June 2018 Open Thread

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

392 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/

  202. Anastasia Beaverhausen

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

    Ducey says the same thing, so why bother voting for a Libertarian, especially when Ducey is refusing the government campaign financing! At least Ducey had principles in that regard where the “Libertarian” didn’t have any.

    The other candidate attempting to run as a Libertarian took ill right at the end so didn’t submit his petitions, but he was preferable to Kevin the Republican-Lite (who was endorsed by Bill Weld, so that’s all the clue you need that the candidacy was a disaster for freedom).

  203. Chuck Moulton

    Yet again I’ve scanned though comments and found only Andy bigotry. This site has really gone downhill.

    Andy seems obsessed with this Lauren Southern person. I’d advise a restraining order.

    I think Andy is the Eric Dondero of the LP. Eric would insist that all libertarians should be pro-war. Andy insists that all libertarians should be anti-immigrant. Both positions are incompatible with libertarianism.

  204. Andy

    Chuck. Moulton is obviously an idiot. Hey Chuck, instead of making claims of my supposed “bigotry,” how about making an actual argument that refutes anything that I said? What point did I get wrong? Show some facts.

    Calling somebody a “bigot” (of which i am not) is not an argument.

    I am in Philadelphia right now, and i will be in New Orleans next weekend, and I will have my video camera with me, so if you think I am wrong about something and you are too lazy to type an actual rebuttal, then i will debate you in person and I will post the video online.

  205. Paul

    Andy, I think his intent was to be descriptive, not insulting. What would a better descriptor be for a person who advocates against the rights of certain groups based on irrational fears and prejudice?

    Can we at least agree on that definition?

  206. Bondurant

    @Anastasia

    The “other candidate” wanted to place censors along the border that would create the sensation of burning skin to deter immigration. No joke. He also endorsed Republicans running against Libertarians in ’14 because he was duped into believing Bolick’s wife would endorse him in return.

  207. robert capozzi

    aj: Chuck. Moulton is obviously an idiot.

    me: This lacks credibility. CM’s obviously extremely bright and well-educated.

    You also seem obsessed with Southern to me as well, btw.

    OTOH, CM’s post is not his finest. It’s a visceral attack on you with no real substance.

  208. Andy

    Chuck did not make an argument. Chuck did not refute anything that I said. He claimed that I am a “bigot” for daring to question the policy of mass immigration into a democratic welfare state with forced association laws and lots of public property/infrastructure, as if these conditions are somehow reflective of what immigration would look like in an anarcho-capitalist society, when they are not.

    If I am really such a horrible “bigot” as Chuck claims, why did I endorse Chinese-American immigrant Lily Tang for US Senate? Why did I endorse Nickolas Wildstar and Larry Sharpe in their runs for Governor? I waa a delegate at the LP of CA State Convention, and I support Nickolas Wildstar, who is black, over Zoltan Istvan, who is white.

    I’d be willing to bet that I have done a he’ll of a lot more libertarian outreach to diverse groups of people than Chuck has.

    I put out an open challenge to Chuck or anyone else to debate me in person and on video. I am in Pennsylvania right now, and I will be in New Orleans starting next weekend. If Chuck or anyone else thinks I am wrong about something, I will have my video camera with me, and I will debate anyone in person, and I will post the video online.

    Put up or shut up.

  209. Andy

    Paul, I have not argued against anyone’s rights. There is no right to move onto land that is already occupied by other people. Also, it is a fact that a lot of these foreign migrants were drawn to come here by the lure of government welfare programs, and that some even came in as a part of a government welfare program (see my comments above about the Refugee Resettlement Act). I thought libertarians opposed government welfare programs.

  210. Andy

    I posted a few videos, something which lots of people have done on various internet forums, and that merits a restraining order. That is pretty idiotic. I have posted a lot more videos from Stefan Molyneux and Tom Woods and Alex Jones and Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh, to name just a few. Should they all get restraining orders? I have in thr past posted videos from other female political commentators, such as Julie Borowski and Carey Wedler and Millie Weaver, to name a few, so should they get restraining orders as well?

    Hey Chuck, just because you are a wacko, it does not mean that everyone else is. Chuck is projecting. I have heard some stories about Chuck by some Libertarians in the Philadelphia and Montco (Montgomery County, PA) area that do not paint him in the most flattering light.

  211. Libertydave

    Andy, you just ignore the facts then spew your bigoted lies over and over. So what good will it do to debate you. Debate implies reasonable dialog. You ignoring what other people say and repeating the same bigoted lies in not debating.

  212. Andy

    I met Carey Welder at Anarchapulco, well, I actually met her on the flight to Los Angeles on the way back from Anarchapulco. She just happened to have stuff in an overhead bin that was over where I was sitting and she came over to get it and I said, “Hey, are you Carey Welder?” She said yes and we spoke for a couple of minutes. She seemed nice. I told her that I like her videos, and that I had posted them to several different websites and emailed them to people. She thanked me for doing that. It is a good thing that she did not have some overreacting feminazi attitude like Cuck Moulton.

    Here is just one IPR thread where I posted one of Carey’s videos.

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/11/starchild-to-electoral-college-members-please-save-us-from-donald-trump/

  213. Paul

    Andy, there is indeed a natural right to travel across imaginary lines drawn by kings.

  214. robert capozzi

    P: …there is indeed a natural right to travel across imaginary lines drawn by kings.

    ME: Where is this alleged “natural right”? Show us.

    Having some familiarlity with this concept, I’d submit that “natural rights” are also “imaginary.” As a sentiment, I’m generally sympathetic to the concept, but it is by all indications a construct.

  215. DJ

    RC: Having some familiarlity with this concept, I’d submit that “natural rights” are also “imaginary.”

    Me: People breathe, therefore they are- it’s called living- sympathy is not required, only respect for others actions that don’t coincide with your desires, or constructs. It’s called choice-

  216. Andy

    Oh my gosh, I am posting another Stefan Molyneux video! Stefan better get a restraining order on me.

    Oh my gosh, Stefan must be a “bigot” because he’s exposing that the story told about the “separated child” controversy as reported by Time Magazine is not true.

    Video description from YouTube: “The young Honduran girl who became the face of the family separation crisis due to the recent Time Magazine cover was never separated from her mother – and the actual facts are far different than the intended propaganda. Stefan Molyneux breaks down the reality of the emotional propaganda promoted by Time Magazine and the rest of the open-border political establishment.”

    Shock! Everything About Time’s Crying “Separated Child” Poster Girl Was Lies And Propaganda!

  217. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 25, 2018 at 02:14
    Andy, you just ignore the facts then spew your bigoted lies over and over. So what good will it do to debate you. Debate implies reasonable dialog. You ignoring what other people say and repeating the same bigoted lies in not debating.”

    So says one of the people who ignored every point I posted and every question I raised above.

    Tell me what facts I ignored.

  218. Andy

    I posted this synopsis of a video I posted above that is titled, “Why I’m Against Open Borders,”: and I’d like to see anyone try to rebut the argument presented here. I am not the person who came out with the video or this synopsis, but I agree with the argument it presents.

    Let’s see if anyone can make an actual rebuttal to this, or if people run away or engage in name calling like intellectual cowards.

    “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.”

  219. Anthony Dlugos

    “Stefan is a well known bigot.”

    So is Andy.

    Well, he’s a known bigot. Don’t know about well known, though.

  220. Andy

    :Paul
    June 25, 2018 at 12:36
    Andy,

    Stefan is a well known bigot.”

    That’s not an argument, as Stefan Molyeux is fond of saying.

  221. Andy

    Excellent video from libertarian rapper/singer from the band Backwordz, Eric July.

    Watch this video and see if you can find fault with anything that Eric July says here.

    Eric July: Immigration & the libertarian Position

  222. paulie

    libertarian rapper/singer from the band Backwordz, Eric July.

    It’s a matter of opinion that he is a “libertarian.” My opinion is that he is not. He says nazis can be libertarians, and I say anyone who believes that does not understand what libertarianism is.

    Watch this video

    No thanks.

    and see if you can find fault with anything that Eric July says here.

    I’m sure I could, but not sure why I should take the time.

  223. paulie

    Stefan is a well known bigot.”

    That’s not an argument, as Stefan Molyeux is fond of saying.

    It’s not an argument, it’s a fact.

  224. paulie

    Let’s see if anyone can make an actual rebuttal to this

    Been there, done that. Why should the burden be on me to continuously repost rebuttals when you just keep posting the same garbage endlessly?

  225. paulie

    feminazi attitude like Cuck

    Andy now uses all the alt right buzzwords, including posting the neonazi Bob Whitaker’s mantra in his own words. Way to demonstrate not being a bigot.

  226. paulie

    Oh my gosh, I just did a quick search and I found this old IPR thread from 2013 where I posted two videos from Julie Borowski.

    So you repost videos from other right wing paleo Republicans besides the one you are obsessed with? Congratulations.

  227. paulie

    Andy, you just ignore the facts then spew your bigoted lies over and over. So what good will it do to debate you. Debate implies reasonable dialog. You ignoring what other people say and repeating the same bigoted lies in not debating.

    Exactly.

  228. paulie

    I have posted a lot more videos from Stefan Molyneux and Tom Woods and Alex Jones and Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh

    So, you’re just a vector for spreading the diseased propaganda of the paleo/alt right. Congratulations.

  229. paulie

    There is no right to move onto land that is already occupied by other people.

    Tell that to ICE, Border Patrol, et al. It would sure be news to them.

  230. paulie

    Also, it is a fact that a lot of these foreign migrants were drawn to come here by the lure of government welfare programs,

    No, it’s not a fact, it’s propaganda you keep repeating. A lot of immigrants get *temporary* government help when trying to start a new life. They generally go on to get education and professional licenses, get jobs (including jobs native born Americans don’t want), work hard, advance in their careers, start businesses, employ other people, and on the whole get less welfare than native born Americans; something you would know if you read the links I posted in many past threads, yet you keep repeating the same twisted propaganda originating from well known racists. Hmmmm.

    In fact the only time your fucked up sources don’t ignore the fact that immigrants generally work hard is when they are busy accusing them of “taking” jobs from native born Americans, due to a poor understanding of economics and the simple fact that the economic pie is not of a fixed size.

  231. Anthony Dlugos

    “Andy now uses all the alt right buzzwords…”

    I noticed that too.

    I would have thought it impossible at this point to be disappointed in any of Andy’s incessant biogted, racist blathering, but that did it.

    Congrats, Andy, you are now alt right.

  232. paulie

    If I am really such a horrible “bigot” as Chuck claims, why did I endorse Chinese-American immigrant Lily Tang for US Senate? Why did I endorse Nickolas Wildstar and Larry Sharpe in their runs for Governor? I waa a delegate at the LP of CA State Convention, and I support Nickolas Wildstar, who is black, over Zoltan Istvan, who is white.

    Regardless of whether you are personally a bigot, you uncritically and repeatedly repost the propaganda of bigots. Making individual exceptions does not make someone not a bigot, either. The nazis had non-white divisions in their paramilitary forces. Many racist leaders have turned out to be of Jewish or partially Jewish ancestry, for example former American Nazi Party leader Frank Collin (real name Cohn) and alt right leader Mike Penovich who is or was married to a Jewish woman, has Jewish kids and may be partially Jewish himself all while spewing anti-semitism through a variety of channels such as “The Daily Shoah” (holocaust). There’s an unproven theory Hitler was part Jewish.

    I put out an open challenge to Chuck or anyone else to debate me in person and on video.

    Occupying approximate physical space and being more or less quick on your feet have nothing to do with whether or not your arguments are sound.

  233. paulie

    CM’s obviously extremely bright and well-educated.

    You also seem obsessed with Southern to me as well, btw.

    Agreed.

  234. paulie

    Yet again I’ve scanned though comments and found only Andy bigotry. This site has really gone downhill.

    Agreed. Every time I get an itch to put a lot of work into reviving it, I take a look at the comment section, see Andy spewing a bunch of disgusting garbage, remember that I was the one who brought him here and was a business/travel partner of his for years, and just get completely nauseated and sick to my stomach. All the thousands of hours, literally, that I put into building IPR have gone to shit now. I can’t even make myself write a tenth anniversary article which is now over a month overdue.

  235. paulie

    Andy seems obsessed with this Lauren Southern person. I’d advise a restraining order.

    Lauren Southern is well known as being alt right. And this is not the first time Andy has had an unhealthy obsession with a woman.

    I think Andy is the Eric Dondero of the LP. Eric would insist that all libertarians should be pro-war. Andy insists that all libertarians should be anti-immigrant. Both positions are incompatible with libertarianism.

    Exactly.

  236. paulie

    if an anarcho-capitalist society existed, who is to say that everyone would not be a land owner?

    There’s only so much land that’s usable. If everyone was a landowner how much land would they have? Given that not everyone would be equal would some people have enough land to sit down on but not enough to lay down on? Does everyone even want to be a land owner? I’ve never heard anyone even attempt to claim that everyone would be a land owner. That’s just ridiculous.

    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.

    Yeah, and a lot of people choose not to live in condominiums and gated communities for that very reason. However, the people who do buy property in such communities do so with the knowledge that those are the restrictions and the people who inherit such property can sell it, in most cases while keeping the job they have, remaining within easy driving distance of their family and friends, keeping their gym membership, and so on. It’s ridiculous to compare that to the US or any nation state. Why does Andy keep making false comparisons between nation states and private property no matter how many times this obvious difference is pointed out?

  237. paulie

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

    Yep.

  238. Anthony Dlugos

    frankly, the only thing that stuns me about someone as vitriolically xenophobic and racist as Andy is that he hasn’t jumped ship and become a trumpster already. How can he not be drawn to that orange-hued idiot?

    what’s holding him back? Is it just that signature gathering his source of income, and he loses that by just coming out of the alt-right closet?

  239. paulie

    Why is it that only Americans, and other European based countries, are supposed to open their borders up to anyone on the planet….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?

