June 2018 Open Thread

Trade wars, presidential pardons, Roseanne Barr and ICE family values dominate the social media political discussion as June, 2018 commences.

234 thoughts on “June 2018 Open Thread

  1. dL Post author

    RE: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/05/may-2018-open-thread/#comment-1801728

    It’s well known that the extremists in parties tend to take over, the left in the Dems and the right in the GOP.

    Although political parties(like any group) are dominated by the minority, it’s better known that a political party is dominated by the donor class, not the rabble rousers. Of course, there always exceptions, and I would posit that Trump is such an exception. Trump democratically reflects the sentiment of the GOP rank and file. That sentiment is extremist, but it is not a minority sentiment within the GOP. And this has upset the apple cart to some extent. You now have elements of the GOP donor class(e.g, Koch brothers, Seth Klarman) beginning to donate to Dem candidates.

    The Democratic party is in no way dominated by the so-called progressive left-wing. It is a center right party, and it’s reliably been that way since Bill Clinton. I suppose the biggest challenge to that orthodoxy was mounted by Bernie Sanders, but as we all now know, the DNC actively colluded with Clinton to thwart Sanders. And Dem establishment doubled down on that by pursuing a ridiculous neo-McCarthyite witch hunt in the aftermath of the 2016 election to deflect any scrutiny from Clinton and DNC. If anything, the Dems are now a full blown right-wing party.

  2. DJ

    dl: If anything, the Dems are now a full blown right-wing party.

    Me: Party leaders- voters not so much. The evidence I can present is personal/anecdotal and small, but, results speak for themselves. Those I know who are Democrats are anti-Republican and those Republicans I know are anti-democrat. When the similarities of the Party leaders are pointed out the responses are reactive, i.e., Pavlovian.
    The vehemence spoken is unbelievably ignorant. Voters I know are “liberal” vs “conservative” and despise ‘opposing’ Party leaders, or, the celebrities (and “journalist/talking heads”) who lean the ‘wrong’ (to their way of thinking) way regardless of which way that is. Voters, in the collective, are ignorant.
    Party leaders are corrupt to the core and care not a whit because they don’t have to- Party leaders pander for appeasement and those newly elected are soon told how the cow eats the corn- it’s all a charade, smoke and mirrors, to keep voters divided, thereby conquered without firing a shot.

  3. dL Post author

    Daniel Larson has now blown up in the media

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824

    https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9k8dav/this-candidate-for-congress-is-in-favor-of-pedophilia-and-thinks-hitler-did-some-good-things

    [Larson] He said that he got his start in radical libertarianism at George Mason University, where the economics department has come under fire for allowing Charles and David Koch to handpick professors in exchange for donations. Larson said sat in on a course taught by professor Thomas Rustici, which formed his views. Rustici is currently working directly with the Koch Foundation, according to his faculty page at the university.

    “There’s a lot of anarcho-capitalists at George Mason University,” Larson said.

  4. ATBAFT

    It was somewhat shocking to see, in LP News, that the party’s revenues and paid membership are essentially the same as they were ten years ago. LP has run many more candidates than ever before in those ten years, and the presidential ticket votes have been much higher, too. Yet all this “getting the word out” hasn’t resulted in more revenue or membership. What do y’all think is the reasons for this???

  5. dL Post author

    Political Parties Should Say What They Mean.

    Absolutely…

    The Libertarian Party Does.

    um, not always…

  6. dL Post author

    Example? My current job is to suggestions for that vis a vis its platform.

    Immigration and abortion are the two obvious examples vis a vis the platform. Both have been mealy-mouthed down over the years. For example, compare to the 1992 platform:

    https://lpedia.org/1992_National_Platform#19._WOMEN.27S_RIGHTS_AND_ABORTION

    Obviously, you have been a valiant fighter on the immigration plank, but even a “restored” plank is weaker and less forthright than the 1992 version. The 1992 stronger version enjoys the distinction of being prescient along with being absolutely correct.

    The 1992 plank on abortion unequivocally holds abortions rights to follow from self-ownership. The current plank drops all that for one weaselly sentence about conscience.

    Apart from the platform, the last 3 presidential tickets have been two-faced. They will say one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience. William Weld might say “coercive taxation”(leaving aside “coercive” is a redundant modifier that leaves a gaping loophole) to a libertarian audience. But he will not say that to every audience.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    I guess I don’t understand what you mean. There’s a difference between the LP unclearly communicating its position and the LP’s position being incorrect.

    Vis a vis the immigration plank, I proposed the change I did because the sentence I wanted deleted was being read as meaning something that the convention delegates clearly didn’t intend to say.

    Vis a vis the abortion plank, the party’s position has changed since the 1992 plank. While I agree that it is not communicating its current position well, its current position is not what its position was in 1992.

  8. dL Post author

    Vis a vis the immigration plank, I proposed the change I did because the sentence I wanted deleted was being read as meaning something that the convention delegates clearly didn’t intend to say.

    The current plank is conflicted statement, no matter the intended meaning.

    Vis a vis the abortion plank, the party’s position has changed since the 1992 plank. While I agree that it is not communicating its current position well, its current position is not what its position was in 1992.

    Pro-choice on everything, sometimes

  9. Andy

    So Tom is suggesting that LP convention delegates meant to say that people who pose a threat to health (like a person infected with Ebola), safety (like a Muslim Jihadi or an MS-13 gang banger), or property (like a person who believes in Maxist wealth redistribution, and who is looking for welfare handouts), should have free reign to enter the country, where they gain access to the taxpayer funded infrastructure, and will be forced integrated into society due to anti-discrimination laws, even though no sane private property owner would support such policy, truly reflects libertarianism, because libertarianism means non-peaceful people should be able to cross borders, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, means that a division of Chinese or Russian tanks should be able to cross the border, with no questions asked, since this is perfectly consistent with property norms, right?

    I say that Knapp’s position is BS and is at odds with real libertarianism. A real libertarian society would not have “open borders,” it would have private property borders. Given that the world is presently arranged into states, while the state exists and is acting as a steward of the land and infrastructure, it should manage these things as a private property owner would, which means it should have a migration/immigration policy that does not threaten or overwhelm the existing population. Most people do not want hordes of hostile foreigners entering the same land territory as where they live. My point would be clear if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, but the fact that the state exists does not change anything. Just because the government provides a function, it does not automatically invalidate said function. Private security, private fences or walls, and armed property owners would regulate migration/immigration in a stateless society.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    Political Parties Should Say What They Mean.

    –Absolutely…

    The Libertarian Party Does.

    –um, not always…

    Don’t commingle the Libertarian Party with its candidates.

    By definition, the Party itself ALWAYS says what it means through the platform.

    Presumably, a candidate ALWAYS says what he or she means. Surely, voters are going to assume that.

    Sometimes, I guess that means the candidates will run with positions not completely in keeping with the platform, and sometimes said positions might even be in direct contradiction with elements of the platform.

    I am okay with that.

    Otherwise, we should just nominate a memory stick with the platform on it for all public offices, up to and including the Presidency.

    But, let’s be honest: This is just a ham-handed attempt by radicals to argue that all Libertarian candidates should be radicals. I’ve not known any moderate or pragmatic who would expected any candidate to take on positions that they think would make their campaign a pointless suicide mission. (Such as the taxation is theft shibboleth mentioned in the article.)

    On the other hand, if moderates did manage at some point to completely rewrite the platform in a moderate way that, say, explicitly disavows anarchism, radicals would be free to run on a “taxation is theft” radical platform.

    Then, we’ll do what we always do: we’ll count the votes.

    Good Luck.

  11. dL Post author

    Otherwise, we should just nominate a memory stick with the platform on it for all public offices, up to and including the Presidency.

    Grasshopper, it is indeed unfortunate for humanity that the political class will be the last to be replaced by the bots…

  12. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Thomas L. Knapp: Example? My current job is to suggestions for that vis a vis its platform.

    The Libertarian of California falsely implies that they are “Pro-Anti-Discrimination Laws:” http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2018/05/libertarian-party-of-california-lies.html

    It’s technically half true. The LPC opposes discrimination by government. But that’s not what voters have in mind when they hear references to “anti-discrimination laws.”

  13. paulie

    Clayton Hunt
    June 3 at 3:39pm

    So my picks so far for LNC are:

    At Large: none at the moment, and that’s because most will announce in NOLA.
    But I’m open to suggestions, just don’t waste my time. (I.E. miss me with that Starr or Sharpe etc. Candidates)

    Secretary: NOTA

    Neither declared candidates seem appealing to me. Neither candidate wants me in the party, and so I am going to be a hard nota unless someone else decides to announce.

    Treasurer: Eh has anyone even announced for this? If you know of someone please let me know.

    Vice chair: James Weeks, Libertarian

    I think he’s got the right mentality and temperament for the job. He has led his County party for years, and knows what organizations at the very bottom of the organization need, and what they don’t need. His commitment to bottom up organization is a great asset and I believe it will make the party more successful going forward and reverse the trend of top down organization we’ve seen.

    Chair:

    I’m split between Matt Kuehnel for LNC Chair and Tide Pods For LNC Chair.

    On the one hand Matt triggers the snowflakes like no other, but only Tide Pods has the cleaning power to remove blood and soil. This will be a tough decision. But I will be sure to keep y’all apprised of my position.

    The only true libertarian has spoken.

  14. Don Wills

    “Don’t commingle the Libertarian Party with its candidates.”

    In other words, dear Mr/Ms Voter, I’m your Libertarian candidate – pay no attention to the whackos that control the platform of the LP, but instead please read my web site. Yep, the actual party platform says that: all taxation is theft; there should be open borders for all immigrants with minor exceptions based on immediate health dangers; and that meth should be allowed to be manufactured and sold like alcohol. But, but, dear Voter, I promise not to work for any of those stupid ideas…

    That’s a winning strategy? NOT.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    “So Tom is suggesting that LP convention delegates meant to say something that he is suggesting they clearly didn’t mean to say and that won’t be said by the deletion of a sentence saying something completely different from the platform.”

    Fixed, no charge.

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    “But, let’s be honest: This is just a ham-handed attempt by radicals to argue that all Libertarian candidates should be radicals.”

    Well, if it was such an attempt, it would indeed be ham-handed. But it’s not such an attempt.

    It was simply a piece pointing out that the party has a position, and what that position is, and pointing out that parties (not candidates) should clearly communicate their actual positions instead of trying to hide those positions.

    I write about 50 columns a year. Off the cuff, I’d say 10% at the outside are specifically related to the Libertarian Party and of that 10%, I can think of a grand total of two that are Libertarian “inside baseball” pieces.

    This is one of those two pieces. It’s not about candidates for public office, it’s about platform committee members who want the party’s position on taxation not clearly reflected in the platform because the party’s position is not their position.

  17. Anthony Dlugos

    “In other words, dear Mr/Ms Voter, I’m your Libertarian candidate – pay no attention to the whackos that control the platform of the LP, but instead please read my web site. Yep, the actual party platform says that: all taxation is theft; there should be open borders for all immigrants with minor exceptions based on immediate health dangers; and that meth should be allowed to be manufactured and sold like alcohol. But, but, dear Voter, I promise not to work for any of those stupid ideas…”

    pretty much, yea.

    Although J-W were reliably for open immigration (just not batsh*t crazy radical throw-open-the-boarders-and-walk-away immigration).

  18. robert capozzi

    dw: …meth should be allowed to be manufactured and sold like alcohol. …

    me: To be fair, the platform doesn’t specify meth. Alcohol sales are regulated, so you understate here. There are even dry counties still extant in the US, iirc. It’s a millstone, to be sure, like parts of Leviticus are generally an embarrassment for Christians and Jews.

    Fundamentalist Ls seem to be among the few who LOVE that ole’ time religion. The Nolan is their Moses. Rothbard plays Judas for some, Peter for others. Kokesh is the living incarnation of John the Baptist. And now McAfee is a Jim Jones figure.

    Oy.

  19. Anthony Dlugos

    “It’s not about candidates for public office, it’s about platform committee members who want the party’s position on taxation not clearly reflected in the platform because the party’s position is not their position.”

    Cool. I’m okay with that.

    All’s fair in love, war, and politics. Anything to obfuscate politically suicidal positions in this albatross of a platform is fine by me.

    By the same token, I would fully expect the radical set to do the exact opposite: argue that we should lead with the most politically suicidal positions as a way of demonstrating our commitment to “principle.”

    Ultimately, we end up at the same spot: lets count the votes.

    Although I would reiterate that all is fair in politics. If the platform doesn’t get changed in the way the platform committee members you are referring to want, there should be nothing surprising with the attempt to effectively nullifying the politically suicidal by nominating a candidate for the highest profile office in the country who does not hold such positions.

  20. Seebeck

    Who is Clayton Hunt? (Not that it matters any…)

    Don, I suggest that when it comes to the Platform, either poop or get off the pot. The people working on it are not nuts, despite your uninformed opinion to the contrary.

  21. Andy

    So Tom Knapp thinks that it is libertarian for the state to hold access to the land and infrastructure opened for unlimited numbers of people infected with communicable diseases, violent criminal thugs like Muslim Jihadis and MS-13 gang members, and anyone who is seeking to get on welfare and use other US government services, to be able to waltz in into the country with no questions asked, and be force integrated into society against the will of most of the existing population, and be able.to gain political power over the existing population? Since Tom does not believe in property rights, as he believes in a “right” to travel on other people’s property against the will of the property owner(s), and he’s a forced associationist authoritarian, since he wants to use the guns of the state to force large numbers of foreigners on to the existing population. Since Tom thinks that whilevthecstate exists, it should invite everyone on the planet to come here with no questions asked, this means that we are just supposed to sit there and watch if a division of Chinese or Russian tanks roll across the border. After all, acvording to Tom, there is never any reason to stop somebody from crossing a border, or to throw anyone out of anywhere.

  22. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy,

    “So Tom Knapp thinks …”

    Yes, I do think.

    And you just make shit up about what I think.

    And it’s obvious that you’re just making shit up about what I think.

    If you really believe the batshit insane authoritarian horseshit you’re selling, you’re your own worst enemy. Lying about what I think wouldn’t move many units even if batshit insane authoritarian horseshit wasn’t a hard sell in the first place. So by all means, continue.

  23. Don Wills

    “The people working on it [the platform] are not nuts, despite your uninformed opinion to the contrary.”

    The platform is a radical anarchist manifesto. To be more succinct, I probably should have written “Dear Voter – pay no attention to the radical anarchists that control the platform of the LP, but instead please read my web site.”

    And FWIW, I consider myself to be well informed about the LP.

    Any LP candidate who actually wants to get elected has to run away from “the Party” as far and fast as possible to have any chance of winning. If, by accident, an LP candidate appears to have a chance to win a significant election, the D or R opponent will surely use the LP platform to smear/crush/destroy the Libertarian’s campaign.

  24. Anthony Dlugos

    TK,

    There’s really no need to convince the voting public that “taxation is theft” is unworkable claptrap in the real world.

    If you want me to be honest, I guess I am trying to convince the radical/NAPster/gnostic set that that is the reality of our political environs. I think that is because I have a soft spot in my pragmatic heart for radicals who are truly sincere in their beliefs, despite how far outside the frame of reference of the average voter they are. Among the best of them, there is an quiet dignity in their beliefs.

    But, convincing them is not a necessary part of my program. As I noted before, the overriding political truth about the anarchist set is this: they are either already in the party, or will never join, so marginalized irrelevance is their destiny.

    I’m just trying to soften the blow…

  25. Anthony Dlugos

    D Wills,

    I initially misinterpreted your June 3, 2018 at 21:31 comment.

    I completely agree with you that the platform is a serious political liability, especially if a Libertarian were to threaten to win a significant federal election. Optimally, it should be overhauled to expunge the radical influences you refer to.

    On the other hand, I don’t know if the platform is the absolute political liability you suggest. Especially when one compares the liability side of that ledger with the upside potential of a classically liberal message.

    Not many voters care that much about platforms, and an adept politician can easily disavow it, especially when the only people who’d get upset about the disavowal will be a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of party members.

    In my opinion, the primary benefit of working to change the platform is not the optimal solution of changing it from the radical manifesto it is. The primary benefit it is to demonstrate to legitimate politicians and policymakers that there is an ongoing, functioning, and reasonable caucus in the party that will have their back if they decide to take the leap and defect from the dinosaur parties. Once the right professional pol, or combination of pols, defect to the LP, the platform as it exists today won’t matter and can be easily changed.

  26. Seebeck

    “And FWIW, I consider myself to be well informed about the LP.”

    Keep deluding yourself, Donny.

    If you’re so informed, then what did we do in the Platform Committee meeting last night?

    (No hints, Tom! 🙂 )

  27. Don Wills

    Please. Well informed means that I follow the foibles of the party through various media and Internet mechanisms, and I have for three decades. No, I’m not an insider. Does that mean I don’t understand what the LP is and what it’s problems are? No. I understand perfectly well why the LP is a failure.

    So according to dL now I’m a Nazi? Nice try dumbasses. You will continue to be losers riding the LP to all the way to slavery, all the while shouting “please just let the MS-13 children into our country and all will be well” while nobody listens.

  28. dL Post author

    You will continue to be losers riding the LP to all the way to slavery, all the while shouting “please just let the MS-13 children into our country and all will be well” while nobody listens.

    Thanks for playing, Don…

  29. Seebeck

    Sorry, Donny, but “following” and “involved with” are the same as following a truck and driving it. You don’t even have a CDL in this case.

    As dL said, thanks for playing.

  30. Andy

    “Seebeck
    June 6, 2018 at 14:46
    Sorry, Donny, but ‘following’ and ‘involved with’ are the same as following a truck and driving it. You don’t even have a CDL in this case.

    As dL said, thanks for playing.”

    Don is a former member of the Libertarian Party. His views are still basically libertarian, he just sees the LP as a dysfunctional mess and worthless.

  31. Paul

    Perpetuating an irrational fear of foreigners because some of them might be members of gangs started in California doesn’t seem very libertarian to me, but maybe it does in some circles.

  32. Andy

    I’d love to go to this. I wish that I had the money to justify hopping on an airplane to fly to Australia and New Zealand. I have always wanted to go to those places anyway, and it would be great to see Stefan and Lauren while there. I had the pleasure of meeting Lauren at the recent Anarchapulco, in Acapulco, Mexico. She’s an amazing person.

    I wish that Stefan and Lauren were going to be at the upcoming LP National Convention in New Orleans. I’d love to watch them on stage destroying a couple of left leaners in the LP on the proper application of borders and migration from a libertarian perspective. Anyone who thinks that just because the world is arranged into governments, and libertarians oppose coercive government, that this invalidates every function that government monopolizes (like say arresting a prosecuting people for murder), as if there’d be no need or demand for a lot of these services even in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society, which there would be (criminal justice, fire fighting, roads, etc…, would still be in demand in a free market stateless society), that this situation somehow means that it is OK and even desirable for the public commons of a country to be flooded with unlimited amounts of foreign people, many of whom hold ideologies that are hostile to the existing populations, against the will of most of the existing population, is not only a gross misrepresentation of libertarianism, it is actually destructive to liberty.

    Unlimited global access to scarce resources (land is a scarce resource) leads to conflict, particularly when people with different ideologies and from vastly different cultures come in close proximity, and even more so when it is being done against the will of much of the existing population.

    Stefan Molyneux & Lauren Southern 2018 Tour Australia New Zealand

  33. Andy

    “Paul
    June 6, 2018 at 16:27
    Perpetuating an irrational fear of foreigners because some of them might be members of gangs started in California doesn’t seem very libertarian to me, but maybe it does in some circles.”

    1) There is no “might be,” it is a documented fact that some of them are.

    2) Some of these people being criminal thugs is only one issue, and it is not even the biggest issue. The much bigger issues are as follows:

    a) These people (and their offspring) use government welfare programs, and other government services, in super-majority numbers, at rates that are higher than that of most of the existing population.

    b) These people (and their offspring), once they are able to vote as American citizens, vote in super-majority numbers to expand the welfare state, and to enact more gun control laws, in super-majority numbers, at rates that are higher than that of most of the existing population.

    The problems I cited above are not small problems. If these were just isolated cases few people would care. These are big problems, and they are contributing to dragging life in this country down. Yes, some of these people have in fact caused crime rates to go up, and yes, as groups, these people have a higher tendency to suck up welfare money, and to vote for expanding the state, and stripping away the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, they are late comers. Late comers have no claim to the land or the infrastructure of the country. They have no right of inheritance like people who have family that have been in this country for many generations have.

    I am not saying that no foreigners can come here, and I am not saying no immigration. What I am saying is that there is obviously a problem when large numbers of destructive people are coming here. The state’s policy should not be one that allows for an influx of foreigners who hold ideologies that are destructive to the existing population, nor should it overwhelm the existing population.

    I recently did several weeks of petitioning in California, one of the states that has been hit the hardest by a mass influx of foreigners. While there, I had many Californians ask me if I had a petition to repeal the recently enacted “Sanctuary State” status for California. I did not have a petition for this, but lots of people were asking about it and wanted to sign it. I did not encounter even one person in California who said that they were in favor of California being a “Sanctuary State”.

    Having lots of people with Marxist and/or theocratic ideologies, and/or who are criminal thugs, and/or who are non-ideological welfare seekers, flood into the same land area where you live, does not result in more freedom in that area, it results in less.

    Let’s say that we were on a camping trip, and let’s say that some snakes were headed toward our camp site. I say, “Hey, there are snakes headed toward our camp site. We should do something about it.” Then one of the left leaners pipes in and says, “Not all snakes are poisonous. What are you, some kind of anti-snake bigot. You sound like s snakeophobe to me.” Then the snakes enter the campground, a few are non-poisonous, but several of them are in fact poisonous, and some of our fellow campers get bit. I says, “I told you so.” but some of the left leaners out there start to argue with me, pointing out that while some people got bit by poisonous snakes, a few of the snakes did not bite anyone. I of course never said that all snakes were poisonous, I just said that some of them were, and that there were enough of them that were to where basically allowing them to enter our camp site would be a problem, which it turned out to be.

  34. Paul

    Since we should keep “Marxists” out, does that mean we should prefer immigration from Mexico over places with more socialism, like Canada or Europe?

  35. Andy

    Statistically speaking,. immigrants from Mexico and their offspring are using government welfare programs and voting to expand the welfare state and to enact more gun control laws in super-majority numbers.

    Do I want immigrants from Europe who are Marxists and/or are gun grabbers? No.

  36. Paul

    Statistically speaking, native-born Americans were more likely to use government welfare programs, when adjusting for income. The argument that undocumented immigrants must be violently kidnapped and exiled because of benefits they are ineligible for, and voting rights they don’t have, is absurd.

    Just to be clear though, you don’t want immigration from places like Canada, where the super-majority supports gun restrictions and single-payer government healthcare, right? But you do want immigration from hard-working families from places like Mexico and India?

  37. Anon-Tipper

    Paul,

    The immigration topic is a dead end. It’s re-litigated here almost every week. Always the same lines about “marxists.” The video of Molymeme and Southern should have been the tip-off, just more bitching about “multiculturalism.”

  38. Andy

    1). I have posted the statistics here before, and I can come back later and do so again, but it is a documented fact that Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal, and their offspring, use welfare at higher percentage rates than Americans, and this is even more apparent if you narrow the comparison down to non-Hispanic American whites.

    2). You are conveniently overlooking the property rights issue. Non-American citizens have zero claim to the land or infrastructure of the USA. You act as though the land is all unclaimed, and as if the infrastructure paid for by the American taxpayers is somehow for the use of everyone on the planet, when it is not. That is an entitlement mentality.

    3). Americans citizens can’t waltz into Mexico no questions asked, and start using all of their infrastructure as if they are Mexican citizens. I was just in Mexico as a tourist, and my documents were checked by armed Mexican government officials. Mexico regularly deports illegal immigrants, and under the Mexican Constitution, it is illegal for their politicians to enact an immigration policy that alters the demographics of Mexico.

  39. Andy

    4) if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, migration/immigration policy would be controlled by private property owners, who could discriminate against whoever they wanted, for any reason, and who could “physically remove” trespassers off of their land. So what you said above has no basis in libertarian property rights.

  40. Andy

    Here is a question I asked here before, which the people who think that “open borders” and mass indiscriminate immigration has something to do with libertarianism (it does not) dodged answering, so I will ask again.

    It is a widely held belief in Muslim culture that women and gays do not have rights, and that it is OK to rape or beat up women, and that it is OK to beat up or murder gays.

    Having a system of fair jury trials, with randomly selected jurors who are fully informed of their right to judge not only the facts of a case, but the validity of a law itself, and if they believe a law is unjust, or is being applied in an unjust manner, that they have the right to vote Not Guilty, which is known as Jury Nullification.

    Let’s say that your daughter or sister or mother or wife got raped, and/or assaulted, or let’s say that your gay friend was beaten up or murdered, not because he aggressed upon anyone, but just because he was gay. Would you want to see a jury for these cases that was chosen out of an area that had experienced mass Muslim migration? What if the suspects were Muslims? Keep in mind that it is in the Muslim religion that it is OK for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

  41. Libertydave

    Paul,

    Andy is a bigoted liar whose fears and hatred won’t allow him to believe the truth about immigration even if his life depended on it. And like most despicable people he will continue to spread his lies to try and justify his hatred and actions advocating violence against people who haven’t harmed anybody.

  42. Andy

    I have posted this video here before, and now I am posting it again. I realize that some of the people here are guided by emotions, not reason and facts, so I’m sure with some of you people facts and critical thinking do not matter. Hopefully a thinking rational person will view this presentation. Note that all of the facts presented are documented.

    Stefan Molyneux: The Truth About Immigration and Welfare

  43. Andy

    62% of Illegal Immigrant Households on Welfare | Steven Camarota and Stefan Molyneux

  44. Andy

    This is from Pew Research.

    Before anyone jumps down my throat, I am part Hispanic myself (remember, Hispanic is not a race, it just means people from a Spanish speaking country, which is why census forms say, “Hispanic or Latino of any race.”). I believe that I am approximately 12.5% of Spanish origin. I had a great-grandmother of Spanish origin from South America who came to the USA in the early 1900’s, pre-welfare state. This ancestor of mine did speak English in addition to Spanish, and they entered the country and applied for citizenship legally.

    Also, I do not think that all Hispanics are for big government, I do not even think that all Hispanics in the USA are for big government. The statistics however do indicate that a large majority of Hispanics in the USA today are in fact for big government. There are of course exceptions to every rule, but exceptions are not what wins elections and sets public policy.

    It should be blatantly apparent to all that a big part of the motivation for the present mass immigration is to increase the size of government.

    Hispanics favor bigger role for government

    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2012/04/20/hispanics-favor-bigger-role-for-government/

  45. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 7, 2018 at 11:10
    Paul,

    Andy is a bigoted liar whose fears and hatred won’t allow him to believe the truth about immigration even if his life depended on it.”

    Is this a fact, or are you just spouting emotion driven opinions? Show some facts to back up these claims.

    “And like most despicable people he will continue to spread his lies to try and justify his hatred and actions advocating violence against people who haven’t harmed anybody.”

    I have not advocated initiating violence against anyone. People who trespass, particularly those who trespass and then expect to be able to steal from the existing population, are the ones who are initiating violence. Trespassing onto already occupied land without any legal claim to it is the initiation of force.

    Like I said above, I recently vacationed in Mexico, and while there, Mexican government officials who were armed with guns (some of them even had machine guns), checked my passport, patted me down. sent my bags through an X-ray machine, and sent me through a body scanner. I had to tell the Mexican government officials where I was staying in Mexico, and how long I was going to be in the country. If I had over staid the amount of time allotted for tourists, or if I had sneaked into Mexico, the Mexican government could send armed men after me, and if I resisted, they could have used violence to eject me from their country.

    So given these facts about Mexico, and they a bunch of despicable bigots?

    Reading the childish, irrational, emotion based opinions from people like Liberty Dave, and some other posters here, illustrates why the Libertarian Party and movement is not more successful in this country.

  46. Andy

    “and they a bunch of despicable bigots?”

    Should read, “are they a bunch of despicable bigots?” in regard to Mexico’s border and migration/immigration policy as I pointed out above.

  47. Libertydave

    Andy said; ” I realize that some of the people here are guided by emotions, not reason and facts”

    In fact Andy depends on it as he keeps spreading his lies trying to generate fear of immigrants and Muslims. For example the last 3 posts about immigrants on welfare ignores the fact that per capita US citizens get more welfare than immigrants.

    The problem with welfare isn’t that immigrants get some welfare, the problem with welfare is that the government is shouldn’t be involved with welfare at all.

    Its to bad that Andy’s fear and hatred won’t let him see this.

  48. Paul

    I just want to know where the rants about “socialist” Canadians flooding across our northern border are. I wonder why no one talks about them.

    As an aside, I don’t think anarchists generally advocate for “open borders.” Open borders is a minarchist/free trade position. Anarchy demands the absence of borders. Borders are just imaginary lines drawn and agreed to by our rulers regarding which people and land they own.

  49. Paul

    Andy, I vacationed in Mexico recently, too. The Mexican police and border agents I interacted with never even asked me for a government ID, even when getting on or off the cruise ship, unlike the US border patrol, with machine guns, in Key West, when traveling on an American cruise ship, from an American port. It was a weird waste of my tax dollars.

  50. Don Wills

    Paul – you should go live the Mexico then, as it seems to be a real bastion of liberty. Haha.

    Here’s my take on Andy’s writings. His continued attempts to reason with the open borders folks here is truly a waste of his time and yours if you engage with him. My experience (and I’ve got a lot – I’m a senior citizen) has led me to understand that reasoning with somebody has never changed that person’s ideas about something. Emotions are the number 1 cause for a person to change his position on a given topic. And experience is the number 2 thing (e.g. some horrible experience by someone who you are acquainted with or related to). Libertarians truly believe that logic and reason and communication will convince others of the righteousness of the libertarian belief system, and that evangelizing the gospel of libertarianism will convert folks. But it doesn’t work that way. Maybe libertarians should read this book – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

  51. Paul

    Certain parts of Mexico are actually some of the friendliest places to live for American expats. It might be a good retirement destination.

  52. Andy

    Don,. speaking for myself,. the stances I arrive at are based on reason and evidence.

    Paul,.there is no mass influx of socialist Canadians flooding into the USA,.sucking up welfare money and voting in large blocks to expand the state. If this was a problem,.I would talk about it, but this is something you made up.

  53. dL Post author

    Since we should keep “Marxists” out

    nah, the alt right definition of a marxist is anyone who has had sex with other people without having to pay for it

  54. Andy

    Paul, anarcho-capitalists advocate private property borders. I agree with Murray Rothbard,. Hans-Hermann Hoppe,. and Lew Rockwell,. all anarcho-capitalists,. on this issue.

  55. Andy

    I am still waiting for a response to my question about the prospects for fair jury trials in a place with mass Muslim migration in regard to cases of violence against women and gays.

    Funny how nobody will tackle this one. Funny,.but not surprising.

  56. robert capozzi

    DW,

    I certainly agree that Ls overlook the key element of emotion in both promoting change AND in how one arrives at one’s own position. Logic and reason are useful tools,, but the mind must be receptive to logical arguments to be convinced. Perhaps the biggest blindspots that NAPster Ls have is they seem to think they have a monopoly on logic. I contend that they do not.

    Instead, they proceed with a very narrow premise (the NAP) and they refuse to consider other variables, such as current reality. This is why some NAPsters come to some really loopy conclusions. Governments, when instituted, should only act to prevent force and fraud, therefore an individual with a private nuke cannot be pre-emptively stopped from possessing such a weapon, according to some NAPsters. They, I suspect, have shut themselves down emotionally from several considerations, and instead cling to a rigid interpretation of the NAP and what it implies.

    Their considerations are “thin,” but they are silent on why their thin perspective is either “moral” or serviceable.

    They use this approach with immigration, too. The illegal immigrant has not committed force or fraud and is just committing a capitalist act among consenting adults. Other considerations are not taken into account, I believe, less for reasons of logic and more for reasons of emotional comfort. The simplistic NAP explains the world simply, and they resonate with such simplicity. Other considerations are “unprincipled,” and the NAPster wraps him- or herself in a sanctimonious cocoon. I, the NAPster exclaims, am “moral,” and THEY are “evil.”

  57. robert capozzi

    TK,

    Nope, but thanks for your concern. Curious: Why the concern? Isn’t the NAP simple? Don’t NAPsters come to simple — often very extreme — conclusions?

  58. DJ

    Proponents of the NAP here don’t come across as pretentious, arrogant pseudo-intellectuals- I’ve not met any NAP proponents in person but I have met pretentious, arrogant pseudo-intellectuals and I prefer a different personality as they tend to believe themselves all knowing, all seeing kinda like the nanny-statist who believe they know best for everyone.

  59. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Pretentiousness, arrogance, and know-it-all-ists can in fact be exhausting, agreed. I’ve met many NAPsters, and some can be described that way.

    Nanny-statists seem confused to me. I agree it’s an arrogant stance.

    Something I”ve learned that works for me, at least, is to remember that everyone is simply doing his or her best, but that everyone has his or her own dysfunctional foibles and blind spots. The wounded and broken often lash out defensively. Those suffering from cognitive dissonance sometimes offer deflecting non-sequiturs.

    Compassion seems like the more appropriate and helpful response.

  60. Paul

    Andy, sometimes when you ask questions and you don’t receive an answer, it’s not because people can’t answer it, or because they’d answer in agreement.

  61. dL Post author

    At the mushrooms and seeing faeries in the back yard again?

    I don’t think they serve hippie food at the local klavern…

  62. Libertydave

    So Andy says one thing then does something else. First one comment where he says; “speaking for myself, the stances I arrive at are based on reason and evidence.” Then he complains that no one will respond to his fear driven claims of what might happen if we let the Muslims in.

    This is called saying one thing and doing another, or lying. The sad part is that he believes his own lies.

  63. Chuck Moulton

    This site has really gone downhill. I popped in hoping for at least a few interesting articles or comments… instead all I found was one big wall of bigotted Andy garbage.

  64. paulie

    I’ll try time to rejuvenate it some time. Right now I am just trying to find time to post a 10th anniversary article, which was due May 20.

  65. Andy

    Funny how Paul responded to me pointing out that nobody responded to my question about the prospects for fair jury pools for cases about violence against women and gays in an area that had experienced mass migration of Muslims.

    The fact that my debate opponents are dodging this question shows that I am dealing with intellectual chickenshit charlatans.

  66. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    A debate presupposes honesty as to position from the participants. I’m happy to represent a libertarian/individualist position on immigration versus an authoritarian/collectivist position such as yours, but not while you’re fraudulently representing that authoritarian/collectivist position as a libertarian/individualist position.

  67. dL Post author

    So, has Vohra now become a verb.. as in “going Vohra”

  68. DJ

    RC: Compassion seems like the more appropriate and helpful response.

    Me: Or pity.

  69. Andy

    LOL @ the comment made by LibertyDave where he acts as though my concerns about mass Muslim migration are about what might happen!

    LibertyDave must have his head shoved up his ass. We already know what happens when large numbers of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa enter European based countries, because it is already happening in multiple countries in Europe (the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, etc…), and to a lesser extent in the USA and Canada. They cause crime to go up,.they suck up lots of welfare money, and they push their totalitarian culture (No Go Zones, crack down on free speech, etc…).

    Cultural Marxism is apparently alive and well in the Libertarian Party.

  70. Paul

    Funny that Hoppe seems to like critical theory, despite his followers’ hypocritical obsession with the poorly defined “Kulturbolschewismus” as it was originally coined in German.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paul,

    I’m not sure why it would be surprising that Hoppe likes critical theory, seeing as how he is a self-declared Marxist who was educated at the birthplace of cultural Marxism.

  72. dL Post author

    Funny that Hoppe seems to like critical theory, despite his followers’ hypocritical obsession with the poorly defined “Kulturbolschewismus” as it was originally coined in German.

    It’s not merely “like.” He’s a staunch adherent, having received his PhD from the Frankfurt school under Jurgen Habermas. That’s been discussed many times on this forum. The ones who cry “cultural marxist” are the actual cultural marxists.

  73. robert capozzi

    TK and AJ,

    My reflexive reaction is that any government policy or even an individual’s attitude that is bigoted is wrong-minded if it’s bigoted. If an individual appears to be a Muslim or an Hispanic, say, we should not use that label to ascribe to that person traits we’d consider negative ones.

    In the case of Muslims specifically, Sam Harris makes the point that the Koran is considered to be the DIRECT word of God/Allah. Contrast that with the view that the Torah and the New Testament are considered merely God-inspired, but the work of men. All three books have some horrible, hateful prescriptions for behavior. The Koran, however, is taken literally by a larger percentage of the Muslim population than is the case with Christians and Jews.

    I used to scoff at the concerns about Sharia that one hears coming from the right wing, but I admit that this nuance gives me some pause. Harris notes that suicide bombers are almost always Muslim.

    Now, I did and do oppose Trump’s first proposed “Muslim ban.” I also think it’s vitally important not to exclude people just because they are Muslim. Of course, not all Muslims are suicide bombers. In fact, almost none are. It strikes me as reasonable, however, to vet for sociopathic tendencies. My sense is that this needs to be done in a fair and measured way.

    One “individualist” argument might be that vetting is imperfect, and of course I agree. Another might be that the Muslim world has been provoked by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and of course I agree. Another might be that suicide bombings are very rare, and of course I agree. The most extreme “individualist” argument is that anyone can go anywhere any time, and this strikes me as at best a pure theoretical view that does not address reasonable intermediate-term considerations.

    As Chris Freiman said on a recent Rubin Report, “open borders” really doesn’t mean COMPLETELY open borders, just softer borders, iirc. Here I’m persuadable. I’m even persuadable by the anarchist position on a theoretical plane. In the intermediate term? I’d need to hear a really compelling case. I’ve never heard one.

  74. Andy

    Robert, saying that anyone can go anywhere at anytime is not libertarian at all. Why? Property rights. I can’t move into Robert Capozzi’s backyard without Robert Capozzi’s consent. I can’t enter Disney World unless I buy a ticket.

  75. Paul

    I’m literally not allowed to hire or earn rent from people without a government permission slip. That’s just bizarre statist “government property rights” nonsense.

    That is literally the opposite of private property rights.

  76. Paul

    Knappster,

    Do you think “libertarian nationalism” is just Marxism repackaged for right-wing folks with a splash of bigotry?

  77. Andy

    Paul, in order for people to get to your property, they have to cross other people’s property, and of course, it is not like they are only going to stay on your property and not have access to the commons, as in the property/infrastructure owned and paid for by the American taxpayers.

    Also, will these people be voting from your property, thereby influencing the political system? Will they be using government welfare programs from your property?

    You people act as though we already live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, which, if we did, would only mean you could invite people onto your property, as long as doing so did not violate the rights of other property owners in the process.

  78. Paul

    So I don’t get property rights because of hypothetical government entitlements someone else wouldn’t be entitled to and despite the taxes someone else would still be paying?

    I really wish people would stop telling me what I can and can’t do with my property, or at least stop pretending they believe in property rights when they do.

  79. DJ

    RC: the point that the Koran is considered to be the DIRECT word of God/Allah. Contrast that with the view that the Torah and the New Testament are considered merely God-inspired, but the work of men.

    Me: I had a similar discussion on another site with a person who says about the same thing with the exception that the Spanish (Catholicism) came from genetic-Arabs. In fact, the way he say it I suppose we all did- IF the Bible or the Koran is to be believed- also, Christians claim the Bible is the word of “God”- theirs of course not others.

    I don’t understand how it is Christians are so protective of Jews who don’t believe Christians Christ has happened. I also wonder about the people in the western hemisphere who had never heard of Christ being doomed to hell- Jews according to them and Christians are the that the Jews are the God’s chosen so what’s the point? The deck is stacked against anyone else.

    But, my point was to this other site was that ALL religion is about controlling others and is used as a tool to legitimize a belief- I was informed Islam is not a religion, that it’s Jihad- it none the less wants to control- everyone apparently. They just don’t proselytize they kill when they can’t control. Of course the places they attack are not known for their self-defense mechanisms or laws trying to prevent such events. Of course if we’re to believe 9/11 happened as we’re ‘told’ (religiously, red, white, blue ciss-boom-bah yada yada yada) then so much for laws protecting us. But, we are an armed citizenry and the few attacks we’ve had on the public are just that- few = small. Not an invasion.

  80. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    Ah, yes, the Moorish influence influenced the gene pool in Spain, but I’m not sure what your point is. Religious thought systems are not genetic, near as I can tell.

    According to Harris, the Christian “word of God” is a short-hand way of saying “inspired by God,” not dictated by Allah. He may not have the definitive interpretation, but I’ve not heard a better one as yet.

    Again, as I understand Harris, Islam IS a religion, but it’s fundamentalist and often nasty aspects are much harder to sand-down than Christianity and Judaism. Part of Islamic fundamentalism is Sharia and jihad.

    Are you a Truther?

    Gun ownership is higher in the US than most places, that’s true. But there are I think fewer Muslims in the US than in Europe, and Muslims have generally integrated more fully in the US than in Europe, as I understand it. That seems like the more plausible explanation, since jihadists if anything WANT to die as a short-cut to Paradise. Fear of being shot by a gun-toting American is the least of their concerns in contemplating jihadist actions.

  81. Paul

    Belief that God wrote the Bible, word for word, is fairly common among evangelicals and pentecostals.

  82. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Alicia Mattson made an astonishing claim today in the Platform Committee group but she is rarely incorrect on things. She claimed that (let me quote her exactly)-

    ==We have come within one vote of the 7/8 of all delegates needed to remove the “where governments exist” type language from the Statement of Principles. ===

    Our collection of minutes is far from complete – and that is a must-have minutes. Can anyone verify this and a year? I must confess I am highly skeptical of it and that we ever had even 7/8 of all registered delegates on the floor at any such time. But considering the very reliable source, I would like to check it out and revise my research if needed with these additional facts.

  83. robert capozzi

    CAH,

    My recollection is that “CotOS” came very close to being deleted at the Portland 06 convention. One vote seems somewhat overstated. I recall something like 3/4s expressed the sane view there. I think there were other insane clauses in the pipeline for deletion, but after CotOS somehow was retained due to the “depth charges” in the bylaws, the attempt to heal the SoP was abandoned, and the focus turned to the platform.

  84. DJ

    Robert, I appreciate your input, Thanks.

    RC: Ah, yes, the Moorish influence influenced the gene pool in Spain, but I’m not sure what your point is. Religious thought systems are not genetic, near as I can tell.
    …………

    LOL. True. But religion has a common theme, passed on generationally. My point is, was and has been. Control others. That said, if indeed there is a genetic-Arab commonality in everyone (which it would have to be IF the Bible is to be believed) then the whole world is engaged in a civil war. A point I was making to him and I will make to anyone is; You can’t kill an ideology. Religion is an ideology. Some adhere some don’t but nearly all people and all sects believe there is a GOD in “control”.

    That some choose to take man’s words literally (jihadist) and Christians ‘choose’, selectively, “God’s” word for adherence is immaterial. According to their “source” it’s “God’s” word being followed and the practitioners use that as an excuse for “control”.
    I don’t mean to be argumentative. It all seems pretty simple to me, religion is about control. I do appreciate reading other views though and discussing the way too many questions.

    According to Harris, the Christian “word of God” is a short-hand way of saying “inspired by God,” not dictated by Allah. He may not have the definitive interpretation, but I’ve not heard a better one as yet.
    ………….
    I don’t read or listen to short hand and I’ve never met anyone who does. I guess that’s yet another gotta do to be saved idea. The interpretation(s) that have taken place over time have yet to be discussed.

    Again, as I understand Harris, Islam IS a religion, but it’s fundamentalist and often nasty aspects are much harder to sand-down than Christianity and Judaism. Part of Islamic fundamentalism is Sharia and jihad.
    ……..

    According to the poster I was having the discussion with Jihad is the religion and Islam is a nation. He never mentioned Judaism I just threw that in the mix.

    Are you a Truther?
    ……………

    Yes. I like the Truth. I don’t subscribe to religion regardless of its presentation/presenter. And IF what happened on 9/11 was indeed a JIhad(?), that’s all it was. An attack. Singular in nature. It was not an invasion which Andy wants to argue is happening.

    Gun ownership is higher in the US than most places, that’s true. But there are I think fewer Muslims in the US than in Europe, and Muslims have generally integrated more fully in the US than in Europe, as I understand it. That seems like the more plausible explanation, since jihadists if anything WANT to die as a short-cut to Paradise. Fear of being shot by a gun-toting American is the least of their concerns in contemplating jihadist actions.
    ………….

    A few things: 1) IF Jews are our God’s chosen (and I use our loosely) what’s to worry about? (2) If God is going to “save” Christians, what’s to worry about? (3) If they don’t fear gun toters they will die.

    Me and most of those I know don’t fear thugs regardless of their religious association, though I’ll admit we don’t hang out with anyone from the ME. We have guns. We will defend what is ours- IF attacked- to the death if it comes to that, but, what most of us won’t do is attempt to force the ME to subscribe to our beliefs- if they attempt it personally they will be rebuked in whatever manner is handy. And personally, I don’t blame Islam for the attacks nearly as much as I blame the invaders leaders for their arrogance and inability to talk Truth.

    My point: ALL religion is for control, including, if you will, the religious feeling of patriotism striving to ingrain it as a commonality among citizens (a mass congregation of worshipers) and winding up with irrational reactions based on emotions using fear to sell it to non-thinkers = religion.

  85. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    While I don’t consider myself “religious” (but I am quite “spiritual’), I can’t say I buy your contention that ALL religion is for control. I can buy that many are, or have become so. Quakers, Unitarians, and Unity — which I have some familiarity with — all seem quite the opposite of control freaks. Reformed Jews strike me as pretty chill as well. I did feel pretty controlled when I was a Catholic, though.

    I think I probably agree with you that “patriotism” has a very dark side to it.

  86. DJ

    Robert- my point about religion is/was: Christians committed a near genocide ‘here’- often in the name of “God”- this country has no moral high ground. It has become an almost religion in that if you don’t subscribe to a particular doctrine you’re a heretic and if you happen to subscribe to Jihad or Islam or Marx then you are the enemy- and no, I don’t subscribe to any man made belief regardless of its origin. To many if you have a different skin pigment you’re an inferior. Practitioners of religion (especially the US gov’t sect) are two faced and hypocrites of the highest order who use fear as a tool for more control, just like religion. And just like religion, the ‘elders’ (elected officials) are immune to the rules set forth for the congregation. It doesn’t matter, necessarily, ‘when’ it happened or a genetic predisposition or who did what to who how many times- control of the many by the few is the heart of religion, and gov’t, and is exercised religiously, some with zeal, but mostly just passively willing to defer because- God/gov’t said.
    Elected officials use patriotism as its bible and are quite comfortable interpreting patriotism in a manner that reflects “gov’t is good” and on your side when the truth says differently just like the different interpretations of God to establish a pre-determined result.

  87. Paul

    Caryn Ann,

    The strict grammatical-critical method of biblical interpretation pretty much says that the Bible is the perfect inerrant written Word of God, even if it wasn’t read to Mohammed by an angel. We could look at the percentage of Americans who reject things like evolution as statistical proof of this.

    I understand that there is a lot of nuance that I’ve glossed over. Similarly, there’s a lot of nuance missed in the range of views Muslims have about the Quran (especially considering it was written by various scribes with conflicting versions that were later compiled into its current form). But the bottom line is, Holy Book fundamentalism is not exclusive to Islam.

  88. robert capozzi

    Paul,

    Harris makes the persuasive point that, yes, while Holy Book fundamentalism is not exclusive to Islam, there are virtually no Christians or Jews who advocate the death penalty for same-gender sex acts, as Leviticus implores. A minority of Muslims do advocate capital punishment for gay sex.

    If there’s a better explanation for this difference than Harris offers, I’d like to hear one.

  89. robert capozzi

    more…

    If Christians and Jews found the Torah to be “inerrant,” how do you explain the fact that they are not calling for the death of Tim Cook and Peter Thiel?

  90. DJ

    If Christians and Jews agree the Torah inerrant why do Christians believe the NT version of Christ as having risen to save us- while Jews await his coming.

  91. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    As I understand it, Jews don’t buy that Yeshua was the Messiah.

    Both Jews and Christians believe in the Torah as Holy. Not all of them believe that it’s inerrant or should be read literally.

  92. Paul

    Robert, a common belief is that the civil law in Leviticus (which was typically more severe than the Quran) applied specifically to the ancient Israelites. It’s not that some believe it errant, but rather that parts are inapplicable.

  93. Chuck Moulton

    Alicia Mattson wrote:

    We have come within one vote of the 7/8 of all delegates needed to remove the “where governments exist” type language from the Statement of Principles.

    Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

    Our collection of minutes is far from complete – and that is a must-have minutes. Can anyone verify this and a year?

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    My recollection is that “CotOS” came very close to being deleted at the Portland 06 convention. One vote seems somewhat overstated. I recall something like 3/4s expressed the sane view there.

    My recollection matches Bob’s: in 2006 the amend the statement of principles vote was more than 3/4 but less than 7/8 — not just 1 vote short as far as I can remember.

    Similarly, dumping the cultish “anarchists only!” pledge got far more than a majority, but short of 2/3.

  94. DJ

    RC: As I understand it, Jews don’t buy that Yeshua was the Messiah.

    Me: That’s kinda my point- they both believe, allegedly, in the same God- but not Allah, so, there must be more than one or, someone is confused. Christians (here at least) believe we should defend Israel which is a Jewish state (at the price of American lives and money we don’t have ) because “God” says the Jews are the chosen- it makes no sense = the below. They subscribe to Manifest Destiny = near genocide here and complain about the holocaust because, well- Jews (God’s chosen) over there need to be defended by US because we are Christians and Christians have to defend God’s chosen even though they don’t believe the same things- but, Allah interpreted by Mohammad is wrong- how do we know that?

    RC: Both Jews and Christians believe in the Torah as Holy. Not all of them believe that it’s inerrant or should be read literally.

    Me: Except that which grants/interprets to/for a power to their “God”- but Allah isn’t really a “God” although Islamist believe he is and they ALL rely on man’s interpretation to decide which “God” counts, but, they want to claim to abide by a rule of law not man’s despotism but insist that “the word of their God” interpreted by man is a law that has to be adhered to- literally, in order to be saved by a God who has already chosen non-Christians as His people- makes no sense.

  95. dL Post author

    If Christians and Jews found the Torah to be “inerrant,” how do you explain the fact that they are not calling for the death of Tim Cook and Peter Thiel?

    If they came out in support for kneeling NFL players, they would be getting death threats…lol

  96. robert capozzi

    DJ,

    They all seem deeply confused to me. Then again I have my own confusions, too, some of which I’m aware of and some not. Confusion is the human condition, near as I can tell. Yeshua — if correctly quoted — got it right, near as I can tell, in saying, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” They’re confused! 😉

  97. dL Post author

    Paul, that is absolutely and utterly wrong.

    No, it is not . Fundamentalist, evangelical christianity absolutely holds to the divine inspiration of every single word and absolute biblical inerrancy. The word of god, literally.

  98. dL Post author

    I understand that there is a lot of nuance that I’ve glossed over. Similarly, there’s a lot of nuance missed in the range of views Muslims have about the Quran (especially considering it was written by various scribes with conflicting versions that were later compiled into its current form). But the bottom line is, Holy Book fundamentalism is not exclusive to Islam.

    Each of the Abrahamic religions is a crock of shit. However, here, the one that poses the most threat to liberty is christian fundamentalism. The christian fundies are particularly barbaric when it comes to abortion. That Iowa law that recently passed is the one of the most restrictive, if not the most restrictive, abortion prohibitions in the world, beating out all the muslim countries.

    The only use fundies have for liberalism is to use it to brow beat moral superiority compared to the muslims. But if they had their way, they would eradicate every single liberal tenet.

  99. DJ

    A lengthy book review-

    Making Sense of the Founders: Politics, Natural Rights, and the Laws of Nature

    an excerpt:

    The founders’ natural rights philosophy begins with the premise that we are all by nature equally free in the very limited sense that no one person has a divine birthright to wield political authority over others without their consent. Our basic natural rights follow from our natural equality. As naturally equal and independent human beings, no one may rightfully take the life, restrain the liberty, or destroy the property of another. Life is the first natural right; liberty the second. Property follows closely behind as an implication of our natural liberty. “If we are ‘born free and equal,’” West concludes, summarizing the teaching of several founding era documents and state constitutions, “we own ourselves, and our liberty necessarily includes the ‘free exercise of [one’s] industry, and the fruits acquired by it’—to acquire things useful and enjoyable for life.” Other natural rights recognized in these founding sources are the right to religious liberty, the right to pursue happiness, the right to conjugal marriage, and the right (recognized in some documents) to reputation, i.e., to be free from the libelous destruction of one’s good name in a way that inhibits one’s ability to acquire property and pursue happiness.

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/06/19508/

  100. dL Post author

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/06/19508/

    “The laws of nature set the moral limits of the natural right to liberty in many founding era sources. Liberty is not license.

    Oh, but liberty is license. That was the position of Thomas Hobbes’ natural rights conceptualization. However, Locke’s natural rights made a distinction between license and liberty. For Locke, liberty is license bound by a moral constraint of no harm to others or to oneself(the “oneself” part is not libertarian).

    The “Public Discourse” piece is correct that “the founders” by and large were not libertarians. Public Discourse is a conservative/communitarian outfit. For them, liberty is the freedom to obey.

    Libertarianism holds to few impersonal duties(i.e, duties owed to no one). Conservatism tacks on a bunch of impersonal duties onto the human condition. For example, these may include: the duty to god, country and family. And/or a duty to not to harm your own body(e.g, suicide, or alcohol use, drug use)…etc. The liberty to fulfill one’s duties to no one ==the freedom to obey.

    The “founders” certainly held to an impersonal duty for behavior consistent with self-governance. I.e, social contract.

    Libertarianism, however, has none of that. Duties are personal only. That is, duties are established by explicit contract. The implied “social contract” is a bunch of gobbledygook.

    This is why(contra to our friends at Cato) libertarianism and conservatism are political enemies. And it is also why libertarianism is not synonymous with “natural law/rights.” While there may be some conceptions of natural law that might be compatible with it, there are others that might be quite antithetical to it.

  101. Andy

    Well, well, well, look at this form of “cultural enrichment” that mass immigration has brought to the United Kingdom: acid attacks.

    Video description from YouTube: “Acid attacks, common in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa, have found their way to the streets of London. What possibly could be the reason for this? Who is committing these horror crimes? I thought multiculturalism was a utopia. ”

    Any self professed libertarian who claims that the existence of states means that all state property should be opened to anyone on the planet, and who thinks that this justifies having this type of vermin who would throw acid in people’s faces migrate into the same land territory as where you live, is not a real libertarian. You are a virtue signaling “politically correct” leftist, not an actual libertarian who believes in property rights. Property rights means the right to exclude people from property. The existence of the state does not justify inviting the entire world onto state managed property, including people who are destructive to the existing population, and it also does not mean invite so many people onto the state managed property that the existing population is demographically replaced. No sane private property owner would want this, and while the state exists, it should not have a policy in place regarding borders and migration that threatens the existing population.

    Acid attacks were basically unheard of in the United Kingdom until they started allowing mass immigration (which is really more of an invasion).

    Acid Attacks Skyrocket In London | Multiculturalism Fails | Immigration | Newham | Tower Hamlets

  102. Andy

    More on the mass immigration caused crime spree in the United Kingdom. The Brits should start “physically removing” these people from their country.

    London Crime Out Of Control | Acid Attacks & Multiculturalism | Michael McIntyre Mugged

  103. Andy

    I wish that Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were going to be at the upcoming LP National Convention in New Orleans. I’d love to see them get up on stage and debate a couple of leftist “libertarian” cucks who think that the existence of the state justifies allowing millions of hostile migrants to enter a land territory, against the will of most of the existing population, and regardless of the government welfare programs that are in place, and that act as an enticement for said hostile migrants. Stefan and Lauren would destroy the left wing cuck contingent of the LP.

    Stefan Molyneux & Lauren Southern – The Outsiders – May 2018

  104. Andy

    “Paul
    June 16, 2018 at 14:29
    Aren’t they just pro-Trump racists who aren’t even in the LP?”

    Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern are both Canadian citizens, and both live in Canada. Molyneux did endorse Donald Trump, not because he thought that Trump was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but because he thought that Hillary Clinton was worse, and that Trump would slow down the destruction of the USA, which would have negative effects on Canada, and because there were no other viable options for Americans to vote for in the presidential election (the Johnson/Weld ticket was a joke). I don’t think that Lauren ever outright endorsed Trump, although she did show some sympathies for Trump, but it was for the same reasons as Molyneux. Both have since criticized some of Trump’s actions since he became President.

    None of this invalidates anything I said above, and I don’t think that any Libertarian who voted for the Gary Johnson/Bill Weld ticket did anything that was principled. I do not believe that we’d be any better off had Johnson/Weld been elected, and in a lot of ways, we’d be worse off, because if they had been elected, they’d have permanently discredited the Libertarian Party and libertarianism (not that Johnson/Weld actually represented libertarianism, but most of the public would not understand that).

  105. Andy

    Here’s a great quote from Thomas Sowell on racism: “The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything – and demanding evidence makes you a ‘racist.'”

  106. Paul

    Racists get so sensitive about terms. Isn’t that cultural marxism at its finest? Sensitive cupcake (racist)s who want to get pedantic about people calling them out for what they are (racist), and demand a culture that affirms their (racist) views as positive (and somehow not racist).

    I’m sorry, do they prefer “alt-lite”?

  107. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Well, well, well, look at this form of ‘cultural enrichment’ that mass immigration has brought to the United Kingdom: acid attacks.”

    Actually, acid attacks as a cultural phenomenon originated in, um, Victorian England.

  108. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Aren’t [Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern] just pro-Trump racists who aren’t even in the LP?”

    Not exactly. Like Christopher Cantwell, they’re grifters who found a little money scamming libertarians before noticing what looked like bigger, quicker, and more enduring scores from the xenophobic peckerwood market niche.

  109. Don Wills

    WS wrote “With the historic summit this past week, it appears we are headed toward peace.”

    Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched. If a president wanted to justify an attack on NK, the first thing he would do is try to make peace with them. Then give them a list of 47 points that the North Korea must agree to … including destroying all missiles and relevant infrastructure … that any sane leader of NK would never agree to do. Then wait six months. Then do a sneak attack on NK with an overwhelming barrage of conventional bombs, special forces, electronic warfare – the whole enchilada – giving as the reason that NK would not agree to the “reasonable” demands, and thus had to be taken out.

    Reference – https://southfront.org/north-korea-received-47-point-list-of-demands-from-us-japanese-foreign-minister/

  110. Andy

    “Paul
    June 16, 2018 at 21:20
    Racists get so sensitive about terms. Isn’t that cultural marxism at its finest? Sensitive cupcake (racist)s who want to get pedantic about people calling them out for what they are (racist), and demand a culture that affirms their (racist) views as positive (and somehow not racist).

    I’m sorry, do they prefer ‘alt-lite’?”

    The terms “racist” and “racism” have become so watered down, that they have practically turned into words that leftists use to try to shut down debate. The terms are not even applied fairly, as acts of racism from groups that are preferred by people on the left are downplayed or completely ignored.

  111. Andy

    So a top black politician in South Africa getting up on stage saying, “Kill the Boer” (the Boer are Dutch South Africans) is not racist? So the black Marxist dominated government in South Africa issuing a decree that they are going to confiscate all farms owned by white people, and not even compensate them for it, is not racist?

    The Dutch arrived in South Africa in 1652, and that the time that they arrived there, most of what is today South Africa was unoccupied. There was one black tribe living there called the Khoisan, who were a nomadic people. The other African tribes who are in South Africa today immigrated to South Africa after this. There would not have been enough food to support all of these people if it were not for the Dutch farmers.

    Lauren Southern & Gavin on South African farmer attacks & possible government involvement

  112. Andy

    Let’s say that a husband and wife sneaked into Disney World with their three children. Now let’s say that they are caught by Disney World Security. Let’s say that the parents said, “It is the dream of our kids to go to Disney World. So you should not throw them out.” Would anyone say that it was some kind of horrible thing if Disney World Security threw the parents and their kids out? Would anyone give a shit if it was the dream of these kids to go to Disney World? I doubt that most people would.

    So why should it be any different when it comes to people with kids sneaking into this country? Yeah, we live under a coercive state, and idealistically, coercive states should not exist, but everyone else in the world also lives under a coercive state, and there is no country in the world where anyone can waltz in with no questions asked, and expect to be treated like they are a citizen of that country. The existence of the state does not justify unlimited number of people entering said state and exploiting the public resources of said state, particularly when it is against the will of most of the existing population of said state.

    If we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, this issue would be even more clear. People don’t have the right to sneak onto property owned by other people, and it does not matter if they have their kids with them or not. All of this DACA crap is just a “It’s for the children” sympathy play, and it is being pushed to further the Marxist/globalist agenda.

    Stefan Molyneux: What Pisses Me Off About The Migrant Children Scandal

  113. Paul

    Andy, you keep saying “anarcho-capitalist,” but I’m fully convinced you have no idea what that means. Your inability to differentiate between political imaginary lines and private property lines is one such example, but I digress.

    Nice videos bro. I hope you don’t honestly expect me to give those racists views or clicks. Feel free to post transcripts though.

  114. Libertydave

    Andy,

    When you judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a couple of people, that make you a bigot. Let me explain why this is wrong. You call yourself a libertarian, but just because you are a lying bigoted hypocrite doesn’t mean that all libertarians are lying bigoted hypocrites.

  115. Andy

    “Peaceful people crossing borders, dude,” said the naive left-libertarian.

    Somali gang continues to terrorize park – in Maine

    http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/somali-gang-continues-to-terrorize-park-in-maine/

    From the article: “Last month, two dozen Somali youths swarmed and attacked two Maine residents in a park in Lewiston, beating them with sticks while laughing, as video of the incident shows.

    One of the victims was hospitalized, but no charges were filed.

    Then, last Tuesday, a group of Somalis fired pellet guns at non-Somalis in the same park. A fight broke out and one non-Somali, a 38-year-old father of two, died days later from his injuries.

    Kennedy Park in Lewiston has become the focal point of such clashes, according to reports.

    Previously, a 10-year-old girl was jumped and beaten by a Somali girl at the park. As such occurrences become more common in Lewiston, many lifelong residents are now afraid to bring their own children to play.”

    My comment: If this is not a case for “physical removal” from the country, I don’t know what is. Note that all of these people are on welfare, so even if they weren’t assaulting people in public parks, there is still just grounds for kicking them out of the country. They came in under the Refugee Resettlement Act, which is a government welfare program. I was in Maine several years ago, and I saw a bunch of these people in Lewiston. I happened upon a government welfare office, and I saw a bunch of Somalians coming in and out.

  116. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 19, 2018 at 17:46
    Andy,

    When you judge an entire group of people based on the actions of a couple of people, that make you a bigot.”

    I have never done this.

    “Let me explain why this is wrong. You call yourself a libertarian, but just because you are a lying bigoted hypocrite doesn’t mean that all libertarians are lying bigoted hypocrites.”

    What did I lie about? What did I say that violated any libertarian principles? Show me where I said anything that violates property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle. If you think that people have the right to enter property on which they have no claim, then it is you who are violating property rights, and therefore in violation of libertarian principles.

    Also, your hypocrisy is astounding. I never said that all people from group x engaged in x behavior. If you are asserting that I said this, you are a liar.

    I have posted an article here multiple times from the Washington Post that is title, “The NRA will fail. The demographics show this.” The article cites studies that show that support for gun rights only has a majority among white Americans, but this support is only around 57%. All other groups have support for gun rights that is much lower than this. The article points out that support for gun rights was the highest among whites who live in rural areas, but with the population of the country becoming more urban, and with the population becoming less white, with whites projected to slip into minority status by around 2044, that support for gun rights will shift to minority status, after which point the government will have a much easier time passing gun control laws and confiscating guns. The article points out that research indicates that 75% of Hispanics, and 80% of Asians, oppose the right to keep and bear arms. This does not mean that all Hispanics and Asians oppose the right to keep and bear arms. Chinese Libertarian Lily Tang is a hardcore gun rights supporter, and I think that’s fantastic. I even endorsed Lily Tang for US Senate when she ran in 2016 (she was one of the few candidates I officially endorsed in 2016). The problem is not with the outliers within a group (in this case), it is with the statistical norms. Exceptions are not what wins elections of sets public policy, statistical norms do. So barring some big changes in demographic group think/trends, if large numbers of Hispanics and Asians continue to flood into the country, the statistical odds say that there is a very high likelihood that it will increase the anti-gun rights vote.

    Are you capable of analyzing statistical trends?

    How about if somebody said, “Well not all Ku Klux Klan groups lynched black people,” is this something that you’d accept?

    Not all snakes bite people, but this does not mean that there aren’t dangerous snakes out there that do.

    The statistics clearly indicate that many of the foreign migrants coming into the USA, Canada, and multiple countries in Europe, are toxic. This does not mean that all foreign migrants are bad, nor does it mean that immigration completely shut down, nor does it mean that there should be no international tourists or temporary workers.

    You have been so indoctrinated into the cult of left wing political correctness that you are out of touch with reality and seem incapable of rational thought.

  117. Andy

    Good video that debunks the anti-property rights forced association pro-“open borders” arguments.

    Why I’m Against Open Borders

  118. Libertydave

    Andy, you lie when you claim that all Muslims are responsible for the action of a small minority of criminals that claim to be Muslim, this also make you a bigot. You violate the non aggression principle when you advocate the enforcement of victimless crimes, this is the same as you conspiring to commit violence against people who have harmed no one. You advocating for more government while claiming to be a libertarian make you a hypocrite.

  119. Anthony Dlugos

    Granted, the Convention probably would not have received significant coverage any which way, but, given the circumstances in this country, the I’ll reiterate that the LP really could have used that “Building Bridges, Not Walls” theme that we had as an option.

  120. DJ

    AD: I’ll reiterate that the LP really could have used that “Building Bridges, Not Walls” theme that we had as an option.

    Me: I used to belong to a political message board made up of mostly conservatives, and the past few days I’ve been following a few threads of The Federalist- I know it’s not scientific but what I see very few are interested in bridges. Most want instant removal by whatever means available and they want a wall- what I see in the comments sections I think is indicative of cross sections of our society and there are a few very vocal “liberals” who scream and holler just like the conservatives do- the irony is, to me, both sides are too ignorant to consider anything other than pointing a finger-

    Just now, on the local news, they just showed another tweet by Trump blaming lack of border control on Democrats and that crime is brought with immigrants- so, this is for Andy, and anyone else who wants to use the crime card: Is immigration status important to the crime committed? Would the damage be less if the status was “legal”?

    The lack of ability to think through situations is amazing. And, no Andy I will not watch a video. I will read and comment on what I read.

  121. Anthony Dlugos

    “I used to belong to a political message board made up of mostly conservatives, and the past few days I’ve been following a few threads of The Federalist- I know it’s not scientific but what I see very few are interested in bridges. Most want instant removal by whatever means available and they want a wall- what I see in the comments sections I think is indicative of cross sections of our society…”

    There is no doubt about it, the one issue that Trump raised that struck home from the get-go with conservatives was immigration.

    From my parents to conservatives I meet out and about in the worlds, both real and virtual, they are absolutely adamant taking a hardline stance on immigration. The drumbeat on Faux News about it is at turns frightening and distressing. The last couple days on that station has been downright sickening. I’m not sure at what point Trump’s hard-core supporters would withdraw their support for his immigration stance.

    In keeping with my pragmatic libertarian sensibilities, I try to build a bridge of some sort of agreement on any issue I might be discussing with someone when the conversation turns political…but I have found with conservatives on the immigration issue, its completely useless. Trying to make some sort of connection with them seems to make them even more intransigent. Look at how long and sustained our resident xenophobe and likely racist Andy has kept up his diatribes about immigrants…they don’t even need someone to engage their delusions. They feed off each others’ hate, it seems.

  122. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, I’ve noted a similar dogmatic unreasonable-ness with conservatives on immigration as well. I just don’t see why they get so exorcised, but Fox probably is the main culprit.

    OTOH, it’s my contention that completely open borders are a non-starter politically. There’s virtually no constituency for it, even among the NAPist (formerly NAPster) community, tiny as it is.

  123. Andy

    A bunch of Somalian welfare leeches in Minnesota got caught defrauding the system, and using some of the stolen loot to ship money to radical Muslim terrorists.

    This is another case where physical removal from the country is justified. These people never should have been brought here in the first place, because they came in under the Refugee Resettlement Act, which is a government welfare program (so they did not come here via their own merit). Any offspring they had while here should be denied American citizenship, and they should also be deported. This is not the initiation of force, it is retaliation with force. Somebody might say, “Well what about the children?” My response is who gives a fuck about the children? What about the children of Americans whose parents are having to pay higher taxes to support these people? What about the Americans who are not having children, or who are putting off having children until they can afford to support them, which is being made more difficult, because they are having to pay higher taxes to support people who never should have been brought into the country in the first place? What about the children who live near that park in the story above from Maine who are now afraid to go to their local park for fear of being violently assaulted by gangs of Somalian thugs? The children of these people should be deported with their parents.

    What do you think would happen if these people tried this shit in say Mexico or Japan? Do you think that the Mexicans or the Japanese would put up with this shit. Heck, the Japanese would not even let them enter, and the Mexicans may not either. Mexicans are happy to allow American tourists who are going to spend money visit their country, but they are not going to be interested in taking Somalian welfare seekers.

    Why were these people brought into this country? Was it for humanitarian reasons? If you believe this, you are pretty naive. If this was really about humanitarianism, the money that was spent to bring them here, and to support them while they have been here, could have helped a lot more people if they had staid where they came from, or had gone to some other country in that region of the world. The cost of living is higher in the USA than it is in these countries, and in addition to the higher cost of living, there is also the travel costs, and the costs for welfare and other government services once they are here. So if this was really about helping people, bringing them over here is not the best way to do it. There is a far more sinister agenda at play here, and that is to bring down this country. It is a part of the Marxist globalist agenda. These foreign migrants are being used as pawns in the game to destroy the good things that are left in this country.

    A Scandal Trifecta: Immigration, Welfare Fraud And Terrorism

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/a-scandal-trifecta-immigration-welfare-fraud-and-terrorism.php

  124. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    June 20, 2018 at 13:20
    AD,

    Yes, I’ve noted a similar dogmatic unreasonable-ness with conservatives on immigration as well. I just don’t see why they get so exorcised, but Fox probably is the main culprit.

    OTOH, it’s my contention that completely open borders are a non-starter politically. There’s virtually no constituency for it, even among the NAPist (formerly NAPster) community, tiny as it is.”

    “Open borders” into democratic welfare states with forced association laws and lots of public property is not a NAPster issue. It is a Marxist/globalist position that has nothing to do with libertarianism.

    Also, you are correct, that in terms of popularity of this issue, it is not popular at all. I recently did several weeks of petitioning in California, and although I did not have any petitions addressing this subject, I had lots of people bring this issue up to me without me prompting them. Many Californians who I encountered are mad as hell about the recently passed Sanctuary State status for California. I did not encounter one person who said that they agreed with it.

    There are very few people who think that ripping the US borders open and allowing for unlimited immigration is a good idea. The only people who support it are New World Order globalist types, far left Marxists, and a few naive (or fake) libertarians (and as you indicated, even the libertarian movement is divided on this issue). This issue is not even support by all groups that have a large population of immigrants, as there are a fair number of Hispanics and Asians who do not support this policy.

    If you took a survey, you’d find that this issue (as in rip the US borders open and allow anyone to immigrate here, with no questions asked) is extremely unpopular white Americans, black Americans, and Native American Indians (who certainly know what it is like to be ethnically displaced, but of course comparing the 1500’s-1800’s to today is absurd, since most of the present day USA was unoccupied, and undeveloped, and since the European pioneers/colonists where not trying to move into American Indian society).

    I am not saying that everything should necessarily be done by popularity surveys, but when you consider that there is wide disagreement on this issue even among those who want to reduce the size of government, even among the anarcho-capitalists who want to see coercive government shut down completely, then this should tell you that this is not a good issue to make as one of your main talking points.

  125. Andy

    “is extremely unpopular white Americans, black Americans, and Native American Indians”

    Should read, “is extremely unpopular among white Americans, black Americans, and Native American Indians..”

  126. Paul

    Can we physically remove Andy? I mean, if I have to bring up cherry-picked factually dubious anecdotes, I will.

    He’s clearly trespassing, as I’m a tax payer, or some other broken logic.

  127. Paul

    Think about it though. Andy was born on the other side of the imaginary line that surrounded where he was born. That alone should justify anyone wanting to physically remove him from where he is now, and paradoxically, make him the aggressor!

    Sorry Andy, we just can’t risk you raping and murdering the good people here.

  128. DJ

    Let’s not pretend those who oppose conservatives are angels-

    Leftist Agitators Run DHS Secretary Out Of Restaurant, Call For Children To Be Raped And Border Agents Murdered

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/20/leftist-agitators-run-dhs-secretary-out-of-restaurant-call-for-children-to-be-raped-and-border-agents-murdered/#disqus_thread

    Building bridges is fine- but if they don’t meet in the middle both sides will fall off-

    I’ve been watching these leftist agitators (especially on college campuses) since the late 60’s.
    Conservatives are tired of their bullshit- can’t sat as I blame them, though both sides need to practice a little introspection. Sadly these clowns are just that. I guess their handlers haven’t told them that actions have consequences- I saw a head line that said a GOP candidate announced her candidacy with her gun by her side- these so- called liberals need to consider where the term originated, and it wasn’t in their public school.

    Yeah, I know, it’s ALL Trumps fault, he has orange hair and Obama and Clinton, well, leftist in general, except Trump who was a leftist before he became a rightist LOL- are the picture of sainthood- save the energy for a worthwhile endeavor.

  129. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Have you read any of Jonathan Haidt’s (The Righteous Mind) work? It appears to me that immigration touches on some sort of deep-seeded intuition, hence the unreasonable-ness of conservatives (and outright xenophobia like Andy). I watched a Haidt video once where he talked about studies that determined conservatives have a much quicker “gag reflex” to things they find revolting or potentially dangerous (from their perspective).

    No doubt, open borders are a non-starter politically. And, to make matters worse for the LP, a stance of completely open borders (especially when coupled with other extreme positions) draws in virulent xenophobes, because as I noted before, dogma attracts dogma.

    Suggest a radically open border position for the LP if you want, but the first thing you are signaling to the general public is, “if your nuts, you’re our kind of people.”

  130. robert capozzi

    AD,

    No, haven’t read Haidt, but I’ve seen YouTubes of his presentation. Jordan Peterson — love him or hate him — has a similar take.

    Back in the day, Peter Breggin, a L psychologist, posited that Conservatives were motivated by shame, Liberals by guilt, and Libertarians by anxiety. They all make a lot of sense to me. NAPist Ls seem to take things to another level. I’m not sure it’s just anxiety, it may cross-over to paranoia mixed with many with at least a touch of Asperger’s.

    It may sound like an attack, but it’s really just an observation.

    Paranoia is more unstable than anxiety, which may explain the stark contrast of the 2 NAPist camps on immigration, both extreme: Completely open borders or severe xenophobia. The NAPist tends to view things from the outside (their construct) in (reality), and the inevitable cognitive dissonance this triggers is profound. Couple this with Asperger’s tendencies toward a lack of empathy, and we are left with a psychological cocktail ill-suited for politics.

    Inside out Ls like Johnson & Weld are the MOST threatening to the elaborate defenses put up by the NAPists. Hence, AJ’s virulent denunciations of especially WW. Or DWP pretty much spitting in WW’s face at the NatCon.

    btw, any feedback on NAPist vs. NAPsters? I think I like NAPist better because it has no pejorative tone to it. I, btw, didn’t mean it to be pejorative, but having some empathy, I’d just as soon use an accurate term that is taken as it’s offered.

  131. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Have you read any of Jonathan Haidt’s (The Righteous Mind) work? It appears to me that immigration touches on some sort of deep-seeded intuition, hence the unreasonable-ness of conservatives (and outright xenophobia like Andy).”

    Xenophobia implies an irrational fear. I have no irrational fears. All of the concerns that I have brought up are based on documented facts, not emotion driven irrational fears. I have never suggested that immigration be completely shut down, nor have I have ever suggested that there be no foreign tourists, or foreign temporary guest workers. What I have suggested it that the system is in need of serious reform, and not the kind of reform that increases the number of migrants, or makes it easier for people to come here and gain citizenship. The system needs to be reformed so some productive, freedom loving foreigners are allowed to immigrate here, and apply for American citizenship, while at the same time weeding out, as much as possible, Marxists, theocrats, criminals, welfare seekers, and people with communicable diseases.

    I believe that all of these things could be done without increasing the size of government, and if my proposals were implemented, it would actually lead to a decrease in the size of government.

    I have pointed out numerous times that the real, purist libertarian solution to the problem is to abolish the state, privatize everything, and let the private property owners decide who can migrate/immigrate onto what land. This is such a radical proposal that it is not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. We can talk about it, but it is far from being anything that is realistically on the table.

    Advocating that the borders be ripped completely open, and that unlimited numbers of people can come here, under the conditions of a democratic welfare state with forced association laws, an easy path to citizenship compared to most countries (the current idiotic interpretation of Birthright citizenship allows anyone who waltzes across the border, legally or not, to be an American citizen, which is completely insane, and has resulted in birth tourism, where pregnant women show up just so they can have their babies here so the babies become American citizens), and lots of public property, is completely insane, and is also not representative of a true libertarian policy, because these conditions would not exist in a libertarian society, as in a libertarian society would not have taxpayer funded welfare programs, forced association laws, democratic elections (unless they were held by voluntary organizations), or public (ie-taxpayer funded and owned) property.

    “No doubt, open borders are a non-starter politically. And, to make matters worse for the LP, a stance of completely open borders (especially when coupled with other extreme positions) draws in virulent xenophobes, because as I noted before, dogma attracts dogma.

    Suggest a radically open border position for the LP if you want, but the first thing you are signaling to the general public is, ‘if your nuts, you’re our kind of people.'”

    I actually pretty much agree with Anthony here, which does not happen very often.

    Advocating a position that would only be workable if a libertarian anarcho-capitalist society was already set up, is politically stupid. If your goal in running is to educate the public, that’s fine, but educate them to the fact that in order for a stateless border/immigration policy to work, the state would have to be abolished and an anarcho-capitalist society would have to be created in its place. Shutting down government and privatizing all of its assets and functions is far, far easier said than done.

  132. Andy

    This is a clip from the debate I posted here a few months ago between Adam Kokesh and Stefan Molyneux on borders and immigration policy. I like Adam, and I am still supportive of his campaign for the LP’s presidential nomination in 2020 (I have not officially endorsed him yet, but I might depending on what happens between now and then), and I like the fact that his platform to initiate a systematic shut down of the federal government passes this, and all other issues, back to the state or local level, but I think that he’s wrong when it comes to how borders and immigration policy should be applied under our present reality. I agree with Stefan on this one.

    I did agree with Adam in his debate with Larken Rose over the issue of whether or not libertarians should engage in electoral politics, which I also posted here within the last few months.

    Stefan Molyneux Ends The Open Border Debate Once and For All

  133. Andy

    Here’s s survey question for all readers who call themselves libertarians: Do you favor repealing the Refugee Resettlement Act?

    Note that the Refugee Resettlement Act uses taxpayer funding to bring people to the USA from third world countries, and once here, they sign these people up for every welfare program they can get.

    Also note that if helping people were really the concern (of course there is no constitutional basis to spend taxpayer funds on something like this at all). it would be cheaper to help these people in their own countries, or countries near their own countries, which would mean that more people could be helped with the same amount of money currently being spent.

    If you agree with me, that the Refugee Resettlement Act should be repealed, congratulations, you are taking a legitimate libertarian stance on this issue. If you disagree with me and you call yourself a libertarian, you are a virtue signaling politically correct left wing cuck and you are not taking a libertarian stance on this issue.

    The Refugee Resettlement Act is a scam that is being used to bring more people into the country who, statistically speaking, will in super-majority numbers support the Marxist/globalist agenda.

  134. Anthony Dlugos

    wow, RC. The imprimatur of National Review writer George Will, on top of an already sedate and moderate disposition.

    By the time Convention 2020 rolls around. this guy is gonna be the absolute antichrist to large swaths of the LP. If Weld does win the nomination, how many of the NAPists will follow Walter Block down the rabbit hole and justify a vote for Trump?

  135. robert capozzi

    AD,

    To be fair, I thought WB only supported DJT for the R nomination, not the election, but I’m not sure about that.

    TK voted J/W in 16 out of party loyalty, iirc. But even if ALL NAPists don’t vote in 20, it probably doesn’t make a difference, statistically speaking. There just aren’t that many of them who vote.

    I believe Will resigned from the GOP last year. There’s likely a lot of Rs who’re revulsed by what DJT is doing and how he behaves.

  136. Anthony Dlugos

    “I think I like NAPist better because it has no pejorative tone to.”

    I agree. It is less pejorative. NAPist it is!

    “Back in the day, Peter Breggin, a L psychologist, posited that Conservatives were motivated by shame, Liberals by guilt, and Libertarians by anxiety.”

    That actually made me chuckle knowingly.

    “Couple this with Asperger’s tendencies toward a lack of empathy, and we are left with a psychological cocktail ill-suited for politics.”

    There is no doubt an Asperger’s tendency among many Libertarians, especially as they get more dogmatic.

    Asperger’s being defined as “characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests?” (per Wikipedia).

    No doubt about it.

  137. Anthony Dlugos

    “There’s likely a lot of Rs who’re revulsed by what DJT is doing and how he behaves.”

    No doubt. Will suggests this in the article. Trump’s disastrous family separation policy surely revulsed many, many more. Its unlikely Trump is done revulsing people, and just on immigration.

    If there is anything consistent about his political tactics, its that he will stop at nothing to secure his base, believing that will essentially be enough to avoid impeachment/get his policies enacted/secure victory.

    If the Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating another scattershot candidate like Hillary, trying to be all things to all people (as opposed to a Bill Clinton “Its the economy, stupid” centrist), there might end up being a HUGE opportunity for a guy like Weld, and there is no way he doesn’t see that. Look what Johnson was able to accomplish and he was a terrible campaigner.

  138. DJ

    Well, alrighty then. I’ll stop calling myself a libertarian since I don’t fit in a box- I’m going to call myself a Humane Human- I’m a resident of the state of Texas in the union of the United States of America- I support a more perfect union which can only occur when people respect others-
    My beliefs are: Respect is earned by showing respect which earns self-respect, one cannot exist without the other- The Golden Rule- Karma- adapt or die- utopia doesn’t exist and never will- I don’t subscribe to a Supreme Being- political parties are man made with man introduced flaws- religion and politics is a way for a few to control many- individual rights trump group think- if an Individual chooses to subscribe to a group, passively or aggressively, he loses autonomy by definition and needs to suck it up- I won’t use pejoratives to label others- I respect others opinions- I won’t force, or be forced to accept others opinion- I subscribe to free market capitalism- I know all conflict stems from forcing one’s will on another- I strive daily to leave my space a little better than I found it-

    Anyone can be a Humane Human- There is no official anything, except being born is a requirement- There is a simple common bond- do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  139. Anthony Dlugos

    “…political parties are man made with man introduced flaws- religion and politics is a way for a few to control many- individual rights trump group think- if an Individual chooses to subscribe to a group, passively or aggressively, he loses autonomy by definition and needs to suck it up…”

    Al Pacino as underhanded salesperson Ricky Roma in Glengarry Glen Ross, speaking to a customer:

    “You think you’re queer? I’m gonna tell ya something: we’re all queer. You think you’re a thief? So what? You get befuddled by a middle-class morality? Get shut of it. Shut it out. You cheat on your wife? You did it, live with it. You f–k little girls, so be it. There’s an absolute morality? Maybe. And then what? If you think there is, go ahead, be that thing. Bad people go to hell? I don’t think so. If you think that, act that way. A hell exists on earth? Yes. I won’t live in it. That’s me.”

    In other words, DJ, your attitude is perfectly acceptable. But like Ricky Roma suggests, just be that thing, 100%. Don’t rail against politics and how politics operate and then join a political party. (I don’t mean you in particular, I’m just speaking generally). As RCapozzi suggests, that creates a cognitive dissonance and becomes the basis of neurosis.

  140. DJ

    Anthony, Thanks, I am that thing (as stated) 100% to the best of my ability, but, my nature is also a bit contrarian which gives me an advantage in that regard.

    I used to say I was: The soul of an artist, the mind of an engineer and the temperament of a rattle snake-

    I’ve mellowed a little as I’ve aged- LOL

    A few years ago on another political message board I posted an essay on cognitive dissonance- LOL, man the attacks were awesome! The “libertarians” all agreed, but the conservatives were apopleptic nearly to the point of seizures- it was hilarious.

  141. robert capozzi

    AD,

    My concern is that if WW seeks the nomination, this will SO provoke the NAPists that they will mobilize and otherwise invoke numerous dilatory tactics to block his nomination. We’ll be hearing about the CFR and a couple of minor misstatements about guns in a relentless drumbeat. GJ was so amiable that it was probably more difficult for them to really energize themselves to block him. Kokesh 2020 could be the result, and that spirals the LP backwards to 1984 levels.

    The Ds are not stupid. I suspect they go with Hickenlooper or someone like him. He persuades Kasich to run with him. I wouldn’t be surprised if we are in a bad recession then. Trump’s welcome would have worn very thin by then, too, as his erratic missteps turn off all but the worst elements of the knuckle-dragging R element.

  142. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Agree on the LP situation, and the Dems.

    I think the Dems work on the principle that even a marginally better candidate in 2020 (or in 2016, for that matter), and they won’t even have to worry about Russian collusion stories.

    You’re right to be worried about the reaction Weld would provoke. Its would probably be over-the-top, and there are more than a few people who would be happily kamikaze the whole party rather than watch Weld 2020 happen.

    On the other hand, I would think Weld’s organization would be several steps above Johnson’s in terms of professionalism and political aptitude. The “anyone-but-Weld” opposition might need to show a unity they just don’t have.

  143. robert capozzi

    AD,

    From what I saw when WW ran for NY guv, I think he was a bit cavalier in his approach. He mis-calculated the NY GOP and the veto power of the Conservative Party with the GOP there. He also probably didn’t do enough due diligence of the LPNY. In some ways, I feel slightly responsible, since I didn’t tip him that the LP is far more extreme than Cato.

    He may be prone to over-confidence, thinking his big brain will figure it out on the fly. Just because he likes Hayek and has a strong resume is not enough. But since he’s actually visiting state conventions, my sense is perhaps he’s taking the temperature with greater attention.

    This lack of discipline gets him in trouble sometimes, like here: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/nyregion/ghosts-of-a-shuttered-college-follow-weld.html

    Hopefully, this one works out better: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/04/11/william-weld-john-boehner-join-advisory-board-marijuana-company/GO2xNtKf5SYixji1P3xpkM/story.html

  144. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Why do you think GJ’s staff lacked professionalism and political aptitude? I found their videos to be A/A+. They got a lot of “free” media. The events all seemed well-staged to me.

    I thought GJ needed a lot more handling and briefing was my biggest critique, said from my armchair with no real inside information. He’s not too quick on his feet, but his aw-shucks presentation could have been honed and molded better.

  145. Bondurant

    GOP successfully challenged 1,000+ signatures and the LP will not have a candidate for governor in Arizona. Turns out we have too many voters that thought they were registered independent but are actually Democrat or Republican. Too bad there’s no funds to challenge in court.

  146. Libertydave

    Andy,

    It’s so sad your letting your fear and hatred cloud your reasoning so much that you offer this lame excuse of immigrants getting welfare to justify closing the boarders.

    Do you honestly think that as a tax payer its going to cost you less to close the boarders than it is to have open boarders? And that’s just figuring the money its going to cost. Its not even figuring the freedoms you will have to give up. Are you really that stupid?

  147. William Saturn

    Regarding Hickenlooper/Kaisich:

    I cannot see the Democratic Party nominating one, much less two, white males for its 2020 presidential ticket. I’m not sure a white male will ever be the Democratic presidential nominee again (remember the last one was John Kerry in 2004). If I had to predict, I’d say Cory Booker would be the 2020 nominee. Of course, that presumes Oprah Winfrey or Michelle Obama won’t run since either of them could easily win the nomination.

    Booker is young, attractive, charismatic, and perhaps the most anti-Trump Senator.

  148. robert capozzi

    WS,

    Booker is my second choice. You may be right that the Ds are the anti-white-male party at the national level. My Hickenlooper pick is more about wanting to unseat DJT at any cost.

  149. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 21, 2018 at 22:54
    Andy,

    It’s so sad your letting your fear and hatred cloud your reasoning so much that you offer this lame excuse of immigrants getting welfare to justify closing the boarders.”

    So do you justify having locked doors on your home because if you leave your home unlocked at all times, you might get robbed at some point? If there is no need for borders, then why does anyone have locks on their doors? Why does anyone have fences around their homes? Why do some people live in gated communities or in apartment buildings or condominium complexes that are locked to non-residents? Why does anyone have security guards?

    Also, it is not just the government of the USA that has a border and has some sort of controls over who enters the country, every other country on the planet does the same thing. This is how the world is presently arranged. If the government of the USA was going to implement a policy of just let anyone waltz in with no questions asked, without changing any other policies that are currently in place, the result would be that the country would become over-flooded with 10’s or millions of people with Marxist and/or theocratic ideologies, and welfare seekers, and there’d also be lots of criminal thugs and people with communicable diseases. The result of this policy would screw this country up so much that it would be beyond the point of repair (it might already be beyond the point of repair, but if it is not, allowing unlimited numbers of foreign migrants under our present conditions would put the nail in the coffin for this country, and the outcome would not be pretty).

    I do not come to any issue positions based on fear or hatred. I base things on facts and reason. I provide facts for everything I say, and this is evidenced by the number of articles and videos I post.

    The emotional drivel is spewed by people like yourself.

  150. Libertydave

    Andy, your rant above is full of you using fear to justify your positions. You look like an idiot trying to claim that your policies of closed boarders will stop an immigration problems. Its the same claim the government made when they started the war on drugs 50 years ago when they claimed that we just needed more enforcement and all the problems associated with drugs would go away. Last I looked the drug problem is bigger than ever and all that money fighting the drug war was wasted. Closing the boarders will do nothing to stop illegal immigration just like the war on drugs did nothing to stop the use of drugs.

  151. Andy

    I am still waiting for answers to my question about whether or not the Refugee Resettlement Act, which is a government welfare program, should be repealed?

    This should be a very easy question for libertarians, who are supposed to be against government welfare programs.

    What’s the matter, afraid that your leftist buddies are going to call you a “racist” or a “xenophobe” or some other nasty name?

    How is it possibly a good thing to import welfare recipients into your country? This is basically what this program is doing. These people are brought in with taxpayer funds, and then they sign up for as many welfare programs as they can when they get here, and most of them remain unemployed for long periods of time, and many of the ones who have jobs just do menial labor, and out of the ones who work, they only work part time. Some of these people also have a high birth rate, as in they start squeezing out a bunch of kids when they get here, and due to the idiotic interpretation of Birthright citizenship, those kids are considered to be instant American citizens, and these kids suck up even more taxpayer funds.

    Have you examined the voting patterns of these people? I have posted plenty of links here to back this up, so if you are regular reader here and you don’t know this, you are intentionally ignorant, or you are in denial. They vote in super-majority numbers to increase the welfare state, increase taxes, and to pass more gun control laws.

    It is not paranoia to say that it is scary to think what this country is going to be like when more of these people start hitting the voter rolls.

  152. Andy

    “Bondurant
    June 21, 2018 at 21:07
    GOP successfully challenged 1,000+ signatures and the LP will not have a candidate for governor in Arizona. Turns out we have too many voters that thought they were registered independent but are actually Democrat or Republican. Too bad there’s no funds to challenge in court.”

    You all should have collected the signatures door-to-door with walking lists of registered voters. If you all had done this, you’d have known whether or not the person at the door was a registered voter, and whether or not they were a registered Libertarian or independent.

    Either that, or you should have had people checking the validity of the signatures before you submitted them, and when it was apparent that the validity was low, you should have collect more.

    Only being able to collect signatures from registered Libertarians and registered independents is more difficult than collecting signatures on a petition that any registered voter can sign.

  153. Andy

    “DJ
    June 21, 2018 at 08:57
    Well, alrighty then. I’ll stop calling myself a libertarian since I don’t fit in a box- I’m going to call myself a Humane Human- ”

    Is this your answer to my question about whether or not the Refugee Resettlement Act should be repealed?

    If so, how about calling yourself a leftist cuck, or a politically correct virtue signalling leftist cuck?

  154. Andy

    This is a synopsis of the video I posted above titled, “Why I’m Against Open Borders”. I did not make this video, but I think that it makes very good points.

    https://www.lessonsinliberty.net/against-open-borders/

    From the link: “The common argument for open borders is that it is in violation of the NAP to prevent an immigrant from crossing the border. Confused libertines claim that freedom of movement applies here, but, of course, there is no such thing as freedom of movement according to private property norms. In a society based on private property, there is no freedom of movement, only permissibly granted movement by property owners. Of course, you may move freely on your own property.

    Open borders libertarians miss the mark. While it may require force to stop someone from immigrating, the original act of aggression or violation of property rights was the act of the state taxing people to fund the development of public property and infrastructure.

    Because the state uses stolen resources to fund public property development and infrastructure, the state can’t possibly grant unrestricted access to public property by opening its borders. It isn’t the state’s property to give away. It isn’t unowned property or a general condition of human action, such as air.
    Whether we like it or not, public property is a means. Roads and other infrastructure are means to attaining ends. Because public property is in fact means, not a general condition, it is a scarce resource that is subject to private property norms. Because it is scarce, it can be exclusively possessed and accessed. It should be clearer now that public property is not the property of the state, or unowned property, but the property of tax victims.

    Austrian economics offers this great insight: To quote Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State, “action does not necessarily mean that the individual is ‘active’ as opposed to ‘passive,’ in the colloquial sense.” For the state to not enforce the borders is in fact action by the state. Refusing to enforce borders is just as much an action as halting immigration. Therefore, if the state were to have open borders, this would be an action constituting an unjust transfer of resources, namely public property, from victims of taxation to an unlimited number of immigrants.

    Such a proposal should be laughed at by any libertarians who understand private property rights to be the foundation of libertarianism.

    To be clear, this isn’t a consequential argument that it’s better to have closed than open borders for the sake of citizens. My argument is that open borders is logically inconsistent with libertarian ethics.
    If you still don’t agree, follow the chain of the transfer of property. Tax dollars are taken from citizens without permission, making it an illegitimate transfer. Tax dollars are invested in public infrastructure by the state. By granting unrestricted access to public infrastructure with an open border policy, the state would be unjustly inviting newcomers onto property that they do not have a claim to.

    If taxation is indeed theft, the state has no right to grant access to public property paid for by taxation.”

  155. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    June 21, 2018 at 16:02
    AD,

    Why do you think GJ’s staff lacked professionalism and political aptitude? ”

    They obviously did a lousy job prepping their candidate for interviews and debates. Either that, or Gary Johnson just really sucks, or maybe both.

  156. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “He also probably didn’t do enough due diligence of the LPNY. In some ways, I feel slightly responsible, since I didn’t tip him that the LP is far more extreme than Cato.”

    If he did not know this, then it is more evidence that he was completely unqualified to be a candidate for the Libertarian Party.

  157. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: ” Look what Johnson was able to accomplish and he was a terrible campaigner.”

    Johnson didn’t accomplish an f’ing thing beyond getting some protest votes in a year where public frustration with the major parties was at a record high, and when there was no other minor party or independent candidate in the race who was of a higher profile or who appeared on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC (Johnson was the only one with national ballot access in 2016, and most of that ballot access had little or nothing to do with anything the Johnson campaign did).

  158. Andy

    Oh, I should mention that Johnson’s other “accomplishment” was that he came off as an unprincipled buffoon on national television.

  159. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    June 21, 2018 at 12:33
    AD,

    My concern is that if WW seeks the nomination, this will SO provoke the NAPists that they will mobilize and otherwise invoke numerous dilatory tactics to block his nomination. We’ll be hearing about the CFR and a couple of minor misstatements about guns in a relentless drumbeat. GJ was so amiable that it was probably more difficult for them to really energize themselves to block him. Kokesh 2020 could be the result, and that spirals the LP backwards to 1984 levels.”

    Anyone who cares about liberty needs to declare war on Bill Weld, or anyone else like him, if they enter the race for the 2020 nomination.

    If the Libertarian Party runs a presidential ticket in 2020 like the ones that it has run since 2008. I think that at that point, it would probably be better for the cause of liberty if the party ceased to exist.

  160. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “Why do you think GJ’s staff lacked professionalism and political aptitude? I found their videos to be A/A+. They got a lot of “free” media. The events all seemed well-staged to me.”

    My comment wasn’t as much a knock on GJ’s staff (who I could certainly argue did the best they could given what they had in GJ), as much as it is a realization that GJ was, in fact, an “outsider” politician from a smaller state. I don’t want to cast aspersion, but his campaign and national network still included a lot of really inexperienced Libertarians running things.

    Weld, on the other hand, is a career politician, and a governor from a populous and economically significant state. He is going to be able to fill his staff and campaign network with far more experienced and connected professionals. That will make a difference. What it may have taken 5 calls from a Johnson staffer to someone in the media will take 1 for a Weld staffer. Keeping him out of the debates will be that much harder for the duopoly.

  161. Anthony Dlugos

    William Saturn @ June 21, 2018 at 23:13 writes:

    “Regarding Hickenlooper/Kaisich:

    I cannot see the Democratic Party nominating one, much less two, white males for its 2020 presidential ticket.”

    You might be right, but I am not so sure. Being out of power in the White House, and getting beat by a nincompoop like Trump might have the Democrats dispense with any idealistic notions of political correctness and

    “Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
    Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage;”

    In other words, the democrats might take the attitude, “nominate whoever the hell we have to, I don’t care if its two white christian males from the deep south, but we have to beat this punk into submission.”

  162. robert capozzi

    AD: Weld, on the other hand, is a career politician, and a governor from a populous and economically significant state.

    ME: Gotcha. Makes sense. I suspect that sane, monied Rs might be more willing to throw a few bucks at WW 20 than they were in 16, as in 16 DJT’s horror show was prospective, and now it’s real. Pretty much everyone thought HRC would win.

    A Hickenlooper/Kasich ticket, however, might hurt WW 20, as they are both sober and reasonably sane.

    I wonder if AJ’s apocalyptic ultimatums are a widespread sentiment among NAPists. My guess is yes among the paleo set; not so sure about the Longites.

  163. robert capozzi

    AJ: ….it would probably be better for the cause of liberty if the party ceased to exist.

    ME: Probably not the best career move for you to say this in public.

  164. DJ

    Andy: Is this your answer to my question about whether or not the Refugee Resettlement Act should be repealed?

    Me: If I answer a question directly I do it in this manner – notice how I put your name with your question.
    Notice how I put ME in retort.

    I made a statement saying I don’t fit in a box.
    Expanding on that, I’ve said since I came to this site I don’t do groups of any stripe. ALL politics is groups, just like religion, and is practiced similarly- with zealotry. I stated “I’ve mellowed with age”. That doesn’t mean I’ll take stupid comments laying down- it simply means I choose to expend energy in a different manner. Your attitude is zealotry against anyone who disagrees with you and that anyone who does can’t be a true libertarian- there in lies the rub- group think. The group removes autonomy, just like the fed gov’t does, which is more of an issue to >me< as it is a direct disrespect of the Individual- your libertarian beliefs, are based on infantile wishes- utopia will never exist with your desires of property rights- they will never garner support governmentally or politically, there are simply too many people, and that's just for starters, but a subject for another discussion, but, it leads to a what if scenario, which ALL laws are predicated on to generate revenue with no real deterrent to prevent, which is impossible, which means prevention is not possible and is authoritarian and forcing beliefs which is immoral and there is NO History of a moral high ground to stand on. Even now you're attempting to force your beliefs, albeit somewhat intellectually, with pejorative and inflammatory rhetoric which removes the intellectual- does that make you feel better? Does that make you a superior being? Does that mean you don't put your pants on one leg at a a time? I stated I am a Humane Human- the only requirement to join me is being born. There is no official grouping requirement. I stated "my" beliefs-

    No amount of pejorative or inflammatory rhetoric bullshit will change that –

  165. Anthony Dlugos

    :Expanding on that, I’ve said since I came to this site I don’t do groups of any stripe. ALL politics is groups, just like religion, and is practiced similarly- with zealotry.”

    As I noted yesterday, DJ, I certainly respect your principled decision to avoid “groups of any stripe,” seeing them all as some level of “force,” but let me just quibble with the idea that politics MUST be practiced with zealotry.

    Andy’s dogmatic lunacy is an outlier, even in Libertarian circles. Frankly, I don’t even think the benefits of liberty to the individual is what attracted him to the LP; I think it was the Gnostic dogma that he connected with. In an alternate timeline, he could easily succumb to some sort of totalitarian dogma.

    On the other hand, Johnson and Weld were hardly dogmatics, and, in an alternate timeline where they were in charge of the executive branch, I seriously doubt the family separation drama would be going on at the border. So, one can operate pragmatically and without zealotry, and accomplish good things/avoid bad…even as a Libertarian politician.

    But again, I would never insist you HAVE to join the LP, or that you can’t deliver a good voluntaryist message from outside the Party.

  166. Anthony Dlugos

    “I suspect that sane, monied Rs might be more willing to throw a few bucks at WW 20 than they were in 16, as in 16 DJT’s horror show was prospective, and now it’s real. Pretty much everyone thought HRC would win.

    A Hickenlooper/Kasich ticket, however, might hurt WW 20, as they are both sober and reasonably sane.”

    Agreed, RC, on the Trump reality show galvanizing republican opposition.

    Also, there is no doubt Weld would be much less likely than Johnson to take on a quixotic libertarian campaign if the Dems go centrist.

    “I wonder if AJ’s apocalyptic ultimatums are a widespread sentiment among NAPists.”

    Welp, we are still what, 18 months out from the 2020 convention. There is plenty of time for the NAPists to get whipped into a frenzy. If anything, Andy is just the most high-strung canary in the coalmine.

    Like you said, Governor Weld, if he decides to run, better not underestimate the existential threat he presents to a substantial portion of the party; a significant number of which would gladly torpedo the whole endeavor, by any means necessary, rather than see him win the nomination.

  167. Anthony Dlugos

    DJ @ June 20, 2018 at 15:04 writes,

    “Let’s not pretend those who oppose conservatives are angels-

    Building bridges is fine- but if they don’t meet in the middle both sides will fall off-

    I’ve been watching these leftist agitators (especially on college campuses) since the late 60’s.
    Conservatives are tired of their bullshit- can’t sat as I blame them, though both sides need to practice a little introspection.”

    DJ,

    In a strictly philosophical sense, you are right…the far left and the far right agitators are the same, repairing to the same tactics, and inflammatory rhetorical strategies.

    But there is a real-world difference, one that Noam Chomsky pointed out not long after Trump was elected and the far left-far right battle street battles started up: this country is home turf for far right reactionaries. The far left is not aware of what it is dealing with, not aware of what side the people…and therefore…”Johnny Law” will come down on If the push the issue enough.

    Push the issue, and the far left will find out quite quickly..and with extreme force…how alone they are.

    That’s why the far right is a much greater threat.

  168. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yep. I hope he doesn’t think quoting Proudhon will mollify them. Resigning from the CFR might not be a bad idea, even though I have no problem with his being a member. There are probably ways where he could adjust his message to quell at least some of the likely opposition. Someone would need to brief him on the nuances of NAPism. Maybe he should read FaNL…I suspect he’s a speed reader. Or is there a better distillation of NAPism out there?

    It’s all a tremendous energy drain, but it seems necessary if he wants to use the LP as a vehicle to offer the nation a lessarchist alternative.

    Were I advising him, I’d start by suggesting that NAPism is, in effect, a quasi-religion, a kind of quirky cult. Once he gets that, he can develop a message that somewhat subdues their hyper-zealous reactions.

    I suspect, though, that the AJ and DWPs of the world will still mount a titanic battle, an out-and-out jihad, no matter what. If they can be isolated, however, their attacks can be more easily disregarded.

  169. robert capozzi

    TK on FB

    >Frankly, I think that presidential voting should have been suspended so that James [Weeks] could have been nominated instead of Johnson.<

    Leading representative of Longite NAPism.

  170. DJ

    RC: It’s all a tremendous energy drain, but it seems necessary if he wants to use the LP as a vehicle to offer the nation a lessarchist alternative.

    Me: We posted the same thing

    Can this libertarian restore conservatism?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/can-this-libertarian-restore-conservatism/ar-AAyVClJ

    That’s not my headline- so, Libertarians are already being called Conservatives by the press.

    That said, as a former, red-eyed, died in the wool, pick-up driving, jeans and boots wearing Texas Republican who “looked” at the policy differences in the 2 party’s and saw not a dimes worth of difference- that he is already being questioned on his ability to “save conservatism”, which is the neo-liberal planks of the early 60’s which both Party’s subscribe to and being a Republican insider of some status I seriously doubt he’d offer anything other than a “ride” on his “vehicle” of choice which “might” give name recognition to the Libertarian Party as a “conservative” movement and would most certainly be played that way in the press since the press is by and large leftist in it’s reporting (including talking head wanna be celebrities) so they will paint him, rightly or not, in a bad light, i.e., conservative-

    As a former (hopefully?) Republican insider he will be loyal to that- he has to it’s ingrained and is really no different than “liberal” insiders-

    They ALL use “issues” to sell their bullshit, but, at the end of the day, it still stinks- it’s not issues that matter, it’s policy- and the policy subscribed to that matters most is monetary as it funds the “issues” and “policy”-

    All voters have to go on is the history of who they’re voting for- what is his history? Conservative. In today’s vernacular – neocon, which is no different the the neo-liberal policy beliefs of the early 60’s- Imperialism through hegemony- and he will stay the course. If you don’t believe that, ask JFK.

    A lack of “purity”, for lack of a better word, will lead to a lack of purity in a monkey see monkey do world- look at the Tea Party for recent history- hi-jacked by conservatives. Neocons and those elected under that banner (with maybe an exception or two as there are exceptions to every rule) have turned tail and caved. And while I don’t believe in a “purity” test I will use history ( as will any knowledgeable caring voter) and the big picture effect. His history is conservative. Will it gain him votes? Perhaps. But it will also paint him as a Libertarian which will require a lot of energy while spreading animosity even further to differentiate from conservative-

    I don’t have an answer as everyone is looking for instant gratification- I do know that instant gratification makes the joy fleeting, and short lived.

  171. robert capozzi

    TK or PF,

    I’m listening to a Scott Adams podcast, and he said he’d like to interview a person who is in favor of “open borders.” IIRC, both of you do, so you might reach out to him to explain that position.

  172. DJ

    AD: That’s why the far right is a much greater threat.

    Me: Much greater threat to who? The far left. The agitators from both sides are totalitarian and at some point will eat their own- I suspect you’re right about they don’t know what they’re dealing with- think the ME and the US for evidence. People will fight for what they believe in- and many will pay an ultimate price, innocent and guilty alike though the innocent pay a far higher price- that’s been true since forever.

    AD: On the other hand, Johnson and Weld were hardly dogmatics, and, in an alternate timeline where they were in charge of the executive branch, I seriously doubt the family separation drama would be going on at the border. So, one can operate pragmatically and without zealotry, and accomplish good things/avoid bad…even as a Libertarian politician.

    Me: The problem, as I see it I explained to Robert-

    The borders crap is just that- it provides smoke and mirrors for the media to play with to distract from whatever cause de jour they embrace- today. And you can bet the media will be anti-anything even remotely conservative- it’s in their nature and probably what they’re taught to do- dogmatically.

    This is much more than a political fight- and the zealotry will “bleed” over before it’s all said and done- there is no time line assigned- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- it can’t be stopped- so I’ll tell y’all the same things I tell my sons (one early 30’s one moving into late 30’s)

    Live your life the way you want to as best you can given the circumstances you find yourself in- make the most of every day and strive to leave your space a little better than you found it- happy comes from with in- don’t let anybody steal your joy regardless of their title-

    Philosophical? Perhaps. But effective. Be the change you want to see. The only person you can change is yourself. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure- education is merely passing on knowledge and knowledge is not biased in its origin, it can manifest itself in ways unimaginable. Knowledge evolves, Truth is constant

    “There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.”
    ? Alexis de Tocqueville

  173. Andy

    Robert, if the Libertarian Party turns into the party of Bill Weld (as in if Weld, and people like him, become the new norm in the LP), then I will no longer have interest in the Libertarian Party. The party at that point would be a Libertarian In Name Only (LINO) party. The party at that point would be detrimental to the cause of liberty.

    If I wanted to be a part of a party that was dominated by Bill Weld types, I would go become a mainstream Republican or Democrat.

  174. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    You make sense… for you. I completely respect that. As we say in the ‘hood, “I’m gonna do me. Y’all do y’all.”

  175. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “Were I advising him, I’d start by suggesting that NAPism is, in effect, a quasi-religion, a kind of quirky cult. Once he gets that, he can develop a message that somewhat subdues their hyper-zealous reactions.“

    I think that is an excellent starting point.

    A) demonstrates to him how serious the NAPists take the dogma. (I don’t care how many times he would tell him he “gets it.” Until he secures the nomination, I would impress upon him he doesn’t. And, frankly, that would be good advice; unless someone spends significant time knee-deep in libertarian politics, they won’t get it.)

    B) prepares him for the inevitable hyperbolic response to deviation from dogma (also inevitable). The worst thing he could do is dismiss it as completely irrelevant in the current political milieu (which many times it is). i.e., if someone asks him during the campaign about private nukes, assume they’re serious).

    One tactic I would suggest is something Governor Johnson periodically did: just admit he has a lot turn learn about libertarianism, and he hopes the particular interlocutor can teach him. If it’s a private nuke-type question, turn it around and ask the NAPist what he thinks, then let him/her pontificate. Then thank them for their time. The NAPist itches for the debate, and incessantly so. Don’t give them the opening. Winning elections are unimportant to them, winning the debate is what matters.

  176. Andy

    If a person still has a lot to learn about libertarianism, this says that they are not qualified to be a Libertarian Party candidate, particularly for the highest level and highest profile office (ie-President).

  177. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Not crazy about “a lot to learn,” either. Perhaps a better way to address out-there questions is to frame that as “an interesting theoretical question. My campaign will focus on what libertarian steps that can be taken in the NEAR TERM to repair our inalienable rights. The BEST way to win support for our cause is to offer sensible ways to shrink government’s grip on our lives during the next four years. That’s the job I’m applying for.”

    Or something.

    Do you think that resigning from the CFR would be helpful?

    btw, one thing WW said in 16 really got me thinking. He reacted to DJT’s off-hand comment that the US should just give nukes to SK and Japan as a means to extricate from SEATO. As a former NAPist, I resonated with that idea.

    WW made a great point, IIRC. Such a transfer would be highly provocative toward China. I’m not sure what the “right” answer is, but that’s a very practical concern. I’d love to see the US out of SK and Japan, but HOW it’s done is just as important as the intentions.

  178. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Do you think that resigning from the CFR would be helpful?”

    Bill Weld is already a proven liar and an establishment shill, and he’s been a member of the CFR for a long time. If he resigned at this point it would be obvious that it was for show.

    It is really pathetic that anyone is taking this clown seriously.

  179. Andy

    This video shows an interesting contrast, as it features Lauren Southern commenting on an interview/debate she had with Ali Dawah, who is a Muslim migrant in the United Kingdom who was born in Turkey.

    Who do you think would make a better immigrant to the USA, Lauren, who is from Canada, or Ali Dawah, a Muslim Turk now living in the United Kingdom?

    Now I will give Ali Dawah credit for having a good command of the English language, and to my knowledge, he does not have a criminal record, but who is more culturally compatible with the USA, Ali Dawah or Lauren Southern?

    Keep in mind that Lauren was active in the Libertarian Party of Canada at one time, and she even ran for office as a Libertarian Party candidate.

    If Lauren wanted to immigrate to the USA, I’d be all in favor of her immigrating here. She’d be a model immigrant. Lauren would be an example of the type of person who should be immigrating to the USA.

    I would not want Ali Dawah as an immigrant. Why? Because he obviously does not believe in freedom, and is not compatible with American culture. I would not have a problem with Ali Dawah coming to the USA on vacation, or maybe even coming here on a business or work trip, but I would not really want him staying here and becoming an American citizen.

    I’d be willing to be that if a survey was taken among Americans, of who they’d want as an immigrant between Lauren Southern and Alli Dawah, that Lauren would win in a landslide.

    Some people may say that who immigrates where should not be a political issue. My response to this is that as long as the state exists, immigration is going to be a political issue. We don’t live in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, we live in a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property/infrastructure. If we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, who immigrates to where would be up to private property owners, and that would be the end of it, but this in not the condition under which we live.

    If I were able to start a private city, like described in my Libertarian Zone concept, Lauren Southern would be on my invite list to move there. Ali Dawah would not. If Ali Dawah went out and proved himself as a libertarian activist, I might change my mind, but I doubt that’s going to happen.

    If anyone reading this can’t see why Lauren Southern would be a better immigrant to the USA than Ali Dawah, you are either intellectually dishonest, or you are a moron.

    Lauren Southern: The Truth About Ali Dawah

  180. Andy

    Here’s Lauren giving a speech on the importance of freedom of speech, something which Ali Dawah obviously does not support, from Anarchapulco 2017.

    Lauren Southern Great Speech At Anarchapulco 2017

  181. Andy

    Gotta love a hot girl that’s into the right to keep and bear arms.

    Statistics show that a super-majority of modern day immigrants to the USA do not support the right to keep and bear arms. If Lauren immigrated here, she’d support the 2nd amendment.

    Shooting (and talking) guns with Lauren Southern

  182. Andy

    Lauren Southern Destroys Another Irrational Emotional Walking Dead Democrat Over The 2nd Amendment

  183. Andy

    This interview conducted by Josh Sigurson is from August of 2015.

    I think that I’ve posted ample evidence to back up my assertion that Lauren would be an excellent immigrant to the USA, or to a hypothetical libertarian community, like my Libertarian Zone concept.

    Lauren Southern on Slutwalk Controversy, Her Political Development & The Message of Liberty

  184. Andy

    Another excellent presentation from Stefan Molyneux. I don’t see how anyone could watch this and still think that the current mass immigration is a good thing, and has something to do with liberty.

    Stefan Molyneux: The Truth About America’s Population Replacement

  185. Andy

    “Andy’s dogmatic lunacy is an outlier, even in Libertarian circles. Frankly, I don’t even think the benefits of liberty to the individual is what attracted him to the LP; I think it was the Gnostic dogma that he connected with. In an alternate timeline, he could easily succumb to some sort of totalitarian dogma.”

    How do you know this? I have always been a freedom oriented person. I will say that I did not always hold libertarian views across the board, but that was more because of a lack of knowledge and going through the same indoctrination as everyone else. I always supported free speech. I was mostly pro-gun rights except for a period of maybe around a year or two where I went to the gun control side, but I snapped out of it pretty quickly, and this was before I ever voted. I supported a strong national defense, but I did question why the US military was getting involved in conflicts around the world when the US was not threatened years before I found out what about the Libertarian Party. I was sympathetic to some government welfare programs at one time, but I started to turn against it when I saw people abusing the system, and after I found out that Social Security was a scam.

    I had some family members who were Democrats, so I identified as a Democrat at one time, but before I got to the point where I was going to vote I started questioning more things, including whether or not I should be a Democrat, and it did not take me long to figure out that the Democrats were full of shit. I had been skeptical about Republicans, but I decided to give them a chance anyway, however, it did not take me long to figure out that they were just as full of shit as the Democrats. So then I became an independent, and I was intending to vote for Ross Perot, who I thought raised a lot of good points, but me backing Ross Perot got derailed after I stumbled upon Harry Browne and the Libertarian Party.

    I had basically already come to a lot of libertarian conclusions on my own before I found out about Harry Browne and the LP, but Harry Browne filled in some of the puzzle pieces for me. I had supported the War on Drugs at one time, because I had heard all of the War on Drugs propaganda back in the 1980’s, but I had even started questioning the War on Drugs before I found out about the LP, even though I was not into using drugs myself. I just started to think that if a person is using drugs, but they are not hurting anyone else, that it did not make much sense for the government to come and arrest them. So I had basically already become a libertarian before I knew what a libertarian was. I did not know as much back then, but I had already figured out a lot of the basics on my own.

    Even as a kid in elementary school I noticed that there were some kids who I called “Little Hitlers,” or “Little Tyrants/Dictators,” or “Junior Tyrants/Dictarors,” who’d manipulate people, and surround themselves with other kids, and as a group that they’d act as bullies. I used to think why mess with other people if they are not messing with you.

    So contrary for your assertion, I’d say that I was a natural for the libertarian movement.

    “On the other hand, Johnson and Weld were hardly dogmatics, and, in an alternate timeline where they were in charge of the executive branch,”

    I do not think that we’d be any better off if Johnson/Weld had won the presidential election. We’d probably be worse off it anything, because Johnson/Weld as President and Vice President, or President and Co-President, as Johnson said Weld would be like his Co-President if elected, which is a scary thought, I think that they would permanently discredit the Libertarian Party and movement.

  186. Paul

    As far as I can tell, there are two types of people who are attracted to things like the libertarian party:

    Those who want universal liberation.
    Those who want extra freedoms or entitlements for themselves, and often their race, ethnic group, religion, tribe, or whatever – sometimes at the expense of others.

    I think Andy could be described as the latter, seeking the government to infringe on people he deems unacceptable for whatever reason. But within that framework of oppression for specific other people, I’m quite certain he desires greater liberty. He’s by no means an outlier in this regard, especially within the Libertarian Party.

  187. Andy

    “Paul
    June 22, 2018 at 23:02
    As far as I can tell, there are two types of people who are attracted to things like the libertarian party:

    Those who want universal liberation.
    Those who want extra freedoms or entitlements for themselves, and often their race, ethnic group, religion, tribe, or whatever – sometimes at the expense of others.

    I think Andy could be described as the latter, seeking the government to infringe on people he deems unacceptable for whatever reason. But within that framework of oppression for specific other people, I’m quite certain he desires greater liberty. He’s by no means an outlier in this regard, especially within the Libertarian Party.”

    You are totally wrong. I want more freedom for everyone on the planet. I would like to see everyone adopt libertarian principles.

    I have always stood in favor of more freedom for everyone.

    My objecting to some people entering the same country or land territory as where I am does not mean that I do not want those people to be free, or to embrace libertarian principles. I do not believe that everyone holds libertarian views. I wish that they did, but that is not reality. Furthermore, property rights does not mean that anyone can go anywhere. Property rights means the right to exclude. Saying that anyone can go anywhere implies that there is no such thing as property rights, which would mean that I’d have the “right” to move into your backyard without your consent, or that I have the “right” to walk into a condominium complex where I do not live, and start using the pool, or other common spaces set up for the members of the condominium complex, both of which would be contrary to property rights.

    Since I believe in property rights and the Non-Aggression Principle, I think that the ultimate goal for society is private property anarcho-capitalism. Do I believe that everyone on the planet is going to embrace this concept? Years of activism and observing current events and studying history has me skeptical of this. It would be a great to see a paradigm shift in human thinking across the planet where all people embrace the principles of liberty, but I put this in the I’ll see it when I believe it category.

    So given that much of humankind does not embrace the principles of liberty, I think that the best we may see are pockets of liberty, like perhaps with Liberland, or the Liberstad project in Norway, or with Roger Ver’s Free Society project, or with the Free State Project in New Hampshire.

    I do not automatically dislike anyone just because they are from another country, and I’m sure you can find some good, freedom loving people in every country in the world. I just do not believe that declaring “open borders” (which leads to forced association, and is still a statist policy as long as the state is in place) and allowing for unlimited immigration under our current context is a workable policy (unless one means working toward disaster), nor do I believe that it is consistent with property norms, because it implies that everyone on the planet has a “right” to the property and infrastructure of a country. I do not believe that coercive government is a legitimate concept, but being that this is how the world is presently arranged, I do not consider all functions that have been handed over, or taken over, by the state are illegitimate, as in just because the state is performing a function, it does not automatically invalidate the function. If the state arrests and prosecutes a murderer or puts out a fire or paves a road, these are all functions for which there’d still be a demand for in an anarcho-capitalist society. The same goes with regulating migration/defending borders. There’d still be a demand for this in an anarcho-capitalist society, it would just be that the demand came from private property owners, and the demand would be met with private security guards and/or private walls/fences and/or armed property owners. So while the state exists, I do not think that it is unreasonable, or in violation of any libertarian principles, to say that its immigration policy should not invite in or reward destructive migrants, nor should it overwhelm the existing population by bringing in so many migrants that it threatens or displaces the existing population. If we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society, I’d bet that this would be the kind of policy that all, or most, land owners would want.

  188. Andy

    Who have I asked the government to infringe upon? I have consistently stood against acts of military imperialism. I have consistently stood in favor of everyone’s right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. I have said that while the state exists, all American citizens should be treated equally under the law, and should have the same access to taxpayer funded commons and infrastructure. I said that gays should be able to get state marriage licenses, even though I don’t really believe in state marriage licenses, although I do not believe that they have the right to force bakeshop owners to bake cakes for them (unless it is a taxpayer funded bakeshop), nor do I think that people who rent out halls should be forced to rent them out for gay weddings (unless it is some kind of taxpayer funded venue, like say a government owned convention center).

    I have no problem with freedom loving, productive, lawful foreign migrants. Just because I have called for shutting some people who are destructive out (or not inviting them), and for physically removing destructive migrants, does not mean that I am against all migrants.

    Why did I say lawful? Laws should not matter, because they are politician scribbles on paper, right? The reason I said this is because this is the world in which we live, as in every country has a government, and every government has some kind of border and migration policy in place, as in there is no place where you can just waltz in with no questions asked (you could sneak in most places, but if you get caught, you will be questioned, and you may get deported). Land and infrastructure is a scarce resource, and is subject to property norms. Acting as though everyone on the planet is entitled to use the land and infrastructure everywhere implies that there are no property rights. Competition for scarce resources leads to conflict.

    This gets into crazy scenarios, such as when I presented the hypothetical of do 1 million Italians or 1 million Russians have the right to move to Iceland, a small island nation with a population of about 350,000, and do they have this right even if all, or most, of the people of Iceland object to it. I would say that the Icelandic people own Iceland, and it is up to them to make the decision of who to allow into their country and under what terms. Since Iceland, like every other country in the world, is arranged under a coercive government, that is how the decision is going to be made, and that is all there is to it until the institution of coercive government is abolished. Even if Iceland operated as a privater property volunataryist society, they would still have to have some kind of group decision when it came to entrance policies. Perhaps some sections of Iceland would allow lots of migrants, and others would put up walls and shut the migrants out. Most people do not mind having some foreigners around, but most people also like their culture and don’t want to see it get overwhelmed and replaced by another culture.

  189. Andy

    “Who have I asked the government to infringe upon?”

    If somebody answers this question by claiming that I’ve asked the government to infringe upon immigrants, that is a bunch of crap. I have never said that there should be no immigrants, nor have I ever said that all immigrants are bad. I do not believe that there is any “right” to move onto property that is already occupied by other people, and the fact that the world is presently arranged into states does not erase this. Not inviting, or blocking, or physically removing destructive migrants is not a rights violation. It is retaliation. Yes, it would be better if free market alternatives to this existed, but the same could be said for roads or firefighting or criminal justice, as well as any other function that the state monopolizes. Given that no such alternative exists, we are stuck with what is currently in place until somebody replaces the current system with a free market alternative system. Like I said above, many of the functions that the state currently performs would still exist in an anarcho-capitalist society because they’d still be in demand.

  190. Andy

    Another point here on this issue is how tolerant is the culture from which All Dawah hails. His culture is not exactly known for tolerance, or equal rights for women and gays, or for supporting freedom of speech.

    Why is it that only Americans, and other European based countries, are supposed to open their borders up to anyone on the planet, and allow for anyone to enter regardless of their ideology, and to start exploiting taxpayer funded resources/programs, and to be able to gain influence/political power in their system of government?

    India is not doing this. China is not doing this. Japan is not doing this. Israel is not doing this. Mexico is not doing this.

    How come nobody is chasting these other countries for being “racist” or “xenophobic” for not allowing just anyone to waltz in and use their resources with no questions asked?

  191. Paul

    Anyone notice that Darcy Richardson is running for governor on the Reform ticket in Florida? With Rocky running for Senate as a Republican, is this a setup for a 2020 presidential run?

  192. Andy

    I have heard that Rocky de la Fuente is on the ballot in 5 or 6 states for US Senate in Republican primaries.

  193. Libertydave

    So Andy goes off on one of his bigoted tirades against Muslims and Immigrants again.

    Andy claim that what his Idea of a libertarian world is, that land owners are the only people who are truly free and that anyone who doens’t own land are slaves to those who do.

    After all if we don’t have the right to travel and land owners have complete control over their property then what are you going to do if the land owner suddenly decides your trespassing and according to Andy, land owners can use guns to defend their land against trespassers.

    There is no such thing as free trade in Andy’s world either because if you don’t like the land owners deal what are you going to do go somewhere else, remember in Andy world you don’t have the right to travel.

    You know, I think they have done what Andy believes, they called it feudalism and it was the norm during the dark ages.

  194. DJ

    Andy, you make some good valid points then you go off the rails- comparing apples to oranges (Canadian vs Turk) is off the rails and apples to oranges. Canadians have more and better access to our beliefs (and laws) from a much younger age- other countries with the exception of Mexico don’t. Comparing the US to other countries doesn’t equate since the US was founded in deference and opposition to other countries. Other countries are mostly one ethnicity, or culture, creating a tribal effect and claimed borders, mostly on geographical boundaries, to prevent other ethnic/cultural customs from influencing or taking over- the US custom, which makes the US exceptional (allegedly) is the rule of law giving ALL who come here the right to equal treatment by the law- there was no caveat, no ethnic requirement, no custom requirement, no tradition requirement- the US was founded to stop a tyrannical gov’t from oppressing Natural Rights- the Bill of Rights makes explicit that which is NOT to be challenged by the gov’t. . The constitution was drafted with explicit authority granted- it says nothing about ‘except when’ .

    You desire/belief about property rights is a little far fetched and not really applicable except anecdotally- because, as you say, it’s the world we live in- property rights as you envision will NEVER happen in any scenario because human nature won’t abide by it. So, a law is made- ALL laws open at least 4 doors of corruption, arbitrary, or favored enforcement the most obvious if not the most egregious-

    However, as a human you do have a choice- adapt, or die. Humans are pretty good at adapting to good or bad and both are subjective- however, so is corruption adaptable and also more honorable to fight against vs migrants, regardless of their origin or perceived flaws.

    No problem is solved if the root of the problem isn’t acknowledged. Band aids on bleeding arteries will slow the bleeding but won’t stop it- the problem isn’t the migrant- the problem is the corruption- being a feeling human with compassion isn’t a bad thing-

  195. Andy

    LibertyDave, where did I say that my ideal world is one in which only land owners would have freedom? I never said this. if an anarcho-capitalist society existed, who is to say that everyone would not be a land owner? Owning lamd would be a lot easier in a world with no taxes.

    Also, ever hear of condominiums and gated communities? These places have commons and facilities that are for the use of the people who live there, and they have rules regarding a peeson who lives there bringing in guests.

    It sounds to me like LibertyDave has not done a lot of homework into anarcho-capitalism. Do some homework and then get back to me.

  196. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    “GOP successfully challenged 1,000+ signatures and the LP will not have a candidate for governor in Arizona. ”

    This is good news for liberty in Arizona, because the LP candidate for Governor was actually proposing new taxes to fund government schools, and was committed to taking government campaign funding. Kevin was no Libertarian, and we’re better off not having him representing a tax-&-spend campaign as somehow resembling libertarianism. The Arizona LP needs to have a couple come-to-Jesus discussions about (1) how they obtain petition signatures, and (2) a vetting process for potential candidates so that we don’t suffer the embarrassment of having Libertarian candidates such as this guy.

  197. Libertydave

    Andy, you remind me of the hard core drug warriors who tried to claim that if we legalize drugs then everyone will become drug addicts.

    That claim is no more true than your claim that if we open the boarders then we will be flooded with criminals.

    Both of these claims are gross exaggeration of what might happen and people who use these claims are pushing solutions that won’t solve the problems they claim they will.

    Banning drugs hasn’t stopped people becoming addicted to drugs and closing the boarder won’t stop criminals from crossing boarders.

    Andy, It looks like its you who doesn’t understand how the world works.

  198. Bondurant

    How can there be a vetting process? Anyone can run. Two candidates stepped up and directed their own petitioning campaigns. Neither was an ideal candidate. I wouldn’t have voted for either. That’s not the issue. The issue is ballot rigging by the AZGOP. The challenge was contentious and probably bullshit given how corrupt AZ is. But they knew a LP candidate could not endure the lawsuit financially so they get away with this bullshit.

  199. Paul

    McCormick isn’t the most radical, but he seemed pretty clear in wanting to cut state taxes and spending.

  200. Paul

    I know he was trying to, but was he actually successful? I’m sure he was taxed for it, regardless.

  201. DJ

    I and many others lost an acquaintance- I was watching on live stream through dirtvision- the absolute worse crash I’ve ever seen- he was a very respected man who definitely left his space better than he found it- he died doing what he loved which few can attest to- RIP #41 Jason Johnson aka The Ragin’ Cajun- my heart breaks for his wife who lost her fiance to a sprint car crash before Jason came into her life. What little interaction I had with her she’s an angel-

    the link is a great obituary.

    Jason Johnson Succumbs Following Crash At Beaver Dam

    https://speedsport.com/sprints-midgets/world-of-outlaws-sprint-cars/johnson-succumbs-crash-beaver-dam/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *