    The states that are adopting “automatic voter registration” are the states that already make voting easy and don’t get in very many voters’ way.

    As easy as it is, it still manages to get in more people’s way than you might think.

    I’ve pointed out that “opt out” is bullshit.

    I’m not convinced.

    My affirmative consent, not just my failure to opt out, should be required to put me into a class of government registrants.

    Suppose that a state requires a license to have a gun. A bill passes that everyone who is not otherwise disqualified under that state’s from having a gun is automatically on the database of people who are allowed to have guns (unless they ask not to be). Nothing in the bill requires anyone who doesn’t have or want guns to have them now. Granted, it would be better yet if no license at all were required, all the state is doing is eliminating an unnecessary paperwork check and waiting period if and when someone does choose to get a gun. Would this be a bad bill? Supposing you were in the legislature would you vote for or against it?

  81. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    You’ve pointed out yourself why it would be a bad bill.

    If you’re not disqualified from having a gun, there’s no reason for there to BE a database with you in it. And if the state thinks you are someone who is, or should be, disqualified from having a gun (I’m aware of no such class — the Constitution doesn’t mention any), the burden of proof should be on them to prove you shouldn’t be able to get a gun, not on you to prove that you are someone who should be “allowed” to.

    If the qualifications for voting are “18 years old or older and lives in the district in which he or she is voting,” then if I show up at a polling place claiming to be 37 and to live 100 feet away, the burden should be on the people wanting to stop me from voting to establish that I am not yet 18 or that I don’t live in the district, not on me to prove that I am 18 or older and do — even if the latter is as simple as “applied for a driver’s license and didn’t demand to opt out of voter registration.”

  82. George Phillies

    Automatic Voter Registration: If enough state buy into the scheme to wreck the electoral college, so that states cast electoral votes for whoever won the national vote total, then bloating your voting rolls has a significant effect. Lowering the voting age, say to 12, would also do a bit.

  83. paulie

    Perhaps I did not adequately describe the status quo ante of our hypothetical gun bill. To make it simpler imagine that the state in question is not in the US at all, if it helps clear away misdirection about the US Constitution. But you can also suppose it is in the US, since we all know that US states do disqualify various people from gun ownership regardless of any innate rights even if they happen to be constitutionally spelled out.

    Our hypothetical state:

    *Requires anyone who wants to get a gun to submit paperwork and wait for the state to check that they are not in one of the classes of people it disqualifies,

    *Does not require anyone to have a gun,

    *Disqualifies people for a variety of reasons such as age, lack of proof of residency, judgment of mental incompetence and felonies,

    *Makes that paperwork fairly easy, but does introduce a trip or search to find or print the form, fill it out, submit it, and wait for it to be processed before someone is allowed to legally purchase a firearm.

    With our hypothetical bill, the first three starred points don’t change, only the fourth one goes away. Instead, if someone who is otherwise legally allowed (before and after the bill) to buy a gun legally in that state under it’s rules can go through the same easy paperwork trip if they want to not be on the list who are sold a gun when they show up at a licensed gun dealer in that state with the funds to secure their weapon of choice.

    Still say it’s a bad bill?

  84. paulie

    Automatic Voter Registration: If enough state buy into the scheme to wreck the electoral college, so that states cast electoral votes for whoever won the national vote total, then bloating your voting rolls has a significant effect.

    Only to the extent that it increases the actual turnout. Registration alone does not do that.

    For example, there is no voter registration in ND, but there are still a significant number of non-voters.

  85. Thomas L. Knapp

    It’s not that you inadequately described the hypothetical gun bill. It’s that you’re piling bullshit higher and higher trying to come up with a way to justify adding people to yet another government scheme without their request or permission. And there’s just no way to pile bullshit high enough to justify that.

  86. Andy

    “George Phillies

    October 19, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    Automatic Voter Registration: If enough state buy into the scheme to wreck the electoral college, so that states cast electoral votes for whoever won the national vote total, then bloating your voting rolls has a significant effect. Lowering the voting age, say to 12, would also do a bit.”

    North Dakota has essentially had this for years. The way it works in North Dakota is that anyone who is legally qualified to vote, which is any American citizen who is at least 18 and has resided in North Dakota for at least 30 days, can show up at the polls and vote, just as long as they have some form of documentation that says that they are legally qualified to vote (it could be a North Dakota Driver’s License or a North Dakota State ID card, but they do accept some other forms of documentation).

    I just read the Election Day Voter Registration entry on Wikipedia, and it turns out that there are more states than I realized that have election day voter registration.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_voter_registration

    “Eleven states currently have some form of Election Day voter registration: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Washington DC. Montana began Election Day voter registration in 2006, and Iowa in 2008. In 2012, Connecticut and California both enacted new laws to implement Election Day Registration. Connecticut started with its municipal elections in 2013. Colorado followed enacting EDR for the 2014 election. Illinois implemented a pilot in 2014 and made EDR permanent starting in 2015. Rhode Island also have Election Day registration for presidential elections. California will start in 2015 or once it has implemented its statewide voter registration database. (North Dakota, unique among the states, has no voter registration requirement at all.)”

  87. paulie

    It’s that you’re piling bullshit higher and higher

    Seems like a good analogy to me.

    adding people to yet another government scheme without their request or permission

    The “scheme” being – not having to jump through unnecessary hoops if and when they decide to vote. No new obligations, no anything except less paperwork. AND an opt-out option if it bother them.

  88. paulie

    I just read the Election Day Voter Registration entry on Wikipedia, and it turns out that there are more states than I realized that have election day voter registration.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_voter_registration

    “Eleven states currently have some form of Election Day voter registration: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Washington DC. Montana began Election Day voter registration in 2006, and Iowa in 2008. In 2012, Connecticut and California both enacted new laws to implement Election Day Registration. Connecticut started with its municipal elections in 2013. Colorado followed enacting EDR for the 2014 election. Illinois implemented a pilot in 2014 and made EDR permanent starting in 2015. Rhode Island also have Election Day registration for presidential elections. California will start in 2015 or once it has implemented its statewide voter registration database. (North Dakota, unique among the states, has no voter registration requirement at all.)”

    Good trend.

  89. Andy

    There are five states that do not require people who sign petitions to place issues or candidates on the ballot to be registered to vote, they only have to be eligible to vote. Those states are North Dakota (which does not have voter registration), Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa (note that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa all also have election day voter registration).

    One of the law suits filed by the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania over the ballot access requirements in that state challenged the requirement that petition signers had to be registered voters, because the law in Pennsylvania actually says that they have to be qualified electors, and the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania argued that being a qualified elector should be interpreted to mean that a person is legally qualified to vote in Pennsylvania, which would include people in Pennsylvania who are 18 and over, are American citizens, and have resided in Pennsylvania for at least 30 days. Unfortunately the court in Pennsylvania did not see it this way, and they ruled that a qualified elector meant a person who was legally qualified to vote, and who properly filled out a Pennsylvania voter registration form.

  90. Andy

    “which would include people in Pennsylvania who are 18 and over, are American citizens, and have resided in Pennsylvania for at least 30 days.”

    I forgot to add, “but who have not filled out a voter registration form.”

    Just in case I was not clear enough, the LP of PA was hoping to get a ruling that would allow all Pennsylvanians who are legally eligible to vote to be able to have their signatures counted as valid on ballot access petitions, instead of just signatures from Pennsylvanians who had filled out voter registration forms and were on the voter rolls. The court ruled against the LP of PA on this point.

  91. Andy

    Wow, great video from Stefan Molyneux. He shows lots of polling data that indicates that a majority of present day immigrants are supporters of big government. This should be clearly apparent to anyone who is not brain dead and is honest.

    The tyrants who control the government want these people flocking into the country so they can make them citizens and register them to vote, because they know that the bulk of them will vote in favor of bigger and bigger government (and they especially want them to vote for more gun control laws, as they know that the majority of them do not come from a gun rights culture and do not understand or support the right to keep and bear arms).

    Just look at who the pro-gun rights people are in this country. The majority of gun rights supporters are white natural born Americans, a lot of whom are derided for being “rednecks.” Take away the white natural born American “redneck” vote, or dilute it to being a minority of the vote, and you can kiss gun rights goodbye in this country. If we lose gun rights in this country, the level of tyranny will get a lot worse.

    Yeah, I know that lots of natural born Americans vote for stupid things too (including a lot of white natural born Americans), and this is what led me to come up with the Libertarian Zone Contract idea which would apply equally to immigrants to the Libertarian Zone as well as to those who were born in the Libertarian Zone ( http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ). My Libertarian Zone concept would be open to all people (regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, etc…), PROVIDED THAT THEY AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE LIBERTARIAN ZONE CONTRACT, which would be enforceable by all of the members of the Libertarian Zone.

    If we had a government that actually gave a damn about being “bound by the chains of the Constitution,” it would not offer welfare programs to immigrants (which attracts the wrong kind of people to come here), and it would do a better job of educating people to become American citizens (nice fantasy, I know). If I were in charge of the Naturalization process in this country, I would require applicants to pass the following tests before I would grant them citizenship:

    1) A thorough class on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution (something along the lines of the Constitution classes taught by Michael Badnarik, who’d be an excellent teacher for such a class).

    2) A class in free market economics (Somebody from the Ludwig von Mises Institute would be good for this, like Lew Rockwell or Tom Woods or etc…).

    3) A class on the 2nd amendment, which would include a trip to a firing range (Somebody from Gun Owners of America would be good instructor for this).

    I’d also have all immigrants sign a contract that would state that they cannot collect welfare, participate in Affirmative Action programs, or lobby on behalf of foreign governments, and if they violate it, they get deported.

    If they can pass the classes I mentioned above, and if they sign the contract and abide by it, congratulations, they can become American citizens.

    Anyway, here is the video from Stefan Molyneux. I urge people to watch the entire video before commenting on it.

  92. jim

    Paulie: I, instead, paid particular attention to the section:

    “The tyrants who control the government want these people flocking into the country so they can make them citizens and register them to vote, because they know that the bulk of them will vote in favor of bigger and bigger government (and they especially want them to vote for more gun control laws, as they know that the majority of them do not come from a gun rights culture and do not understand or support the right to keep and bear arm.”

    I think this principle is, indeed, which motivates those that promote free-borders. I previously posted a message on this subject, which this idiotic system has now lost.

    I remain astonished that there are people who call themselves “libertarians” who actually come to the conclusion that the borders should be IMMEDIATELY opened and free for all to cross. It is already hard enough to craft a libertarian majority with what America has; bring millions more who have little or no respect for freedom, and the task is made that much harder. I think it’s most likely that people are trying to bring these people in now, in order to sabotage the eventual possibility of a country run on libertarian principles.

    Please note that I very much distinguish between “opening the borders eventually” and “opening the borders immediately”. Former, good. Latter, bad.

  93. paulie

    It’s typical reich wing racist nonsense, as par for the course for cult leader Molyneux. Immigrants vote for Democrats over Republicans, and that’s an indication that they are less pro liberty? Only if you think that the Republicans are less pro-liberty than the Democrats or that the issues where libertarians agree more with Democrats are somehow less important than those where we tend to agree more with Republicans. By that same logic you might disenfranchise African-Americans, women, various ethnic and “racial” groups and religions, people under … 40? 50? …. and on and on and on.

    Desiring a particular electoral outcome is a ridiculous reason to grant the regime rights that it does not have to redefine trespass as if it owns the whole country. The ends don’t come close to justifying the means. It’s like in your example with Bloomberg, where he suggested disarming young black men. Yeah, it’s immoral and unconstitutional and bigoted, but hey, it would reduce violent and property crime, right? Never mind individual rights.

    It’s very disappointing that something like this would even need to be explained to a libertarian much less an anarchist libertarian.

  94. jim

    Paulie: I suppose that your knee-jerk response didn’t notice that Andy’s comment did not mention “Republican” nor Democrat” within it. In reality, the article said, “He shows lots of polling data that indicates that a majority of present day immigrants are supporters of big government.”

    Historically, the Republicans have supported “big government” too. Indeed, some do today, still. So why do you try to turn this into a partisan issue, when it need not be that?

    I found this. I post it despite the fact that it doesn’t entirely support my position. But it is something you clearly wouldn’t publicize.

    http://alibertarianfuture.com/big-government/immigration/heres-libertarians-stand-immigration/#sthash.uGxDsA8Q.dpbs

  95. paulie

    I notice your knee-jerk response ignored the main substance of what I said.

    Jay Wilson’s site and his articles are ridiculous, I’d rather not give him the traffic or waste time on his poorly thought out or formulated arguments. I’ve addressed the Hoppean nonsense many times over many years, which is probably what you are talking about. Suffice it to say that I am in no way impressed by the “paleolibertarian” nonsense of trying to bend over backwards and twist in knots to appeal to far reich wing racists. Even Lew Rockwell ended up admitting that strategy was a colossal blunder. You can make similarly blunderheaded arguments as to why an anti-liberty position on any issue is libertarian if you try hard enough.

  96. Chuck Moulton

    I’m with Tom Knapp on this. I’ve seen how government treats its existing databases: driver’s license and voter registration databases are sold to private data brokers, IRS and Office of Personnel Management databases are left exposed to identity theft hackers.

    I don’t consent to put myself in an unnecessary government database, be it a voter registration whitelist, a gun registration whitelist, or whatever. I do not consent, and anyone who is seeking government to put more people in a database without their permission has a few screws loose.

  97. paulie

    No one would not be in it who is not in government databases already. Indeed, that’s the whole point; only people who are already in government databases would be added, and they would all be mailed a form to opt out as well.

    I don’t consent to put myself in an unnecessary government database, be it a voter registration whitelist

    If you are a registered voter you are already putting yourself in that database. And people who are not registered voters are in other government databases. If anyone is not in any government databases they would not be in this one either.

  98. Andy

    Stefan Molyneux knocks one out of the park again! This video has plenty of charts with data that clearly indicates that immigrants are using welfare at a much higher ratio as compared to native born Americans. This is all a part of the plan to destroy what is left of freedom in this country. These are people who statistically vote for bigger government and gun control after they become eligible to vote.

    This is not to say that all immigrants are bad, but a disturbing percentage of them are. I also blame the politicians who have created this mess, but the immigrants themselves ought to be held accountable.

    The Truth About Immigration and Welfare

  99. Andy

    “Chuck Moulton

    October 20, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    I’m with Tom Knapp on this. I’ve seen how government treats its existing databases: driver’s license and voter registration databases are sold to private data brokers, IRS and Office of Personnel Management databases are left exposed to identity theft hackers.

    I don’t consent to put myself in an unnecessary government database, be it a voter registration whitelist, a gun registration whitelist, or whatever. I do not consent, and anyone who is seeking government to put more people in a database without their permission has a few screws loose.”

    So I take it that Chuck does not have a driver’s license or state ID card and that he’s not registered to vote. If he is, he’s already in these government databases.

  100. Andy Craig

    “Low-income (family income below 200% of poverty line) non-citizen children and adults utilize Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI at a generally lower rate than comparable low-income native-born citizen children and adults, and the average value of public benefits received per person is generally lower for non-citizens than for natives. Because of the lower benefit utilization rates and the lower average benefit value for low-income non-citizen immigrants, the cost of public benefits to non citizens is substantially less than the cost of equivalent benefits to the native-born.”

    http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

    If you have a bigger problem with immigrants on welfare than Americans on welfare, your objection isn’t to welfare.

  101. paulie

    Is the “Andy” spewing the immigrant-baiting crap Andy Jacobs, someone pretending to be Andy Jacobs, or some other “Andy?”

    Andy Jacobs. You can just as easily check that yourself since you have access to the dashboard and can see IP addresses and email addresses entered. I don’t know why he doesn’t just use his last name in his screen name, since it’s no secret what it is and he’s big on non-anonymous commenting. I don’t use mine either, but then I’m not as big on non-anonymous commenting, and I use a slightly non-standard variant of my first name so it has never even been a question if it was me unless it’s been the troll impersonator, and then it’s usually pretty easy to tell the difference.

    Andy J should really get some better sources than fraudster/cult leader racist Molyneux, who uses the typically terrible data sources and misinterpretations of data frequently used by racists and pull up the ladder behind them types trying to drum up transparent excuses for their prejudice that make it sounds like something more than the irrational hate and fear that it actually is. He should really get some better sources such as reason.com, cato.org, Bryan Caplan / http://openborders.info and http://openborders.info/sitemap/ (there’s a lot there – really, seriously people, read it … then read it again and let it sink in).

  102. paulie

    Andy J is however correct here:

    So I take it that Chuck does not have a driver’s license or state ID card and that he’s not registered to vote. If he is, he’s already in these government databases.

    And there’s actually many other ways to be in them as well.

    And Andy C is correct here:

    http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor

    If you have a bigger problem with immigrants on welfare than Americans on welfare, your objection isn’t to welfare.

  103. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    I don’t generally go cruising the dashboard at IPR looking at IPs to associate identities, etc.

    I just thought it might be either an impostor impersonating Andy J, or some other Andy using only the first name, because usually Andy J is pretty libertarian, and I found it surprising to see him promoting the Hoppe/Brimelow/VDARE idiocy.

  104. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    It is a bit ironic to have Andy J complaining about immigrants, when he himself is in Oklahoma, where the head of the Cherokee nation is.

  105. Andy

    “Nicholas Sarwark

    October 21, 2015 at 10:20 am

    ‘If you have a bigger problem with immigrants on welfare than Americans on welfare, your objection isn’t to welfare.’

    Exactly.”

    Not true at all. Read my Libertarian Zone concept above.

    Who said that I have a bigger problem with immigrants on welfare than I do with natural born Americans on welfare?

    I am the same person who proposed that people who receive welfare, work government jobs, or work as government contractors, be barred from voting or from donating to political campaigns.

  106. paulie

    I don’t generally go cruising the dashboard at IPR looking at IPs to associate identities, etc.

    You could just do it if you are ever in doubt whether a comment is an impersonator or someone else with the same name etc. It’s also useful for fixing typos. And, I like the reply to comment feature in the dashboard which has a few of the basic HTML tags preformatted. Saves me time on things like blockquote and img src to hit a button rather than type them out each time.

    usually Andy J is pretty libertarian, and I found it surprising to see him promoting the Hoppe/Brimelow/VDARE idiocy.

    He’s a big Alex Jones fan. Why are you surprised?

    Besides, it’s not exactly the first time he has posted stuff like that here.

    I’ve sent him detailed analysis on why Molyneux is frequently way off base, uses bad methodology and is just not in any way shape or form a reliable source at all before. It goes in one ear and out the other.

  107. paulie

    It is a bit ironic to have Andy J complianing about immigrants, when he himself is in Oklahoma, where the head of the Cherokee nation is.

    Yeah, just imagine how much fun it would be if US states and Indian Nations started enforcing migration quotas and permits and border patrols in the same way as is done on the US borders.

  108. Andy

    The Washington Post has an article that points out what I said, and what Stefan Molyneux said in the videos I posted above, and that is that the majority foreigners in the USA support more strict gun control laws.

    The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable.
    Just look at the demographics.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?tid=sm_fb

    From the article:

    “Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.”

    “The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.

    Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

    Asian Americans also represent a growing anti-gun demographic. Although only about 5 percent of the population today, the Asian American population is predicted to triple over the next few decades. A recent poll of Asian American registered voters found that 80 percent supported stricter gun laws.”

    SO YOU DON’T THINK THAT THERE IS AN AGENDA GOING ON HERE?

    Now if all of these people, or heck, even a majority of these people, were pro-free market right to keep and bear arms supporters, this would not be a big problem, but this is clearly not the case.

    More from the article:

    “Rural Americans tend to oppose gun control, with 63 percent saying that gun rights are more important than gun control. The country, however, is becoming less rural and more urban. Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of people living in cities, with big metropolitan areas experiencing double-digit growth.”

    Idiot white “liberals” who tend to live around big cities, and foreign born people, are going to be the death of the right to keep and bear arms in this country.

    This DOES NOT MEAN that everyone who lives in a big metropolitan area supports gun control laws, and I do NOT mean that all foreign born people support gun control laws, and I do NOT mean that all Hispanics or all Asians support gun control laws. There are exceptions to every rule. I am talking about averages and trends here, and the statistics mentioned above clearly show what the trends are, and they are not good for the right to keep and bear arms.

  109. paulie

    Right, you’ve expressed the opinion before that guns and taxes are more important issues than others. Not all libertarians agree. Those happen to be issues where conservatives agree with or at least pay lip service to libertarian views more than progressives do. But on the overall broader peace, civil liberties and economic liberty ranges of issues, conservatives if anything agree with us least of all.

    The idea that immigrants are being “imported” as part of some “plan” like objects is just racist trash, and the hallmark of racist xenophobic campaigns from other countries, past centuries in the US, and openly as well as covertly racist hate groups today (in the US and elsewhere). People go where they see better opportunities to build a career, business, and future for their children, safety from war and widespread crime, freedom from persecution … all the traditional reasons people have always emigrated and immigrated. They are not pawns of some plan or objects without minds and it is insulting and irrational to talk about or treat them as such.