    Congratulations Andy, now spreading the neonazi Bob Whitaker’s mantra.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_code_word_for_anti-white

  240. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 25, 2018 at 12:44
    “Stefan is a well known bigot.”

    So is Andy.

    Well, he’s a known bigot. Don’t know about well known, though.”

    Anthony is a well known establishment “Shiny Badge” worshiper who pretends to be a libertarian so he can sabotage the Libertarian Party and movement, and he likes to slander anyone who disagrees with him.

    Here’s me interviewing Eric July at Anarchapulco.

  241. paulie

    hasn’t jumped ship and become a trumpster already.

    Like many in the alt right, Andy most likely believes that Trump is only mouthing the words and doesn’t really believe them. Which may very well be true, although I think at least part of Trump believes them and in any case it doesn’t matter, since he’ll follow the path that is aggrandizing him and making bigots and nationalists follow him regardless of whether he truly holds those beliefs or is just cynically using them. So long as they bring him money and power and attention and adulation he will keep down that path.

  242. Andy

    Here is part 1 of me interviewing ThatGuyT, aka-Taleed Brown, at Anarchapulco. Note that the topic of immigration comes up during this interview, and note that T agrees with me.

  243. Andy

    Here’s part 2 of my interview with ThatGuyT, aka-Taleed Brown, at Anarchapulco.

  244. paulie

    From an old IPR comment of mine. Haven’t rechecked the links to see which ones still work.


    Since most people can’t be bothered to read a couple of old discussions here is the most relevant comment:

    A bit about the moronic mantra that these racists are pushing:

    A good place to start : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anti-racist_is_a_codeword_for_anti-white

    I don’t usually cite the SPLC, given the poor quality of many of their articles, but they seem to have done a pretty good job with this one: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2013/fall/Following-the-White-Rabbit

    First video response;

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNA3YMmC9zM&w=560&h=315%5D

    Second video response:

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCPg1KYkOOQ&w=420&h=315%5D

    Racists are sneaky statists:

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG6VMfrf16I&w=420&h=315%5D

    A rather thorough non-video fisking: http://www.revleft.com/vb/anti-racism-codeword-t183621/index.html

    And another: http://genocidalracetraitor.blogspot.com/2013/08/contemporary-white-nationalism-and.html

    This one is good: http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/2011/07/boneheads-are-so-cute-when-they-think.html

    Take a few minutes or hours to familiarize yourself with what this “mantra” is, why and how it is being pushed and why it is total nonsense.

    I actually love it from a tactic standpoint and think libertarians should use similar tactics. I’ve taken some time to familiarize myself with the racist “bootcamps” and their lessons on spreading their bullshit mantra. Great stuff if you can get past the ridiculous content and focus solely on the tactic.

  245. Andy

    “paulie
    June 25, 2018 at 15:47
    ‘hasn’t jumped ship and become a trumpster already.’

    Like many in the alt right, Andy most likely believes that Trump is only mouthing the words and doesn’t really believe them. ”

    The only “alt” that I am in is the libertarian alt, as in libertarianism is the alternative to failed policies of Democrats and Republicans. None of my views have changed. I had the same views now that I did before IPR came around.

    Donald Trump is another big government guy. Like with most Republican and Democratic party politicians, they might occasionally say the right thing, or even do the right thing once in awhile (you could go through the records of most politicians and find some rare occasion where you agree with something they said or did, whether it is Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump or whoever). but at the end of the day, these people can’t be trusted, and they always end up being a net negative. It should be obvious that Trump is not a libertarian or a constitutionalist.

  246. Andy

    “paulie
    June 25, 2018 at 15:55
    From an old IPR comment of mine. Haven’t rechecked the links to see which ones still work.

    Since most people can’t be bothered to read a couple of old discussions here is the most relevant comment:

    A bit about the moronic mantra that these racists are pushing:”

    Would you say that India is racist, since they have a caste system, which means that people in lower castes can never advance in life? India also has a border fence.

    How about Mexico, which has a provision in their constitution that says that it is illegal to have an immigration policy that changes the demographics of Mexico? Mexico also regularly deports people who enter illegally, and it is very difficult for a foreigner to obtain citizenship in Mexico.

    How about Israel, which has a Jews only immigration policy, backed up by DNA tests, and also has a border wall? Israel also deports people who enter illegally, and they treat Palestinians like shit.

    How about Japan? They rarely allow any immigrants in Japan.

  247. Andy

    “Andy
    June 25, 2018 at 15:45
    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 25, 2018 at 12:44
    “Stefan is a well known bigot.”

    So is Andy.

    Well, he’s a known bigot. Don’t know about well known, though.”

    Here’s [art 1 of me interviewing Cynthia McKinney and Adam Kokesh at Anarchapulco 2018.

  248. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 25, 2018 at 12:44
    “Stefan is a well known bigot.”

    So is Andy.

    Well, he’s a known bigot. Don’t know about well known, though.”

    Here’s part 2 of my interview with Cynthia McKinney and Adam Kokesh at Anarchapulco.

  249. paulie

    Kokesh hobnobs with and makes excuses for racist so called paleo “libertarians.” McKinney has a record of antisemitism.

  250. paulie

    Is there racism, prejudice, bigotry and injustice exercised by police state gangs who style themselves as nation states in all parts of the world? Yes, of course there is. It’s a stupid question for someone who has been in the libertarian movement for decades, since that fact is libertarianism 101. And no, “but they are doing it too” is not, has never been and never will be a legitimate excuse.

  251. paulie

    Compare and contrast the quote from Andy about “European based countries” with the Whitaker mantra. If Andy wants to deny that he is saying the exact same thing in different words I’d like to hear what the difference is. Everything Andy is spewing lately including the crap about “population replacement” is the exact same propaganda of the alt right, including the slogans they were chanting in Charlottesville such as “Jews will not replace us.” Andy may not be saying Jews (yet?), he might say “Globalists” or “Zionists” or “New World Order” instead but if you scratch the surface of that propaganda all the sources and implications are exactly the same.

  252. dL Post author

    Andy now uses all the alt right buzzwords, including posting the neonazi Bob Whitaker’s mantra in his own words. Way to demonstrate not being a bigot.

    “libertarian cuck”? lulz. That his Lauren Southern jackoff spam should earn him a permanent ban.

  253. Andy

    Here’s my interview with Nickolas Wildstar from the 2018 LP of CA State Convention.

    Why did I back Nickolas Wildstar for Governor over Zoltan Istvan? Because Wildstar appeared to be more dedicated to the Libertarian Party and the cause of liberty, as compared to Istvan. I’m not necessarily saying that Istvan is a bad guy, but during his 2016 presidential run, in which I don’t think he actually made it on the ballot anywhere, and if he got any write in votes, I doubt it was very many, I recall that he had several views that were pretty far outside of libertarian orthodoxy. He claims that he’s a libertarian now, and he did not sound bad at the convention, but he also seemed to lack the same passion as Wildstar. I would not necessarily write Istvan off, and if his intentions are sincere, I hope he sticks around the party, and if his intentions are sincere, I would consider reevaluating him as a potential candidate in future elections.

    Istvan did do a couple of things that I did not like. He took a couple of cheap shots at Wildstar. One was that he made a negative comment about Wildstar having been arrested, but the fact of the matter was that it was a false arrest, and the charges against him were dropped (he was accused of being a robbery suspect, and the police rolled up on him while he was walking, and surprised him with false accusations, and they ended up arresting him as Wildstar was attempting to assert his rights, and after it became clear that Wildstar was not the guy for whom they were looking, they charged him with Resisting Arrest, which is something which the police frequently exaggerate, and considering that it should not have taken them long to figure out that he was not the suspect, they should have just let him go and not charged him with anything), and the other one was that he criticized Wildstar for not having a college degree (if this was something that was really necessary to hold political office, we should not have any problems in this country, since almost all current political office holders have college degree, but I don’t think hardly anybody really believes that there are no problems in government in this country, as in that everything is OK because so many people who hold political offices have college degrees). The other thing he did was that he did not show up to the convention on Sunday, which was the day that the vote took place for which candidate that the LP of CA was going to endorse for Governor. Maybe he was really busy that day, so maybe he had a good excuse for not being there, but it seems to me that if you are serious about getting the endorsement of a political party, especially for a high level office, you ought to make every effort to be there when the endorsement vote happens.

    Wildstar ended up getting endorsed unanimously at the LP of CA State Convention. Istvan ended up getting endorsed as well (due to California’s terrible Top Two Primary law, political parties really have no control over who runs under their banner, but they can chose which candidates to endorse), but he barely received enough votes to gain the endorsement. I supported endorsing Wildstar, but not Istvan, not so much because I dislike Istvan (see my comments above), but rather because Wildstar seemed more dedicated, and in this case, I thought that it was better for the LP of CA to get behind one candidate, even though neither of them stood a chance at breaking out of the Top Two Primary.

    Another thing I liked about Wildstar was that he had a back up plan to run for a local office (Mayor of Anaheim), if (or when more realistically) he got eliminated from the Top Two Primary. I think that his prospects for getting elected Mayor of Anaheim are not too good, since Anaheim is a pretty big city (its population is over 300,000), but he was already doing a lot of the right things that it would take to get elected to office if he had the funding.

  254. Andy

    dL said: “libertarian cuck”? lulz. That his Lauren Southern jackoff spam should earn him a permanent ban.”

    So much for dL’s support for tolerance and free speech.

    dL must stand for dirty Leftist.

    There was absolutely nothing off topic about posting the Lauren Southern videos, as in this is an Open Discussion thread, which means that pretty much anything can be discussed, and furthermore, the topics were relevant to the conversation, and Lauren is a former member and candidate of the Libertarian Party of Canada, plus she still runs in those circles, and was a featured speaker at the recent Anarchapulco, which included current candidate for the LP’s presidential nomination, Adam Koeksh, as well as former LP presidential candidate, and Life Member of the LP (USA), Ron Paul, as well as Tim Moen, who is the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Canada, and Jeff Berwick, who was a short time candidate for the LP of Canada’s nomination for Prime Minister.

  255. Andy

    paulie
    June 25, 2018 at 16:20
    None of my views have changed.

    You sounded a lot more like a libertarian in the comments on this thread

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/new-blog/

    than you do with the crap you are posting lately.”

    Once again, I have not changed any views. I still don’t think that coercive governments are an ideal way for societies to operate. Also, I have never said that anyone of any particular race or ethnic group or national origin can’t be a libertarian. I’m sure if you went around to every country on the planet, you could probably find at least a few people in every country that’s a libertarian (even if they don’t know what the word libertarian means). This fact does not erase the fact that libertarians are outliers, nor does it erase the fact that we are dealing with large movements of people, a lot of whom are in fact attracted by the lure of the welfare state (not all of course, but a large enough number to where it is a problem). Libertarians are not running the show, as in we are not operating in a libertarian society. Like Eric July said in the video where he talks about immigration above, libertarians can talk about how government borders and welfare should not exist, but the fact is that they do, and that it is largely Democrats who are the ones pushing the mass immigration (some Republicans are doing it as well, although in a largely more covert manner), not libertarians.

    I have never supported mass welfare statist immigration, or forced association. I thought that there were problems associated with immigration back in the 1990’s when I first got involved with the LP, but I had hoped that those problems would work themselves out, because at the time, I thought that the Libertarian Party was gaining ground, which it was at the time, and that by 2018, we’d have already had elected multiple Libertarians to the US Congress, and that the Libertarian Party would have had candidates for President that were running campaigns that were more competitive, and more principled, than what the party actually ran in 2008, 2012, and 2016. I had hoped that the LP would be in a position to actually abolish, or phase out, the welfare state, and that once that happened.

    This obviously has not worked out too well.

    I have been aware of Hans-Hermann Hoppe since the early 2000’s. I recall hearing about Murray Rothbard back around 1997 or 1998 or so, but I never read any of his stuff until around 1999 or the early 2000’s, which was around the time I discovered LewRockwell.com. It was after that I discovered Hoppe, around the time “Democracy: The God That Failed” came out, which I believe was in 2001.

    I had already been a Ron Paul supporter long before this, as I rediscovered Ron Paul in 1996, shortly after the general election had taken place. I say rediscovered, as I saw his name on a sample ballot back in 1988, which was before I could vote, and I remembered the name, and that he was the candidate of some weird party that started with the letter L, but I did not know anything about him until 1996, which I believe would have been in either late November or December, after I got a copy of LP News in the mail, and there was an article about former LP presidential candidate from 1988, Ron Paul, going back to the Republican Party and getting elected to the US House of Representatives. I thought, “Hey, that was that guy I saw on a sample ballot in 1988.” I wanted to find out more about him, so I looked him up online at a local library, and I have been following him ever since. I did not know anything about the Ludwig von Mises Institute though, at the time. I’m not sure when I first heard of it, but I definitely knew about the Cato Institute before I knew about the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I first heard about the Cato Institute not long after I found out about the LP in the summer of 1996. I don’t think that I followed the Mises Institute at all until the early 2000’s.

    Once again, I thought that there were problems associated with immigration even back in 1996 when I found out about the LP. I remember being leery of the “peaceful people crossing borders” question on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz (that question was later changed to one about National ID cards), as I thought, “Well what about non-peaceful people crossing borders?”

    I have never held the position that there should be no immigration, but I have never supported welfare statist migration, which is basically what we have today.

    It should be pretty clear that Marxists and globalists are using mass statist migration as a means to increase the state, and that they are pushing for global government, aka-a New World Order. I have been aware of the New World Order since the late 1990’s (I had heard about it prior to 1996, and I remember George HW Bush’s infamous New World Order speech, but I did not know anything about it, and I thought that it was just “conspiracy theory” talk, and I wondered if the people raising concerns over it were crazy).

    Anyone who can’t see this is either a) uniformed, b) in denial, c) naive, d) part of the problem, or e) some combination thereof.

  256. Anthony Dlugos

    “It should be pretty clear that Marxists and globalists are using mass statist migration as a means to increase the state, and that they are pushing for global government, aka-a New World Order.“

    This is your brain on the John Birch Society.

  257. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 25, 2018 at 17:45
    ‘It should be pretty clear that Marxists and globalists are using mass statist migration as a means to increase the state, and that they are pushing for global government, aka-a New World Order.’

    This is your brain on the John Birch Society.”

    So says the guy who support Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Weld, and who would like to see him as the LP’s presidential candidate in 2020.

    Hey, Bill Weld has supported bombing “brown people” in other countries. Doesn’t that make him a racist, and doesn’t that make you a racist for supporting him?

  258. paulie

    “libertarian cuck”? lulz. That his Lauren Southern jackoff spam should earn him a permanent ban.

    Not sure if you are on IPR email list, if you are not I will send you an invite and you can argue the case there. We have discussed it before and no consensus was reached.

  259. Anthony Dlugos

    “Hey, Bill Weld has supported bombing “brown people” in other countries. Doesn’t that make him a racist, and doesn’t that make you a racist for supporting him?”

    No, it doesn’t, unless he was arguing to do something to “brown people” BECAUSE they are brown people.

    You know, like you are doing over and over again.

  260. paulie

    Anyone notice that Darcy Richardson is running for governor on the Reform ticket in Florida?

    I’ve noticed. I’ve been mostly offline, and when I am online whenever I do jump on IPR it is incredibly demotivating due to the nonsense in the comments so I just can’t force myself to post articles like I used to. However I can still sign you or others up if you would like to help post articles.

    With Rocky running for Senate as a Republican, is this a setup for a 2020 presidential run?

    Seems plausible.

  261. paulie

    Not inviting, or blocking, or physically removing destructive migrants is not a rights violation.

    As pointed out in many past discussions, this is illogical. Governments are not legitimate owners or part-owners of all property within whatever borders they claim. If they were, they could legitimately have the rights that legitimate property owners have.

    If I owned property and you wanted to be on it, I could tell you whether or not you can have a gun, what religions you may or may not practice on my property, how you have to cut your hair or what clothes you may or may not (or must) wear if you want to be on my property, whether or not you are allowed to cuss, whether or not you are allowed to talk in a foreign language, what sexual activities you may or may not participate in. I could say that you have to be on camera at all times even when you use the bathroom. I could say you have to have pigtails and wear days of the week panties every day. Don’t like it? Get off my property.

    If you owned property and I wanted to stay on it, even if I was born there, you’d have the right to charge me rent. That’s a right which legitimate property owners legitimately have. Do we want to pretend that governments are legitimate property owners? If so, we must then grant governments the rights of legitimate property owners to set rules, regulate behavior and charge rent. Doing so throws each and every last bit of libertarian theory out the window.

    If someone wants to claim that governments have a legitimate right to prevent “destructive” immigration, and that we can know or presume that someone is destructive because of what country they are coming from or what religion they are or what their racial or ethnic group is, and that the burden of proof in such cases is on the would be immigrant/emigrant, would the same hold true when someone crosses between states, counties, cities, etc? Andy frequently crosses state, county and city lines. Would Andy like to have to apply for permission and get on a waiting list every time he does so? Would he like to be stopped, questioned and searched every time he goes to a new jurisdiction of any sort? Imagine traveling from, say, California to Pennsylvania to New Orleans that way.

    One way people enter a state, city or country is by immigrating. Another is by being born there. But if it’s legitimate for government to regulate immigration due to race, ethnicity or nation of origin, why wouldn’t it be equally legitimate for government to regulate birth in the same way? Do we want a government which decides which parents can have how many kids and when based on the perceived risk that the kids they have will commit crimes or get on welfare or vote in some particular way when they get old enough to vote based on their race, ethnicity or their parents’ nation of origin or whatever group demographics? Would a government which does that sort of thing be someone here’s idea of libertarian?

    These questions and points are not new. They were made in many past threads. Yet Andy keeps going and going like the perpetual motion energizer bunny of second hand bullshit originating from bigots and fascists. And then claim people won’t engage his arguments, as if they were somehow new or haven’t been engaged in these pages many times in the past.

  262. paulie

    Was there even an article about the CP getting on the North Carolina ballot?

    I don’t remember. Would you like to be added so you can post such articles?

  263. paulie

    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.

    Thanks, but I have my hands full and honestly I’m not a good spokesperson for anyone or anything whatsoever. I have a face for radio, a voice for print, and it doesn’t appear that my typing is all that persuasive either.

  264. paulie

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

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

    The vast majority of petition work is not with the party or any party or candidate, it’s on initiative campaigns. Someone could make a good living in the petition business without having ever worked on or even heard of candidate or party petitions.

    Also, when the LP needs signatures, it doesn’t matter much what a would be petitioner says online, what matters is if they are willing to work, especially but not only if they are known to be able to bring in signatures. Dondero kept getting LP petition work as long as he wanted it, and probably could again if he wanted to come back. It didn’t matter how many times he had publicly called for the destruction of the LP or attacked LP candidates or national party officers etc etc. Many petitioners get work from the LP who have worked on anti-libertarian initiatives, or campaigns to put Top Two on the ballot, or for example worked as blockers on the Arpaio recall, and yet they still get LP work. Why? Because the party is desperate for signatures, at least in some times and places, and they are willing to do it and/or have demonstrated a proven ability to do it.

    So Andy can spew whatever hate he wants, whether it be at LP leadership or candidates or immigrants or whoever else, and he’ll still get LP work when he wants it. He remains a good petitioner, when he’s not too busy posting bullshit online at all hours of the day and night and spending hours on the phone repeating himself endlessly and chewing off the ear of anyone who will take his calls and won’t usher him off the phone and watching and reposting endless reams of alt right and conspiracy youtubes, podcasts etc. He can do a lot of signatures when he is “on” and generally has good validity. And he is not desperate for money, unlike most petitioners. And he owns his own car and can work independently, unlike some of us. So if you are a state LP or the national LP, and you are looking at the possibility of failing on a signature drive, chances are you will hire him even if you know what kind of garbage he posts in IPR comments – and chances are also high that you will not know about that.

  265. Anthony Dlugos

    “Every time I get an itch to put a lot of work into reviving it, I take a look at the comment section, see Andy spewing a bunch of disgusting garbage, remember that I was the one who brought him here and was a business/travel partner of his for years, and just get completely nauseated and sick to my stomach. All the thousands of hours, literally, that I put into building IPR have gone to shit now.”

    That sucks to read.

    Sounds like another casualty of the resurgence of white nationalist populism.

    Look at it this way: you’re hardly alone. See LPFL, for example. Or Italy.

    Meanwhile, the Trump stand-up act is getting rousing applause in South Carolina while the US military gets ready to set up detention camps for 20,000 in Texas.

    We’re one economic downturn away from some pretty nasty sh*t.

  266. paulie

    That sucks to read.

    Sounds like another casualty of the resurgence of white nationalist populism.

    Look at it this way: you’re hardly alone. See LPFL, for example. Or Italy.

    Meanwhile, the Trump stand-up act is getting rousing applause in South Carolina while the US military gets ready to set up detention camps for 20,000 in Texas.

    We’re one economic downturn away from some pretty nasty sh*t.

    Exactly.

  267. paulie

    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.

    No cognitive dissonance here. As with any other government policy, my ideal level for government involvement in regulating immigration is the same as my ideal level for government involvement in regulating drugs, guns, health care, charity, business licensing, etc – zero. But I also realize we live in the real world and welcome incremental, even tiny, steps towards that direction, on immigration like on any of those other policies.

    Given that I do actually have some mental contact with reality, I realize that putting government in charge of deciding who the “good” immigrants are and who the “bad” immigrants are is a huge non-starter. Government is a cross between the worst DMV you have ever stood in line and robocop. Any more power in its hands is bad news and expecting it to make wise or rational decisions is profoundly naive. You may as well give a bunch of starving monkeys booze, meth, surgical tools and a nuclear button and expect good results.

    I also realize that putting more cops/troops/guards at the borders, building walls, rounding people up, forcing employers to act as border cops, deputizing cops to be border guards, and any other tactics for actually in practice limiting immigration come at a very heavy cost in both coerced tax money and freedom. I just went through some internal checkpoints near the Mexican border in Texas last month, and while the harassment was minimal this time (they just asked us if we were US citizens), they reminded me of what I don’t want to see more of in this country.

    So, the more we can minimize that shit, the better off we will be. None at all would be great. Less would be better than more.

    Is there some cognitive dissonance in that? None, as far as I can see.

  268. robert capozzi

    pf: Governments are not legitimate owners or part-owners of all property within whatever borders they claim.

    me: I would say the government is the AGENT for the citizenry, who are the owners of the nation. Almost no one wants completely open borders between this nation but they DO want open borders between states. Maybe half of the NAPists want completely open borders. I feel bad for them that they are not getting their way, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. The million or so of your ranks have your work cut out for you! 😉

  269. paulie

    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).

  270. paulie

    I would say the government is the AGENT for the citizenry

    Well, yes, if by agent you mean a Hollywood talent agent who rapes his client at gunpoint. Can I fire this agent without convincing a few hundred million other people and without moving several thousand miles? Decide not to have an agent and represent myself?

    Almost no one wants completely open borders between this nation but they DO want open borders between states.

    Oh, I’ve met any number of people who want completely open borders, although most of them don’t vote, aren’t allowed to vote, or if they do vote tend to vote for the “lesser evil.” And judging by grumblings I have heard about people from other states from many sources, there’s a not as insignificant as you may think number of people who aren’t completely thrilled about open borders between US states. Or even different neighborhoods in, say, NYC. Any number of people I knew there growing up would have limited immigration between neighborhoods if given the chance.

    have your work cut out for you

    So, what else is new? Of course we have our work cut out for us, and not just on immigration. That’s why I like both incremental policy changes and radical theoretical discussions, as each have their place.

  271. Anthony Dlugos

    RCapozzi,

    re: Weld withdrawing from the CFR.

    (as an aside, I have no issue with his membership either).

    Do you really think there are enough Bircher-type potential delegates that would make that the dealbreaker?

    Also, I’d prefer flattery to engaging the NAPists set.
    Going dow the road of trying to advocate for incrementalism might inflame then more.

    I guess that depends on the question and how asked. Weld can obviously think on his feet quicker than Johnson, so it’s possible it would be a lot harder to trip him up.

  272. paulie

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

    Agreed, and hopefully we can make that the theme for 2020.

  273. Andy

    Paul says that governments are not legitimate. That is all the more reason that governments should not forced associate unwanted and destructive migrants onto a population.

    It seems like posters like Paul, dL, LibertyDave, DJ, etc…, want to have it both ways. They will concede that the state is not legitimate, but rather than focusing on tbe state returning all of the land and infrastructure it controls/manages over to private property owners, who would then have the right to discriminate and physically remove people for any reason (as in total freedom of association and disassociation), they want the state to keep the doors open and invite the world’s population to enter. So what they really want is state enforced mass migration and forced multi-culturalism.

    Eric July hits the nail on the head in the video above about immigration and birders. There is no “pure” answer in the absence of total land privatization and a complete dismantling of the state. Eric sensibly points out that this option is not on the table for the foreseeable future, so until that option is in place, the best thing to do is for the policy in place is to allow for some immigration, but for the policy to not actively invite or reward destructive people, and to not have the numbers be so great that it overwhelms, and possibly displaces, the existing population.

    Any policy that exists while the state exists is a statist policy. If the state is not eliminated, the goal should be to have a policy benefits, rather than harms, the existing population. The majority of the public opposes the current mass migration. This is not the policy most people would have if they were property owners in an anarcho-capitalist society.

  274. Thomas L. Knapp

    “an already sedate and moderate disposition”

    What’s “sedate and moderate” about covering up for the Iran-Contra conspirators, helping Rudy Giuliani purpose-build the foundations of the current domestic surveillance state, and announcing opposition to due process for people on secret government enemies lists?

    “My concern is that if WW seeks the nomination”

    He’s obviously seeking the nomination already, even if not formally declared. Of course, given his record of turning 180 degrees on everything from government spending as governor of Massachusetts to keeping his simple and unambiguous word about remaining in the New York gubernatorial race as the LP candidate even if he didn’t get the GOP nomination, he might suddenly decide to go do something else at any random moment.

    I consider it unlikely that your concern — Kokesh 2020 — will ever happen, and it’s not something I’m personally sold on. It wouldn’t be as mindlessly self-destructive as Weld 2020 if it did, though.

    All the LP needs to forestall Weld is a plausibly libertarian alternative with some name recognition — perhaps a business background like the guy from Overstock? — who’s willing to make a real go of it instead of doing it half-assed.

    Unfortunately, nominating Republican also-rans whose only distinguishing features were their rejection by their own party and their public divorces after getting caught fucking around three goddamn times in a row may have made the LP unattractive to credible candidates.

    But we can hope. I’m not going to wait until the last minute this time. I’ll be dragging the old oppo research gun out as soon as this national convention is over and start looking to put a Weld-shaped notch in it next to Gary Nolan’s.

  275. robert capozzi

    pf: Well, yes, if by agent you mean a Hollywood talent agent who rapes his client at gunpoint. Can I fire this agent without convincing a few hundred million other people and without moving several thousand miles? Decide not to have an agent and represent myself?

    me: Nope, that’s not what I mean. Unfortunately, perhaps, I see no evidence that there’s a broad consensus that the government “rapes” its citizens, particularly on the matter of whether there should or should not be borders. Everything tells me that the vast preponderance of citizens think that borders are a good idea. Yes, you may know a few who don’t, but unfortunately, perhaps again, I doubt you really believe that even 10% of the population want the US to dissolve.

    No, you can’t fire the government as your agent. As you may recall, I advocate Harlos Nonarchy Pods so you could, in effect. The electoral process allows you to agitate for any number of things, including border dissolution.

  276. robert capozzi

    AD: Do you really think there are enough Bircher-type potential delegates that would make that the dealbreaker?

    Me: I’m not the right person to ask. In say 1984, it was a pretty big subset, as high as 25%. Maybe it’s down to 15% who watch Alex Jones or read LewRockwell.com.

    AD: Also, I’d prefer flattery to engaging the NAPists set.

    Me: That could work.

    AD: Going dow the road of trying to advocate for incrementalism might inflame then more.

    ME: Yes for the Rockwell types. No for the Longites. I think. Oddly, even RP1 advocates incrementalism, but he can get away with it, as he was/is prone to giving them enough of the cut of red meat they crave.

  277. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Can we physically remove Andy?”

    My recollection is that people posting the same kind of evil shit he posts have been removed before.

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind having him around if he revealed his actual affiliations instead of pretending to be a libertarian. If I wanted to convert someone to open borders, I’d just point them at Andy’s posts and ask them if that is what they agree with. Exposing people to his pure-distilled authoritarian position can’t help but turn any sane person away from an anti-immigration position.

    And yes, Andy, of course the Refugee Resettlement Act should be repealed. Aid to refugees should come in the form of voluntary exchange and/or charity.

    That said, until a few years ago I lived in the area with America’s single biggest population of “Refugee Resettlement Act Muslims” — specifically, Bosnian Muslims resettled in St. Louis. The result was dramatically reduced crime rates and an entrepreneurial renaissance in the parts of town where they were placed and started out-numbering the natives. If I had known how that would turn out, I would gladly have made a donation to getting them there in lieu of eliminated Refugee Resettlement Act funding.

  278. paulie

    That is all the more reason that governments should not forced associate unwanted and destructive migrants onto a population.

    That’s like saying “forcing unwanted and destructive drugs onto a population” if a government does not make and enforce drug laws.

    They will concede that the state is not legitimate, but rather than focusing on tbe state returning all of the land and infrastructure it controls/manages over to private property owners, who would then have the right to discriminate and physically remove people for any reason (as in total freedom of association and disassociation), they want the state to keep the doors open and invite the world’s population to enter.

    Change the word population in the last part of that to drugs to see why that is a nonsensical statement.

    There is no “pure” answer in the absence of total land privatization and a complete dismantling of the state.

    That’s equally true of the drug problem. If all land was privately held, each property owner would pass his or her own drug laws. It does not follow that the state should pass and enforce drug laws, even ones that the majority of the population would pass on their own property if all property was private.

    Eric sensibly points out

    No, just mindlessly parrots Hoppe’s disingenuous pretzel logic much as Andy J does here.

    So what they really want is state enforced mass migration and forced multi-culturalism.

    So what we really want is state enforced mass drug importation and multi-druggism?

    but for the policy to not actively invite or reward destructive people

    We’re going to trust the state to decide who those are? Good luck with that.

    And we’re going to trust that the state can effectively secure the borders? Yeah, kind of how their war on drugs has stopped drugs from coming in. When there is a supply and demand, drugs will come in, drug war or no drug war. You can ratchet up the drug war all you want but they will come in. There is a demand for immigrant labor. So immigrants will come in, legally or not. Build all the walls and stiffen penalties all you want, ratchet up the roundups and deportations and government thugs stopping and questioning anyone suspected of being or harboring “illegals,” give rewards to snitches, do whatever….and they will still come in. The law of supply and demand is a lot like the law of gravity that way. Of course all those police state measures will cost a lot of extorted tax money and we’ll have more of a police state, but it’s all worth it…right?

    You know when immigrants will stop sneaking across the border? When the police state used to prevent it becomes so oppressive, not just to immigrants but to the native born as well, and the economy such a basket case shambles that places like Mexico and El Salvador and Syria and Zaire will be better places to live and raise a family by comparison. By that point you will have native born USAmericans trying to sneak into Mexico. Luckily for Mexico the walls and border guards will already be in place, and turning the guns around will be very easy at that point.

    Any policy that exists while the state exists is a statist policy.

    So the policy of ending the drug war is not less statist than the policy of increasing the drug war? OK.

    The majority of the public opposes the current mass migration.

    The majority of the population also opposes cocaine, meth and heroin. And the vast majority of property owners would ban those drugs on their own property. If Andy’s Hoppean “logic” made any sense, that would mean that governments have not only a legitimate right but an actual obligation to wage a drug war. Such obvious nonsense stands libertarianism on its head.

  279. robert capozzi

    pf: The majority of the population also opposes cocaine, meth and heroin.

    me: Probably about right. The majority is often incorrect. As an advocate of lessarchism, the question REALLY is: What should I be advocating NOW? And what is the likely effect of my advocacy?

    You certainly can “advocate” meth legalization. What does that get you? Meth legalization? No. Being branded as a wacko? Likely.

    So, then, why fall on that sword?

    Really.

    Why?

  280. Andy

    You see the true colors of the so called “libertarian” phonies here. Somebody calls for my “physical removal” for daring to disagree with them on an issue. So much for free speech and open discourse. This is a sign of somebody who can’t handle having their ideas challenged.

    And then Paul, a person I have helped on numerous occasions, with financial loans, work opportunities, rides to hospitals, visits in jail, etc…, answers with a very weak, “I don’t know. You’d have to ask IPR editors..” Paul knows. He doesn’t give a shit because he does not like the fact that I am challenging his leftist agenda. So he does not care about all the times I loaned him money, went out of my way to give him rides, hooked him up with places to stay, hooked him up with work opportunities, etc… None of that matter as much as his leftist agenda. I rwally have to question whether Paul is even really interested in liberty, and the same goes with a few other people here.. The answer to the question should be a resounding no. I have done absolutely nothing wrong, and I intend to continue as is.

    I am going to keep on challenging bad ideas, weak logic, and unprincipled stands. I do not believe in sacred cows. I despise intellectual cowards. I am going to challenge you in the arena of thought.

    I have busted my ass for the Libertarian Party and the overall cause of liberty for many years, and at great personal sacrifice. I just recently turned down a chance to do petition work in Washington. A Michael Bloomberg backed petition came out there for $7 a signature, which is a high rate (there we’re other petitions as well). I could have made a lot of money getting signatures for a new gun control law, but I did not go, out of devotion to principle. Instead, I went to Virginia, and then Pennsylvania, to work LP for less money. I worked two festivals over the last several days where I got a lot of signatures, but not as many as I could have gotten because it rained for several hours one day. I also handed out a lot of LP flyers, all of which were paid for out of my pocket, and I gathered a few contacts from peolke i encountered who said they were interested (done for no extra pay). It got pretty hot on Sunday, which made it pretty incomfortable to stand outside that long. I have also gobe out of my way to get LP of PA to put in a better effort at getting their district office candidates on the ballot, something they have not done a very good job at for the last 10 years. It looks like this year, thanks in part to my pushing them to get a complete list of all of the district candidates earlier in tge process, they might finally be making some progress in that area.

    I have gone to jail twice (on false charges, all of which ended up getting dropped), for this cause. I have turned down a lot of higher paying work for this cause. I have spent a considerable amount of my own money for this cause. I have probably handed out more Libertarian Party, and general libertarian, materials (flyers, pamphlets, VHS tapes, DVD’s, bumper stickers, etc…, to the public than anybody, and some of this has been done at my own expense.

    I have probably donated more contacts of interested members of the public to the party than anyone (outside of maybe a high profile candidate, but a lot of them do not even bother to do that). I even donated some contacts I gathered while doing LP petition signatures in Virginia back when the ungrateful two-faced weasel Cuck Moulton was the State Chair (a candidate paid for the drive, but I donated the co. Cuck knows that I donated those contacts to him, because I handed to him in person at the LP of Pennsylvania State Convention in June of 2013. Cuck was friendly to my face at the time. A quick way to lose my respect us by being a two-faced backstabbing weasel. I Do not like fake people. I don’t like fake libertarians, and I do not like people who act friendly to your face, but then stab you in the back. People who behave in such manner are pieces of shit. It would not surprise me if the contacts I gathered in Virginia in 2013 from people who said that they wanted to be contacted by the LP ended up at the bottom of Cuck’s birdcage, or maybe he jacked off on them. One would think that people who are supposedly interested in growing the LP and winning elections and changing the course of politics in this country would be appreciative of efforts such as this, but not guys like Cuck. Cuck Moulton is an example of why the Libertarian Party is not more successful.

    It is really rather disgusting to see the actions and attitudes of some of the people in the LP, and while I still think that the party has a good philosophy and consists mostly of well meaning people, there are So many people in tbe party who are disappointments as people that it is no wonder that the party is not more successful.

  281. robert capozzi

    pf: If all land was privately held….

    me: What, really, is the point of this game? All land is NOT privately held. All land is highly unlikely to be “privately held.” What is the point of such hypotheticals?

  282. Thomas L. Knapp

    Every radical I know in the party is an incrementalist.

    The problem for radicals is not incrementalism, it’s calculationism — the idea that a “net reduction in overall aggression” can be achieved by some kind of omniscient planning board that knows how to organize rape, abduction, armed robbery and fraud into commensurable units and give up two of those units to get three back.

    The radical incrementalist approach is to support what’s right and oppose what’s wrong.

    The political application of that for a party not in power is to do so at the policy framing level, hope we get a a word in edgewise by mobilizing popular support, and that a win or two makes it into the mix — instead of playing pretend, putting on Daddy’s business suit that’s 12 sizes larger than we are, grabbing a calculator and pretending it gives us magic “compromise numbers,” and convincing ourselves that we were ever in a position to make a “deal” — then moving on to the next issue, or to chipping away at the bad parts that made it through with the good on the current one.

    For example — this came up on the platform committee list the other day — the Libertarian Party of Colorado supported a proposal to legalize cannabis, while opposing its tax/regulation parts. Once the proposal was set in stone, they supported it, and resolved to work in the future to roll back the bad parts that got in there DESPITE THEIR BEST EFFORTS, instead of rolling over and supporting those bad parts before they had any reason to and when those bad parts were going to get in there whether they supported those bad parts or not.

    As far as being a party in power — to any degree, at any level — I listened to an interview with New Hampshire legislator Caleb Dyer the other day in which he outlined basically the same approach. When a bill came up he would try to get good stuff in there, fight to keep bad stuff out, and when it was all said and done, decide whether or not he could support the bill. In that case Libertarians CAN bring a little power to bear on policy, but it’s only useful if pursued in the same manner. Fight for the good stuff, fight against the bad stuff, take what you can get, and make your opponents take what THEY get instead of giving it to them.

    It’s called practical politics, as opposed to the pie in the sky utopianism of the party’s “pragmatists” who think that if they just put on that giant suit and pretend to be Daddy hard enough, they will magically become Daddy.

  283. paulie

    Unfortunately, perhaps, I see no evidence that there’s a broad consensus that the government “rapes” its citizens..

    It’s almost universally understood that at least at some times and places government “agents” rape at least some of their “clients.” By rape I mean violate the consent of, not necessarily sexually penetrate, although the latter also does happen and most people know that it does. However, there’s a widespread Stockholm Syndrome that says this rape is inevitable. It is going to take some cultural change to make it no longer as accepted, just as it did with widespread workplace rape/sexual coercion/harassment. That cultural change is both necessary and overdue. It’s happening, but slowly and with some regression.

    Everything tells me that the vast preponderance of citizens think that borders are a good idea.

    Yeah, and most of them think laws against meth are a good idea. Until recently most thought laws against marijuana were a good idea and many still do. But so what? At one point most people thought slavery was a good idea. That did not make it so. Absolute monarchy was at one time not just accepted, but so universal that most people could not conceive anything else was even possible.

    I doubt you really believe that even 10% of the population want the US to dissolve.

    The US dissolving is besides the point. The US regime can exist regardless of whether or how much it enforces immigration laws. And if more than 90% but less than 100% of the women a Hollywood agent, or, say, Donald Trump fucks are OK with it that must be OK, right?

    As you may recall, I advocate Harlos Nonarchy Pods so you could, in effect.

    And as you may recall I advocate Capozzi Archy Pods. We only differ on where most people will ultimately choose to reside.

    The electoral process allows you to agitate for any number of things, including border dissolution.

    Well, that’s nice. Wouldn’t it be great if it also allowed me to agitate for who I am going to not have sex with?

  284. paulie

    It’s called practical politics, as opposed to the pie in the sky utopianism of the party’s “pragmatists” who think that if they just put on that giant suit and pretend to be Daddy hard enough, they will magically become Daddy.

    Exactly.

  285. paulie

    What, really, is the point of this game? All land is NOT privately held. All land is highly unlikely to be “privately held.” What is the point of such hypotheticals?

    I was just quoting Andy and addressing his “argument” on its own terms. I don’t know whether or when all land will be privately held. The vast majority of my energy goes to more short term concerns.

  286. paulie

    You see the true colors of the so called “libertarian” phonies here. Somebody calls for my “physical removal” for daring to disagree with them on an issue. So much for free speech and open discourse. This is a sign of somebody who can’t handle having their ideas challenged.

    Shitting in the pool =/= challenging ideas. Your comments about immigration and associated topics basically amount to shitting in the pool, and unlike say the USA, IPR actually *is* private property, so discussing whether someone should be kicked out is not statist and not hypocritical.

    And then Paul, a person I have helped on numerous occasions, with financial loans, work opportunities, rides to hospitals, visits in jail, etc

    That’s the only reason I haven’t kicked you out a long time ago. It’s a fact you have helped me out quite a bit over the years in real life. But that does not change the fact that you are in effect shitting in the pool here at IPR. It makes the whole place unattractive and depressing, drives people away and kills my motivation to be here. Who wants to swim in a shit filled pool? Not sane people, generally.

    I am going to keep on challenging putting out bad ideas, weak logic, and unprincipled stands.

    Fixed to reflect reality more accurately.

  287. paulie

    I am going to challenge you in the arena of thought.

    Repeating the same illogical, repeatedly debunked nonsense endlessly doesn’t challenge my thoughts, it browbeats me into leaving. As it already has successfully done to many past participants in these discussions.

    I have probably donated more contacts of interested members of the public to the party than anyone

    Unfortunately you wait way too long to do so, by which point almost all of those contacts are useless. When you wait months to contact someone who expressed interest, 99 times out of 100 they have lost that interest.

    Cuck

    Anyone who uses this term unironically in anything other than its original sense is really saying a lot more about themselves than about whoever they are talking about.

    The alt right has popularized the term “cuck” in a political sense to mean those who allowing non-whites to breed with whites, like cuckolds who allow or enjoy other men to have sex with their wives. The implication is that white women are the exclusive property of white men and allowing non-white men to have sex with white women is being a “cuck.” In case you did not know what the term implies, now you know, and the next time you use it ignorance will no longer be an excuse. In fact I don’t think it was this time either since I am pretty sure I have pointed this out before.

    Ironically, a well-known racist I have met personally was in fact literally a cuck. He enjoyed watching his white wife have sex with black men, which in his mind degraded her. But I think he, like many other racists, secretly fantasized about being the woman in this equation. Racists obsess about white women having sex with non-white men so much that it’s almost inevitable that they will have sexual fantasies about it sooner or later, and perhaps act them out. And many of them end up in prison sooner or later where they can realize their fantasies of sex with black men.

    One would think that people who are supposedly interested in growing the LP and winning elections and changing the course of politics in this country would ….

    …not sit on the contacts they gather until the vast majority of them become useless?

    Granted, no one is forcing you or even paying you to gather those contacts, but if you actually are going to go to the trouble of gathering them why sit on them until 99% of them become useless? Something I never understood since this has been explained to you many times and yet you keep doing the same thing each time.

  288. paulie

    What should I be advocating NOW? And what is the likely effect of my advocacy?

    Most of my energy goes towards short term efforts that have some non-trivial chance of success within an election cycle or single digit number thereof. Some goes into more long term projects that are unlikely to pay off anytime soon, but still need to be worked on. Someone must have talked about ending legal chattel slavery long before it happened. Those efforts gathered steam, slowly at first, and eventually gained momentum. It wouldn’t have happened without those early voices in the wilderness who were way ahead of their time.

    You certainly can “advocate” meth legalization. What does that get you? Meth legalization?

    Eventually, yes. If you study the history of drug laws, all drug prohibitions anywhere and everywhere eventually fail and get repealed. It’s just a matter of how long in any given case. None of them last forever.

    Cracks appear in a dam long before the dam bursts.

    So, then, why fall on that sword?

    I’m not falling on any sword.

  289. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    June 26, 2018 at 00:19
    pf: If all land was privately held….

    me: What, really, is the point of this game? All land is NOT privately held. All land is highly unlikely to be “privately held.” What is the point of such hypotheticals?”

    This is one of the best robert capozzi posts ever,

    Great point that was also made by Eric July in that video I posted above where he talks about borders and immigration. We are in no position to privatize all of the land and infrastructure that is currently being held by government. This is at best a far off fantasy right now. So pretending like we can operate under the same conditions that society would function under if land privatization and the privatization of infrastructure were to happen is day dreaming.

    How about operating in the real world as it is, instead of operating in fantasy land? Sure, it is nice to dream, and to have long term goals, but you also have to function in the real world now, as it is.

  290. Paul

    If we’re operating in reality, then we should opt for more freedom, not less. Crossing imaginary lines unmolested would be one such freedom.

  291. robert capozzi

    tk: The problem for radicals is not incrementalism, it’s calculationism — the idea that a “net reduction in overall aggression” can be achieved by some kind of omniscient planning board that knows how to organize rape, abduction, armed robbery and fraud into commensurable units and give up two of those units to get three back.

    me: Omniscient? Has any moderate L claimed that their lessening-the-net-incidence-of-coercion viewpoint is “omniscient”? I certainly don’t claim it…not even close.

    Nor is it “calculationism” — it’s JUDGMENT. It’s a subjective weighing of factors at play. NAPists (the latest term…like it any better?) seem to believe in “calculationism” more than moderates do. “The” L position on X is Y because A and B indicate C.

  292. Anthony Dlugos

    ‘Every radical I know in the party is an incrementalist.”

    You can be as incremental as you want, if your endpoint is radical libertarianism, your going to have a hard time. Voters care what a candidate’s vision for the future is, and virtually no one wants to get on a train with radical libertarianism as a destination. Frankly, its doubtful that they want to get on a train with someone who even admits they CONSIDER radical libertarianism as a viable destination.

    About the most you are going to get away with is something similar to Ron Paul when he was asked about anarchism, and he responded with what I thought was a decent answer….something to the effect of “all anarchism means is voluntary exchange with other people, and what’s wrong with that?” Very nebulous, nonthreatening…and, importantly, totally void of any connection to ACTUAL policy ideas.

    In the political arena, once you even suggest your endpoint is, say, the abolishment of all political boundaries, the abolishment of ICE, border patrol, whatever…your chances of incremental success are diminished, if not wiped out.

    This reality makes radical libertarianism a substantial political liability. Even towards the goal of incremental change, a moderate libertarian is going to be more effective, more likely to build coalitions, more likely to find common ground.

    Caleb’s strategy in a small state like New Hampshire is not germane to an office like president of the US. Although I understand why a radical would make that connection: philosophically, there is no difference. Politically,there obviously is. Someone running for president is going to have to be a lot more moderate in the end goals of what they want to accomplish while in office.

    At one point during the 2016 campaign, Governor Johnson was asked by a member of the mainstream media about drug legalization. This is not surprising; the libertarian position on drug legalization is probably our best known position.

    Governor Johnson responded by talking about what he would try to accomplish if he took office.

    The journalist interrupted him and asked…”no, what do YOU think about drug legalization? What would you want to get accomplished if you could? What’s your perfect world on the drug issue?” It went down something like that.

    Johnson had to walk it back with his response.

    The point is, voters care about the destination. A presidential candidate who even hints at possibly wanting to end the drug war while in office, essentially makes him or herself unelectable by vast swaths of the American public. For obvious and legitimate reasons, the voters are gonna think, ” what ELSE is this candidate extreme about?” Consequently, any chance such a candidate had to get agreement on incremental change on drug legalization is gone.

    The radical’s philosophical consistency is irrelevant in the political world when said consistency reduces your political capital to .5% of the electorate. Opposition politicians can ignore you with impunity.

  293. Anthony Dlugos

    “I consider it unlikely that your concern — Kokesh 2020 — will ever happen, and it’s not something I’m personally sold on. It wouldn’t be as mindlessly self-destructive as Weld 2020 if it did, though.

    All the LP needs to forestall Weld is a plausibly libertarian alternative with some name recognition — perhaps a business background like the guy from Overstock? — who’s willing to make a real go of it instead of doing it half-assed.”

    I am also not sold on Kokesh even running in 2020, either. I suggested a guy that nutty might wind up imprisoned again before then anyway.

    However, Kokesh would clearly be suicidal for the party, and Weld would not be. From the point of view of the voters, not us.

    Now, I agree with you 100% on trying to recruit someone like the Overstock CEO, and on the broader idea of getting plausible libertarian alternatives to run against Weld. I’m on record saying that, as of now, John Mackey of Whole Foods would be my dream candidate.

    For the love of everything NAPist, please get some plausible libertarian alternatives to run. I relish the idea of a LEGITIMATE 2020 campaign between multiple qualified candidates.

    Don’t disappoint me with one qualified candidate and 4 catastrophically unqualified individuals.

  294. robert capozzi

    AD,

    It’s worse than you say. NAPists don’t just take one deal-breaking position. They take several. In public. For all to see.

    Legalize drugs. End public schools. Abolish Social Security. Abolish taxes. Abolish the military.

    Any one of these positions is politically radioactive. NAPists take them all. Proudly. Most NAPists know that these are way out there views, but this is their chosen jihad, so they stake out this fringe in the hopes of bending the curve in 50 years.

  295. paulie

    How about operating in the real world as it is, instead of operating in fantasy land?

    That would be great. Let me know if and when you are ready to join those of us who do so, rather than live in a delusional world of your own construction where the regime can be trusted to separate good immigrants from bad immigrants and do something with immigration law enforcement that is not building a police state. A world where a “war” on “illegal” immigrants would work out better than the “war on drugs” or “war on terror” or “war on poverty” is not the real world as it is, ever will be, or ever can be.

  296. paulie

    If we’re operating in reality, then we should opt for more freedom, not less. Crossing imaginary lines unmolested would be one such freedom.

    Exactly.

  297. Anthony Dlugos

    In the real world, a candidate who explicitly or implicitly (by rhetorical slight of hand) argues the government should have NO role in border protection/immigration law has no chance of getting elected. None. Whatever strategy for incremental gain such a candidate has is really quite irrelevant, because they are never gonna get a chance to try it.

    Advising the voters that your endpoint is to be ignored for the time being because you are an incrementalist gains you no political capital. You’ve told them the destination (at the very least a potential destination), they don’t want to go there.

    As RCapozzi points out, the situation is actually worse than that, because its one radioactive position on top of another.

    By the time you’ve got the typical voter reeling from a world without border control, you’ve swung another haymaker at them, telling them you want to abolish public schools too.

    While then are trying to figure out where they are going to send their kids to school the next academic year if they vote for your candidate/party, another haymaker comes as you explain to them that you want to end the drug war and release all nonviolent drug offenders.

    Go to the parts of the country most affected by the drug war, and tell them you want to end the drug war and release all non-violent drug offenders. You’ll already be at minority support, and that’s BEFORE you get to your ideas for eliminating federal involvement in welfare, social security, medicaid and medicare.

    Telling them “its okay, I don’t intend to get there all at once” is no salve.

    Eventually, once your done swinging, you’re down to the tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the choir you’ve been preaching to for 45 years.

  298. paulie

    There are practical short term proposals to be discussed by candidates who are running for offices which we may have some non-delusional hope of winning in a given election cycle and a more long term vision to be shared by candidates running for offices where the odds against them winning are astronomical. That long term vision is becoming better known and more accepted, inch by inch, but we are still at the “cracks in the dam” stage. Those cracks are growing, but we’re still not at a tipping point yet. Granted, the dam is not about to give way yet.

    If what you want instead is candidates with million to one chances against them discussing what they would do if someone appointed them absolute monarch and sharing a tepid version of what a slightly less crappy Demopublican might do in four years there are a lot of words for the state your mind inhabits, but real is not one of them. Should your candidate happen to be a former Demopublican with some traditional Demopublican candidate resume you’re still stuck with that candidate representing a party with the electoral track record that it actually has, and the fact that no one except Democrats and Republicans has been elected to the office that person is seeking in a century and a half, and so on.

    But what you also get is a tepid ideology, not grounded in any greater vision or principle, and ripe for takeover by opportunists. See Reform Party in the 1990s and Reform Party in the 2000s and 2010s for how that works out.

    I think voters can understand some better stated version of “no one is going to elect me emperor. I will have lots of politicians from other parties, judges and bureaucrats working against me, but I’ll do whatever I can to make government as small and less intrusive to your life as I can in whatever time I have in office.” If that’s too extreme for actually getting elected, we’ll have to settle for whatever leverage it can give us by virtue of holding the balance of power in elections, building party infrastructure, recruiting candidates and support teams for lower level and more winnable office, getting face time in media outlets, and so on. It is what it is, and it’s a long game. If you are looking to jump out of the stands and score a touchdown, or to jump out of the stands and get players from one or both sides to form a third team in the middle of the game, good luck with that.

  299. DJ

    Man, I wish this section had an up vote or reply button-

    And, Andy, as for your comment about me, I’m a Humane Human regardless of whether there are borders or walls, or fences.

  300. Thomas L. Knapp

    “You can be as incremental as you want, if your endpoint is radical libertarianism, your going to have a hard time.”

    Um … yeah. So? I’m also going to have a hard time if my endpoint is anything else, too, unless that something else is just mere fantasizing.

    Politics is kind of like sex. Getting laid requires a significant investment of time and effort and is often a long shot whether you’re hoping to get missionary position or whether you want something involving a trapeze and the Kama Sutra, because it involves other people with desires of their own. There’s only one easy way to have exactly the sex you want to have, with no inconvenient effort required — masturbation. Which is exactly what you recommend politically: Play with ourselves and fantasize that we’re doing the real thing.

  301. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    June 26, 2018 at 08:35
    AD,

    It’s worse than you say. NAPists don’t just take one deal-breaking position. They take several. In public. For all to see.

    Legalize drugs. End public schools. Abolish Social Security. Abolish taxes. Abolish the military.

    Any one of these positions is politically radioactive. NAPists take them all. Proudly. Most NAPists know that these are way out there views, but this is their chosen jihad, so they stake out this fringe in the hopes of bending the curve in 50 years.”

    I agree with all of those issues, but, I think that there’d have to be a rational plan to phase into them. Just saying, “I want to abolish Social Security,” without any plan to pay off the people who are currently relying on it, is stupid and insane, and not politically viable at all.

    Abolishing the US military sounds crazy to most people, even many who support making big cuts in government, because it makes it sound like you want to leave the country vulnerable to being attacked/invaded. A purist libertarian society would still have a need for security, but that need would not be filled by a military like we have today. There could be private security companies, and/or voluntary armed militias. The incrementalist approach to the military is to bring the troops home, stop engaging in military adventurism/imperialism, and reduce the size of the military (the military budget is filled with waste).

  302. Seebeck

    >This reality makes radical libertarianism a substantial political liability. Even towards the goal of incremental change, a moderate libertarian is going to be more effective, more likely to build coalitions, more likely to find common ground.

    Not really. In 2016 I ran for office, I’m a known radical, I proposed on my platform some incremental changes, including a large one of disentangling the county and state governments, and I led Colorado LP candidates with 31% of the vote, good for 6th nationwide.

    It’s not the position. It’s the wording of the position that mattered–plus having a finger on the pulse of whatever district one is running in.

  303. Anthony Dlugos

    “Not really. In 2016 I ran for office, I’m a known radical, I proposed on my platform some incremental changes, including a large one of disentangling the county and state governments, and I led Colorado LP candidates with 31% of the vote, good for 6th nationwide.”

    Good job on your results.

    Now, let me ask you a question: how many radicals have ever been elected to office, anywhere in the country?

    I know how many “statists” have.

    99.9%, or more, of political offices, are filled by what the radical would call “statists.”

    Don’t limit your analysis to Libertarian results only, and the liability that a radically libertarian message entails is clear. The question is: why would we limit our analysis to ONLY candidates who have never been elected (i.e., various Libertarians?) Seems bass ackwards to me.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean the radical message is WRONG. Just not very useful in the arena of electoral politics.

  304. Andy

    “DJ
    June 26, 2018 at 10:38
    Man, I wish this section had an up vote or reply button-

    And, Andy, as for your comment about me, I’m a Humane Human regardless of whether there are borders or walls, or fences.”

    Well as a humane human, why do you think that it is humane to use taxpayer funds (ie-stolen loot) to import people from other countries via the Refugee Resettlement Act (note that the US Constitution makes no provision for the government to use taxpayer funds to bring welfare recipients into the country), especially if these people hold hostile, anti-liberty, and anti-American ideologies, and especially if they have a propensity to engage in criminal behavior (scroll above for the stories I posted about the Somalians who have practically “taken over” a public park in Maine, where they have committed multiple violent assaults, and have created a situation where local residents are afraid to use the park in the own city which they pay taxes to support, as well as the story about the Somalian welfare scammers in Minnesota, who got caught defrauding the welfare system, and using some of that extra stolen money to fund radical Jihadis)? How is this “humane” for the existing population?

    If the two examples I provided above are not a case for “physical removal” from the country, then what is? What would it take for DJ to agree that somebody should get kicked out of the country?

    These people never should have been brought over here in the first place, but once they were here, they were given an opportunity, and they screwed it up. Now it is time for the penalty, which should be that they get deported. If we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society, and they moved into a covenant community and pulled this shit, they’d get kicked out, so asking the government to do its job and kick these people out of the country is no different than what private security guards, or the local homeowners militia, would do in an ancap society.

  305. Andy

    Seebeck said: “Not really. In 2016 I ran for office, I’m a known radical, I proposed on my platform some incremental changes, including a large one of disentangling the county and state governments, and I led Colorado LP candidates with 31% of the vote, good for 6th nationwide.

    It’s not the position. It’s the wording of the position that mattered–plus having a finger on the pulse of whatever district one is running in.”

    There could have been a lot of different factors that went into this. Who were you running against? Was there a Democrat and a Republican in the race? Any other minor party or independent candidates? Did you run against an incumbent? If so, how popular was the incumbent? What are the demographics of the district where you ran? Were there lots of registered independents? How much did you spend on the campaign? How much is typically spent to win this office? How much campaigning did you do?

  306. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “Don’t limit your analysis to Libertarian results only, and the liability that a radically libertarian message entails is clear. The question is: why would we limit our analysis to ONLY candidates who have never been elected (i.e., various Libertarians?) Seems bass ackwards to me.”

    Why don’t you focus on getting actual libertarian Libertarians elected to local and state offices? Since you think that “Shiny Badges” are so important, why don’t you help more actual Libertarians get “Shiny Badges” by helping them get elected to city/town offices, county offices, and seats in state legislatures. Then these “Shiny Badge” Libertarians can run for higher level offices.

    This would be a much better plan than trying to get Republicans and Democrats who don’t really hold libertarian views to run as Libertarians.

  307. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 26, 2018 at 09:34
    In the real world, a candidate who explicitly or implicitly (by rhetorical slight of hand) argues the government should have NO role in border protection/immigration law has no chance of getting elected. None. Whatever strategy for incremental gain such a candidate has is really quite irrelevant, because they are never gonna get a chance to try it.”

    I actually kind of agree with Anthony here. There are only two viable solutions to this problem, 1) Run a Darryl W. Perry or Adam Kokesh “I’m going to shut the federal government down.” style campaign, and educate the public anarcho-capitalism and/or localization (like Adam Kokesh is focusing on, as in he is kicking all issues, including immigration, back to the the states, which would become 50 independent countries if Adam were able to implement his plan), or b) Say that you are running to radically reduce the size of the federal government, but you are not outright abolishing it, so the federal government will be left with a few functions, which includes controlling/defending the borders (see the “Law of Nations” (immigration control is a part of the Law of Nations) phrase in the Constitution, as well as the part about “repelling invasions,” and Congress establishing laws concerning the Naturalization of foreigners, and also say that you are eliminating government welfare programs, and/or at least prohibit foreigners from using them.

    Saying that you want to completely open the borders, as in allow unlimited, no questions asked immigration, is a complete lunatic position that is not even really libertarian, as it would only work under the context of a private property anarcho-capitalist society, which would have land owners regulating immigration, which is not the same thing as open borders, since land owners would be able to discriminate for any reason. It is also an extremely unpopular issue with the public. It is in the category of political suicide.

  308. Jim

    Seebeck “In 2016 I ran for office, I’m a known radical, I proposed on my platform some incremental changes, including a large one of disentangling the county and state governments, and I led Colorado LP candidates with 31% of the vote, good for 6th nationwide.”

    6th for state legislature. 8th if statewide offices are included. 35th, I think, if local candidates are included. It’s difficult to keep track of local election results.

  309. Jim

    A reddit post from Matt Kuehnel on the state of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus:

    “There’s literally only like 20 of us. I’m way more concerned with getting socialists to be more libertarian than getting Libertarians to be more socialist.”

    If it’s true that there really are only 20 or so of them, after… 10 months? then it’s difficult to say that they’re anything more than a novelty.

  310. paulie

    Well yeah, they don’t even amount to a mouse fart really. I am really much, much more concerned about the threat to both the party and country/world at large alike from the racist, fascist, nationalist far right (AltReich and Drumpf supporters). This includes reich wing entryists who like to pretend they are libertarians and have a whole bunch of people fooled not only that they are but that they are the real representatives of what a “true libertarian” is. Regardless of whether you call them “paleo” or the Alt Right or whatever else they are a menace to the party, the movement, and the wider political scene as a whole. And in the form of the Cheeto Benito they also represent an existential threat to all life on this planet.

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/paul-frankel-why-libertarians-need-to-denounce-the-alt-right-and-white-nationalists-and-dont-need-to-worry-about-libertarian-socialists-and-antifa/

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/08/clayton-hunt-vs-paul-frankel-should-libertarians-secretly-root-for-donald-trump/

  311. Chuck Moulton

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

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

    Paulie wrote:

    when the LP needs signatures, it doesn’t matter much what a would be petitioner says online, what matters is if they are willing to work, especially but not only if they are known to be able to bring in signatures. […] the party is desperate for signatures, at least in some times and places, and they are willing to do it and/or have demonstrated a proven ability to do it.

    So Andy can spew whatever hate he wants, whether it be at LP leadership or candidates or immigrants or whoever else, and he’ll still get LP work when he wants it. He remains a good petitioner, […] He can do a lot of signatures when he is “on” and generally has good validity. And he is not desperate for money, unlike most petitioners. And he owns his own car and can work independently, unlike some of us. So if you are a state LP or the national LP, and you are looking at the possibility of failing on a signature drive, chances are you will hire him even if you know what kind of garbage he posts in IPR comments – and chances are also high that you will not know about that.

    I am chair of the election committee for the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, which is in charge of hiring and overseeing paid petitioners. I could have made hiring decisions myself (or ran the whole drive), but I let others take the reigns on that — in part because I am overextended as it is.

    That said, I advised everyone involved that Andy should be first on any list of paid petitioners considered for this job, his brother Kevin should be second or third (Jay Russell being the other guy in that tie), and (in contrast) the mercenary petitioner who screwed us in 2012 should be very low on any list — ideally avoided, but (failing that) closely monitored. I gave that advice because I know Andy has high validities, does party outreach while he petitions, collects lots of signatures quickly, will help lower level candidates, and has a car that enables him to collect outside of cities (validity is much lower in cities, and it doesn’t help many of our stacked lower level candidates). Despite my differences of opinion with him on immigration and 9/11, I know Andy still represents the LP better than mercenaries who know nothing about LP positions and will say anything for a signature (like certain petitioners who claim we want to raise the minimum wage or increase welfare). And he did indeed give me a lot of new contacts when he petitioned in Virginia while I was state chair.

    I even voted for Andy for LNC At-Large — though that was back when he was just big on troofer nonsense rather than these recent immigration rants.

  312. robert capozzi

    CM,

    AD and I seem to agree in the high 90%s, but this was my line:

    “Probably not the best career move for you to say this in public.”

    No big deal…just sayin’.

  313. robert capozzi

    “Crossing imaginary lines unmolested would be one such freedom.”

    It’s true that national borders are imaginary. Then, again, so is private property! The whole thing’s a construct, when observed from a truly radical perspective. Public, domestic tranquility maintenance organizations and the very institution of private property are made up. That’s not to say that they don’t have utility, because they do. Tons, actually.

  314. Chuck Moulton

    Sorry, Bob!

    Usually when reading IPR comments I read chronologically. When I notice a comment to which I want to respond, I copy it. Then I keep reading through 100 other comments, and paste it when I get down to the new comment box. Sometimes in that process I misremember who posted the original comment.

  315. paulie

    Public, domestic tranquility maintenance organizations…

    …Don’t require territorial exclusivity to perform any such function.

    And if I can’t choose my domestic tranquility maintenance organization without moving thousands of miles away, and have to get permission from the domestic tranquility maintenance organizations to even make the move, there’s little check and balance to ensure that they are providing a service I want and not charging more than it’s worth.

    Sure, if I meet their standards and fill out enough forms often enough, I may be allowed a statistically insignificant vote at the biennial and quadrennial shareholders meetings, which I may cast for the marginally lesser evil (if I can even identify which evil is lesser) or a protest vote, but that’s not quite the same thing as having any meaningful choice in how they run this so-called “service” which I can’t opt out of without rearranging my whole life — that is, if I am allowed to opt out of it at all.

  316. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Yes, I understand your view on the government construct. I’m more highlighting that private property is a construct as well. “My yard ends here and yours starts there” is made up. The Earth has no property lines; humans invent them based on conjured-up rules.

    When that dawned on me, I lost most of my ideological fervor for the “natural law” perspective. It led to a great sense of chill.

    This is not to say that I don’t think property rights has utility. It does. Tons, actually. But atomistic individualism feels a lot more quaint when I let NAPism go.

  317. paulie

    Property has a basis in self-ownership. If I own my own body I can mix my labor with homesteaded land and develop it. Or I can trade my work for land someone else thus developed, or for something of value or agreed upon medium of exchange and buy land with that. I can give it to someone else, like my children or whoever else, through inheritance or gift.

    Regimes, by contrast, take whatever they have by force. Their basis for existence is entirely based on intimidation and coercion, much like street gangs or organized crime organizations.

    Private property lines may not be ideal, in that property has been stolen, coerced, or purchased with the proceeds of extortion, etc. There’s also the question of how much labor can be mixed with how much land to make a property claim legitimate. However, they have at least some basis in something that legitimately stems from self-ownership, and the alternative – property held in common – suffers from the tragedy of the commons.

    Regime property, however, can never be legitimate; the regime has no labor or property that isn’t conscripted, and any value it has to offer rests purely on the basis of territorial exclusion obtained by force or the threat of force. Since it owns nothing and produces nothing it has no labor to mix with anything nor any honestly acquired funds to buy anything with.

    It has no legitimate claim or partial claim to all property within whatever borders it claims, and thus no legitimate right to exclude anyone.

  318. robert capozzi

    pf: …can mix my labor …may not be ideal…the question of how much labor can be mixed with how much land to make a property claim legitimate.

    me: Wonderfully careful and nuanced. Who’s to say HOW MUCH labor and what constitutes “legitimacy?” And if, as is inevitable, there are disagreements on these and so many matters.

  319. paulie

    Who’s to say HOW MUCH labor

    There are many ways to resolve conflicts, and they don’t have to involve territorial monopoly. There are whole libraries of literature about that and I have no interest in rewriting them here.

    and what constitutes “legitimacy?”

    The aforementioned mixing of labor with land.

    Again, admittedly it’s imperfect. But at least it has some legitimate basis, unlike government and its borders, which have exactly zero.

  320. robert capozzi

    pf: There are whole libraries of literature about that

    me: Yes, law libraries in English-common-law-practicing nations are brimming with the ATTEMPT to sort out “rights” and property-oriented disputes. One GLARING problem with jurisprudence: It has to be BOUGHT. Discovery alone can be quite expensive. And this means: the playing field is NOWHERE NEAR level.

    If you and Jeff Bezos have a dispute with you over who owns a MS shack, who stands to win in court? By the legal construct, you may well be the “rightful” owner. Still, my money’s on Bezos.

    Property rights rest on a fair and equitable legal system. We don’t have one. Therefore, the legitimacy of a property claim is HEAVILY dependent on the level of means of the parties. I’m not confident that the literature solves the problem.

  321. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Also a more semi-recent development. I was probably a balanced but slightly right-leaning L for a long time. It’s from interacting with Georgist Ls and Mackey’s FLOW group. Theirs is another construct, too, but for me their critique pierced the veil of more orthodox Lockean Ls. The Georgist Ls tend to hinge their view on collective common ownership of natural resources and especially land. For me, that has problems, too, but my notion that property-rights-rest-on-jurisprudence-and-the-law-is-deeply-flawed view formed when engaged in that communication. It might even be my own synthesis…not sure….doesn’t matter.

    That led me to be very open to UBI or a citizens dividend. UBI can be justified from a commonwealth perspective, but the inherent problems of jurisprudence inevitably lead to injustice and, in a way, market failure! UBI would acknowledge that justice is NOT blind, so let’s compensate everyone for the inevitable failings of the system to perfectly protect property rights.

    Any system is a construct, so let’s not kid ourselves. And no setup is not without its weak points. Obvious unaddressed injustice, however, creates a grinding disharmony.

  322. paulie

    One GLARING problem with jurisprudence: It has to be BOUGHT.

    There are plenty of means of conflict resolution which don’t rely on profit motive. But this is getting way too far off in the weeds, as I indicated my focus is mainly on the short term and practical and this is way too much time discussing things that are very, very far from that.

  323. robert capozzi

    pf,

    Clarifying, my critique is not that there’s a “profit motive,” it’s simply that conflict resolution is not free. Therefore, enforcement of a property rights system is not natural, it’s instead manufactured and therefore easily corrupted and certainly imperfect.

    This is an open thread. My view is that NAPism as applied to the LP fails rather spectacularly precisely because the premise is deeply flawed. The foundation crumbles under any significant scrutiny. Practical, near-term matters are highly dependent on the theory and adopted premises.

    Ignore them at your peril.

  324. paulie

    conflict resolution is not free.

    Nothing is free, but people may choose to volunteer their time and resources towards helping to be conflict resolvers.

    Practical, near-term matters are highly dependent on the theory and adopted premises.

    I take the world as it is, and fully acknowledge that the premises are flawed and furthermore… I’m not sure a set of premises that isn’t flawed is even possible. We have a bloody mess and try to make the best of it as best we can.

    That led me to be very open to UBI or a citizens dividend. UBI can be justified from a commonwealth perspective, but the inherent problems of jurisprudence inevitably lead to injustice and, in a way, market failure! UBI would acknowledge that justice is NOT blind, so let’s compensate everyone for the inevitable failings of the system to perfectly protect property rights.

    I’ve thought about that, based on the same questions about the flaws in the basis of property exclusion that you bring up. But I think it would be a mess in the real world. There has to be a regime entity to collect and distribute the money and keep track of everyone to make sure that someone isn’t double dipping or worse. I doubt it would be long before carrots and sticks would be added to incentivize and disincentivize various behaviors. And of course, as more and more people would see more and more other people “free ride,” more and more people would lose incentive to work hard and would free ride themselves, creating their own sort of tragedy of the commons. Not quit as bad because at least there would still be an opportunity to do/live better, but it would act as an undertow which could create its own spiraling drain effect on the economy.

    Of course, we have many of those same problems with the existing welfare state, so it’s worthwhile to discuss whether it would be better or worse than the mess we have now. I just don’t want to get into that discussion now because I have other things to do.

  325. DJ

    Andy: Well as a humane human, why do you think that it is humane to use taxpayer funds

    Me: I didn’t write the rules and neither did the immigrants or the established citizens.

    Politicians wrote them, or likely paid someone else to to suit a belief that doesn’t, for whatever reason, use common sense or believe they won’t be seen for what they really are- educated beyond their intellect people who believe they don’t put their pants on one leg at a time and believe casting a shade over another’s light makes their’s shine brighter whose only “philosophy” (on ALL issues) is; I’ll do whatever looks good today, tomorrow be damned, unless I don’t/can’t get re-elected-

    That said, rules are made to be broken and no rule can fix a problem created by a rule- some people make breaking the rules a way of life, some come by the ability naturally, some learn it, some look for it, nearly all exercise it- all rules (and laws) are made to restrict one while advancing another and often as not to generate revenue to retain power as well as punish an offender of a perceived “might happen” event which gains applause and support by populist whose moral compass is off a bit, or a lot- as a Humane Human I see laws not based on morality or humane endeavors for what they are: to restrict, impede and impair through legal mumbo-jumbo claiming some sense of moral high ground or superiority based solely on a predication of “might” happen. Anecdotal evidence to support a theory or belief is not empirical evidence- anecdotal evidence can also point out ‘tribal” control of a territory by legal citizens who commit atrocious crimes against legal citizens, especially if those legal citizens look different or act different-

  326. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “Also a more semi-recent development. I was probably a balanced but slightly right-leaning L for a long time…my notion that property-rights-rest-on-jurisprudence-and-the-law-is-deeply-flawed view formed when engaged in that communication. ”

    I’ve gone through a similar change, the only difference being that for me, it was communication with thinking progressives in a humanist/atheist/agnostic group I am a part of, in addition to that communication causing me to do some separate reading on property rights from a progressive perspective.

    I did the one thing a dogmatic NAPists…or any dogmatic…shouldn’t do: I actually started listening to the people I was talking to, rather than just waiting for my time to speak in order to lay down the dogma once again.

    That also led me to seriously consider the benefits of the UBI.

    The irony here is that its the most dogmatic NAPists I converse with who are most vitriolic in their denouncement of the LP continuing to proffer republican has-beens…even though Johnson and Weld are hardly right-wing republicans…more left-leaning republicans that did not field comfortable with the hard right turn the GOP took.

    Unfortunately, its their very theoretical construct has a different impact here in the real world…makes the LP look like exactly what we’ve been periodically tarred with: “republicans who want to smoke pot.”

  327. Andy

    DJ, immigrants have the right to pursue happiness, but they do not have the right to do this at the expense of others, nor is their a right to move onto land that is already occupied by other people.

    We are not living in the days of the untamed frontier. There are over 325 million people in the USA (3rd most populated country in the world), we live under a system of government which has laws and elections, and there is lots of taxpayer owned and funded land and infrastructure and programs in place.

    Acting like we are living in some kind of untamed frontier is ludicrous.

  328. Anthony Dlugos

    yoo hoo, Andy…wake up…its 2018. Been 30 years since RP was the presidential nominee.

    The LP has moved on from the old coot soft-core racist newsletter publisher.

  329. robert capozzi

    pf: Nothing is free, but people may choose to volunteer their time and resources towards helping to be conflict resolvers.

    me: Impractical. In a world of highly complex property-rights regimes, I’m deeply skeptical that volunteers will have the motivation to sort out disputes with rigor. Half-assed cost-free justice could easily be worse than our current buy-the-best-legal-outcome setup.

    pf: I take the world as it is, and fully acknowledge that the premises are flawed and furthermore… I’m not sure a set of premises that isn’t flawed is even possible. We have a bloody mess and try to make the best of it as best we can.

    me: With ya here, in spades. I’m under no illusions that a minimal-to-no government but a socioeconomic political economy that is smoothed off with a UBI will have all sorts of challenges. I can envision, though, that it’d be widely perceived as fairer and freer than the current setup.

    pf: I’ve thought about that, based on the same questions about the flaws in the basis of property exclusion that you bring up. But I think it would be a mess in the real world….

    me: There definitely are risks with a UBI. I think, though, that it COULD be viewed as not “welfare,” but rather an IMPROVEMENT to the current property-rights regime.

  330. robert capozzi

    AD,

    Yes, the Longite NAPists are especially hostile to and hypocritical about folks like GJ and WW. And yet they like to portray themselves as “left Ls,” and wanting to focus outreach on the left over the right.

    It strikes me as delusional on their part. Their anarchic economic views are complete non-starters with most progressives. Could they peel a few away? Sure, with extensive de-programming.

    And, yes, being open-minded is a virtue. I’d rather be called “unprincipled” by dogmatists than to not be open to the possibility that my preconceived notions might be not-quite-right, or even wrong! Happens all the time!

  331. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    June 27, 2018 at 13:52
    yoo hoo, Andy…wake up…its 2018. Been 30 years since RP was the presidential nominee.

    The LP has moved on from the old coot soft-core racist newsletter publisher.”

    Ron Paul is still a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, and he gave a speech via video at the 2016 LP National Convention in New Orleans, which received a standing ovation. Ron Paul also still has many supporters in the LP, and I’d be willing to bet money that Ron Paul has a more favorable rating among LP members than does Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

  332. Libertydave

    Andy you willfully ignorant bigot. The only people who believe your bigoted lies about how all immigrants are just coming to this country to collect welfare are other willfully ignorant bigots like yourself.

    People using a public road to travel are not harming anybody regardless of where they were born or were they are going. And just because you don’t approve doesn’t mean that there are any number of land or business owners that are more than willing to rent them a place to stay or give them a job.

    To claim they are trespassing means that your are claiming property rights to property you have no rights to. That makes you as big a thief as the government thugs who takes peoples money to give away in welfare.

  333. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 27, 2018 at 20:29
    Andy you willfully ignorant bigot. The only people who believe your bigoted lies about how all immigrants are just coming to this country to collect welfare are other willfully ignorant bigots like yourself.”

    https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households

    From the link: “In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

    Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.
    No single program explains immigrants’ higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.

    Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and use of housing programs is similar to natives.

    Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.

    Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children — 30 percent vs. 20 percent.
    The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

    The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.

    The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

    In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).
    Illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.

    Most new legal immigrants are barred from welfare programs when they first arrive, and illegal immigrants are barred as well. But the ban applies to only some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for at least some programs and the bar often does not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth.

    The heavy use of welfare by less-educated immigrants has three important policy implications: 1) prior research indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly less-educated, so allowing them to stay in the country creates significant welfare costs; 2) by admitting large numbers of less-educated immigrants to join their relatives, the legal immigration system brings in many immigrants who are likely to access the welfare system; and 3) proposals to allow in more less-educated immigrants to fill low-wage jobs would create significant welfare costs.”

  334. Andy

    Libertydave
    June 27, 2018 at 20:29
    Andy you willfully ignorant bigot. The only people who believe your bigoted lies about how all immigrants are just coming to this country to collect welfare are other willfully ignorant bigots like yourself.”

    This is from PEW Research.

    Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government

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

    From the article: “When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government which provides more services than a smaller government which provides fewer services.

    Some 75% of Hispanics hold this view; just 19% say they prefer a smaller government. By contrast, just 41% of the public at large voice support for a bigger government.”

  335. Andy

    Libertydave
    June 27, 2018 at 20:29
    Andy you willfully ignorant bigot. The only people who believe your bigoted lies about how all immigrants are just coming to this country to collect welfare are other willfully ignorant bigots like yourself.”

    This is from the Office Of Refugee Resettlement, which is a federal agency.

    Divisions – Refugee Assistance

    https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/divisions-refugee-assistance

    From the site: “ROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

    Cash and Medical Assistance Program provides reimbursement to States and alternative refugee assistance programs for 100 percent of Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA)and Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) provided to refugees and other eligible persons, as well as associated administrative costs. ORR clients determined ineligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid are categorically eligible for RCA and RMA for up to eight (8) months from the date of arrival in the U.S., date of final grant of asylum for asylees, and date of certification for trafficking victims. CMA also reimburses States for medical screening costs through local public health clinics so that contagious diseases and medical conditions that may be a barrier to refugees are identified and treated.

    Public/Private Partnership Program provides States the option to enter into partnership with local voluntary resettlement agency affiliates for the provision of refugee cash assistance. Services provided to recipients of Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) in the public/private program may be provided by the local resettlement agencies that administer the public/private RCA program or by other refugee service agencies. Program objectives are to enable or foster a more effective and better quality resettlement while maintaining State responsibility for policy and administrative oversight. ORR currently funds PPP programs in the five States of Maryland, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas.

    Wilson/Fish Alternative Program is an alternative to traditional state administered refugee resettlement programs for providing assistance (cash and medical) and social services to refugees. The purposes of the WF program are to: (a) Increase refugee prospects for early employment and self-sufficiency; (b) Promote coordination among voluntary resettlement agencies and service providers, and (c) Ensure that refugee assistance programs exist in every state where refugees are resettled. The WF program emphasizes early employment and economic self-sufficiency by integrating cash assistance, case management, and employment services and by incorporating innovative strategies for the provision of cash assistance. ORR currently funds 13 WF programs that operate throughout twelve States: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, plus San Diego County, CA.

    Refugee Social Services Program allocates formula funds to States to serve refugees in the U.S. less than sixty months (five years). This program supports employability services and other services that address participants’ barriers to employment such as: social adjustment services, interpretation and translation services, (day care for children), citizenship and naturalization services, etc. Employability services are designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs within one year of becoming enrolled in services. Service priorities are (a) all newly arriving refugees during their first year in the U.S. who apply for services; (b) refugees who are receiving cash assistance; (c) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and (d) employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain economic independence.

    Targeted Assistance Program allocates formula funds to States for counties that qualify for additional funds due to an influx of refugee arrivals and a high concentration of refugees in county jurisdictions with high utilization of public assistance. TAP services are the same as Refugee Social Services and are intended to assist refugees obtain employment within one year’s participation in the program and to achieve self-sufficiency. TAP service priorities, however, are distinctive in that they prioritize (a) cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term recipients; (b) unemployed refugees not receiving cash assistance; and (c) employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain economic independence.

    Cuban Haitian Program provides grants to State and State-alternative programs to fund assistance and services in localities most heavily impacted by an influx of Cuban and Haitian entrants and refugees. Program objectives are to support employment services, hospitals and other health and mental health care programs, adult and vocational education services, refugee crime or victimization programs, and citizenship and naturalization services.

    Refugee School Impact Program provides grants to State and State-alternative programs to support impacted school districts with the funds necessary to pay for activities that will lead to the effective integration and education of refugee children. Services target school-age refugees between the ages of five (5) and 18 years of age with program activities that include English as a Second Language instruction, after-school tutorials, programs that encourage high school completion and full participation in school activities, after-school and/or summer clubs and activities, parental involvement programs, bilingual/bicultural counselors, interpreter services and other services.

    Services to Older Refugees Program provides grants to States and State-alternative programs, public, and private non-profit organizations, to ensure that refugees aged 60 and above are linked to mainstream aging services in their community. ORR has an interagency agreement with the U.S. Administration on Aging to identify ways in which the Aging and ORR networks can work together more effectively at the State and local levels to improve elderly refugees’ access to services. Program objectives are to (a) establish and/or expand a working relationship with the State Agency on Aging and the local community Area Agency on Aging to ensure all older refugees in the community will be linked to mainstream aging services in their community; (b) provide appropriate services to all older refugees that are not currently being provided in the community; (c) create opportunities to enable older refugees to live independently as long as possible; and (d) develop services for or link older refugees to naturalization services, especially for those who have lost or are at risk of losing Supplemental Security Income and other Federal benefits.

    Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program provides grants to States and State-alternative programs to address the employment needs of refugees that cannot be met with the Formula Social Services or Formula Targeted Assistance Grant Programs. Activities under this program are for the purpose of supplementing and/or complementing existing employment services to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency. Services funded through the targeted assistance program are required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of resettlement. This funding requirement also promotes the provision of services to refugees who are (‘hard to reach’) and thus finding greater difficulty integrating. Refugees residing in the U.S. longer than five years, refugee women who are not literate in their native language, as well as the elderly are some of the special populations served by this discretionary grant program.”

  336. Andy

    Libertydave said: “People using a public road to travel are not harming anybody regardless of where they were born or were they are going. And just because you don’t approve doesn’t mean that there are any number of land or business owners that are more than willing to rent them a place to stay or give them a job.”

    You say they are not harming anyone. Have you been in traffic in a place like Los Angeles, CA lately? Not only do these people held jam up and put wear and tear on the roads, a lot of them drive without car insurance and get into car accidents.

    Regardless of any problems caused by more drivers on the roads, this gets down to a property rights issue. Since foreigners are not from this country, they have no right to use the roads here or anything else. They did not pay for it and they have no right of inheritance to use it. They are latecomers. This does not mean that foreigners can’t use the roads and other public infrastructure, as I think that they should be under certain circumstances, but they don’t have a right to use it, nor should they be able to use it as if they are citizens.

    This would be like if there was a condominium complex or a gated community. The general public does not have the right to use their pool or their tennis courts or their roads, but they can use them under specified circumstances if they are accompanied by a resident of the condominium complex or gated community.

    “To claim they are trespassing means that your are claiming property rights to property you have no rights to. That makes you as big a thief as the government thugs who takes peoples money to give away in welfare.”

    That is complete bullshit. Every country in the world has some form of border and immigration control. There is no country in the world where people can waltz in with no questions asked, and this would not change if we moved into an anarcho-capitalist society that had private cities.

    Disney World is a defacto private city. Can you just waltz into Disney World and start using their roads and other infrastructure? No, you have to purchase a ticket and follow their rules, and if you overstay your ticket time, or break their rules, their security will throw you out.

    Who enters the country impacts a lot of things, such as the elections, which public policies get pushed, how many people are on welfare, how many people are using public services (roads, schools, hospitals, etc…), crime, disease, etc…

    Proximity plus competition for scarce resources can lead to conflict. Saying that anyone on the planet can waltz in with no questions asked and start using all of the public resources is complete rejection of property norms and has nothing to do with libertarianism.

  337. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 27, 2018 at 20:29
    Andy you willfully ignorant bigot. The only people who believe your bigoted lies about how all immigrants are just coming to this country to collect welfare are other willfully ignorant bigots like yourself.”

    I never said that all immigrants were coming to this country so they can get on welfare, but the fact of the matter is that many of them are. Certainly a large enough percentage to where it is a major problem. Also, some of them may not have intended to get on welfare, but they, and/or their offspring, ended up on it anyway.

  338. Andy

    Interesting report from Brittany Pettibone on 65 countries that have border walls/fences. They include India, Israel, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia.

    Border Walls: The 65 ‘Racist’ Countries That Have Them

  339. Libertydave

    Andy,

    You repeating bigoted lies doesn’t make them true. While some immigrants may get help when they first get here, over their lifetimes here they will pay more in taxes than they will recieve in welfare.

    But if we follow your policies then the government thug are going to spend at least 10 time the amount they would have paid in welfare just to try and keep immigrants out. And they will succeed as well as they do in keeping drugs out of prisons.

    Your policies of closed boarders will bankrupt the country faster than having open boarders with a welfare state.

  340. Andy

    “Libertydave
    June 27, 2018 at 23:27
    Andy,

    You repeating bigoted lies doesn’t make them true.”

    I just posted multiple links that contain documented facts, including a link to a federal government website that is the agency that brings the refugees into the country, and it is admitted right there on the freaking site that it is a welfare program.

    If you deny this, then you deny reality. You must not be interested in facts.

    “While some immigrants may get help when they first get here, over their lifetimes here they will pay more in taxes than they will recieve in welfare.”

    If they need to “get help” from the taxpayers when they get here, they should not be here at all.

    Also, many of these people do in fact take in more in government welfare and other services than what they put into the system, and this is especially true when they have kids, who are often left out of the statistics, due to the idiotic interpretation of Birthright Citizenship counting them as American citizens.

    “But if we follow your policies then the government thug are going to spend at least 10 time the amount they would have paid in welfare just to try and keep immigrants out. And they will succeed as well as they do in keeping drugs out of prisons.”

    More bullshit, which I have already debunked here.

    The European countries of Switzerland, Lechtenstein and Luxembourg, are all rated high on the freedom index, and none of them are being overrun with destructive foreign migrants, unlike the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc… Why? Is it because they built up big police states to stop foreign migrants? No. It is because they don’t invite them. They don’t entice them to come there with welfare handouts and an easy path to citizenship.

    “Your policies of closed boarders will bankrupt the country faster than having open boarders with a welfare state.”

    More bullshit. I have never advocated a closed border policy. I have said that some people should be allowed to immigrate here, but the standards for who comes here should be set higher, and the standards for citizenship should be higher. People who hold Marxist or theocratic ideologies should be weeded out, as should criminals, welfare seekers, and people with communicable diseases, at least as much as possible. If somebody sneaks in anyway, if they are caught, they should be deported. Cut off all welfare and government services to these people, with the possible exception of emergency healthcare (I may be willing to concede on this just so people don’t die), but this would be followed by deportation. If somebody sneaks in and has kids while they are here, there kids do not get granted American citizenship, and they can’t enroll in government schools, or get any other taxpayer funded benefits, and if they get caught, the entire family gets deported.

    Tourists and work VISAS could still be granted, but if a tourist or a foreign guest worker has any kids while they are here, that kid should not be granted American citizenship. End birth tourism (that is foreigners coming here just to have kids, so their kids will be automatic American citizens, and then they can get their foot in the door to this country and get lots of handouts). Foreign workers should come in for a specified length of time for their job, and then leave. I really question the need to have people come here doing low skilled work when there are plenty of lazy ass Americans sitting around collecting welfare checks. Tell all of those Americans who are on welfare that their welfare checks are being cut off, and that going forward, they are going to have to work for a living, and I don’t give a shit if they have kids. Their kids can go out and work too. I used to go out and cut lawns and rake leaves and shovel snow for money as a youngster. I got a newspaper route when I was 13. I’m not saying that it is never necessary to have foreign workers, I’m just questioning the need for it in some cases. Another factor here is emerging robot technology, which could end up replacing people in these jobs.

    So really, the main things that would have to be done are 1) cut off welfare for all immigrants, and restrict illegal immigrants from all government services, with the possible exception of emergency healthcare, which would be followed by deportation; 2) make the citizenship process more difficult end Birthright Citizenship for foreigners, do not offer citizenship to anyone who sneaks into the country, require a thorough understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and free market economics, and I’d also add in a special course on the right to keep and bear arms, which would include trips to a firing range, and also ban foreign lobbyists, and I’d consider eliminating duel citizenship; 3) I don’t think that there’d have to be a lot of effort put into hunting down illegal immigrants, as a lot of them would probably self deport if the other provisions were put in place, and for the ones who stay, they can never become citizens, and if they have any offspring, they won’t be granted citizenship either, and if they get caught committing a crime, they get deported.

    It would not take building a big police state to do any of this. This would actually save the taxpayers lots of money, not only in reduced welfare costs and a reduced costs for other government services (like public schools, etc…), it would also reduce the large demographic voting blocks that consistently vote for higher taxes, more welfare programs, and more gun control laws. It would also reduce the number of criminals that come here, and it would stop coddling the criminals that do come here. Simply repealing the Refugee Resettlement Act, which is a government welfare program, would stop a lot of unproductive and destructive people from coming here, since most of those people would not have the means to get here on their own without the program.

    My proposals would be a net reduction in the size of government.

  341. Andy

    “here kids do not get granted ”

    Should read, “there kids do not get granted…”

  342. DJ

    Andy: We are not living in the days of the untamed frontier. There are over 325 million people in the USA (3rd most populated country in the world), we live under a system of government which has laws and elections, and there is lots of taxpayer owned and funded land and infrastructure and programs in place.

    Acting like we are living in some kind of untamed frontier is ludicrous

    Me: That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said or what you asked me to comment on.

    Let me reiterate, Andy: I didn’t/don’t write the rules but no rule will stop me from acting in a humane manner- rules be damned. Politics is nothing but a tool to keep people divided (in 2018)- taxes are nothing more than user fees with “class” distinctions based on income for the fed reserve profit (in 2018) both act inhumanely in 2018- I won’t.

    My job in this life is to leave my space better than I found it, defined by me, not you and not some set of rules put in place by tool designers with less than benevolent purposes- not society- not a religion-not a rule- not a law- I live by setting an example for my kids and others I interact with, regardless of where they come from, how they vote, what they believe or worship- what color their skin or language they speak- when confronted with fear mongering I fear not- I see with my eyes and hear with my ears and make decisions with my brain and respond accordingly. I’m playing the game by the rules written by others, with the hand I was dealt, who pretend to be something they aren’t- omnipotent- and “I” will survive- long after the rule writers have changed their shirt, changed their colors, changed their minds, changed their rules, their group name, their group think and all but vanished- the”I”ndividual will still be here and the Individual will still have inherent rights- migration will never be stopped- Individuals will always see greener grass- treating others humanely is what “I” do- unto others as I would have them do unto me- yes it is a “philosophy” of life- a philosophy that isn’t dependent on a rule, or a Party, the only requirement being a human- and would, BTW, be more effective in 2018 and beyond than ALL rules combined- I believe in “be the change you want to see”- a life “philosophy”- I’ve been around a lot longer that you have and seen many things you haven’t (and vice versa I’m sure), but “my” eyes and “my” perspective are mine developed from “my” experiences and knowledge of life- no rule is going to change that.

    And, before you even start with the “I approve of legal immigration” just stop. Legal schmeagle is gobbledy gook to appease a base- rules written by who was best paid to get a rule implemented to benefit one over another which is NOT what this country was founded for- it was founded to keep legal schmeagel at a minimum to help prevent oppression and tyranny by a legal entity- ALL laws open at least 4 doors for corruption- when a law writer is not held accountable he becomes a tyrant- when a law enforcer believes himself judge jury and executioner he becomes a tyrant- when a system, or society tries to force a belief it becomes bigoted, especially in 2018-

    We can discuss any number of thoughts Andy- I will not be preached to- or talked down to by you or anyone else here or anywhere else- I am me- I am a human- state your case we’ll discuss it- when you change the goal posts I will respond in a manner you may find uncomfortable or a bit verbose- so, if you want to address what you originally asked to which I originally responded- I’m all eyes.

  343. Andy

    DJ said: “And, before you even start with the ‘I approve of legal immigration’ just stop. Legal schmeagle is gobbledy gook to appease a base- rules written by who was best paid to get a rule implemented to benefit one over another which is NOT what this country was founded for- ”

    When this country was founded, there was no welfare state, travel to get here from other parts of the world was really difficult, and there were only a little over 3 million people in the 13 original colonies, and the rest of what became the USA also had a sparse population. The first, or one of the first, laws passed after the new country was formed was the 1790 Naturalization Act, which limited American citizenship only to “free white persons of good character”.

    It is intellectually dishonest to compare the immigration of the 1700’s-early 1900’s (pre-welfare state) to today.

    Also, as long as the government exists, along with its public property and infrastructure, whatever policy you have in place while the state exists, whether it is open the flood gates and let anyone enter, or close the door and don’t let anybody enter, or somewhere in between those two extremes, is still a statist policy, because it would be implemented by the state.

    The only way to make immigration non-statist is to eliminate the state and turn everything over to private property owners, and private property owners would be the ones regulating who can go where and under what terms instead of the state.

  344. DJ

    All laws open at least 4 doors to corruption- the most egregious is enFORCEment- the second most egregious is application- the first is when written- fed laws in particular because they stick their nose into local/private affairs where never intended (but do in 2018)- the other is open to interpretation- interpretation disrespects definition (especially in 2018)- is is is comes to mind- most laws are predicated on “might” sometimes with anecdotal evidence used to justify, when in realty, they are revenue generators for non-producers to confiscate wealth from producers- justification is an excuse, often as not lame, to attempt to validate to appease a contingent not happy because- whatever.

    The justification, quite often, is a moral high ground- corrupt has no moral high ground. Moral high ground is a pretentious affront to intelligence if not an outright insult- group think is employed- group is disrespectful of the Individual- a coming together for defense purposes is legitimate- to propose a law through dogmatic fear mongering invites corruption and intentionally divides individuals into groups- think income tax brackets – that is an “official” grouping putting people into a “class” system- a system is a means of control- all systems are a control effort- The Patriot act and it’s off spring- this country has failed it’s founders desires- but, as with any desire, it is only fulfillable by Individual effort- Individual effort creates the greater good, Naturally- it cannot be mandated or legislated- without Individual effort even the group will fail-

Leave a Reply

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