  110. Andy Craig

    If you consider immigrants vs. native-born (not the made-up and irrelevant categories of whites vs. non-whites), there is almost no net difference in political beliefs and ideology, including on questions of taxes and welfare.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/27/immigrants-political-views-are-a-lot-closer-to-those-of-natives-than-you-might-think/

    And of course “people with your nationality and skin color tend to vote in a way I don’t like” is hardly a justification for prohibiting people from voluntarily interacting, even if it was true.

  111. Andy Craig

    “The idea that immigrants are being “imported” as part of some “plan” like objects is just racist trash, and the hallmark of racist xenophobic campaigns from other countries, past centuries in the US, and openly as well as covertly racist hate groups today (in the US and elsewhere). People go where they see better opportunities to build a career, business, and future for their children, safety from war and widespread crime, freedom from persecution … all the traditional reasons people have always emigrated and immigrated. They are not pawns of some plan or objects without minds and it is insulting and irrational to talk about or treat them as such.”

    Spot-on.

  112. paulie

    If you consider immigrants vs. native-born (not the made-up and irrelevant categories of whites vs. non-whites), there is almost no net difference in political beliefs and ideology, including on questions of taxes and welfare.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/27/immigrants-political-views-are-a-lot-closer-to-those-of-natives-than-you-might-think/

    And of course “people with your nationality and skin color tend to vote in a way I don’t like” is hardly a justification for prohibiting people from voluntarily interacting, even if it was true.

    Excellent article and great points. The other Andy really should read it. The Molyneux parody hits the nail on the head (over and over and over again) as well.

    Worth noting again is that the whole immigration tangent in this thread was started by Jim bringing up the tired and easily refuted canard about “illegal” immigrants being signed up to vote as a result of this law in CA.

  113. jim

    Paulie: You said, “Worth noting again is that the whole immigration tangent in this thread was started by Jim bringing up the tired and easily refuted canard about “illegal” immigrants being signed up to vote as a result of this law in CA.”

    Hey, Paulie, I just asked the question about whether this system amounted to a back-door way to register illegal aliens to vote, something which ISN’T NECESSARILY even illegal! (Why couldn’t a state decide that all residents, INCLUDING illegal aliens, are allowed to vote?).
    That MAY not apply to Federal races, of course. That distinction would be more obvious if we had separate elections for State and Federal offices and issues.

  114. paulie

    My endorsement of the Molyneux parody video obviously should not be read to include endorsement of the “resource based economy”/Venus Project propaganda towards the end of the clip. I wonder if this was the inspiration for “Steve” in that clip being from Nebraska and having a fake accent?

  115. Andy

    I just looked up the naturalization oath that immigrants who become American citizens take.

    Here’s a like to a Wikipeida artlcle about it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States)

    Here’s the oath:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

    The “so help me God” part can be replaced with:

    “8 C.F.R. 337.1 provides that the phrase ‘so help me God’ is optional and that the words ‘on oath’ can be substituted with ‘and solemnly affirm’.”

    These are the principles of the oath:

    “These principles are:
    allegiance to the United States Constitution,
    renunciation of allegiance to any foreign country to which the immigrant has had previous allegiances
    defense of the Constitution against enemies ‘foreign and domestic’
    promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law (either combat or non-combat)
    promise to perform civilian duties of “national importance” when required by law”

    So given that there is lots of polling data that says that a high percentage of modern day immigrants support socialist wealth redistribution, Affirmative Action programs, food stamps, government involvement in healthcare, and gun control, how are these things in line with their swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith an allegiance to the same…”?

    The 2nd amendment to the US Constitution clearly spells out that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and this this right, “shall not be infringed”.

    There is nothing in the Constitution which authorizes socialist wealth redistribution, Affirmative Action, food stamps, or government involvement in healthcare.

    Also, how could any immigrant who goes through the Naturalization process work as a lobbyist for a foreign nation when the oath that they take to become an American citizen says, “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…”?

    So any immigrant who goes through the Naturalization process, which means they have to swear the above oath, but then they come out of the Naturalization process as a new American citizen, which means that they can register to vote, and as a new “American citizen” they support socialist programs, gun control laws, or they lobby on behalf of a foreign nation, they have clearly lied under oath. Lying under oath is called perjury. If they perjured themselves when they took their Naturalization oath, shouldn’t their citizenship status be revoked?

    Now somebody may say, “They did not lie, they just did not understand what the oath they took meant.” My response to this is that if they did not understand what the oath they were taking meant, they should not have taken the oath, and therefore, their having taken this oath should be considered to be null and void, which would mean a revocation of their American citizenship status.

    Some people will probably say, “Well lots of government officials in this country take a similar oath, and they violate it because they do not really believe in it, or in a lot of cases they do not understand what the oath meant.” My response to this is that this is true, and it is a big reason as to why we are in the mess that we are in today. It is also one of the reasons that I have suggested that anyone who works for the government should be barred from voting or from donating to political campaigns.

    This is why we live in such a screwed up country, and it is a big part of the reason that we are losing our freedoms. We have a Constitution which is supposed to put limits on government power and protect our freedoms, but in reality, most people do not understand the Constitution, and many people have not even read it, including many of those charged with enforcing it.

    This is why my Libertarian Zone concept includes a Libertarian Zone Contract which everyone must read and sign to live in the Libertarian Zone. The Libertarian Zone Contract applies to immigrants to the Libertarian Zone, as well as to people who would be born in the Libertarian Zone, so those born in the Libertarian Zone would be held to the same standard as immigrants to the Libertarian Zone, and both could be subject to deportation/banishment from the Libertarian Zone if they violate the terms of the Libertarian Zone Contract (after a fully informed Libertarian Zone jury trial, which would consist of randomly selected Libertarian Zone members (this would be a part of the contract)).

    It should be clear to everyone that we have an Immigration and Naturalization Department in this country that has been engaging in a massive level of fraud by falsely declaring that lots of people who are openly hostile to the US Constitution (and not in a good way) are being sworn in as “American citizens,” which means that they can become registered voters and vote for people who are domestic enemies of the Constitution.

    We also have lots of elected officials, cops, and many other people in government who are openly hostile to the US Constitution, so we really should not be surprised that people in government want to bring in immigrants who favor gun control and socialist programs. This is after all the same government that brought NAZIS into the country after World War II.

    If Libertarians ran the Naturalization Department, would be Americans would be given thorough lessons on the US Constitution and free market economics, but this is clearly not what is happening.

    Some people may say, “Well Libertarians support peaceful people crossing borders.” My response to this, is people who cross borders so they can collect welfare, vote for big government programs, vote for gun control laws, and lobby for tax payer funding and/or military aid for foreign nations, are not peaceful people.

  116. Andy

    Bringing this discussion back to the new law in California that will use driver’s license and state ID records to automatically consider those who are legally qualified to vote as being registered voters unless a person affected fills out a form to opt out of being placed on the voter rolls, some people have expressed concern that this could lead to more voter fraud, that is by allowing people who are not legally qualified to vote to end up voting.

    Could this law lead to this happening? Maybe, but not necessarily. The government already has records on who is an American citizen and who is not. This can be figured out if an ID is run. Some people may say, “Yeah, but they are giving driver’s licenses to people who are not American citizens.” Even so, there is still enough information there for them to determine who is an American citizen and who is not, as well as if a person is on parole for a felony, which in California means that a person cannot vote (a felon can vote in California after they are finished with parole).

    People who are not legally qualified to vote could fill out voter registration forms right now (in any state in this country), and if nobody catches them, or if they are caught and the people who caught them chose to “look the other way,” these people could end up voting in any state. If they are caught, they could be prosecuted, and if they are not an American citizen, it could lead to them being deported, so anyone doing this would be taking a risk.

    Could their be unscrupulous people out there who will try to get people who are not legally qualified to vote to go out and vote because they want to use them to get somebody elected to office? Perhaps, but once again, if they got caught, they could potentially face criminal charges.

    My point here is that there is enough information connected with a driver’s license or state ID card where government officials can quickly determine a person’s citizenship or felon status (this could be determined by simply running a check on the name and date of birth of the person). If people want to “cheat” there is nothing that stops them from trying this now in any state in this country, so I don’t see how this new law will change that. The only thing that it does change is that it makes it so people who are legally qualified to vote but who did not fill out of voter registration form 30 days prior to an election can still vote if they can provide proper documentation that they are legally qualified to vote (which in this case is a California driver’s license or state ID card) at the polling places on election day, and it also allows these people to sign petitions to places issues or candidates on the ballot, as their legal qualification to sign status can be checked from the driver’s license/state ID rolls.

    Now before Tom Knapp jumps in and says, “See, Andy just wants to make money off of these people by having them sign petitions,” I’d like to reiterate that increasing voter turn out in California will lead to higher petition signature requirements in California, which could end up backfiring on the petition industry by pricing some would be petition proponents out of the market (as in they can’t afford to collect that many signatures, so they never even launch a petition).

    Tom is living in Florida now, and there are some state wide initiative petitions that are paying there at the moment, but I actually think that the initiative petition requirements are too difficult in Florida. The signature requirement is too high in Florida (since the signature requirement has recently gone down in California due to low voter turn out, Florida now has a higher signature requirement than California, even though Florida has half the population of California). There is a distribution requirement for signatures where a certain number of signatures have to come out of a certain number of Congressional Districts. The petition pages in Florida only allow for one signature per page, and the state election officials check every page and they charge petition proponents .10 cents per page to check them (one signature per page greatly increases printing costs and shipping costs for campaigns). The only type of state wide initiative allowed in Florida are constitutional amendments, and as of a law that was passed in 2006, they require at least 60% of the vote to pass. They do not have state wide statutory initiatives or state wide referendums in Florida. Petition circulators in Florida cannot have Floridians that are not registered to vote fill out a voter registration form and sign the petition the same day unless they turn the voter registration form in to an election office the same day, which makes this an unpractical thing to do.

    If I could make some changes in the Florida petition process, I’d lower the number of signatures required down to something more reasonable. I’d eliminate the Congressional District distribution requirement. I’d allow for more than one signature per page (at least 10 signatures per page would be nice), and it would be good if it is a state wide petition, if everyone in the state could sign the same page. I’d allow petition circulators to be able to offer potential signers who are not registered to vote to be able to fill out a voter registration form, and I’d count the signature as valid as long as the form processes and as long as the voter registration form gets turned in before, or at the same time as, the petition, or I’d do what California has just passed, which will allow anyone who has a state driver’s license or ID card and who is legally eligible to vote to sign petitions to place issues or candidates on the ballot. I’d institute a statutory initiative and referendum process. I’d consider lowering the 60% vote threshold to pass a constitutional amendment, but on the flip side, if the signature requirement was reduced, and a statutory initiative method was introduced, I might keep the threshold for passing constitutional amendments at 60%.

    Initiative petitions in Florida do not happen as often as in some other states, and I think that the process is too difficult in Florida. This is not to say that it should be too easy to place an initiative on the ballot, but after being involved with this stuff and following this stuff for years, I think that the process in Florida is just not as user friendly as it should be.

    Florida is not the only state with a more difficult than it should be process to place issues on the ballot via petition. The process in Wyoming is so difficult that no state wide citizens issue petition has qualified for the ballot there since like 1992. Illinois also has a process that is unreasonably difficult. The same goes with Oklahoma. Probably a few other states could use some reform to make their systems more user friendly as well, and of course some states do not even have the process at all, but this is another issue.

  117. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Petition circulators in Florida cannot have Floridians that are not registered to vote fill out a voter registration form and sign the petition the same day unless they turn the voter registration form in to an election office the same day, which makes this an unpractical thing to do.”

    Yes, for the most part it does. But in certain circumstances, it works out fairly cool. Last week, Florida Freedom Group did a table in front of the Levy County courthouse to collect signatures for the cannabis legalization initiative. The table was about 50 feet from the elections supervisor’s office, so if someone wanted to sign the petition and register on the same day, we had the registration form. The person could fill it out, walk it over to the office, turn it in, and come back and sign the petition. I think we may have had one person do that.

    I took your advice, Andy, and am collecting signatures for a petition. On my own (as opposed to at a group table), I’ve collected 15 so far and would like to hit at least 100 (I’m collecting from among friends and acquaintances and at events, not just picking a public place to stand). I may spend some time hitting up (not just hitting, or hitting on) people at PrideFest this weekend in Gainesville, if I have time (I’ll also be staffing a booth not related to politics).

  118. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp

    October 22, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    ‘If Libertarians ran the Naturalization Department, they would dismantle it.’

    There, fixed that for ya.”

    Kind of a dumb statement Tom, unless Libertarians ran the rest of the government. It would take an act of Congress do to this, so unless there were a Libertarian majority in Congress. this would not happen.

    Even then, establishing rules for Naturalization is perfectly constitutional.

    Now if you are asserting that Libertarians transform the present day USA into some kind of anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist territory, this is a nice fantasy, but I don’t see it happening any time soon, if ever.

    Even if an anarcho-capitalist / voluntaryist land territory were established somewhere, I do not see it staying that way for very long, if even happening at all, unless there were some kind of defense mechanism in place to prevent it from being over-run by people who were hostile to freedom.

    The Libertarian Zone concept that I came up with has defense mechanisms in place to defend against things like this happening. Read about them when you click the link:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

    How do you propose establishing a libertarian territory if you are surrounded by people who are hostile to the concept?

    It is very funny how some of the same people who get upset if somebody who they do not consider to be a “real Libertarian” joins their party ranks (like let’s say a Bob Barr or a Wayne Root), yet they’ve got no problem with people who are hostile to their freedom moving into the same land territory as them and becoming registered to vote, which means that they can use the political process to vote your freedom away.

  119. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, I was trying to help you out there, Andy.

    You’re afraid that immigrants will vote for all kinds of anti-freedom stuff. I suspect that concern is somewhat overblown, but I’m entertaining it.

    If immigrants don’t become citizens, they can’t vote.

    If the Department of Naturalization is dismantled, immigrants can’t become citizens.

    Problem solved.

    Yes, I know that having rules for naturalization is constitutional. Constitutional and libertarian aren’t the same thing, and the Constitution is, in many ways, not an especially libertarian document.

    All that said, lets follow your logic.

    It’s not just immigrants who statistically tend to vote for anti-freedom stuff. Lots of native-born Americans do too. Would it be acceptable to you to require a government license to have children, and to only issue such licenses to parents who strike you as likely to raise them as libertarians? And if not, how is that any different from your position on immigration?

  120. Andy

    Some of the same “Libertarians” who throw a fit if somebody they perceive to be a non-libertarian joins the Libertarian Party, but they have no problem if a person who is hostile to liberty moves to their neighborhood and registers to vote, and then votes to take their freedom away, if said individual comes from China or Mexico or India or Pakistan or Russia or wherever.

    If a person comes from another country and they moved here, and they really believe in freedom, that’s great. I support that person. This does not mean that I blindly support anyone who moves from another country. If they move here and want to trample on gun rights, or support and institute more socialist programs, then I do not support them, and as far as I am concerned, they should go back to from whence they came.

  121. paulie

    You’re afraid that immigrants will vote for all kinds of anti-freedom stuff. I suspect that concern is somewhat overblown

    This article which was already linked earlier in this thread addresses that more than adequately:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/02/27/immigrants-political-views-are-a-lot-closer-to-those-of-natives-than-you-might-think/

    Too bad people don’t generally follow links.

    Some of the same “Libertarians” who throw a fit if somebody they perceive to be a non-libertarian joins the Libertarian Party, but they have no problem if a person who is hostile to liberty moves to their neighborhood and registers to vote, and then votes to take their freedom away, if said individual comes from China or Mexico or India or Pakistan or Russia or wherever.

    What if they move from a different state, city, county, precinct, borough or just a different neighborhood? Should that be held up in the same way and for the same reasons? If not, why not?

    Should we have permits and checkpoints to move or travel between neighborhoods? It would seem to follow from the same “logic” you use above.

  122. jim

    Andy:
    You said, “Some people may say, “Well Libertarians support peaceful people crossing borders.” My response to this, is people who cross borders so they can collect welfare, vote for big government programs, vote for gun control laws, and lobby for tax payer funding and/or military aid for foreign nations, are not peaceful people.”

    EXCELLENT POINT!!! But at least equally blameworthy are the socialists (whether they are going by that name, or “Democrats”, or “liberals”, or “Greens”) in America who have long engaged in the practice of buying votes using welfare checks as payment.

    Totally clueless are the people who call themselves “libertarians”, yet should know full well that opening the borders prior to founding a libertarian government will only lead to more government theft and extortion of taxpayers to pay for these illegals to come and take those government benefits. Even if a given illegal himself does not take such benefits, he takes a job which could have been filled by an American, said American going on welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc.

  123. paulie

    But at least equally blameworthy are the socialists (whether they are going by that name, or “Democrats”, or “liberals”, or “Greens”) in America who have long engaged in the practice of buying votes using welfare checks as payment.

    As if Republicans are any less guilty. But, OK, since you think this is an “excellent point” why shouldn’t the same logic be extended to moving between states, cities, counties and neighborhoods, or, as Tom pointed out, getting permits to have children?

    opening the borders prior to founding a libertarian government will only lead to more government theft and extortion of taxpayers

    False. See multiple links already posted in this thread disproving this canard.

    illegals

    There you go again. No human being is illegal, and if any human beings were illegal, those disobeying unjust as well as unconstitutional laws such as migration quotas would not be anywhere near the first to be considered for such a designation.

    he takes a job which could have been filled by an American

    Yes, because there are a fixed number of jobs, and native born citizens have a proven interest in doing all of them.

  124. Chuck Moulton

    Andy wrote:

    So I take it that Chuck does not have a driver’s license or state ID card and that he’s not registered to vote. If he is, he’s already in these government databases.

    You don’t seem to understand how databases work. Databases are not all in one place sold to the same people and hacked by the same people. Every additional database you are in increases the risk.

    Some things are worth the risk to me — such as driving and voting. Being put on a whitelist is not worth the risk to me.

  125. paulie

    Easy enough to solve — make it a “no-vote list” instead of a vote whitelist instead. Kind of like the no fly list. Anyone else who is not on the no fly list who shows up and wants to fly, and has a ticket and is old enough to fly by themselves, is presumed to be OK to fly. Same principle should apply to voting. If someone who is old enough with proof of residency shows up and is not on the no vote list, give them their ballot.

  126. jim

    Paulie:

    “”But at least equally blameworthy are the socialists (whether they are going by that name, or “Democrats”, or “liberals”, or “Greens”) in America who have long engaged in the practice of buying votes using welfare checks as payment.””

    “As if Republicans are any less guilty.”

    You seem addicted to the “But the other side is guilty tooooooo!!!! Waaaaaahhhhhh!!!”

    Like crying babies on a playground. And even wackier, you know that I am not, and have never been, a Republican!!!

    “But, OK, since you think this is an “excellent point” why shouldn’t the same logic be extended to moving between states, cities, counties and neighborhoods, or, as Tom pointed out, getting permits to have children?”

    Because at least under the current reality, citizens of America are ENTITLED to move to any location in America, or for that matter to elsewhere. Your position, apparently, is that EVERYONE should be entitled to move to America, seemingly without any limit. But that is not the current law.

    “”opening the borders prior to founding a libertarian government will only lead to more government theft and extortion of taxpayers””

    “False. See multiple links already posted in this thread disproving this canard.”

    I think you’re confusing this thread with others. I carefully went over this thread, and I saw very few things even arguably militating against this, let alone “disproving” it. Be more specific. Identify three links that you think “disprove” it.

    “”illegals””

    “There you go again. No human being is illegal, and if any human beings were illegal, those disobeying unjust as well as unconstitutional laws such as migration quotas would not be anywhere near the first to be considered for such a designation.”

    There you go again with your PC nonsense. The purpose of language is to convey information and ideas. I did so. You simply didn’t like the information and ideas I conveyed. You’ve made that clear. Why do you insist on repeatedly objecting to illegal…particularly because THEY ARE ILLEGAL! Their presence in America is a violation of American law.

    “”he takes a job which could have been filled by an American””

    “Yes, because there are a fixed number of jobs, and native born citizens have a proven interest in doing all of them.”

    Yours is a strawman argument. At any given time there is a specific number of jobs, although this varies with time and economic conditions. And American’s interest in doing those jobs depends, in part, on how much those jobs actually pay. Flood the market with illegal aliens, who are willing to work for less, and “native born citizens” will certainly lose interest in taking those jobs, because the wages offered tends to drop if lower-cost workers are available. It is simple economics.

    The following is perhaps the most relevant in this thread to the issue of illegals taking benefits, other than the comments of Stefan Molyneaux:

    “Andy Craig
    October 21, 2015 at 3:32 am
    “Low-income (family income below 200% of poverty line) non-citizen children and adults utilize Medicaid, SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI at a generally lower rate than comparable low-income native-born citizen children and adults, and the average value of public benefits received per person is generally lower for non-citizens than for natives. Because of the lower benefit utilization rates and the lower average benefit value for low-income non-citizen immigrants, the cost of public benefits to non citizens is substantially less than the cost of equivalent benefits to the native-born.”
    http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/poor-immigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor
    If you have a bigger problem with immigrants on welfare than Americans on welfare, your objection isn’t to welfare.” [end of quote]

    However, I don’t see any reference to the idea that an illegal alien who takes a job that an American would otherwise take (at SOME wage) pushes said American onto some kind of benefit rolls.

    Go back and find the other cites which “prove” your point. I didn’t find them.

  127. paulie

    You seem addicted to the “But the other side is guilty tooooooo!!!!

    No, I just find it funny that you only listed left-leaning parties, even going so far as to include parties with very few people in office, and as if welfare to the poor was the only, or even the biggest, kind of welfare the regime doles out.

  128. Thomas L. Knapp

    What I found funnier was him actually veering hard state leftist: “But we can’t expect Americans to compete in a free labor market! The state must intervene to keep wages artificially high by excluding competition!”

    All in between his incessant bitching about “the left.”

  129. paulie

    Because at least under the current reality, citizens of America are ENTITLED to move to any location in America, or for that matter to elsewhere. Your position, apparently, is that EVERYONE should be entitled to move to America, seemingly without any limit. But that is not the current law.

    We were discussing more than just the current edicts, by definition. We were discussing things like what should things be like in a libertarian society, what is constitutional under the US constitution, and so on. So “it’s the way it is” deflection aside, my original questions still stand. The question is about what we should support and why; I already know what the regime’s edicts are and that was not the question.

  130. paulie

    I think you’re confusing this thread with others. I carefully went over this thread, and I saw very few things even arguably militating against this, let alone “disproving” it. Be more specific. Identify three links that you think “disprove” it.

    I’m not confusing this thread with others. The links are there. You just haven’t followed them or explored them fully. You should go back and do that. It’s true that some of them have been given out in past threads as well. And no, I don’t feel like dancing to your tune and looking up the links again just to prove to you that I had already done it. Just scroll up. I’ll give them out again if and when *I* feel like it, not whenever you demand it.

  131. paulie

    There you go again with your PC nonsense.

    In this context, that would be you, not me. Calling migrants who break immoral, anti-liberty, unconstitutional edicts limiting migration “illegals” is reich wing PC nonsense.

    The purpose of language is to convey information and ideas.

    “Illegals” conveys propaganda distortion, not information and ideas. It’s like pissing in the punch bowl of conversation.

    “Their presence in America is a violation of American law.”

    If you acknowledge regime law as valid, the constitution is the highest regime law there is, and edicts limiting migration violate the constitution.

  132. Andy

    I don’t have time for a more detailed response, but the “why not apply it to people from other cities/counties” thing is covered in my Libertarian Zone concept.

    Also, if people who work for or contract with government could not vote or donate to political campaigns had been a part of the Constitution back in 1789, I think we’d have a lot more freedom now. “Welfare” as we know ir today likely would not exist, but even so, people who receive various forms of welfare should not be able to vote or donate to political campaigns either.

  133. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp:
    “What I found funnier was him actually veering hard state leftist: “But we can’t expect Americans to compete in a free labor market! The state must intervene to keep wages artificially high by excluding competition!”

    You are misusing quotations, possibly intentionally. I use double-quotes, usually, to show what a person actually said. You are clearly trying to misrepresent things, to say that I actually said the words that you double-quoted. That’s dishonest. Try using single-quotes if you are not wanting to lie.

    You are also misrepresenting things to suggest that the term “free labor market” must necessarily mean, ‘…including allowing an unlimited number of foreigners to move to America without any restrictions’. When considered over all nations on earth, that is a definitely MINORITY position, because not existent at all.

    Somebody the world will be completely operated libertarianism. THEN, the borders can be opened.

    “All in between his incessant bitching about “the left.””

    Having known I am a libertarian since 1975, I am well-versed at laughing at and criticizing BOTH the left and right, the conservative and liberal, the Democrats and Republicans. But at least since the late 2000’s, there have been far more reasons to criticize the left. One major reason is that the Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress since Jan. 2007 (until Jan 2011), and the presidency as well since Jan 2009..

  134. jim

    Nicholas Sarwark:

    “”If you have a bigger problem with immigrants on welfare than Americans on welfare, your objection isn’t to welfare.””

    “Exactly.”

    Except that many people know that many forms of welfare aren’t available (or, at least, aren’t supposed to be available) illegal aliens. So that’s a strawman argument. The issue I consider relevant is whether such illegal aliens take jobs which Americans could and would take at wages which would occur if the supply of illegal aliens did not exist.

  135. paulie

    At any given time there is a specific number of jobs, although this varies with time and economic conditions.

    And as more people arrive, they have all sorts of needs that have to be met by the market, creating new jobs. They also have entrepreneurial ideas that create jobs. And, their productivity frees up capital and creates additional profits that creates all sorts of new jobs, including ones that new migrants are unlikely to fill. This is economics 101 stuff. Does it really have to be explained to you?

    And American’s interest in doing those jobs depends, in part, on how much those jobs actually pay. Flood the market with illegal aliens (sic) who are willing to work for less, and “native born citizens” will certainly lose interest in taking those jobs, because the wages offered tends to drop if lower-cost workers are available.

    The wages that native born Americans would want for many of those jobs (especially to be productive at them) are so far above what the market will bear that they end up simply not being done. They would cost way too much for their would be employers to make a profit, or for consumers to pay for, and the jobs would therefore simply not exist for anyone. The goods and services would simply not come to market because no one would be willing to do the work for a rate that would make it economically viable. This in fact happened with some agriculture jobs in Alabama, for example.

    All of this conversation would be unnecessary if you simply made your way through the sitemap at openborders.info, and yes, that link was already given out in this thread.

  136. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    Most people, for as long as I can remember, seem to recognize “scare quotes” and such when they see them. I was clearly boiling down the essence of your position, and anyone who wondered whether or not it was a direct quote was free to scroll up (using single quotes conveys no information pertaining to your concern).

    Here’s the sentiment I attributed to you, in the quotes I put it between:

    “But we can’t expect Americans to compete in a free labor market! The state must intervene to keep wages artificially high by excluding competition!”

    Here’s you saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING in terms of meaning:

    “Flood the market with illegal aliens, who are willing to work for less, and ‘native born citizens’ will certainly lose interest in taking those jobs, because the wages offered tends to drop if lower-cost workers are available. It is simple economics.”

    “Having known I am a libertarian since 1975”

    So when did you turn stop being a libertarian on immigration and economics?

  137. paulie

    The issue I consider relevant is whether such illegal aliens (sic) take jobs which Americans could and would take at wages which would occur if the supply of illegal aliens (sic) did not exist.

    Then spend some time at openborders.info and find the answer to your question. If you don’t find it, you haven’t spent enough time there.

  138. Andy

    The statistics clearly indicate that a disturbingly high percentage of foreigners in the USA do not support the right to keep and bear arms.

    This should alarm everyone who cares about liberty.

    Just to be clear, I am not against all foreigners, I am concerned about those who are a threat to freedom though.

  139. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp:
    ““Having known I am a libertarian since 1975””

    “So when did you turn stop being a libertarian on immigration and economics?”

    I could ask you, “When did you forget that the original libertarian position on immigration WASN’T one of immediate open borders?”

    Check the article “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_immigration”

    “Opponents of mass immigration within the libertarian movement[edit]
    Within recent times, some libertarians, especially paleolibertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul, have voiced concerns pertaining to the traditional “open borders” policy held by most libertarians. Hans-Hermann Hoppe has argued much in his writings about open borders being against anarcho-capitalist theory.[16]
    The British-based Libertarian Alliance are prominent advocates of a restricted immigration policy within a libertarian society. [17]
    On 12 January 2009 the Libertarian Party (UK) was criticized by No Border Network for having authoritarian and anti-libertarian policies on immigration, in particular the treatment of asylum seekers.[18]
    Middle grounds[edit]
    Libertarian-leaning George Mason University economist and Marginal Revolution blogger Tyler Cowen has often argued in favor of freer migration while also being critical of dogmatic moral arguments for radical open borders.[19] Other libertarians who have taken intermediate stances on open borders include monetary policy blogger and academic Scott Sumner.[20] Kelly Barber has argued that, although there might be good arguments for open borders, some libertarians have adopted the position in an overtly dogmatic fashion and have failed to address important criticisms.[21]” [end of quote]

    Some of the people here seem to be pretending that there hasn’t been a difference of opinion, even today. See, above, you said:
    “”So when did you turn stop being a libertarian on immigration and economics?”

    You’re basically saying, DISHONESTLY, that ‘No true libertarian can have any position other than open borders’.
    (See the ‘No True Scot’ article on Wikipedia for the defective rhetorical argument. ) But I am not aware of ANY time period in which libertarians were completely of one opinion on the subject, and certainly not yours.

    Indeed, I can clearly remember that in 1980 I recognized that once a libertarian world had been accomplished, THEN borders could be (and should be) opened. But there is a major difference between opening the borders prior to achieving libertarianism, and after. .

  140. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp:
    From: http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/10/15/no-panaceas-libertarian-challenges-to-open-borders/

    NO PANACEAS: LIBERTARIAN CHALLENGES TO OPEN BORDERS
    Traditionally, libertarianism has welcomed a plurality of views on the immigration question. While nearly all free market proponents agree that current government policies restricting freedom of movement around the world are riddled with problems, we lack a consensus on what exactly these problems are and what should be done to solve them. However, it seems that a growing segment of (mostly young) libertarians are becoming more vocal in their view that unequivocal support for open borders should be *the* libertarian position on immigration. These libertarians tend to emphasize the moral case for open borders, though folks like Bryan Caplan have done a good job of presenting the economic benefits as well.

    Unfortunately, advocates of open borders almost always fail to acknowledge important and fundamental tradeoffs when it comes to immigration. As Gene Callahan has written recently, it is strange that libertarian economists, who are usually eager to point out that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, “treat immigration as if it were immune to this principle, and argue as if unlimited immigration is simply an unalloyed bundle of benefits with no associated costs.” Advocates of open borders should recognize that not all opposing arguments are veiled conservative prejudices rooted in xenophobic hysteria and that there are practical downsides worthy of consideration. Here, I will discuss some of these legitimate challenges to open immigration. But first, a few disclaimers on what I will not be arguing.

    I will not be arguing that the potential costs of open borders necessarily outweigh the potential benefits. I suspect there isn’t enough evidence to make a compelling case either way and I’m certainly not informed enough to adopt a strong position on the subject. Ultimately, I think that some level of immigration fosters innovation and the exchange of ideas and I have no doubts that the majority of immigrants are hard-working, honorable people who just want the opportunity to create a better life for their families. Nor will I be arguing that the practical challenges of open borders should necessarily drown out the moral arguments, which I generally find compelling. In fact, my path to becoming a libertarian began when I was exposed to the corrupt and unfeeling actions of several bureaucrats towards Haitian immigrants in a congressional office where I interned during high school.

    However, I am very skeptical of what appears to me to be an emerging tendency to institute a libertarian litmus test around open borders and a reluctance to engage in a conversation about the many tradeoffs of such a policy stance. I would like to push back against the tendency of open borders advocates to frame the conversation as if immigration is a zero sum game. A writer at SpawkTalk has criticized Bryan Caplan for such framing:

    He [Caplan] analyzes whether immigrants on the whole depress native wages, or whether immigrants as a whole use a lot of welfare, etc. It seems to not occur to him that there may be a good case for restricting immigration even if immigrants as a whole do no net harm. After all, some subset of immigrants might do harm in these various areas even if immigrants on the whole do not. And so it would make sense to ban this subset of immigrants from immigrating to your country. Just about no one actually advocated banning all immigration. And yet this is the position that Caplan’s analysis directly argues against. In so doing it fails to address the vast majority of proposals for immigration restriction actually in existence.

    It’s especially worth lingering on the point that virtually no one is calling for a ban on immigration across the board. In fact, there is probably no other policy position more implicitly excluded from mainstream debate than immigration restriction. Nearly everyone is against it, from Brookings to Karl Rove to the ideological left to libertarians — and most have self-interested reasons for doing so; the business right wants cheap wages, the left wants more voters, and so on. Advocating for open borders isn’t as radical of a position as many libertarians make it out to be.

    Similarly, Thomas Sowell has critiqued the broader immigration debate for discussing immigrants as if they are a monolithic group, or “abstract people in an abstract world.” By invoking Milton Friedman’s old line, “the best is the enemy of the good,” Sowell has cautioned us against failing to achieve good possible outcomes in pursuit of an unattainable ideal. Immigration shouldn’t be abstracted into a simple rights-based argument; proposed solutions (which very well may differ from ideal positions or principles) should take into account the potentially disastrous consequences of an open borders policy. Namely, the dilution or destruction of cultures that have a historical track record of leading to economic prosperity and social stability; the incompatibility of open borders with democracy and limited government; and the damaging effects of human capital flight on developing countries.

    I’m always disheartened when I observe proponents of open borders flippantly dismiss skeptics of free immigration who argue that such policies could disrupt or destroy native cultures. For example, Jason Brennan has responded to the culture argument by stating, “Perhaps there is some value in maintaining a distinctive French culture and identity, but it is not valuable enough to justify forcing millions to starve.” This is true if you trivialize culture as little more than people’s subjective preferences for a certain type of food or music. However, if you aren’t a cultural relativist and you acknowledge the Hayekian insight that traditions passed down through cultural institutions are invaluable in crafting peaceful and prosperous societies, you will recognize that preserving certain cultures can also be a matter of life or death in the long run.

    [end of quoted portion]

  141. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp:
    Further quote from http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/10/15/no-panaceas-libertarian-challenges-to-open-borders/

    “The notion of large swaths of immigrants moving to another country and gaining the right to vote should be considered problematic to minarchists and general proponents of democracy because democracy can only function (put that in scare quotes, if you will) with a limited citizenship. This is best illustrated if you imagine voting rights over decisions about the allocation of collective assets as a form of property. Sanandaji put it best in saying, “Limits on free migration is not just an arbitrary state construct, it is necessary to uphold ownership rights imposed by owners (citizens), just as a fence is necessary to uphold private property…If you accept this premise, abolishing borders in a modern welfare state is a form of socialism, just as abolishing fences would be.” Anarchists won’t find this compelling but they aren’t totally off the hook, either. The right to exclusion is of paramount importance in any free society, arguably even more so in an anarchist arrangement. Private property rights will always limit freedom of movement and in a stateless society, institutions akin to homeowner’s associations, which rely on limited membership to provide public goods, would abound in far greater numbers than we see today and would heavily rely on the right to exlusion.

    Proponents of open borders also frequently dismiss the argument that open borders are incompatible with and will further the growth of the welfare state as conservative posturing. Nevermind the fact that the three most influential libertarian intellectuals in the twentieth century all held this position. Hayek’s support for a social safety net for the least well-off in society necessitated “certain limitations on the free movement across frontiers” and Friedman famously stated, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” In an interview towards the end of his life, Nozick likewise commented, “Why do we not have completely free immigration everywhere? One reason is the welfare state.” But I digress. What does the data show?

    Caplan has cited a literature review which presents data from seven studies on the rate at which immigrants use welfare. The majority of these studies found that immigrants were more likely to use welfare than natives. For example, studies on the United States found that immigrants were 10-15 percent more likely to use welfare than natives and another study found that the average immigrant family uses about $5.7k (in 1989 dollars) more in welfare than the average native family over their lifetime. Caplan has argued that this difference is negligible since it amounts to only a few dollars more per person per month.” [end of portion quoted]

  142. paulie

    I could ask you, “When did you forget that the original libertarian position on immigration WASN’T one of immediate open borders?”

    Simply because paleo means older does not mean that “paleolibertarian” positions represent any kind of older or original libertarianism. Actually, the term is a dishonest and actually laughable combination of paleoconservative (Old Right authoritarian) and libertarian. In reality there is absolutely no support for your contention that this was the “original” libertarian position, or even that it is a libertarian position at all. Yes, there are some people who are on balance libertarians who hold nonlibertarian positions on some issues, this being one of them. That does not, however, make it a libertarian position.

  143. jim

    Paulie:
    “”I could ask you, “When did you forget that the original libertarian position on immigration WASN’T one of immediate open borders?””

    “Simply because paleo means older does not mean that “paleolibertarian” positions represent any kind of older or original libertarianism.”

    First, I did not invent the term, “paleolibertarian”. In fact, before reading this article a few months ago, I had never even HEARD of it. I actually found it funny! So don’t obsess on it.

    ” Actually, the term is a dishonest and actually laughable combination of paleoconservative (Old Right authoritarian) and libertarian.”

    Again, that wasn’t my word, and you are clearly trying to take advantage of somebody’s use of it to make a foolish point. Stop it.

    ” In reality there is absolutely no support for your contention that this was the “original” libertarian position,

    I think I should clarify something: I am stating that it WASN’T the “original” libertarian position to call for open borders WITHOUT other changes, NOT that only “original” position was “no open borders”.. Even if you look at the LP platform of 1980, you see things that support YOUR position. But, you need to remember and admit that such a platform is not assumed to be arbitrarily divisible: I point out that such a platform calls for BOTH legalization of “undocumented” AND the elimination of the welfare state. (and many other things.) Do you really think that libertarians don’t recognize the difference between opening the borders BEFORE eliminating the welfare state versus AFTER?

    “or even that it is a libertarian position at all. Yes, there are some people who are on balance libertarians who hold nonlibertarian positions on some issues, this being one of them.”

    My position is that it is NOT non-libertarian to condition open borders on achievement of a large portion of the LP party platform, either before or simultaneously. Show me that you understand the distinction.

  144. paulie

    “Limits on free migration is not just an arbitrary state construct, it is necessary to uphold ownership rights imposed by owners (citizens), just as a fence is necessary to uphold private property…

    Ah, the collective ownership canard rears its ugly head yet again. I’m not sure why I am even bothering to address this yet again, since Jim has seen the answer more than a few times, but property ownership is individual or contractual. To claim that the entire country is owned or part-owned in common by all the citizens and that the regime is a valid agent of that ownership is both false and completely anti-liberty on its face. If it were true, the regime would have broad powers that are common powers of property ownership to collect rent, regulate behavior, etc., which would not only obliterate all libertarian objections to the excesses of government but actually go far beyond the status quo powers of the regime. And it’s not even remotely true, since the “social contract” is a myth and no actual contract was signed by everyone to enter into this collective ownership agreement.

  145. paulie

    Even if you look at the LP platform of 1980,

    The original positions of libertarianism go back many centuries, even millenia, not to 1980. The LP platform is not even close to being the original positions of libertarianism.

    But, you need to remember and admit that such a platform is not assumed to be arbitrarily divisible

    You can tie any liberty policy to some other liberty policy happening first. It’s a recipe for never getting anywhere.

    You can say we can’t legalize drugs until we get rid of welfare, for example. Or that we can’t get rid of welfare until we get rid of occupational licensing laws. Or that we can’t get rid of occupational licensing laws until we get rid of mandatory treatment at hospitals. Or that we can’t get rid of mandatory treatment at hospitals until we get rid of tying medical insurance to employment.

    We can go on and on like this in circles. It’s a formula which, consistently applied, means we can never push for freedom on any issue.

    This, too, has been pointed out to you before.

  146. jim

    Paulie:
    “”Even if you look at the LP platform of 1980,””

    “The original positions of libertarianism go back many centuries, even millenia, not to 1980. The LP platform is not even close to being the original positions of libertarianism.”

    I think what you said is misleading. Yes, the term “libertarianism” goes back to at least the mid-1800’s. But that doesn’t mean that this fact is useful for the modern meaning of the term.

    “”But, you need to remember and admit that such a platform is not assumed to be arbitrarily divisible””

    “You can tie any liberty policy to some other liberty policy happening first. It’s a recipe for never getting anywhere.”

    Somebody who ties one policy to another must, of course, explain why. But that doesn’t mean that no such tying is valid.

    “You can say we can’t legalize drugs until we get rid of welfare, for example.

    If somebody believed that, he could make that case. I don’t share that opinion, however. Can you cite somebody actually justifying this example of tying under libertarian principles?

    “Or that we can’t get rid of welfare until we get rid of occupational licensing laws.”

    You are simply inventing hypothetical tying, without justifying it.

    “Or that we can’t get rid of occupational licensing laws until we get rid of mandatory treatment at hospitals.”

    Again, you are getting increasingly wacky. Strawman argument time, Paulie!

    “Or that we can’t get rid of mandatory treatment at hospitals until we get rid of tying medical insurance to employment.”

    Strawman argument!

    “We can go on and on like this in circles. It’s a formula which, consistently applied, means we can never push for freedom on any issue.”

    No, it simply means that people who want to tie one change to another will have to justify it. In the large majority of cases, they will either fail, or they won’t even bother to try. Don’t try to invent some hypothetical failed argument to attack an existing valid argument.

  147. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    No, I am not saying that no true libertarians take the anti-libertarian position on immigration.

    I’m just saying that when libertarians take the anti-libertarian position on immigration, they’re not being libertarian.

    You’re correct that there have long been differences of opinion on immigration within the libertarian movement. Those differences of opinion basically break down to those who take the correct position — the libertarian position — and those who take an incorrect position — an anti-libertarian position — on immigration.

    In the same vein as Paulie on “particular orderism,” here’s a piece I wrote awhile back:

    http://knappster.blogspot.com/2007/06/against-stockholm-libertarianism.html

  148. jim

    This idiotic system just ate my message. I wrote a reply, and during that process I decided to click on and thus re-read the url you cited, above. Did so, then returned to the editing. Or TRIED to: By that time, my edit was GONE.

    To recreate: You have obviously run afoul of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    “No, I am not saying that no true libertarians take the anti-libertarian position on immigration.
    I’m just saying that when libertarians take the anti-libertarian position on immigration, they’re not being libertarian.”

    You might as well have said, “No true libertarian would take [this] position on immigration”.

    Your cite, above, can be destroyed to the extent it implies that ALL tying is somehow “unlibertarian”. But I didn’t say the opposite: That idea ALL tying is somehow correct. Thus, you have engaged in yet another strawman argument. You can, if you wish, name numerous examples of false tying. But no matter how many negative examples you cite, that doesn’t mean that some specific example of tying is false.
    Remember, getting to a libertarian society is almost certainly going to be transitional. The LP platforms do not necessarily include statements as for what we should do in that transition.

  149. Andy

    WASHINGTON POST OP-ED CHEERS: MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY NRA, SECOND AMENDMENT

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/20/washington-post-op-ed-cheers-mass-immigration-will-destroy-nra-second-amendment/

    The article above is about an analysis from the Washington Post that points out that how the ideological bent of the majority of modern day immigrants to this country are opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, and how this is leading to the destruction of the 2nd amendment.

    How many naïve “libertarians” will be sitting on the sidelines cheering as a bunch of fraudulently naturalized (since they lied, or did not understand, their Naturalization Oath) immigrant “Americans” vote to destroy the right to keep and bear arms in this country?

  150. Andy Craig

    I have to say, I’m quite impressed by the contortions necessary to argue that “libertarians” should support totalitarian thought police that ban unauthorized interaction with people who don’t pass an ideological litmus test. A textbook case of somebody who confuses their desire to wield government power, with opposition to government power.

    Because that’s what laws prohibiting immigration are. Let’s just grant the abhorrent premise, arrguendo, that we shouldn’t even regard foreigners as human beings for moral purposes. All we care about is Americans and their freedom and well-being and everybody else can go to hell. OK, fine. You’re still aggression against, demanding state violence against, *Americans* who hire, or rent to, or assist, or harbor people without your precious government permission slip to exist on the land between the Rio Grande and the 49th Parallel.

    If you support laws banning immigration, you are directly calling for government to “initiate force for political or social goals.” If that’s your position, fine. But don’t try to call it “libertarian.” Just accept that it isn’t, and on this topic neither are you.

  151. Thomas L. Knapp

    There are some naive libertarians. They’re the libertarians who think that the right to keep and bear arms is ever going to be subject to a public vote in a country with 200 million gun owners and 300 million + guns. They can vote all they want, but then they have to try to actually take the guns. It’s not hard to predict how that will work out for them. So scare-monger all you want trying to get libertarians to decide to be anti-libertarian on immigration, but don’t pretend that’s not what you’re doing.

  152. Andy Craig

    @TLK

    😉

    You raise an additional good point though, that Andy J. shares with advocates of gun control, the naive and implausible belief that mass gun confiscation in the United States is a) politically feasible any time in the foreseeable future b) possible to enforce even if it was. One of the proper arguments against gun control, is that it doesn’t do a damn thing. It isn’t *effective*– which means sacrificing other freedoms to “protect” it on the basis of supposed urgency makes little sense. Anybody with some basic metalworking equipment and a couple of springs can make themselves a gun in their garage, nevermind the hundreds of millions of factory-made guns that aren’t going away even if they somehow stopped making new ones. You might as well be talking about banning bows and arrows– the genie’s out of the bottle on how to make devices that can push a piece of lead across a room really fast. Anybody who wants a gun, and wants to use a gun, can get one, and that’s not going to change regardless of what decrees come down from Capitol HIll. Gun prohibition will be even less effective than drug prohibition, or immigrant prohibition for that matter.

    And really, I appreciate the point about the 2nd Amendment as an ultimate check on gov’t as much of the next guy, but anybody who thinks we’re on the verge of some kind of popular armed libertarian uprising that will overthrow the government has a screw loose. Best case scenario, they’re ineffective at advocating change here in the real world, Worst case scenario, they’re the next Timothy McVeigh. Because once you start making excuses about how plunging the nation into war and killing people is necessary as the supposed lesser evil, that’s where you end up. Blowing up a bunch of kids. Either that, or running for US Senate in Florida as a Libertarian. But I digress…

  153. jim

    Andy Craig: You said, “You raise an additional good point though, that Andy J. shares with advocates of gun control, the naive and implausible belief that mass gun confiscation in the United States is a) politically feasible any time in the foreseeable future b) possible to enforce even if it was.”

    Well, they recently had a gun confiscation in Australia, which was made much easier because they had previously required that guns be registered. Notice the order in which they did this: FIRST registration, THEN confiscation. A, then B. 1, then 2. Predictable, huh?

    And no, I am far from as confident as you that “mass gun confiscation” would never “work” in America, or at least it wouldn’t be tried. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

    As for the argument that such a confiscation in America would be “unconstitutional”: Until the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions, some people (gun grabbers) were claiming that there was NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own guns. Some indeed still are claiming that! How much can we believe, from a person who believes individuals don’t have a constitutional right to own guns, if he claims that he wouldn’t attempt to do exactly that? These fools are ALREADY warning you precisely what they want to do, what they INTEND to do, what they PLAN to do.

  154. Robert Capozzi

    ac: And really, I appreciate the point about the 2nd Amendment as an ultimate check on gov’t as much of the next guy, but anybody who thinks we’re on the verge of some kind of popular armed libertarian uprising that will overthrow the government has a screw loose. Best case scenario, they’re ineffective at advocating change here in the real world, Worst case scenario, they’re the next Timothy McVeigh.

    me: Yep! It’s really not a check on government in any meaningful way. It might have been in 1787.

  155. Thomas L. Knapp

    Robert,

    You seem to be agreeing with something that Jim didn’t say.

    “[O]n the verge of some kind of popular armed libertarian uprising that will overthrow the government” is not even remotely close to the same thing as “[RKBA is] really not a check on government in any meaningful way.”

  156. Andy Craig

    @ Jim

    “Well, they recently had a gun confiscation in Australia,”

    That was, even by the most generous estimates, 80+% ineffective. And “mass confiscation” isn’t really quite the right term for what Australia did. More like limited (and theoretically mandatory, but really only theoretically) buyback of certain categories of guns.

    This idea that Australia banned all guns (and proved that can work) is an invention of ignorant American Dems, much like the myth that European nations prove socialism works (they aren’t as comparatively socialist as is asserted, compared to the U.S., and to the degree it is true they’re also poorer than Americans to a much larger degree than they attempt to gloss over.)

    “As for the argument that such a confiscation in America would be “unconstitutional”: Until the Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) decisions, some people (gun grabbers) were claiming that there was NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own guns.”

    Which is why if somebody pointed out that both public opinion, existing policy, and legal theory on RKBA are all trending in the right direction, I’d say they’re absolutely correct. They had a much better chance of passing gun bans in the Nixon administration than anybody does in the Obama administration.. Over the past few decades, we’ve seen public support for handgun bans fall off a cliff, concealed carry in some form passed in every state, the spread of constitutional carry, the repeal of most state-level AW bans, repeal of the federal waiting period, expatriation of the Clinton-era federal AWB, and finally Heller and McDonald.

    We aren’t there yet, for sure. But this overall trend, is what winning on an issue looks like.

    “Some indeed still are claiming that! ”

    Some indeed still claim the Earth is flat. I don’t think of them as a threat.

  157. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Doh — I thought it was Jim, not Andy, who wrote what you were feeding back on. Sorry about that.

    But once again, although it was Andy rather than Jim, you were agreeing with something he didn’t say. In fact, you were agreeing with the opposite of part of what he said.

    RKBA can be — and is — a check on the government in several meaningful ways regardless of whether or not an armed insurrection is imminent and regardless of whether or not such an insurrection would likely be successful.

    For one thing, even rulers who are reasonably confident in their ability to suppress armed insurrection do not, for the most part, act in ways that they believe are likely to result in such insurrections. Armed insurrections are expensive, inconvenient, and unpredictable once they get going.

  158. Thomas L. Knapp

    Another good one from Andy.

    Why is Australia the go-to example for would-be victim disarmers lately? Because they don’t want to talk about Canada. Their 1995 “Firearms Act” requiring registration was supposed to cost $2 million a year and result in near 100% compliance. After nine years, it had cost more than $2 billion and apparently achieved about 30% compliance.

  159. Robert Capozzi

    tk: For one thing, even rulers who are reasonably confident in their ability to suppress armed insurrection do not, for the most part, act in ways that they believe are likely to result in such insurrections.

    me: That makes some sense. However, I see no evidence that this matter is under active consideration by the omnipotent statists. Some want to grab guns, yes, but I don’t see that their motive is to foreclose the possibility of armed insurrection. Instead, they are mostly horrified by assassinations and mass killings, near as I can tell.

  160. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    OK, this time instead of arguing with something that Andy didn’t say, you’re arguing with something I didn’t say. I don’t think that the victim disarmers are specifically thinking “we need to take everyone’s guns because if we don’t there could be an armed insurrection.”

    On the other hand, among those within the state inclined toward gun control for ANY reason, presumably the smarter among them are somewhat restrained in their actions and proposals by the realization that even if only 1% of gun owners resisted an attempt at a general gun confiscation, the resulting casualties would likely dwarf US military casualties over the last 25 years of constant war by a full order of magnitude, that the demographics of those casualties would probably be heaviest among police officers and politicians, and that when it was all over the guns would remain extant.

  161. Robert Capozzi

    tk: …the smarter among them are somewhat restrained in their actions and proposals by the realization that even if only 1% of gun owners resisted…

    me: Is it a “realization”? Could be, but I don’t know. Have you seen evidence that that’s what holds back the gun control advocates?

    My guess is that they recognize that taking guns in the US would be wildly unpopular, so they advocate incremental measures to make ownership a bit harder.

  162. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Have you seen evidence that that’s what holds back the gun control advocates?”

    I haven’t seen evidence that it’s the ONLY thing that holds back the victim disarmament advocates.

    But the numbers aren’t unknown, although it’s hard to determine them with close specificity — probably at least 300 million guns, probably at least 200 million gun owners. The “evidence” for why that would matter is the presumption that the victim disarmament advocates, while severely misguided, are probably not all of them, each and every one, drooling idiots in every single respect and therefore have noticed those numbers.

  163. Robert Capozzi

    tk, sure, the NUMBERS of guns and toters of guns is quite noticeable. Gun control advocates surely notice them, agreed.

    As I said, taking guns would be wildly unpopular in the US.

    I just wonder where you got your “if only 1% of gun owners resisted” concept from. You made it sound like controllers think about that scenario. Perhaps it was just a hyperbolic flourish for effect, instead of being an actual consideration.

  164. King of Moltz

    Andy is a legitimate Libertarian activist, of which there are very few in the USA. The LP should listen to him, and hire him, rather than hiring anti-liberty socialists to “explain liberty” to petition signers.

  165. Thomas L. Knapp

    It was exactly the opposite of hyperbolic flourish. It was severe understatement. A more realistic estimate, in my opinion, would be 5-10% responding to a general gun ban with “come try to take them and see what happens.”

    But 1% is sufficient to convey the extent of the problem. 200 million gun owners, give or take.

    1% of that 200 million is 2 million armed individuals credibly threatening to put holes in anyone trying to confiscate their guns.

    That’s nearly twice as many armed resisting individuals as there are cops in the United States. If the entire US active duty military was also put to the task of confiscating guns, together with the cops they’d slightly outnumber that 1%. If the military reserves were called up — all of them — the ratio would go to about 3:2 in favor of the government forces. But that’s assuming that every man jack in the government forces is available for confiscation duty, and that none of them would choose the other side.

    And that is the conservative, low-end, non-hyperbolic estimate.

    Does every person in the US who offhandedly says “hey, we should create a gun-free society” think those numbers through? Of course not.

    But if you don’t think those numbers play a role in constraining serious policy proposals by the people who actually have to say “OK, what can we do, how far can we go, how can we do it, let’s write a bill,” and in emboldening their opponents to resist the boldest of THOSE proposals, you’re living in a fantasy world.

  166. paulie

    Andy is a legitimate Libertarian activist, of which there are very few in the USA.

    He may also soon be the last outside petition pro left on the Oklahoma drive, and that’s if he stays.

  167. Robert Capozzi

    tk: Does every person in the US who offhandedly says “hey, we should create a gun-free society” think those numbers through? Of course not.

    me: Thanks for confirming.

  168. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: You said,
    :”1% of that 200 million is 2 million armed individuals credibly threatening to put holes in anyone trying to confiscate their guns.”

    I think it would be far better if 2000 people actually PUT holes in people promoting trying to confiscate their guns.

    As a practical matter, waiting for THEM to come to YOU is a losing proposition: When they come, they will come in numbers, and individuals will be overwhelmed, and certainly killed. That amounts to allowing the opposition to choose their battlefield, and when. Utterly idiotic tactics.

    Rather, take the battle to them when they don’t expect it, when they are not looking. That is, in part, why I wrote my Assassination Politics ( https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) essay. Why not have an organization choose the top 200 people on the gun-restriction bandwagon, and say to them publicly: “This is all the warning you are going to get. You’ve already done enough to justify killing you. It begins today.”

    There are probably over 100 million American gun owners. Some of whom, sadly, will get a medical “death sentence” for cancer, etc. If they know they are going to die, why not make their deaths mean something? Why not offer to give, say, $100K to their families if they succeed?

    Why not? If this is a war, why not plan for battle?

  169. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    I wasn’t trying to specify how I think things SHOULD go. I was specifying why I think they are going they way they are going, from the regime’s point of view:

    1) Attempting to conduct mass gun confiscation would result in armed resistance by, in my opinion, somewhere between 2 million and 20 million armed Americans.

    2) Regardless of whether or not that resistance entailed sitting at home and shooting cops when they arrived, or preemptively going out and killing the figureheads, or whatever, it would be ugly.

    3) Ugly enough that that’s not how they’re going to go about things.

    Would an effective implementation of AP give them even more pause than the potential for a completely unpredictable “leaderless resistance” of millions? That depends on how effective the implementation is and how ugly the predictable consequences of it are.

  170. Robert Capozzi

    J: If this is a war, why not plan for battle?

    me: Premise check time. I see no domestic war, a view shared most likely by the vast preponderance of the pop.

    You may well see otherwise, like McVeigh and the Unabomber saw otherwise. Projection makes perception makes “reality.”

    Strike the root and try again.

  171. Andy

    Jim said: “As a practical matter, waiting for THEM to come to YOU is a losing proposition: When they come, they will come in numbers, and individuals will be overwhelmed, and certainly killed. That amounts to allowing the opposition to choose their battlefield, and when. Utterly idiotic tactics.”

    This is a long term plan that is being done in steps. The big push right now is to get the background checks for all gun purchases passed in every state. This is what Michael Bloomberg is pushing. This outlaws private gun sales, as in it will be illegal to sell a gun without going through the government background check system (which of course those want to purchase a gun, will have to pay a fee to do).

    This got pass through a state wide ballot initiative in Washington last year, and it is going to be on the ballot this year in Nevada. There is an organization formed to get this passed in every state, either through the initiative process, or by lobby the legislature.

    This is a bad law for several reasons.

    1) It will allow the government to know about every gun purchase. This helps them with their database and will make an eventual confiscation plan easier for them.

    2) It will create a new class of criminals, as in for anyone who sells a gun without going through the background check.

    3) It gives the government a lot more power to deny who can purchase a gun. The criteria for who can own a gun set by the government can be changed, or applied in an arbitrary manner.

    4) It will not do anything to reduce crime, because people who want to commit crimes will still get guns on the black market, or they could use other weapons to commit crimes (and with 3D printers, it is now easier than ever for people to make their own guns).

    5) If a person has served their time in prison, and has been released back into society, then why can’t they get their rights back? If they are really such a threat to society that an elaborate background check program has to be established, then why are these people who are such a threat being released in the first place? Also, there are lots of people in jail or prison who’ve been arrested for victimless crimes, and/or who were arrested and sentenced under false charges? Should a person who is a convicted felon, but their felony was for a victimless crime, and/or for something that they did not even do, be denied the right to keep and bear arms after they have served out their sentence?

    6) Having to go to the government to get permission to purchase a gun is turning what is supposed to be a right into a privilege. Rights are things that you do not need anyone’s permission to do. A privilege is something which somebody grants you. Is the right to keep and bear arms a right, or is it a privilege that is to be granted by the state, which really means something which is to be decided by politicians and bureaucrats? The right of the people to keep and bear arms is just that, a RIGHT, so this means that you don’t need anyone’s permission to purchase a gun. Having to run to the government to do a background check means that you need to get the permission of the government to purchase a gun, so this implies that there is no right to keep and bear arms, and that it is a privilege that can be decided on at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats.

    7) It is very hypocritical for government officials to say that people should have to go through them to get a background check, so that they can approve who can purchase a gun and who cannot, when government officials regularly engage in acts which if committed by people who were not in government, would disqualify them from having guns under their own background check system.

    Having lots of immigrants who do not understand or support the right to keep and bear arms only helps push the gun control agenda. The statistics show that the majority of these people will vote against the right to keep and bear arms. So combine this with the big city “liberal” vote, and also factor in mainstream media and government controlled education brainwashing, and the future of the right to keep and bear arms does not look too good in this country.

    Also, keep in mind the militarization of the police and mass government surveillance. This will be used in the future to take guns away from resistors to tyranny.

  172. Robert Capozzi

    andy: This is a long term plan that is being done in steps.

    me: Whose plan? Do you have evidence that this is “their” plan?

    It’s not implausible, btw, but I like to understand where assertions come from.

  173. Andy Craig

    “Also, keep in mind the militarization of the police and mass government surveillance. ”

    You mean like the kind used to enforce immigration prohibition? That the federal government already spends more on than every other federal criminal law enforcement agency combined? Hyper-militarized border cops conducting inland checkpoints and snooping through your luggage? Government databases that employers are required to seek permission from before hiring? Rounding up and deporting hundreds of thousands (and if some had their way, millions) of people every year?

    If it’s the police state you’re worried about, you have a lot more to fear from those wanting to ramp up the war on immigration than you do the last marginal gasps of the already-defeated gun-grabbers.

  174. Andy Craig

    In 1959, 60% of Americans told Gallup they’d support a law banning civilian possession of handguns. Richard Nixon seriously considered introducing such a law, when support still polled in the 40s. In 2014, only 26% were willing to say they’d agree with such a law.

    In 1996, the split on assault rifle ban was favored 57% to 42%. In 2012, 51% were against and only 44% for.

    If increasing immigration was supposed to increase support for gun control, it hasn’t worked very well for the past few decades, a time during which immigration has generally trended up and support for gun control pretty dramatically declined.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

  175. Andy Craig

    The most notable thing about the Dem’s recent push for more gun control, is that they spent most of the previous decade insisting they weren’t anti-gun and not making any significant push for it, because they blamed it for being among the factors that cost Gore the election, and before that for costing them their congressional majority in 1994 (and they are right about that on both counts). And their latest push,in the past two or three years, got them a 2014 election where their count of unified control (Gov + Leg) state governments is down to a historic nadir of just seven states (vs. 25 for the GOP and the rest divided). Outside of the NE corridor and California, the Dems are being *wiped out* at the state and congressional district level, and the 2nd Amendment is no small part of why.

    Gun control is and remains a political loser, particularly among the swing voters and swing states that count. Every time the Dems forget that and try to rally their base around it, they end up getting burned and losing elections. Then the drop it for a few years, until the memory of that punishment has faded, and try to come back again with another round of even more watered-down proposals. At this rate, by the 2020s the actual substantive policy changes they’re talking about will have reach homeopathic levels of dilution.

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    I had an interesting idea today for a gun that can be built with no tools, no 3D printer, nothing but $5 worth of stuff from the dollar store, all or most of which most people probably have in their homes. Nothing fancy — single shot, muzzle-loading, fires a round glass projectile in the 10-15mm diameter range. Not sure how many shots the gun would be good for before barrel integrity becomes a worry. Heck, maybe not even one.

    Some time in the next week or so, I’ll try to build and fire the thing, and if it works I’ll post the plans somewhere.

  177. Andy

    “Andy Craig

    October 23, 2015 at 5:46 pm

    ‘Also, keep in mind the militarization of the police and mass government surveillance.’

    You mean like the kind used to enforce immigration prohibition?”

    Once again, Andy Craig misses the boat and reverts to knee jerk (and tired) arguments.

    How about this? Stop granting citizenship to hordes of people who have no fucking clue about gun rights, the Constitution, etc…? Don’t give them any welfare. Tell them that if they want to come here, they have to sign a contract that says that they will not collect welfare, participate in Affirmative Action programs, or act as lobbyists for foreign governments. Deport them if they violate the contract.

    These people commit PERJURY when they swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution when they swear in as American citizens, by collecting welfare, supporting gun control laws, etc…

    So it looks like Andy Craig thinks that it is OK if people commit PERJURY as long as the person in question is an immigrant.

    It is a huge lie that all immigrants come to the USA looking for freedom.

    There is this knee jerk “politically correct” reaction that too many so called “Libertarians” have that paint all immigrants as being wonderful people. Sure, some are, and that’s great, but a lot of them clearly are not.

    There is nothing anti-libertarian about defending oneself against hostile invaders (and yes, people who advocate for socialism and gun control laws are HOSTILE invaders, these are NOT peaceful people) who want to suck up welfare money, restrict gun rights, and do all kinds of other things that violate Libertarian principles.

    How about the African and Middle Eastern immigrants who want the government to crack down on gays? I’ve encountered some of these people, like the African immigrant I had a conversation with who thought that the government should round up gays and put them in concentration camps.

    How about if these people started moving into the city where you live and got elected to the city council? How about if one of them got elected as Sheriff? Let’s suppose a group of them went out to bash gays and then the Sheriff they elected didn’t do anything about it. Let’s say that the anti-gay African or Middle Eastern Sheriff hired cops of the same mentality that went out and beat up some gays.

    Why in the HELL would anyone who claims to be a libertarian think that it is OK to have anyone show up, regardless of what their political ideology is, and be made an American citizen, thus granting them the “right” to vote?

    Now just to be clear, I am NOT saying that all African or Middle Eastern immigrants want the government to crack down on gays, but some of them do, and they are being granted American citizenship.

    How about if a bunch of Nazis showed up and wanted to become citizens and vote? Would you think that this is a good idea?

    Would Andy Craig have supported Operation Paperclip, which brought a bunch of Nazis to the USA after World War II? These were just hard working Germans who were looking for a better life in America, so Andy Craig would have supported them, right?

    You see, I believe in immigrants that are PRO-FREEDOM. I do not believe in immigrants who are ANTI-FREEDOM. I think that ideology matters.

    This is why I designed the Libertarian Zone concept to attract pro-freedom immigrants, and to repel anti-freedom immigrants, and it is also why the Libertarian Zone puts the same set of standards on immigrants as it does on people who’d be born in the Libertarian Zone.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

    A sure way to kill any chance of having a Libertarian Zone would be for it to be flooded with people who do not have a libertarian ideology. It is also a sure way to kill what is left of freedom here in the US of A.

  178. Andy

    Look who is in charge of Naturalizing immigrants? Do you think that any of these people want to make sure that immigrants going through the Naturalization process really have a firm grasp on the Constitution?

    Remember, many of these people come from countries that have NO tradition of gun rights or having any limits on government. These are alien concepts to a lot of these people.

    If they are not grasping any of this stuff in the Naturalization classes (which according to the data, most of them are not), and if they are being ENTICED by into a government welfare system, what the hell kind of results do you expect?

    Now some people will say, “You are just anti-immigrant. You are a hater. You like to bash immigrants.” NONE of this is true. I only bash people who deserve to be bashed.

    I have praised Lily Tang, a Chinese immigrant who is the current Chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, on this very website. I think that Russian immigrant Julia Tourianski is wonderful. Julia immigrated from Russia to Canada, but I’d welcome her to immigrate to the USA.

    I’d be willing to bet that I’ve done more Libertarian outreach to immigrants from all over the world than Andy Craig and Tom Knapp have done combined.

  179. Andy

    Andy Craig: “Gun control is and remains a political loser, particularly among the swing voters and swing states that count.”

    The Mandatory Background Checks for All Gun Sales initiative that Bloomberg gave money to in Washington passed.

    It is going to be on the ballot in Nevada this November, and I will not be surprised if it ends up passing in Nevada. Nevada does have a tradition as being one of the more pro-gun rights states, but the problem in changing demographics in Nevada. Lots of left wing “liberal” types and lots of foreigners have moved there.

    There is also a Marijuana Legalization initiative that is going to be on the ballot there this November, and I believe that it will pass. This would be a good thing, because it would expand freedom (although the taxes proposed in the initiative are too high in my opinion, and I also think that the business licensing fee that they have proposed for marijuana shops is too high as well, but even so, this initiative passing would still be a good thing for liberty, in spite of the flaws in the initiative).

    Unfortunately, these two initiatives will bring a lot more leftist type people to the polls, so this will increase the odds of the Background Checks for All Gun Sales initiative passing.

    Obama carried Nevada in both 2008 and in 2012.

    I have a low opinion of the Republican Party, and I generally do not get into the whole “Democrat vs. Republican” thing as I think that that whole paradigm is a con and a waste of time.

    Having said this, even though Republicans are pretty much worthless, and are a part of the problem (just as Democrats are), the Republican rank-and-file is not as likely as the Democrat rank-and-file to come out and vote in favor of a gun control initiative.

    Given the demographic shift in Nevada, and given all of the media propaganda surrounding shooting incidents (and I think that the evidence indicates that several of these incidents have been staged by the government to whip the public up into supporting new gun control laws, and those of you who think that this sounds “crazy,” look at Operation Fast and Furious, where the government got caught shipping guns to Mexican drug cartels so they could use the ensuing mayhem they were helping to create to blame the 2nd amendment and call for more gun control laws), I think that there is an above average chance that the Background Checks for All Gun Purchases initiative will pass in Nevada.

    Andy Craig said that calls for new gun control laws is a losing issue. Yes, it is a losing issue among some groups of people, particularly if they are white natural born Americans, as according to the surveys, a majority of white natural born Americans still support the right to keep and bear arms (although according to the statistic Molyneux presented in the video above, even this support level is only at 57%). The support among white natural born Americans is even stronger if you narrow it down to white natural born Americans who live in rural areas (63% according to what Molyneux presented in the video above).

    Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that the only people who support gun rights in this country are white natural born Americans. There are certainly other groups of people who support gun rights. There are natural born black Americans who support gun rights. I’ve met quite a few of them over the years. You can find at least some people from all groups who support gun rights. I am talking statistics here, and I am talking about where you are likely to find the most gun rights supporters and where you are likely to find the least gun rights supporters.

    Analyze the demographic and ideological trends. If the people who control the government and want to crack down on gun rights can bring in enough foreign people, who statistically speaking, are far less likely to support gun rights than are people who have families that have been in the USA for multiple generations, they can combine this with the anti-gun “liberal” vote, a lot of which is concentrated around major cities. Also, factor in mainstream media and government controlled education system brainwashing that says that, “Guns are bad, and only the police and military should have guns,” and that, “We need more laws to protect us from dangerous guns.”

    It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who is paying attention to what is going on that there is a long term plan to strip gun rights away from Americans.

  180. Andy

    Since Andy Craig seems to think that all immigrants are wonderful, and that the ideology of immigrants does not matter, perhaps he’d like if it some of these Ugandans featured in the video below immigrated to where he lives, became American citizens, and started voting and running for office.

    Watch the video. Some of these Ugandans think that people should go to prison or be put to death just for being gay.

    Since Andy Craig thinks that the ideology of immigrants does not matter, I think that we should offer every Ugandan who participated in this anti-gay protest to come to America, become citizens, and move to the same neighborhood where Andy Craig lives.

    We could even offer them tax payer funding for this under the Refugee Resettlement Program.

    What would be the problem with this? Just some hard working Ugandans coming to America to seek a better life. So what if they hate gays and think that they should go to prison or be put to death just for being gay. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, right?

    Huge anti-gay protest in Uganda

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0hIO-Jt8Hk

    Just to be clear, I do not believe that the views expressed by the protestors in Uganda in the video above reflect the views of the vast majority of black Americans.

    I posted this video as an example of some people in a foreign country who hold a point of view which ought to be considered to be unacceptable in the USA. People with views like this should not be encouraged to immigrate to the USA and become American citizens.

  181. Andy

    I’ve noticed that only the link to the video posts if you type something below the link, like I did above, so for this reason, I am posting the video from above again.

    Huge anti-gay protest in Uganda

  182. Andy

    Here are some “wonderful” Muslims, one of whom in an immigrant to this country, that ought to move to Andy Craig’s neighborhood.

    So Andy Craig wants people like this to immigrate to the USA and become American citizens (which means they can vote and run for office). He’s either very naïve, or he’s got a death wish.

    Muslim Day (1 of 3) “Homosexuals Must Be Killed” Muslims speak out

  183. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp

    October 23, 2015 at 7:23 pm

    I had an interesting idea today for a gun that can be built with no tools, no 3D printer, nothing but $5 worth of stuff from the dollar store, all or most of which most people probably have in their homes. Nothing fancy — single shot, muzzle-loading, fires a round glass projectile in the 10-15mm diameter range. Not sure how many shots the gun would be good for before barrel integrity becomes a worry. Heck, maybe not even one.

    Some time in the next week or so, I’ll try to build and fire the thing, and if it works I’ll post the plans somewhere.”

    This would be cool if it works.

  184. Andy Craig

    “”Once again, Andy Craig misses the boat and reverts to knee jerk (and tired) arguments.””

    Because there’s nothing knee-jerk or tired about “Democrats are allowing too many brown people into the country so they can vote to take our guns and implement socialism!”

    “”How about this? Stop granting citizenship to hordes of people who have no fucking clue about gun rights, the Constitution, etc…? “”

    Why limit that to foreigners? And who gets to decide if their political views are acceptable? You? Of course not. The government will do it. I presume you don’t trust the government to educate Americans about the Constitution, what makes you think it can do a good job of educating anybody else about? And who gets to decide who’s an acceptable human being and who’s just a faceless part of the enemy “horde”?

    Passing the naturalization quiz alone- which is granted fairly trivial- still makes most naturalized citizens more informed about the Constitution than your average American public high school graduate. Should we bring back literacy tests to vote, too? How about a property requirement? Repeal women’s suffrage?

    Instead of dreaming about restricting who can vote, worry about changing the minds of the people who do.

    “”Don’t give them any welfare.””

    Them? Try “anybody.”

    “”These people commit PERJURY when they swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution when they swear in as American citizens, by collecting welfare, supporting gun control laws, etc…

    So it looks like Andy Craig thinks that it is OK if people commit PERJURY as long as the person in question is an immigrant.””

    That isn’t even remotely perjury, because like it or not people are allowed to disagree with you about the Constitution. And of course the Constitution itself includes an amendment process- I imagine you’d support some amendments. That the Constitution can be amended, is included in the oath to “support and defend” the Constitution.

    And how do you propose to tell not they “really” agree with the Constitution? Are you really so arrogant that you not only think you can mind-read and see into another person’s heat to know their true intentions, but that you think you can come up with some plan that will allow the government to do that?

    And, by the way, how do you propose to know how they vote? You (/the government) get to make up a list of candidates they can’t vote for, and then repeal the secret ballot so you can enforce it? Sounds like a wonderful banana republic you want to set up in order to “defend” the Constitution. Because nothing’s more Libertarian than emulating Putin’s tactics. And I’m sure the government would never say voting for Libertarian candidates is anti-Constitution, because… reasons.

    “”It is a huge lie that all immigrants come to the USA looking for freedom.””

    It’s a huge strawman, is what it is.

    “”There is this knee jerk “politically correct” reaction that too many so called “Libertarians” have that paint all immigrants as being wonderful people. Sure, some are, and that’s great, but a lot of them clearly are not.””

    “I’m just not politically correct!!” again, tossed out as an excuse to be wrong, collectivist, and demanding people not use language you don’t approve of, where “politically correct” equals whatever the person saying it disagrees with.

    And nobody ever said “all immigrants are wonderful people.” Just that they are *people*. Ones you, as a Libertarian, have taken a pledge not to initiate force against.

    “”How about if these people started moving into the city where you live and got elected to the city council? How about if one of them got elected as Sheriff? Let’s suppose a group of them went out to bash gays and then the Sheriff they elected didn’t do anything about it. Let’s say that the anti-gay African or Middle Eastern Sheriff hired cops of the same mentality that went out and beat up some gays.””

    I’ve lived in places exactly like that, and it wasn’t foreign hordes of Arabs and Africans who elected them. It was the same people whose voting power you insist I should fight to preserve against possible dilution.

    “”There is nothing anti-libertarian about defending oneself against hostile invaders (and yes, people who advocate for socialism and gun control laws are HOSTILE invaders, these are NOT peaceful people) who want to suck up welfare money, restrict gun rights, and do all kinds of other things that violate Libertarian principles.””

    No, having ideas in their head that are wrong does not entitle you to “defend” yourself against somebody who has not initiated force against you. And again, you’ve offered no reason the nullification of rights you propose for non-Americans should be limited to non-Americans.

    You’ve registered a lot of people to vote, I presume. How many of them do you think then voted for candidates or issues you disagree with? Surely you know they all didn’t then go forth and vote straight-ticket Libertarian forever. Why shouldn’t I be “defending” myself against you?

    “”Why in the HELL would anyone who claims to be a libertarian think that it is OK to have anyone show up, regardless of what their political ideology is, and be made an American citizen, thus granting them the “right” to vote?””

    You obviously have zero experience with the naturalization process. Nobody shows up in the U.S. and votes the next day. The wasteful big-government bureaucracy you want to expend and empower, takes upwards of 10, 15, even 20 years to grant naturalization. Though the states can, and many once did, allow resident aliens to vote (moot point because that’s never coming back, but proof that this paranoid hysteria about foreign-born people being allowed to vote is nonsense.)

    And banning people from being present in the country, has no bearing on naturalization policy. If you want to set a ten or twenty or whatever year time limit on citizenship (and thus voting), that in no way requires that you send out the men with guns to disallow voluntary interaction with non-citizens. I’m ambivalent about naturalization, because it really doesn’t make much difference (and it isn’t what attracts people to the US), and I don’t share your faith in the ability of government to somehow only naturalize the “right” people.

    “”Now just to be clear, I am NOT saying that all African or Middle Eastern immigrants want the government to crack down on gays, but some of them do, and they are being granted American citizenship.””

    Or as somebody else put it: ‘They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people.’

    And last time I checked, Kim Davis hasn’t been deported either.

    “”How about if a bunch of Nazis showed up and wanted to become citizens and vote? Would you think that this is a good idea?””

    Actual war-criminal Nazis? No, and the LP platform has provision for exactly that sort of thing.

    And of course, you again ignore the reality that, right now, America-born Nazis ‘show up’ and become citizens and vote. Happens every day. What do you think should be done about them?

    “”Would Andy Craig have supported Operation Paperclip, which brought a bunch of Nazis to the USA after World War II? These were just hard working Germans who were looking for a better life in America, so Andy Craig would have supported them, right?””

    I’m not the one arguing for empowering the government to save us from the foreign evil hordes who threaten the purity of the nation by not voting like good “white” people.

    Actual criminals who have harmed others, should be arrested and prosecuted and punished, where they’re Germans in a fancy uniform crossing the border, or native-born Armerican punks beating up a Latino homeless man up because they’re scared he might vote for gun control and food stamps.

    “”You see, I believe in immigrants that are PRO-FREEDOM. I do not believe in immigrants who are ANTI-FREEDOM. I think that ideology matters.””

    And who gets to decide what that ideology is? Emperor Jacobs I? Or the same tax-funded gun-toting government bureaucrats? You don’t think the government is applying a proper ideological litmus test (as if that would accomplish anything more than asking people at the airport if they have a bomb in their suitcase), and you think this increase in government power over Americans would make Americans freer?

    Like I said, you’re not talking about opposition to government power. You’re fantasizing about wielding it yourself. For purposes social engineering, no less. You might as well be talking about making the New Soviet Man.

    “”This is why I designed the Libertarian Zone concept to attract pro-freedom immigrants, and to repel anti-freedom immigrants, and it is also why the Libertarian Zone puts the same set of standards on immigrants as it does on people who’d be born in the Libertarian Zone.””

    Yes, and maybe one day you and the Prince of Sealand and President of Liberland can get together in a Nonarchy Pod and have a drink while talking about how wise and great your fictional governments are.

    Besides, weren’t you the one demanding strict and total allegiance to the Constitution? Or does that not apply to the (many) areas where the Constitution does not take the libertarian position, like that whole “no lopping over a piece of the country to be Andy-land” part?

    “”I have praised Lily Tang, a Chinese immigrant who is the current Chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, on this very website. I think that Russian immigrant Julia Tourianski is wonderful. Julia immigrated from Russia to Canada, but I’d welcome her to immigrate to the USA.

    I’d be willing to bet that I’ve done more Libertarian outreach to immigrants from all over the world than Andy Craig and Tom Knapp have done combined.””

    Do you call them “hordes” when you do that?

    And nice “but I have [fill-in-the-blank] friends! They’re not like the others!”

    “”Analyze the demographic and ideological trends”.”

    You mean where net migration US-> Mexico has been flat or negative for five years now? Or how the foreign-born population of the U.S. is still well below its historical peak? Or how, as I already pointed out, over the long term support for gun control has plummeted while immigration has increased?

    Or do you just mean cherry-pick the issue “white native-born rural Americans” are relatively more libertarian on, proclaim that issue more important than any other (including those they’re *less* libertarian on), and that therefore their voting power must be preserved against people who “statistically” tend to vote Democrat more than Republican?

  185. Andy Craig

    And here are some of the “wonderful white native-born Americans” that Andy Jacobs thinks I should be fighting to empower instead.

  186. Robert Capozzi

    ac: Yes, and maybe one day you and the Prince of Sealand and President of Liberland can get together in a Nonarchy Pod and have a drink while talking about how wise and great your fictional governments are.

    me: Fantastic!

    We are now calling them Harlos Nonarchy Pods, btw.

  187. Andy

    Julie Borowski makes a lot of good points in the video below. See suggests taking left wing “liberals” to gun ranges to teach them about guns. This can take away their fears about guns and cause them to change their position on this issue.

    This is a great idea, and it falls in line with my suggestion above about requiring a class on the 2nd amendment, which includes a trip to the firing range, as a part of the Naturalization process for immigrants to become American citizens (they should also take thorough classes on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and also a class on free market economics).

    I’m all in favor of trying to educate people about the issues from a libertarian perspective, and trying to persuade them to come to the libertarian way of thinking. So I fully support doing libertarian outreach to all people, including immigrants. Here is the problem though. The immigrants are coming in faster than libertarians could possibly reach them. Now it would be nice if they were already libertarians, but the fact is that the majority of them are not. What makes matters even worse is that the government does such a lousy job of teaching immigrants about the Constitution during the Naturalization process. This is the government, so we should not be surprised that they do a lousy job, but just pointing this out does nothing to alleviate the problem.

    Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there who will never be libertarians, no matter what we do. This applies to a lot of immigrants and a lot of natural born Americans, and this is precisely why we are in the mess that we are in today. I believe that my Libertarian Zone concept solves this problem, but this is another issue.

    Libertarians could say, “Well we can just do more outreach to immigrants, and we will influence them to become libertarians after they hear our great ideas and logical arguments.” This is much easier said than done.

    Reality is that Libertarian outreach is pretty much a joke. This is a big part of the reason that the Libertarian Party and movement are not larger than they are right now. The average Libertarian thinks that outreach is going to a monthly Libertarian supper club, or posting to a message board online that hardly anyone reads other than a few libertarians.

    The government can produce statists at a far more rapid rate than the Libertarian Party or movement can persuade people over to the libertarian philosophy.

    Also, not everybody is even reachable when it comes to libertarian outreach. I’d say that 2/3 of the population as libertarian, or libertarian leaners, is probably the best we could get even if we had several billion dollars at our disposal.

    Probably around 1/3 of the population are dedicated statists who will actively fight us no matter what we do. The government importing more people who are of a similar mindset (as in they are dedicated big government types), and inducing them with welfare money and other government programs, stacks the odds more in favor of big government than it does for those that believe in individual liberty.

    I agree with what Julie suggests here, take a left wing “liberal” to a gun range, and off to take anti-gun rights immigrants to gun ranges as well. I just think that we are fighting an uphill battle, and it is a pretty damn steep hill.

    How to Win the Gun Debate

  188. Robert Capozzi

    a: The government can produce statists at a far more rapid rate than the Libertarian Party or movement can persuade people over to the libertarian philosophy.

    me: This implies that the LM is futile. AndyLand and Harlos Nonarchy Pods may be the only hope for some to live in liberty.

    As for exposing people to gun ranges, I dunno, I could imagine that could easily backfire. As a former gun owner who has never fired a shot, my support for the right to keep and bear arms on one’s property and in public when authorized in certain states is stronger in the abstract. I get a weird vibe when I run into public toters, especially cops and people who wear then on their hip out in public. There’s an aggressive bravado about them too often, one I’d just as soon not encounter.

    Personally in my 50+ years, I’ve never once been in a situation where I wished I was toting. Perhaps mine is an outlier experience, but my guess is my experience is quite common.

    I don’t think anything would shake my position for the RTKBA, but frankly I’d rather not have them in my face! Having a shotgun under the bed to protect one’s family…I get that. Hanging with weekend warriors arguing whether the Sig Sauer or the Glock is the better weapon in a deafening hall of cement sounds like torture to me.

    To each his or her own, of course.

  189. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp, you said: “Would an effective implementation of AP give them even more pause than the potential for a completely unpredictable “leaderless resistance” of millions? That depends on how effective the implementation is and how ugly the predictable consequences of it are.”

    My understanding is that the advantage of a “leaderless resistance” is that it becomes much more difficult to trace the connections between the individual participants. True, but one thing it doesn’t do is to motivate the people to take the risks that will be necessary. American has 310+ million people, but only a tiny number of targeted attacks (a few thousand) would be necessary to bring down the government…IF those attacks were identified as being not merely random, but in fact planned yet unpredictable. AP, implemented fully with anonymity, would achieve the secrecy, but it would also allow hundreds of millions of people to anonymously motivate (by money) the very few who will actually wield the swords necessary. (and other weapons). Thus, it should be vastly more effective than any mere “leaderless resistance”.

  190. Andy

    Question: If the ideology of the people who live near you does not matter, then what’s the point of the Free State Project?

  191. paulie

    By that logic NH statists should set up border checkpoints on their state lines and keep people from other states from moving in unless they can prove that they are not with the FSP. But at least they would be consistent, unlike libertarian migration restrictionists.

  192. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: This is from the Wikipedia article, “Leaderless resistance”:

    General characteristics[edit]
    A typical covert cell can be a lone individual or a small group. The basic characteristic of the structure is that there is no explicit communication between cells which are otherwise acting toward the same goals. Members of one cell usually have little or no specific information on who else is agitating on behalf of their cause.

    Leaderless movements may have a symbolic figurehead. This can be a public figure or an inspirational author, who picks generic targets and objectives, but does not actually manage or execute plans. Media, in this case, often create a positive feedback loop: the publishing of declarations of a movement’s role model instills motivation, ideas and assumed sympathy in the minds of potential agitators who lend further authority to the figurehead.[citation needed] While this may be loosely viewed as a vertical command structure, it is notably unidirectional: a titular leader makes pronouncements, and activists may respond, but there is no established contact between the two levels of organization.[citation needed]

    As a result, leaderless resistance cells are largely not susceptible to informants and traitors. As there is neither a center that may be destroyed, nor links between the cells that may be infiltrated, it is more difficult for established authorities to arrest the development of a leaderless resistance movement than more conventional hierarchies.[citation needed]

    Given its asymmetrical character and the fact that it is often strategically adopted in the face of an obvious institutional power imbalance, leaderless resistance has much in common with guerrilla warfare. The latter strategy, however, usually retains some form of organized, bidirectional leadership and is often more broad-based than the individualized actions of leaderless cells. In some cases, a largely leaderless movement may evolve into a coherent insurgency or guerrilla movement, as successfully occurred with the Yugoslav partisans of World War II. In the same conflict, the British leadership had extensive plans for the use of such resistance in the event of a successful German invasion.[2]

    While the concept of leaderless resistance is often based on resistance by violent means, it is not limited to them. The same structure can be used by non-violent groups authoring, printing, and distributing samizdat literature, using the internet to create self-propagating boycotts against political opponents, maintaining an alternative electronic currency outside of the reach of the taxing governments and transaction-logging banks, etc.[citation needed]
    [end of portion quoted]

  193. Robert Capozzi

    aj: If the ideology of the people who live near you does not matter, then what’s the point of the Free State Project?

    me: Last I checked, FSP has failed in moving the political dial. The methodology for selecting a state to populate was embarrassingly poor.

    It makes sense that having a higher incidence of voters who value liberty in territory X is more likely to have more liberty than in territory Y, where fewer value liberty.

  194. Robert Capozzi

    more….

    Of course, it stands to reason that the incidence of liberty valuers would need to be significant and substantially higher, all else equal.

  195. paulie

    They haven’t triggered the numbers for the larger scale move yet, as far as I know, although last I heard they were getting close. When that happens, we’ll see how many people actually follow through on their pledge to move and how much of an impact they will or won’t have. The FSP is not exactly analogous though, since it involves individual people choosing to seek housing and employment from property and business owners who want to provide it to them. It does not involve the state forcing willing employers not to hire some people, willing landlords not to rent to some willing renters, willing businesses from selling to some willing customers, willing employees and customers from patronizing a would-be business by preventing it from locating in that state, a permit process to enter, leave, pass through, work in, shop in, or even move to NH, or any of the other things we find objectionable about regime border controls and migrant quotas.

  196. paulie

    That too, although the reference was to Andy’s statement that preceded it:

    Question: If the ideology of the people who live near you does not matter, then what’s the point of the Free State Project?

    Which I take it was talking about the present day reality and policies in the likely near term as well.

  197. Andy

    Robert Capozzi, you are right that the Free State Project has yet to accomplish much, and this actually further proves my point, because even New Hampshire is dominated by big government types.

    The Free State Project has a goal of getting at least 20,000 libertarians to move to New Hampshire. Given that the population of New Hampshire is over 1.2 million, even if 20,000 libertarians move to New Hampshire, libertarians will still be a minority, and there is nothing to stop 20,000 big government types from moving to New Hampshire and drowning out the 20,000 Free Staters.

    So yes, the ideology of the people you live near matters, it matters a lot, and right now, the government of this country puts out the welcome mat for every socialist, communist, and theocrat on the planet to come here, get on welfare, become citizens, and register to vote. This is a recipe for disaster.

    Libertarians and/or small government types coming to the USA is great, but the statistics prove that the majority of the people coming here do not fit that description.

  198. Robert Capozzi

    aj, so I ask again, is it hopeless and futile to press for liberty? Your numbers suggest so.

  199. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Libertarians and/or small government types coming to the USA is great, but the statistics prove that the majority of the people coming here do not fit that description.”

    Statistics don’t “prove” anything, but stipulating for the sake of argument that these particular statistics are valid and that they do have SOME value …

    … so what? The majority of human beings are not libertarians, so OF COURSE the majority of immigrants to a nation of 300 million from a world population of 8 billion will probably reflect that majority.

    “We can’t have freedom because the majority disagrees with us (or until the majority agrees with us” is a bullshit argument for taking an anti-libertarian position.

    As far as the FSP is concerned, there’s more to it than “let’s pour 20k libertarians into a population of 1.2 million.” Part of the idea is that the libertarians who move there will tend to CONGREGATE. Since each state legislator represents only about 3,000 residents of the state, 1,501 libertarians in an area could run the table in that area’s state legislative elections, and even fewer could make the difference between a liberty-leaning candidate and an authoritarian-leaning candidate. The FSP is apparently effectual enough to have inspired a few reactive “everyone panic — LIBERTARIANS are moving in here” campaigns.

  200. paulie

    Libertarians and/or small government types coming to the USA is great, but the statistics prove that the majority of the people coming here do not fit that description.

    Most of the people coming to the USA emerge from vaginas without any entry permit, not even a work visa. They don’t speak a word of English and most of them are raised by non-libertarians and become non-libertarians themselves. Lots of them immediately go on welfare. They start out being lazy and not working for a living, but they end up taking our jobs. Some of them go on to commit heinous crimes. Therefore, until we abolish the welfare state, we must regulate who is allowed to have children, when, where and how many. Agreed or disagreed?

  201. Andy Craig

    “Libertarians and/or small government types coming to the USA is great, but the statistics prove that the majority of the people coming here do not fit that description.”

    OK, so what would you do about it? You’ve spent a lot of time talking about why immigration is bad and has to be stopped to defend “liberty” [sic]. How are you going to do that? What laws would you pass and enforcement actions would you support?

    Let’s say I, who think your immigration restriction laws are stupid and illegitimate, commit the “crime” of hiring one of them and renting them a home. What would you have the state do to me for that? Send in the SWAT team and haul me off to jail? Shoot me if I refuse to go to my cage? And then on what charge would you have me prosecuted, “harboring a person who’s statistically unlikely to vote Republican”? “Interacting with foreigners without government permission”?

    Either your can “not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goal,” or you can be an immigrant prohibitionist who thinks the government should initiate force against people to achieve your political and social goals.

    Pick one, it can’t be both.

  202. Robert Capozzi

    ac: you can be an immigrant prohibitionist who thinks the government should initiate force against people to achieve your political and social goals.

    me: Some might view illegal entry as tantamount to trespassing. Trespassing would be a form of force initiation.

    You surely don’t believe anyone can go anywhere anytime.

    So, your binary setup doesn’t work so cleanly UNLESS you can “prove” that people have a right to go on any property they choose to, regardless of what the owner of the property says.

  203. Andy

    My poltiical and social goals are freedom. Keeping socialists, communists, theorcrats, etc…, out of the area where I live, and especially preventing them from achieving any political power, is completely consistent with libertarian principles.

    Once again, see the Libertarian Zone concept, which is linked above in this thread.

  204. Andy

    ” Robert Capozzi October 25, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    aj, so I ask again, is it hopeless and futile to press for liberty? Your numbers suggest so.”

    A lot of libertarians are good to very good when it comes to political philosophy, but a lot of them are also bad to very bad when it comes to political strategy. It is pretty rare when I meet a libertarian who is anything approaching good when it comes to political strategy.

    It is always worth it to strive for more liberty, but the numbers are stacked against us in this country.

    Look at the following numbers:

    1) Number of people who work for the govenrment.

    2) Number of people who contract with the government.

    3) Number of people who profit off of government contrived rackets.

    4) Number of people who collect various forms of welfare (including corporate).

    Now factor in the number of people who are social conservatives or are left wing “liberal” nanny staters who want government to regulate all kinds of personal behaviors.

    After you have finished this, let’s move on to immigrants. The data clearly indicates that the govenrment is actively “importing” people into this country who hold political views which are contrary to the concept of individual freedom, and having a small, limited government. Multiple surveys indicate that a higher percentage of immigrants to the USA support big government more than natural born Americans do. This is not to say that there are not natural born Americans who are big government supporters, because there certainly are, but every survey I’ve seen indicates a lower support for big government from natural born Americans than from immigrants.

    Now some people will accuse me of “picking on immigrants,” but this is not the case. I applaud any immigrant who is actually in the freedom camp ideologically speaking. I’m glad that they are here. Having said this, the statistics clearly indicate that they are in the minority among immigrants. The average immigrant to this country is closer to Karl Marx in ideology than they are to Murray Rothbard, or to the Founding Fathers who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Like I said above, the government produces statists at a much faster rate than libertarians produce libertarians.

    What can those of us do who are in the pro-freedom camp? Should we just give up?

    I don’t consider giving up to be an option.

    There are some things that we can do. The Free State Project in New Hampshire is a good idea, but they’d be more likely to have success if they narrowed their target to a low population county or city/town. Libertarians could take over a low population county or city/town, which means that libertarians would control the local police department. Get rid of all of the local cops and replace them with libertarians.

    Jury nullification is another good strategy. It only takes one out of twelve jurors to hang any jury. Most people are not libertarians, but even so, a lot of people who are not libertarians agree with libertarians on one or a few issues. The government would have a very difficult time enforcing drug laws and gun laws if everyone in the country knew about jury nullification.

  205. jim

    We currently live (in America) in a non-libertarian society. The way it is run, it presumes that we citizens (including libertarians) have somehow implicitly consented to being controlled by decisions not simply of the majority, but in fact the legislators elected by (usually) the majority of the various state and district populations. Libertarians believe that is WRONG, that we did not and do not consent to being so led and controlled. We might not be able to do anything to stop that yet, but maybe we will, eventually.
    People, including some who call themselves “libertarians” are proposing that despite the fact that we are not actually living in a libertarian society, we the citizenry (and the libertarian minority) must somehow consent to an even larger violation of our rights, accepting that millions more people (mostly non-libertarians) be accepted not merely to live in this society, but in some cases people actually propose those people be granted citizenship.
    Where did we consent to that? I never did. I was never even ASKED to consent to that. So who says I must consent? And more importantly, who calls himself a “libertarian” yet advocates a change to our current non-libertarian society, in order to make it even more non-libertarian.
    Answer me that.

  206. Thomas L. Knapp

    “nd more importantly, who calls himself a ‘libertarian’ yet advocates a change to our current non-libertarian society, in order to make it even more non-libertarian. Answer me that.”

    Right now, the first two who come to mind are you and Andy.

  207. jim

    Wang Tang-Fu: Knapp had a 13-word ‘reply’ to my 15-line comment. He said essentially nothing. Your comment was 5 words. Generally, I’ve found that people who don’t comment on details are failing to do so because they know they can’t.

  208. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: You said, “why waste words”.
    First, you are ASSUMING that words are being “wasted”. Someone could merely say, “I disagree with that”, comprising only four words. But if your goal is to not merely register disagreement, but to actually explain (perhaps to convince some unknown third party) WHY you disagree, then merely saying you disagree doesn’t cut it. In fact, the lack of actual explanation of WHY you disagree would sure look,., to that third party…that you are conceding the validity of what I have said.
    What was there to disagree with. I said we don’t currently live in a libertarian society. “Check”, that’s certainly true. Second, I said, “it presumes that we citizens (including libertarians) have somehow implicitly consented to being controlled by decisions not simply of the majority”. “Check”, that is certainly also true.
    I said, ” Libertarians believe that is WRONG, that we did not and do not consent to being so led and controlled.” “Check”, also quite true.
    Further, I said, “People, including some who call themselves “libertarians” are proposing that despite the fact that we are not actually living in a libertarian society, we the citizenry (and the libertarian minority) must somehow consent to an even larger violation of our rights, accepting that millions more people (mostly non-libertarians) be accepted not merely to live in this society, but in some cases people actually propose those people be granted citizenship.” “Check”, true.
    I continued on: “Where did we consent to that? I never did. I was never even ASKED to consent to that. So who says I must consent?”. “Check”, true. Who disagrees?
    Finally, I said, “And more importantly, who calls himself a “libertarian” yet advocates a change to our current non-libertarian society, in order to make it even more non-libertarian.
    Answer me that.”
    So far, nobody has answered that. Knapp “responded” with a 13 word sentence, you with 5 word and then 3-word comment.
    When should I stop laughing???

  209. Wang Tang-Fu

    As many different times and ways as the “why” and “how” has already been explained in this thread, explaining it yet again would not seem to add much. That’s why Knapp’s response was perfect and right on the money. For the rest of the details – look further up, or down, or sideways, wherever the earlier comments appear on your screen. Or just look at all the fingers pointing back at you when you tried to point that one.

  210. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: I have noticed that one common way to ostensibly “responding” is to simply, and vaguely, respond to something like “…has already been explained in this thread”.
    Most people who see that, and have not been previously involved in the conversation, would not bother to actually search out the specific notes to verify if this claim is true or not. You don’t mention any previous notes. You just say, “wherever the earlier comments appear on your screen”. That’s not enough. I don’t believe that anything I said was disproven. At most, it was disagreed with, not disproven. And if that were sufficient, neither you nor Knapp should have bothered to say anything at all. The fact that you two spoke up is, itself, an admission.

  211. jim

    Let me add that there are already FAR too many messages on this thread to be able to credibly saysomething like, ‘Somewhere up there is some note(s) disproving what you said’. This foolish system doesn’t even number its notes, making it very difficult to identify which messages say what.

  212. Wang Tang-Fu

    Pointing out that the quoted portion describes your position perfectly is sufficient. The evidence is there if you look for it, and anyone who cares can check him or herself. Explaining it yet again would add nothing. Simply pointing out that your own words showed your own image in the mirror was enough.

  213. Wang Tang-Fu

    The number of messages is irrelevant. The information is there. How much or little effort you want to put into finding it, or whether you believe it is there or not, is up to you. Anyone who cares can find it, and see just how perfectly your own words apply to you.

  214. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: What “image”? What “words”? What “mirror”? You can do nothing except speak in riddles.
    I found nothing relevant. The burden isn’t on ME to find some poorly-identified material out of the hundreds (?) of messages above.

  215. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp

    October 25, 2015 at 10:13 pm

    ‘nd more importantly, who calls himself a ‘libertarian’ yet advocates a change to our current non-libertarian society, in order to make it even more non-libertarian. Answer me that.’

    Right now, the first two who come to mind are you and Andy.”

    I have not advocated anything that violates libertarian principles, unless you think that it is “libertarian” to entice immigrants with welfare payments, or that granting voting “rights” to people who are hostile to freedom is somehow libertarian.

    I have no problem with attracting people from around the world who have a pro-freedom mindset, but I want to REPEAL people from around the world that have an anti-freedom mindset.

    This would be like if a bunch of blatant non-libertarians showed up at a Libertarian Party convention and wanted to be seated as delegates. The average Libertarian would throw a fit if a bunch of communists or NAZIS or whatever other form of collective control ideology showed up at an LP convention and tried to take it over, or influence the outcome of the convention, yet they seem OK with people who are hostile to liberty being granted American citizenship and voting in elections, the result of which impact laws that impact their day to day lives.

    Look at Bob Barr and Wayne Root. They were hard working migrants from the Republican Party who came to the Libertarian Party to “seek a better life,” yet lots of Libertarians did not accept them (especially after their disappointing 2008 campaign), and wanted them to be “deported” from the Libertarian Party, and these people cheered after they left on their own.

  216. Wang Tang-Fu

    The burden is a mirage in your mind. It does not exist. You are not the taskmaster and no one here is dancing to your tune. You were hoisted by your own petard. Whether you realize it or not is not really all that relevant.

  217. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: You said, “The burden is a mirage in your mind. It does not exist. You are not the taskmaster and no one here is dancing to your tune. You were hoisted by your own petard. Whether you realize it or not is not really all that relevant.”

    I guess you are unable to form a valid argument. Is there a language barrier?

  218. Andy

    Jim said: “accepting that millions more people (mostly non-libertarians) be accepted not merely to live in this society, but in some cases people actually propose those people be granted citizenship.”

    Once again, a lot of these immigrants committed PERJURY during the Naturalization process when they took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution. This should really invalidate them as American citizens.

    I pointed out above, one of the biggest problems is the Naturalization process. What would be so bad about require the following in order to become a Naturalized American citizen:

    1) Having to pass a thorough class on the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution (a Michael Badnarik style class).

    2) Having to pass a class in free market economics (as taught by somebody from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or something similar).

    3) A gun rights class (could be taught by Gun Owners of America). The right to keep and bear arms is an essential element of a free society. I think that the reason that so many immigrants reject gun rights is because they were not raised in a country that had gun rights, so it is an alien concept to them.

    There should also be an enforceable immigration contract that stipulates that the immigrant shall not collect government welfare, participate in Affirmative Action programs, or work as a lobbyist for any foreign nation. If they violate the contract they get deported.

    I think that this would improve the type of immigrants that are in this county.

    Pro-freedom immigrants = good. Anti-freedom immigrants = bad.

  219. Wang Tang-Fu

    Unfortunately yes, there is a language barrier. My translation program tells me you are chasing your tail in circles and begging me to help you catch it. It is more fun to observe you have already caught it.

  220. jim

    Wang Tang Fu:
    3.75 threads ago, I posted some notes which COMPLETELY demolish your argument.
    You look for them.

    (sarcasm-mode off)

  221. Wang Tang-Fu

    You have demolished your own argument. You don’t really need outside help. It takes care of itself.

  222. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: You have failed to make your own argument. You need PLENTY of outside help. Unfortunately, nobody is taking care of you.

  223. Wang Tang-Fu

    You can believe it if you want, but the fact remains that your position perfectly illustrates “calls himself a ‘libertarian’ yet advocates a change to our current non-libertarian society, in order to make it even more non-libertarian.” Further proof is not necessary. If you think it is, reread the thread. If you don’t want to reread the thread, it still remains true.

  224. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “‘Statistics don’t “prove” anything, but stipulating for the sake of argument that these particular statistics are valid and that they do have SOME value …’

    … so what?”

    So what?!?!?!?!?!?!? The reason that you don’t have freedom right now is because the majority of people you are surrounded by do not want to be free.

    If you want to be free, you need to surround yourself with people who want to be free.

    Libertarians needs to gain a majority, somewhere. This is the best path to freedom, and it may be the only path to freedom.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

  225. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “It makes sense that having a higher incidence of voters who value liberty in territory X is more likely to have more liberty than in territory Y, where fewer value liberty.”

    BINGO! Robert Capozzi just hit the nail on the head.

  226. Robert Capozzi

    AJ, thanks. However, while having more liberty lovers in an area is helpful to the cause of liberty, there are “means” problems and definition of liberty problems with any strategy to increase liberty by increasing the incidence of liberty lovers in a territory, yes?

    How to screen out those who don’t value liberty is a rather major practical consideration.

    Also my sense of liberty might be different from yours. I for example don’t think it’s a good idea that people should have the “liberty” of toting machine guns in public. Others may label me a gun-grabbing liberty-hater for that view, and choose to screen me out.

  227. Thomas L. Knapp

    Not that I think it will get through, since Wang Tang-Fu already said it pretty elegantly and you didn’t get it then either, but:

    1) It is anti-libertarian and anti-freedom to want to limit the ability of people to travel .

    2) You and Andy want to limit the ability of people to travel because some of those people might be anti-libertarian and anti-freedom.

    3) In other words, you and Andy want to make the existing anti-libertarian/anti-freedom society even more anti-freedom/anti-libertarian, in the name of freedom and libertarianism.

  228. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I’m not sure if “you” is me, but I don’t want any such thing.

    It may be wise for the members of a nation to have some rules about who can cross mutually-owned property (aka, a nation). It may be wise, for ex., to screen for communicable diseases.

    I would maintain that it IS wise to be open to tourists and immigrants for many reasons. What the right balance is…I don’t have a specific position.

  229. paulie

    I’m not sure if “you” is me

    In context it is pretty obviously a reference to Jim. Likewise, it should be obvious he is referring to Andy J, not Andy C. The latter explained things very well in this thread.

    mutually-owned property (aka, a nation)

    The nation is mutually owned property? Sounds rather communistic, or at best state “socialist” or fascist.

    It may be wise, for ex., to screen for communicable diseases.

    Not possible in practice except as security theater, as pointed out on many past threads if not this one.

    I would maintain that it IS wise to be open to tourists and immigrants for many reasons. What the right balance is…I don’t have a specific position.

    I’m sure our all wise and benevolent government will come up with the perfect central plan.

  230. jim

    Robert Capozzi: You said,
    “Also my sense of liberty might be different from yours. I for example don’t think it’s a good idea that people should have the “liberty” of toting machine guns in public. Others may label me a gun-grabbing liberty-hater for that view, and choose to screen me out.”

    You are not required to “think it’s a good idea that people should have the liberty of toting machine guns in public”. You are merely obligated to respect their right to do so, guaranteed in America by the 2nd Amendment.
    And from a libertarian standpoint, you are similarly required to respect their right, because to do otherwise would be violation of their right to do that.

  231. jim

    Wang Tang Fu: You do not appear to be distinguishing between the rights of the citizens of a nation, and foreigners. In today’s reality, those rights are different.

  232. paulie

    You are not required to “think it’s a good idea that people should have the liberty of toting machine guns in public”. You are merely obligated to respect their right to do so, guaranteed in America by the 2nd Amendment.
    And from a libertarian standpoint, you are similarly required to respect their right, because to do otherwise would be violation of their right to do that.

    One might say the same to you and your lack of respect for the right of employers and employees, businesses and consumers, landlords and tenants, etc to freely contract without the regime’s migration edicts getting in the way, but then that was already covered quite thoroughly above.

  233. Robert Capozzi

    pf: The nation is mutually owned property? Sounds rather communistic, or at best state “socialist” or fascist.

    me: Potato, potahto. Functionally, I’d say that which is not private property is mutually owned. You might say it’s held by the cult of the omnipotent state or some such. Whatever works, I guess.

    pf: Not possible in practice except as security theater, as pointed out on many past threads if not this one.

    me: All laws are screens, “security theater,” if you will. Murder has been illegal for centuries, yet there are still murders.

  234. paulie

    Murder is not a communicable disease. I’m sure you understand how communicable disease spread at least as well as I do. With murder the chances of being caught are pretty high and the consequences are pretty severe, making the laws a significant deterrent, which would work even better if law enforcement resources were not being wasted on victimless “crimes” such as possessing drugs or guns or crossing imaginary lines without regime permits. Communicable diseases can get in in many different ways, and have asymptomatic incubation periods, and from there multiply exponentially, making stopping them at the border fantasy, not reality.

  235. jim

    Paulie: You said, “I thought we were talking about what libertarians would like to see happen, not just today’s reality.”

    True. Not JUST today’s reality. But you forget there’s a third issue: How do we get from where we are to where we want to be. Current citizens of (for example) America are living in a non-libertarian world, but many would like it to be so. We libertarians presumably believe that we actually have the right to change society to a libertarian one, although that right is clearly not being respected as of today. But not every individual change would necessarily amount to a net positive from the standpoint of the goal of a libertarian society. Pack a huge number of imported illegal aliens into society, most of whom don’t believe in libertarianism, and those of us in America who want a libertarian society have just seen a major step backwards: We are further away from achieving a truly libertarian society than we were before.
    I don’t consider that to be progress.

  236. jim

    Paulie: You forgot to label the target of your comment:
    “One might say the same to you and your lack of respect for the right of employers and employees, businesses and consumers, landlords and tenants, etc to freely contract without the regime’s migration edicts getting in the way, but then that was already covered quite thoroughly above.”

    Yet, you seem to imply that I have a “lack of respect” for a number of things, “right of employers and employees etc to “freely contract”.
    Quite the opposite. I don’t object to an employee hiring an alien. I merely think that current (non-libertarian) law allows, indeed requires, the existing government to eject said illegal if found in America. Eventually, we can change that.

  237. paulie

    We certainly don’t get from where we are to where we want to be by expanding the police state and treating people as part of collectives rather than as individuals.

    But not every individual change would necessarily amount to a net positive from the standpoint of the goal of a libertarian society.

    Central planning sure won’t get us there, and that includes central planning of who may or may not live where, who may or may not work where, etc.

    pack a huge number of imported illegal aliens (sic) into society

    Do you ever listen to yourself and how crazy you sound? “Illegal aliens” is absurd and reprehensible enough, but “imported”? Your attempts to dehumanize people transcend satire.

    most of whom don’t believe in libertarianism

    Also untrue, as compared to the native born population. See Volokh link much earlier in the thread. Even if it was true it would still be irrelevant. See references to family planning analogies, moving across other boundaries such as state, city and county lines, links to openborders.info, and many other things above which you have spectacularly failed to counter.

  238. paulie

    Paulie: You forgot to label the target of your comment

    I started it by quoting exactly what I was replying to, just like in this one. How does that fail to label the target?

    I don’t object to an employee hiring an alien.

    Yet you don’t object to the regime interfering in that process. Who is initiating force in that situation?

    I merely think that current (non-libertarian) law allows, indeed requires, the existing government to eject said illegal (sic) if found in America.

    Also addressed above. The constitution is supposedly the highest law of the regime, and grants the regime no such power. This was thoroughly explored earlier in this thread. What do you hope to gain from talking in circles?

  239. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Jim:

    “not every individual change would necessarily amount to a net positive from the standpoint of the goal of a libertarian society.”

    True. But there’s no way to calculate whether or not every individual change would amount to a net positive. However, it’s reasonable to posit that every authoritarian collectivist change would amount to an actual negative.

  240. Robert Capozzi

    pf: …making stopping [communicable diseases] at the border fantasy, not reality.

    me: Heroic statement! Are you saying there have never been a visitor to a country stopped from entry? Has there never been someone who chose to not travel to another country because they feared that their disease would have them turned back?

    It’s not the ONLY reason to have a check at the border. Violent criminals come to mind.

    If I get your come-from, you think the borders to the penitentiary known as the US should be wide open. Those of us who view the US as one big Disney World have a different perspective. Surely you are OK with Disney turning away migrants onto its grounds for whatever reason they like, but you refuse to recognize borders as anything other than a gang’s illegitimate claim.

    It’s a perspective, surely.

  241. paulie

    However, it’s reasonable to posit that every authoritarian collectivist change would amount to an actual negative.

    Exactly. Expanding the border/immigration/customs enforcement bureaucracy, for example.

  242. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: You said, “True. But there’s no way to calculate whether or not every individual change would amount to a net positive. However, it’s reasonable to posit that every authoritarian collectivist change would amount to an actual negative.

    It may seem “reasonable to posit”, but not all such ideas are true.

    Relevant analogy: We start out in Kansas City with a covered wagon, no roads exist. We are trying to get to Los Angeles. Eventually, we may get to a big, big ditch called “The Grand Canyon”. We are at the top of a 1000-foot tall cliff. To proceed forward is to fall those 1000 feet into said ditch, and die. One alternative is to NOT proceed directly west, but to seek out an alternative route that doesn’t involve that drop. Such a route can be found; we merely must search for it. We find it, and get to Los Angeles unscathed.

    The lesson: Blindly following a path which seems to go in the right direction may be suicidal. We may very well agree on the destination, but that doesn’t mean we have to agree on the best, or even an acceptable route.

  243. Thomas L. Knapp

    “We may very well agree on the destination, but that doesn’t mean we have to agree on the best, or even an acceptable route.”

    True. For example, I do not agree with you that evil collectivist authoritarianism is the best, or even an acceptable, route to freedom. In fact, I don’t agree that it’s a route to freedom at all.

  244. paulie

    Are you saying there have never been a visitor to a country stopped from entry? Has there never been someone who chose to not travel to another country because they feared that their disease would have them turned back?

    Red herring. Since each infected person can infect several others, who can in turn infect several more, etc., you would have to stop every single one, not just some. And since some don’t show symptoms, you would have to hold them up for a long time – I have read that it is weeks – to thoroughly check them. This would mean not just people crossing the Mexican or Canadian border and not just immigrants, but every person entering the US as tourists, on business, visiting relatives, offloading cargo, changing planes … every piece of cargo entering every airport and seaport, every truck and car … and that’s in addition to policing all the thousands of miles of land borders and coastline.

    If you stop a few and a few get in the infectious diseases still spread. Does this really have to be explained?

    As I said, security theater.

    It’s not the ONLY reason to have a check at the border. Violent criminals come to mind.

    See above. Violent criminals may well have forged identity papers, aliases, etc. Or they may sneak across land or sea borders, etc. Just how much do you want to spend trying to enforce the borders this way? How much do you want to inconvenience every single person entering or passing through the US? And why aren’t you talking about applying those same standards for the same reasons at state, county, city, etc borders? After all, communicable diseases and violent criminals cross those too; shouldn’t the same logic apply?

    you think the borders to the penitentiary known as the US should be wide open.

    Penitentiary?

    Those of us who view the US as one big Disney World have a different perspective.

    Disney World is private property with clear title. I don’t agree with the idea that the regime is the corporate board of a collectively owned entity that has legitimate title to the whole country. And if you do accept that premise, some incredibly authoritarian conclusions follow from it.

    you refuse to recognize borders as anything other than a gang’s illegitimate claim.

    Correct. But even if I thought they had some legitimacy, that doesn’t mean I think they should be enforced. You don’t have to agree with me that state, city, county and other such regimes should not exist to agree with me that they should not impose international-style border, visitation and migration controls.

  245. jim

    YOu said, “True. For example, I do not agree with you that evil collectivist authoritarianism is the best, or even an acceptable, route to freedom. In fact, I don’t agree that it’s a route to freedom at all.”

    However, on the ‘map’, we are currently at “evil collectivist authoritarianism”. Political change generally occurs in small, even tiny, steps. So the path to freedom will involve, in its first step, going from “evil collectivist authoritarianism” TO “evil collectivist authoritarianism”. Just slightly modified.
    So your statement, “However, it’s reasonable to posit that every authoritarian collectivist change would amount to an actual negative.” is either false, or at least is not provably true.

  246. Wang Tang-Fu

    “Functionally, I’d say that which is not private property is mutually owned.”

    So you propose some method of enforcement which would never interfere with private property? How would that work?

  247. Wang Tang-Fu

    “The map is not the territory.”

    Please explain. Obviously, that is true in the abstract, but in this case I think the dots need to be connected a bit more about how that statement applies in this discussion.

  248. Robert Capozzi

    pf: Just how much do you want to spend trying to enforce the borders this way? How much do you want to inconvenience every single person entering or passing through the US?

    me: I advocate nothing specifically. Maybe zero. Maybe, I dunno, 1% of GDP. That’s about the range I’d consider potentially wise. The specific number would be up to the owners of the nation, acting in concert.

    pf: And why aren’t you talking about applying those same standards for the same reasons at state, county, city, etc borders? After all, communicable diseases and violent criminals cross those too; shouldn’t the same logic apply?

    me: Red herring, too! The way I look at it, the US is one nation. Jurisdictions are just jurisdictions.

    pf: And if you do accept that premise [nation as commonwealth], some incredibly authoritarian conclusions follow from it.

    me: Guess that depends on how one defines “incredibly.” At the moment, most of the world’s land mass is within a state. I’d like to see all states be as small as possible, as you well know.

    If Lysander P&C were to enforce it and its clients laws on murder, it too might act in an authoritarian manner.

  249. Robert Capozzi

    wtf: So you propose some method of enforcement which would never interfere with private property? How would that work?

    me: Harlos Nonarchy Pods. I believe anyone should be able to secede onto his or her property. Short of personal secession, as a lessarchist, I advocate the interference be as minimal as possible while maintaining reasonable levels of domestic tranquility.

    Thanks for asking!

  250. Andy

    The video below features some Democrat complaining about how Free State Project supporters are “wrecking” New Hampshire. This is an example of why libertarians and big government types are incompatible and should not live in the same areas.

    Free State Project Has Wrecked the State of New Hampshire

  251. Andy Craig

    ““The map is not the territory.”

    Please explain. Obviously, that is true in the abstract, but in this case I think the dots need to be connected a bit more about how that statement applies in this discussion.”

    The quote is saying is that people often confuse an abstraction (or even over-abstraction) with the reality. My point was that jim’s talk of avoiding a canyon on a map, was carrying the abstract analogy far beyond its applicability to the reality of what it refers to.

  252. Andy Craig

    @Robert Capozzi

    “1% of GDP.”

    This is not the small amount you seem to think it is. The entire U.S. military “only” costs, give or take, 3 to 4% of GDP.

  253. Robert Capozzi

    ac, yes, thanks. I wasn’t trying to be precise, which I’d think was obvious. The max might be more like 0.3%, but I have no idea whether 0.0% or 0.276725407% would optimize domestic tranquility. It’s highly likely that the optimal number is lower than current levels, although I currently support a military to defend the nation, so I’m not sure that we can 100% isolate justified military spending from judicious border control functions.

  254. jim

    Robert Capozzi: Should I remind you that a functioning AP-type system would probably drop the cost of defending America by a factor of 100x lower than it currently does. Say, from 600 billion to 6 billion, or potentially much less.
    You will probably never have done the mental work to understand why, because you seem to reject AP out of hand. But if you concede we have to have some sort of military, then you should concede that it could be made far cheaper.

  255. Robert Capozzi

    Jim, yes, a worldwide nuclear holocaust would also drop the cost of defending America to $0 since there would be nothing left. That, too, I reject out of hand…

  256. jim

    Robert Capozzi: Well, you just demonstrated you don’t know how AP works. But I think we all knew that, didn’t we?!?

  257. jim

    Robert Capozzi: You admitted that you are a “poor debater”. You’ve demonstrated that quite effectively! You’ve had a long time to correct your blatant strawman argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man , one with false premises and assumptions. Nobody else came to your rescue, either.

  258. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: I was trying to draw out what Capozzi’s argument is. What he has said so far doesn’t make any sense (it is, after all, a strawman argument) but I figured he would expand on it. So far, no.

  259. Robert Capozzi

    Oh Jim, the point should be obvious: The ends often don’t justify the means. I think assassination nor nuclear war in order to reduce military spending are both non-starters for me. There’s been quite enough killing as far as I’m concerned.

    But, yes, I am not a debater. I share ideas. Sometimes some may appreciate what I share; others may find my ideas to be threatening or just ill-conceived. It’s all good. For, as you know, what will be will be.

  260. jim

    Robert Capozzi: My replies inline:
    “Oh Jim, the point should be obvious: The ends often don’t justify the means.”

    Yours is merely a truism. What ends? What means? You are just trying to fill the screen to substitute for a reasoned argument.

    “I think assassination nor nuclear war in order to reduce military spending are both non-starters for me. ”

    I didn’t bring up the idea of HAVING “nuclear war”. I frequently mention AVOIDING it. You turned it into a strawman argument. And what you effectively mean by “non-starter” is, ‘I won’t even START thinking about something if I can tune it out with a truism”. Because that is what you just did!

    “There’s been quite enough killing as far as I’m concerned.”

    You are apparently assuming that it isn’t possible to actually reduce the amount of killing, I challenge that idea. Don’t ignore my claims.

    “But, yes, I am not a debater. I share ideas.”

    You can’t identify GOOD ideas.

    “Sometimes some may appreciate what I share; others may find my ideas to be threatening or just ill-conceived. It’s all good.”

    WHAT is “all good”?? Poor ideas aren’t “good.” Yours are poor ideas. Your silly commentary isn’t “all good”.

    “For, as you know, what will be will be.”

    Another foolish truism. You remind me of “Eliza” and “Doctor”. See Joseph Weizenbaum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weizenbaum

    “In 1964 he took a position at MIT. In 1966, he published a comparatively simple program called ELIZA, named after the ingenue in George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, which performed natural language processing. Driven by a script named DOCTOR, it was capable of engaging humans in a conversation which bore a striking resemblance to one with an empathic psychologist. Weizenbaum modeled its conversational style after Carl Rogers, who introduced the use of open-ended questions to encourage patients to communicate more effectively with therapists. The program applied pattern matching rules to statements to figure out its replies. (Programs like this are now called chatterbots.) It is considered the forerunner of thinking machines.[3] Weizenbaum was shocked that his program was taken seriously by many users, who would open their hearts to it. Famously, when observing his secretary using the software – who was aware that it was a simulation – she asked Weizenbaum: “would you mind leaving the room please?”.[4] He started to think philosophically about the implications of artificial intelligence and later became one of its leading critics.[5]”
    [end of quote]

    Your commentary looks mechanical.

    Your statement “There’s been quite enough killing as far as I’m concerned.” PRETENDS that my proposal is one which would actually INCREASE the amount of killing. Certainly it PRETENDS that my proposal won’t DECREASE the amount of killing. But I claim the opposite. So your statements ignore the benefits I claim, without even stating that they are wrong, let alone proving they are wrong. That’s dishonest argumentation.

  261. Robert Capozzi

    jim: Certainly it PRETENDS that my proposal won’t DECREASE the amount of killing.

    me: Mechanically speaking ;), are you unfamiliar with the notion of the ends don’t justify the means? Killing to decrease killing is still killing.

    Sorry, but there HAS to be a better way!

  262. Robert Capozzi

    pf, is anyone here opposed to immigration? I’m surely not opposed to it. I’m for more of it, actually. I’m simply unpersuaded that 100% open borders is a wise idea.

  263. jim

    Robert Capozzi:You quoted and said:

    jim: Certainly it PRETENDS that my proposal won’t DECREASE the amount of killing.

    me: Mechanically speaking ;), are you unfamiliar with the notion of the ends don’t justify the means? Killing to decrease killing is still killing.

    Depends on the ends AND the means.

    I think it was understood during WWII that the various Nazi death-camps were kiilling people at a great rate. It was probably argued then, and after the end of the war, that the Allies should have bombed those camps to save people from being killed. A painful decision, But what if killing 1 person saves 100?

    Besides, why did America even get into WWII in Europe, anyway? Your way, Germany would certainly have taken over Europe. (Actually, it had ALREADY taken over Europe.)

    “Sorry, but there HAS to be a better way!”

    The fact that you can’t think of “a better way” doesn’t mean that such a “better way” actually exists.

  264. paulie

    Besides, why did America even get into WWII in Europe, anyway? Your way, Germany would certainly have taken over Europe. (Actually, it had ALREADY taken over Europe.)

    Incorrect. Germany could not take over the UK or Russia. The Russians especially turned them back, and the US presence was merely a flea hitching a ride on a dog’s back in the scale of the overall war in Europe, as huge as it was for the US. Hitler ended up losing for much the same reasons as Napoleon, and the US tries to take far more credit than it deserves in the later incidence.

  265. paulie

    Your commentary looks mechanical.

    I’ve met Robert Capozzi. As far as I could tell, he is an actual human. If he is a ‘bot, the technology must be top secret and much more evolved than we have been allowed to know. Andy Jacobs and Chuck Moulton were with me, and can also attest that R. Capozzi is a living, breathing human. It’s highly likely that there are others here who have met him, although I don’t off hand know who has and who hasn’t.

  266. jim

    Paulie: You quoted, and said:

    “”is anyone here opposed to immigration?””
    “The links address points made by Andy Jacobs and Jim Bell earlier in the thread.”

    As a libertarian, I am not opposed to “immigration” per se. I am opposed to ILLEGAL immigration while America isn’t yet a nation run by principles of libertarianism. I am also opposed to the kind of immigration where people are given citizenship, thus diluting the pro-libertarian principles of the citizenry.

  267. paulie

    As a libertarian, I am not opposed to “immigration” per se. I am opposed to ILLEGAL immigration

    Yes, just like some people aren’t opposed to drugs, just to “illegal” drugs. But all that aside you should read the links and links therein.

    while America isn’t yet a nation run by principles of libertarianism.

    Addressed in several ways above.

    I am also opposed to the kind of immigration where people are given citizenship, thus diluting the pro-libertarian principles of the citizenry.

    Also addressed above in a variety of ways. Volokh link, family planning analogy, etc, etc.

  268. Andy

    Chris Cantwell makes a lot of good points in this video.

    Open Borders, or Market Immigration?

  269. Andy

    “is anyone here opposed to immigration?”

    I have not seen anyone here say they are against immigration. I am against foreign born socialists, communists, and theocrats invading the land territory where I live and helping to turn the country into a shithole. Look at the political issue surveys and welfare surveys cited above to see what I mean.

    Immigrants who are libertarian, or who at least do not take part in politics or collect welfare, are great.

  270. Andy

    “paulie

    October 26, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    By that logic, Free Staters would not be allowed to move to NH.”

    I support a Libertarian Separatist Movement. People should be able to live among others who share their ideology. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc…, should all be able to form their own enclaves as well (on a voluntary basis of course), and if they want to prevent libertarians from moving there, then so be it.

    The fact that the Free State Project exists proves my points. The fact that the Free State Project has not been very successful as of yet also proves my points.

    The ideology of the people that you live around matters. If you want freedom, then you absolutely must live around people who want freedom, because this is the only way to get it.

  271. Robert Capozzi

    aj: I support a Libertarian Separatist Movement.

    me: Now THERE’S a name I can get behind. It rings and sings…the LSM. Almost has a Symbionese Liberation Army feel to it.

    Maybe push to create enclaves not unlike Native American reservations. Big Water, UT was kinda moving in that direction.

  272. Robert Capozzi

    jim: But what if killing 1 person saves 100?…The fact that you can’t think of “a better way” doesn’t mean that such a “better way” actually exists.

    me: Yes, I am open to the possibility that in extreme examples there could be instances where severe means could be justified for specific ends. AP in the current context doesn’t rise to the level for me.

    Technically, ideas don’t “exist,” btw.

    As for a proposed better way, I suggest the path of theoretical asymptotic anarchism/applied lessarchism. Feels about right and realistic to me, but thus far I admit it’s had few takers. Then again, as a cleverly disguised robot, I am a deeply flawed vessel for the TAAAList philosophy. 😉

  273. paulie

    Look at the political issue surveys and welfare surveys cited above to see what I mean.

    See the Volokh link and the other links Andy Craig and I posted in this thread, including the latest ones I posted last night.

  274. paulie

    I support a Libertarian Separatist Movement. People should be able to live among others who share their ideology.

    Unfortunately, your own logic would make that impossible. Since libertarians are not a majority anywhere, those other people would never allow libertarians to move among them to change the ideological balance of their state, city, county, island, or whatever it may be, and would be kept out at the border.

    The fact that the Free State Project exists proves my points.

    It only proves that some libertarians want to, or want to say they want to, concentrate themselves somewhere. Many other libertarians have no such interest.

    The fact that the Free State Project has not been very successful as of yet also proves my points.

    It hasn’t been successful yet because not enough people are all that interested in being part of it. It’s taken it this long to reach 17k-something theoretical commitment to moving, which is a lot easier than actually moving. I think I read that something like 1,500 people have actually moved, but I don’t know if they are counting the ones who moved back out.

    Your logic contradicts itself, because you want libertarians exempted from the theory under which people get to decide who moves to their neighborhood on the basis of ideology. Under such a theory, the existing people in any neighborhood would keep libertarians out. And if you give such a power to the existing US regime, it would be far more likely to keep out libertarians than non-libertarians.

    The ideology of the people that you live around matters. If you want freedom, then you absolutely must live around people who want freedom, because this is the only way to get it.

    And the way to get that is not to allow some collective to decide who may or may not move where and when, or who can have children when, etc. Totalitarianism is not a path to liberty.

  275. paulie

    Now THERE’S a name I can get behind. It rings and sings…the LSM. Almost has a Symbionese Liberation Army feel to it.

    Maybe push to create enclaves not unlike Native American reservations. Big Water, UT was kinda moving in that direction.

    Wouldn’t it be the same thing as Harlos Pods?

  276. paulie

    The ideology of the people that you live around matters. If you want freedom, then you absolutely must live around people who want freedom, because this is the only way to get it.

    Putting the US Government in charge of that sounds like an incredibly bad idea. I mean, just think about who you are thinking about giving more power over deciding who moves where and when.

  277. Robert Capozzi

    pf: Wouldn’t it be the same thing as Harlos Pods?

    me: No, Pods are for individuals or a family. I’m thinking it’s more like AndyLand.

  278. paulie

    If I am not mistaken, you’ve said before that individuals and families can pool together in larger pods. Is there a practical difference with Andyland?

  279. Andy Craig

    Point of clarification on the Free State Project:

    Paulie is right about the numbers (17,605 signers, inclusive of 1,857 early-movers, plus 2,566 ‘in-state friends’ which is what you sign up for if you already lived in NH).

    But, the goal of the FSP was never to create a majority of libertarian movers in the state who could thereby outvote the ‘natives’. NH might be a relativity small state, but it’s still 1.3 million people. Rather, the idea, both for the original idea of 20k pledged movers and the somewhat smaller community of ‘early movers’ its become, is to concentrate an *activist community* where they can do the most good by being there to support each other, instead of scattered to the four winds. Nowhere in NH will you move and be the only libertarian in town, in other words. At the drop of a hat, you can have 20 or 30 people turn out for protest on a major statewide or national issue, and at least several individuals at your local town hall meetings. Several of them have managed to be elected to the state legislature, which is granted a lot easier in NH than most places with their super-big lower house, but that’s also one of the reasons NH was chosen.

    Whether that’s effective or not is up for debate (there has definitely been some backlash, particularly against some of the more radical civil disobedience types), but that’s the goal they should be compared against. They have no intention or expectation that they’ll ever somehow be an outright majority of NH voters.

  280. Robert Capozzi

    pf: Is there a practical difference with Andyland?

    me: You have the mind of a steel trap. Yes, contiguous Harlos Pods would begin to create an enclave.

    AndyLand has a more top-down feel, though. Andy would write a contract for any who wish to enter a territory, and all must comply to Andy’s rules and regulations.

    Harlos Pods would have their own set of rules for each Pod. If they assembled into an enclave, each Podster would have a say in how the rules of the enclave might evolve. For instance, Jim might allow himself to tote a machine gun in his Pod, but his neighboring Podster Caryn might not. If they wanted to confederate into an enclave with their neighbor Davidson, who is OK with machine guns but doesn’t own one, they may have to setup a polycentric rule system within and among each Pod.

  281. jim

    Andy: I predict that around here, Christopher Cantwell will never get an INTELLIGENT opposing response to this video.

  282. paulie

    He is not worth the time it takes to respond to him. Cantwell has come out of the glass doored closet as an open racist now, among other things. The best thing that can be done with him is pretend he does not exist, or simply to say we disavow any affiliation with him, as with other embarrassing racist whackos suck as Augustus Invictus.

  283. jim

    Paulie, the problem for YOU is that Christopher Cantwell MAKES SENSE, even if you don’t like his POV. That’s why you must pretend to believe that he isn’t worth responding to.

  284. paulie

    It’s not a problem for me, and I don’t have to pretend. If you think he makes sense, that’s your problem, and I do mean problem.

    I don’t just mean Cantwell is not worth responding to on this, I mean he is not worth responding to at all, on anything ever.

  285. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim, if you think Cantwell “makes sense,” what you’re doing isn’t, um, thinking.

    Not that he isn’t interesting, I guess. At least facially, it looks like as soon as he figured out he couldn’t turn a buck talking like a libertarian, he decided to see if he could turn a buck talking like David Duke instead.

    But I suppose there could be other motives. I’m still kind of stuck on the theory that he’s a PhD candidate in gender studies whose thesis involves trolling guys like you.

  286. paulie

    True as far as it goes, but that was a formality of alliances. The US should have stuck to Asia, and limited its war with Germany to defensive; the USSR would have beaten Hitler regardless. Before that, the US shouldn’t have waged trade war against Japan, and shouldn’t have been in any alliances with foreign governments, and there wouldn’t have been any attack on or war declared on the US on either side of the oceans. And even earlier, the US should have stayed out of the first World War; among other things, Hitler would have been extremely unlikely to ever come to power at all.

  287. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: It would help if Cantwell’s video included a transcript. Note I am not claiming that the chain of his argument necessarily is complete; rather, I say that there are links connected. Other than the fact that he comes to conclusions that are very different than some people around here, I won’t automatically reject his claims.

  288. Andy

    Cantwell refers to himself as being an “Anarchist, Atheist, Asshole”. I have never met or communicated with the guy. I have seen some of his stuff online. I do not agree with him on everything, and I think he comes off as being too abrasive at times (he’s a self described asshole though), but he does bring up some valid points on a variety of issues.

    Just because you don’t like a person it does not mean they can’t be right about something.

    The video I posted above from him brings up a lot of valid points, as do the videos above from Molyneux.

    The bottom line is that if you want freedom, you need a majority of the people who live around you to want freedom as well, because if a majority of the people you live around do not really want freedom, you will not be free.

    Granting welfare payments and voting “rights” to immigrants who do not want freedom does not advance the cause of freedom.

    Heck, Liberland has a prohibition against allowing immigrants who are communists or NAZIS.

  289. jim

    Andy: You said, “Just because you don’t like a person it does not mean they can’t be right about something”

    A person who is PC (Politically Correct) would firmly disagree with that statement, Andy.

    Yet, I recall from a poster about 45 years ago:
    “If it is the truth what does it matter who said it?”

  290. Robert Capozzi

    pf: the US should have stayed out of the first World War; among other things, Hitler would have been extremely unlikely to ever come to power at all.

    me: Please elaborate.

  291. paulie

    US involvement in that war took it from being on course for a negotiated stalemate that more or less preserved the pre-war power balance to a crushing defeat of Germany, humiliating sanctions that deepened the depression, worsened massive unemployment, hurt national pride and thus created the atmosphere where both the nazis and communists looked like acceptable, even necessary solutions to increasing numbers of people. The communists scared the moneyed class more, and they saw Hitler as the lesser evil and bargained they could control him if they put him in power. They lost that gamble.

  292. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The bottom line is that if you want freedom, you need a majority of the people who live around you to want freedom as well, because if a majority of the people you live around do not really want freedom, you will not be free.”

    Interesting proposition. Doesn’t seem to have any basis whatsoever in reality, which is fortunate because it would be depressing if true, but interesting.

  293. paulie

    Jim and Andy J. have also avoided repeated questions as to whether this “bottom line” extends to eugenics as well as immigration policies. After all, more children are being born every year than we have immigrants in the US, most of them to non-libertarian parents. Is it acceptable for the regime to centrally plan who can and can’t have children, and how many, to help swing the ideological balance in future elections?

    Or: how about emigration? If ideological balance in future elections is an acceptable reason under their version of libertarian theory to keep the “wrong” people from coming in, is it likewise an acceptable reason to justify using force to prevent the “right” people from being allowed to leave?

  294. Thomas L. Knapp

    Good questions, Paulie, but don’t expect to give answers. Jim and — surprisingly, at least to me — Andy have clearly become infected with the “well, if it’s just THE RIGHT PEOPLE in charge, we can make the system WORK” virus, with facially attractive bullshit Know-Nothing rhetoric as the vector.

  295. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp, you said:
    “Good questions, Paulie, but don’t expect to give answers. Jim and — surprisingly, at least to me — Andy have clearly become infected with the “well, if it’s just THE RIGHT PEOPLE in charge, we can make the system WORK” virus, with facially attractive bullshit Know-Nothing rhetoric as the vector.”

    That’s false. You are apparently mistaking me for somebody else.

  296. Robert Capozzi

    pf: negotiated stalemate

    me: Thanks. Personally, I’m less inclined to buy into alternative realities than you are. Had the US not entered WWI, I would not want to hazard a guess about what MIGHT have happened. (I do think it was a bad idea for the US to enter that war.) Too many variables.

  297. Thomas L. Knapp

    Jim,

    OK, I admit that I could be wrong. There could be some other explanation for the complete absence of reason or logic in anything you’ve had to say on the subject of immigration. I was just going with what SEEMED to be the cause.

  298. paulie

    RC: It’s not too hard to guess. The stalemate was already well underway when the US came in and the negotiations were all but concluded. The US upset the balance and derailed the peace.

    Jim: So if that’s false, what are the answers to my questions?

  299. paulie

    I think Knapp got it right but go ahead, please explain how your logic would or would not apply to eugenics and emigration.

  300. paulie

    Why not? If your reason, or one of your reasons, for justifying why it’s OK for the regime to limit immigration is that it changes the composition of the electorate, those are other ways to change the composition of the electorate over time. So why would the same logic not apply to justify government intervention in those areas?

  301. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: ” Andy have clearly become infected with the ‘well, if it’s just THE RIGHT PEOPLE in charge, we can make the system WORK’ virus, with facially attractive bullshit Know-Nothing rhetoric as the vector.”

    Where the fuck did I say this? I am the one who has pushed for the Libertarian Zone concept (which I created, although it contains ideas that were influenced by others). The Libertarian Zone is about as decentralized as you can get. There’d be no taxes and no police (as we know them) in the Libertarian Zone. It would be up to each Libertarian Zone contract signer to enforce the Libertarian Zone contract. Nobody would be “running” the Libertarian Zone. Each Libertarian Zone contract signer would have to take it upon themselves to enforce the Libertarian Zone contract. If a lot of Libertarian Zone contract signers fail to do this, well, “The price for liberty is eternal vigilance.” The success of the Libertarian Zone could be up to each Libertarian Zone contract signer. Nobody would be in charge of the Libertarian Zone. The Libertarian Zone would not have any “leaders.”

    Again, think Porcfest, but a year round settlement.

    Whenever people talk about having a libertarian society, people frequently ask, “Well how would you make sure that it stays libertarian?”

    The Libertarian Zone contract is the defense mechanism for the Libertarian Zone staying libertarian.

    Would this defense mechanism work? This would be up to everyone who signs the Libertarian Zone contract.

    The US Constitution clearly has not worked, at least not from the stand point of preserving liberty.

  302. Andy

    This is from the Wikipedia entry for Liberland:

    “According to the official website, only communists, neonazis, and other extremists are ineligible for citizenship.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

    Oh, the horror! Liberland is not offering citizenship to communists, neo-Nazis or other extremists (like radical Muslim fundamentalists). Well this is just terrible! I mean the nerve of these people. They actually want libertarians to live in Liberland. This is discrimination!

  303. Andy

    “paulie

    October 28, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    Why not? If your reason, or one of your reasons, for justifying why it’s OK for the regime to limit immigration is that it changes the composition of the electorate, those are other ways to change the composition of the electorate over time. So why would the same logic not apply to justify government intervention in those areas?”

    I can’t speak for Jim, but I have not advocated for government forced eugenics.

    The government has distorted the immigration market by offering welfare to immigrants. This attracts more immigrants who support socialist wealth redistribution.

  304. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I can’t speak for Jim, but I have not advocated for government forced eugenics.

    “The government has distorted the immigration market by offering welfare to immigrants. This attracts more immigrants who support socialist wealth redistribution.”

    The government has also distorted the market for babies by offering welfare to families with kids, and the market for emigration by making the situation here bad enough in some ways for some people that they’d rather leave.

    So, once again: If controlling immigration is legit, why isn’t controlling birth and emigration?

    The reason you’re not answering the question is that of the two possible answers, one makes you look like an idiot and the other makes you look like a Nazi.

  305. Robert Capozzi

    tk: So, once again: If controlling immigration is legit, why isn’t controlling birth and emigration?

    me: It’s a good question. Everyone in the commonwealth was either born in the commonwealth or complied with immigration laws. Those who don’t are technically not in the commonwealth, although they may reside in the territory. Of course, it’s only fair that if someone wants to exit he or she should not be stopped.

  306. Robert Capozzi

    more…

    Exiting could mean emigration or self-secession into a Harlos Nonarchy Pod.

  307. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC,

    That doesn’t seem to answer the consistency question. Andy’s assertion isn’t that immigrants shouldn’t be allowed in because they’re “not members of the commonwealth,” it’s that they shouldn’t be allowed in because they are (statistically, although the statistics are probably from derived from intentionally skewed data) BAD for “the commonwealth.” If new babies arriving and productive adults leaving are also statistically “bad for the commonwealth,” why shouldn’t births and emigration be similarly controlled on that same logic?

    So far I’ve mostly been trying to keep two divergent threads on this separate, but the divergence does seem to bear noting every once in awhile: There is a difference between immigration and naturalization. Immigration is just someone moving to, or through, a place. Naturalization is that person applying for a particular, perhaps in some ways privileged, status vis a vis the street gang ruling that place. At key points where he seems to think it helps his argument, Andy conflates the two things.

  308. Robert Capozzi

    tk, I answered your question from my perspective.

    I don’t agree with Andy if he believes immigration is actually bad.

    As for immigration vs naturalization, I would say that the commonwealth may well have interests in controlling both to some extent. As a lessarchist, I’d like to see such controls be as minimal as possible on immigration while maintaining domestic tranquility. On naturalization, I’m not sure, but I would think that the bar should be much higher to gain full citizen status for immigrants.

  309. Andy Craig

    “”Oh, the horror! Liberland is not offering citizenship to communists, neo-Nazis or other extremists (like radical Muslim fundamentalists). Well this is just terrible! I mean the nerve of these people. They actually want libertarians to live in Liberland. This is discrimination!””

    Also no racists or “extremists” or drugs.

    So presumably they, like the FSP did, would eject Cantwell.

    Setting aside the fact that Liberland isn’t, you know, real.

  310. jim

    Thomas L. Knapp: You said, “The reason you’re not answering the question is that of the two possible answers, one makes you look like an idiot and the other makes you look like a Nazi.”

    Looks like a strawman argument to me.

  311. paulie

    It’s neither.

    If eugenics and emigration limits aren’t justified by the exact same logic (composition of future electorate) that you and Andy J have used to attempt to justify immigration limits, I’d like to know why not. So far there hasn’t been anything even close to a real answer from either of you.

    And to bring this back to a subject discussed much earlier in the thread, the same faulty logic would also justify mandatory voting (at least for some people). After all, what good does it do us to tilt the electorate towards white native born rural folks so they can vote for good, solid, white (or is that White) native born American values only to have them shirk their patriotic duty to outvote the gun grabbing, welfare sucking, race mixing mongrel hordes?

  312. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi

    October 29, 2015 at 6:47 am

    tk, I answered your question from my perspective.

    I don’t agree with Andy if he believes immigration is actually bad.”

    Jesus-fucking Christ, where the fuck did I say this? It is amazing how some people here invent things that people never said, and then attribute them to people.

    ONE MORE TIME, AND PLEASE PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME BECA– USE I GET TIRED OF REPEATING MYSELF: IMMIGRATION CAN BE GOOD, AND IT CAN BE BAD, IT DEPENDS ON WHO IT IS AND HOW IT IS DONE. IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN THE PRO-FREEDOM CAMP ARE GOOD, IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN THE ANTI-FREEDOM CAMP ARE BAD. IMMIGRANTS WHO DO NOT TAKE PART IN POLITICS AND WHO DO NOT COLLECT WEFLARE ARE ACCEPTABLE AS WELL. IMMIGRANTS WHO COLLECT WELFARE AND WHO TAKE PART IN POLITICS AND VOTE TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT ARE BAD.

  313. jim

    Andy, you said: “Jesus-fucking Christ, where the fuck did I say this? It is amazing how some people here invent things that people never said, and then attribute them to people.”

    That, of course, is close to the very definition of “strawman argument”. There is a reason that strawman arguments are so common: They are so easy to construct! Just deliberately misrepresent someone else’s arguments, then “find” the flaw in them.

    From the Wikipedia article: “Strawman”:

    “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.[1]”

    “The so-called typical “attacking a straw man” argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and then to refute or defeat that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the original proposition.[2][3]”

    “This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining “battle” and the defeat of an “enemy” may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.”

    “In the United Kingdom the argument is also known as an Aunt Sally, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman’s head.[4][5]”
    [end of quote]

    Actually, it’s the people around here who FAIL to complain about strawman arguments who are the mental midgets.

  314. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy:

    “IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN THE PRO-FREEDOM CAMP ARE GOOD, IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN THE ANTI-FREEDOM CAMP ARE BAD”

    What does “immigrants” have to do with it? The same can be said of any group of people.

    That situation will not be fixed by deciding to be authoritarian “on just this one subject.”

    Singling out “people who move across street gang turf lines without the street gang’s permission” as the scapegoats doesn’t make an authoritarian position into a libertarian position.

    Yes, Jim, I know what a straw man is. Have YOU figured out what a straw man is yet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *