Open Thread for September 2018

Okay, all you free- and independent- thinkers: Here is our open thread for September. If you have something to share with the group that doesn’t fit into any of the other threads/discussions, here is a place for you to post it. Make sure you’re not plagiarizing or libeling someone, and otherwise you should be fine.

156 thoughts on “Open Thread for September 2018

  1. Fred Stein

    My prediction is China will rule the world in the next decade. After that, the struggle will be between humans and artificial intelligence. They won the first battle . We are all addicted to our phones. I feel sorry for cats and dogs, the children of tomorrow will want robot versions of them.

  2. wolfefan

    Hi Jill – nice to see you here again! I figured it wasn’t Paulie posting since a) there were not as many videos and b) I recognized the artists! (Not a criticism – Paulie opens me up to some interesting folks.)

  3. Andy

    Eric July exposes the fact that the true definition of libertarian is not “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”.

    Eric July: Libertarian Phrase is not Accurate

  4. wredlich

    Interesting article in the Washington Post:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/people-dont-vote-for-want-they-want-they-vote-for-who-they-are/2018/08/30/fb5b7e44-abd7-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html

    I wonder what this means for third parties.

    “The best predictor of ideological animus, the study found, wasn’t a respondent’s opinions or even how strongly she held them, but what label she embraced, conservative or liberal. Mason calls this “identity-based ideology,” as opposed to “issue-based ideology.” Other researchers in political psychology prefer to speak of “affective polarization.” Either formulation is a polite way of saying that political cleavages are not so much “I disagree with your views” as “I hate your stupid face.” You can be an ideologue without ideology.”

    “Indeed, while few Americans are still bothered by interracial marriage, recent surveys find that between 30 and 60 percent of people who identify as Democrats or Republicans want their kids to marry in the party. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that identity politics is the only kind of politics we’ve got.”

    “To wish away identity politics is to wish away gravity. It burdens us, but it also grounds us. A workable politics enlists its force — and broadens its scope. At its very broadest, this gave us the inclusive nationalisms of FDR, Ike and JFK, with all their limitations. Successful politicians know that I’m with you counts for more than I’m for you. To say identity precedes issues doesn’t mean that issues aren’t important. But high-flown ideas — including a moral commitment to equality — must come down to earth to gain power: They matter when they connect to groups that matter to us, when they enter into a collective sense of who and what we are. For better or worse, it’s only through identity that ideas can change the world. “

  5. DJ

    “The best predictor of ideological animus, the study found, wasn’t a respondent’s opinions or even how strongly she held them,
    ……….

    I’ve noticed that when I read articles about cats they always call “kitty” a her- I read articles about cats because I have one- a he, Davey Crockett- does this mean I don’t like girls? I’ve often said of myself that I was born with too many female hormones (because I empathize with women)- does that mean I don’t see things the way other men do? I’ll admit I’m often ashamed to be of the male gender- but, most of what I read (outside of politics) is written by men- men call inanimate object “her” (country, vehicles, guns etc)- is that an identity crisis?

    The article, while “she” (it) may be onto something about identity politics “she” (it) might try “being the change you want to see”, as in “example is the best teacher/leader” etc.

    The article also points out group think is predominate- imagine that. A couple centuries of grouping people so they’re easier to divide (can we say tax brackets?) the writer? sees it worthy of writing about. Deep thinker this writer- not.

  6. Don Wills

    I understand that most of the posters here are in favor of open borders. I am not.

    I stumbled across an interview with Godfrey Bloom, a Brit who was previously associated with UKIP but was apparently kicked out. He is a libertarian, although the establishment smears him by calling him “far right” and other more nasty labels. Anyway, he was interviewed by Claudio Grass about Brexit generally. In the interview (full text here – http://www.acting-man.com/?p=53362), he addressed the issue of free movement of goods, capital and labor. His response was the best I’ve ever read concerning the impossibility of successful free movement of labor at this current point in history –

    ###

    “Libertarians true to their salt always endorse total free trade, and unrestricted capital and people movement. Unrestricted trade and capital movement are relatively easy to deliver given political will. The orthodox libertarian need not abandon this holy writ. Where libertarian dogma falls down is the failure of its advocates to understand that substantial changes to government remits are essential before this can take place.

    The industrial democratic economies have far too much baggage to embrace free movement of labor. In Britain, the State has committed itself, quite dangerously, to guarantee far too much to far too many people at the expense of an ever-decreasing wealth creating sector. Health, education, pensions, social welfare, are all underwritten by the government. Its remit is simply too vast to sustain with the indigenous population, never mind significant immigration.

    The cancer in the soul of the western democracies is welfarism. It fails to distinguish between those who make welfare dependency a lifestyle choice and those who need genuine help. All welfare economies started with an intention to underpin the unfortunate and unlucky. State sponsored social insurance was the concept, not a come one come all free hand out society at the expense of the working, thrifty and self-reliant.

    We are not, nor should we be our brother’s keeper. We might volunteer to be so, but not at the point of a State bayonet. State charity (welfare) morally degrades its recipients as well as demotivates them. Welfare addiction is as rife and harmful as drug or alcohol addiction and should be treated as such.

    The libertarian must pause and look at primary dogma, property rights. If the health and education system, together with parks, transport, libraries and all the other self-imposed State remits belong to tax payers from the wealth creating class, if State borrowing is a burden on the indigenous population, the incomer impinges his or her property rights.

    One trip to a local British NHS hospital or school will drive home this point. To whom do these resources belong? Without the burden of welfare, free movement of labor becomes plausible, indeed desirable. Incomers post welfare state could then come to an economy not State-sponsored, but employer-sponsored. Job adverts could then be genuinely cross-border.

    It is neither politically correct to speak of culture clashes, nor do libertarians feel comfortable with the subject, but if property rights under law are sacrosanct, the principles of law must be so. The immigrant to Dubai must accept Sharia law just as the immigrant to the United Kingdom must accept English Law.

    Far too few immigrants from alien cultures actually work on arrival at their destination. To compare modern day immigration to welfare countries with immigration to nineteenth century America from Europe is disingenuous at best, fraudulent at worst.”

    ###

  7. Libertydave

    Andy,

    Libertarianism is about freedom. It’s about all of your freedoms, not just some of them like property rights. The name is derived from the word “liberty” which means the condition of being free from restriction or control.

    You advocating stealing my money (Taxes) to pay other people (ICE) to stop people you disapprove of from crossing an imaginary line is the opposite of libertarian.

    The phrase “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” is completely accurate. Libertarians believe in social freedom as well as economic freedom.

    You keep complaining that you are being forced to associate with people you don’t like because of open borders. This is a complete lie. In fact your position violates freedom of association more than mine does.

    My position of open borders doesn’t stop you from joining your deed restricted gated community where you won’t have to worry about having to deal with anyone you don’t approve of.

    But your position on restricted borders violates my freedom of association by not letting people I want to associate with to travel to my location or let me travel to their location without getting permission from the state.

    By the way my taxes pay for public roads just like your taxes do. This means that you claiming that someone is trespassing on public roads means that you are claiming property rights over property you have no rights to.

  8. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Thanks, Wolfefan! I check in once in a while to make sure comments aren’t stuck in pending.

    I do miss everyone here. With my second business and the family trust duties, I have much less time available than I used to. Maybe that will change soon.

  9. Paul

    Libertydave,

    I’ve told Andy in the past that I don’t want him on mah public roads that I pay for. He doesn’t care though. I also don’t want any public services I pay for going to him either. He still doesn’t care. I called ICE to try to trespass him, and they said he was born on a certain side of a line decreed by our rulers, so they won’t, unless our rulers change their mind on that.

    Don,

    Bloom was kicked out of UKIP for physical violence, and was removed from the LvMI for ranting about “international Jewish banks” and other such anti-Semitic nonsense. It’s no surprise that such a person would also hate immigrants, too.

  10. Andy

    Paul’s comment is absurd. I paid for the same public roads in this country as he did, as did my parents, and grandparents, and etc… Some of my ancestors were American revolutionaries, as in they fought in the American Revolution and found it this country. So I have every right to use the roads and all of the rest of the public infrastructure in this country.

    Also, I have never said that foreigners should be barred from using the roads and infrastructure in this country in all cases. I said that foreigners can use it under certain restrictions. Foreigners can use it so long as they are legal immigrants or tourists or guest workers, however, all foreigners (as in non-citizens) should be barred from collecting Social Security or other social welfare programs.

  11. Don Wills

    Paul wrote about Godfrey Bloom

    “Bloom was kicked out of UKIP for physical violence, and was removed from the LvMI for ranting about “international Jewish banks” and other such anti-Semitic nonsense. It’s no surprise that such a person would also hate immigrants, too.”

    Wow! Both reductio ad absurdum and ad hominen arguments. Well played.

  12. Paul

    Andy,

    Immigrants pay those same taxes Andy, without all the same benefits. The argument was meant to be absurd, just as the “immigrants are trespassing” argument is. I had family come on the Mayflower, yet I am unable to hire and rent to people based on imaginary lines, both things I have actually tried (unsuccessfully) to do, due to statist xenophobic laws that infringe on my economic liberty.

    Don,

    Lol, and yet valid all the same. The willingness of people in the “liberty movement” to fall on their sword for racist anti-government charlatans is a bit sad. Crying about personal attacks against
    violent racists is a bit pathetic.

  13. wolfefan

    Hi Jill – it sounds like a lot on your plate. I hope you’re holding up okay and taking care of yourself.

    RE: the fiscally conservative/socially liberal” thing, shouldn’t that be a picture of Ed Clark instead of Johnson? I remember that as one of his main slogans. I don’t remember it so much with Johnson, but if he used it I’d say that was a good move. No, it does not capture libertarianism in all of it’s nuance. But it’s short, memorable, and paints a broad brush picture of what the party would move towards in practice. That it has been used by the most successful L campaigns (assuming Johnson used it) shows it’s practical value.

  14. Don Wills

    Paul –

    So the words that are an explanation about why free movement of people/labor is incompatible with western societies/governments is to be ignored, censored, banned, whatever, because of the identity of the author? Ugh. That approach to convincing others of one’s superior philosophy for societal organization will invariably fail miserably. Such commentary is essentially indistinguishable from that used by SJWs who rely almost exclusively on name calling, ie., ad hominem attacks. At least you added reductio ad absurdum to your comment for a touch of variety.

    What if I had simply stolen those words and posted them without attribution? Would they have carried a bit more intellectual weight because I’m only an inferior quasi-libertarian, and not quite a full-blown anti-semite, racist, blah blah blah.

    Inquiring minds want to know – is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?

    Don

  15. Paul

    Don,

    I understand you are easily offended, but simply being critical of violent racists does not mean that I want to use government force. Those are the violent racists you seem to be glossing over. I also understand that you seem to hide violent racists behind people with somewhat mainstream views (who happen to not be violent racists). Regardless, you did in fact quote and defend a violent racist while dismissing criticism as some sort of far-left partisanship. I understand this is a common tactic of the far right when defending violent racists, though I was still disappointed in your lack of originality.

    Oh, and props for your attempts at stifling criticism with hypocrisy and pseudo-intellectualism. It’s cute. Please do it more.

  16. Don Wills

    Paul –

    “you did in fact quote and defend a violent racist”

    I didn’t know he was a violet racist when I quoted him. And you are building a straw man saying I defended him, which I did not. Hell, I had never even heard of him before I stumbled across the interview. I read the words and recognized them as a succinct summary of why open borders are incompatible with prosperity and liberty in our country.

    Again, your tactics of name calling, absurd conclusions and straw man debunking are juvenile, at best, and truly dismissive of honest discussion.

    I can only conclude that you have no interest whatsoever in reasoned discourse.

    AGAIN – is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?

  17. Libertydave

    Andy,

    Its not against anyone’s property rights to travel on public roads. You insisting otherwise is you lying. Just because you believe the lie doesn’t make it the truth or you any less of a lier.

  18. Libertydave

    Don Wills,

    You asked the question, Is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?

    The answer is of course not. It doesn’t make you a racist necessarily, it does make you a bigot though.

    The definition of Bigot is: “A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

  19. Andy

    “Libertydave
    September 3, 2018 at 00:08
    Andy,

    Its not against anyone’s property rights to travel on public roads. You insisting otherwise is you lying. Just because you believe the lie doesn’t make it the truth or you any less of a lier.”

    The public roads are for the public of the country where they are located, not for the population of the entire planet. This is much like how the private roads inside a gated community, or a private city, like the Disney World example I have used here many times, are for the people who live in the gated community, or for the people who live in, or in the case of Disney World, buy tickets, in order to use the roads inside the private city.

    Your assertion that foreign nationals should have unlimited and unrestricted use of the taxpayer funded roads in the USA would also mean that they should have unrestricted, unlimited use of all of the other taxpayer funded infrastructure and programs. So if they can use the roads without any limits, they can also use the schools, the hospitals, the libraries, etc… This would also mean that they’d be able to vote in the elections in this country.

    Your assertion is insane. Property rights is all about being able to exclude people. Saying that everyone on the planet should have unrestricted access to the property and resources in the USA, and that those of us who are already here can’t discriminate against them, means that you don’t believe in property rights.

    Your line of thinking really fits in with with the Marxists and globalists.

  20. Andy

    “Libertydave
    September 3, 2018 at 00:17
    Don Wills,

    You asked the question, Is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?

    The answer is of course not. It doesn’t make you a racist necessarily, it does make you a bigot though.”

    This is your opinion. It is not an argument.

  21. Andy

    Don Will said: “is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?”

    Every country in the world has some kind of restriction on immigration. I am not aware of any country in the world where people can just waltz in with no questions asked, and start using the commons as if they are a citizen of that country.

    This would not change even if we lived in a private property anarcho-capitalist society. I spoke to Vit Jedlicka, the President of Liberland, which is a new country that is forming on some unclaimed land (which I think is between Serbia and Croatia, which was left unclaimed to to turmoil with the governments in those countries having led to borders being redrawn, and whoever was drawing the new borders accidentally neglected to include the plot of land that Vit Jedlicka claimed for Liberland), when I was at Anarcahpulco this past February, and he said that Liberland is not going to have “open borders,” and that immigration will be done via contract, and if people violate the contract, they could be kicked out (ie-“physically removed”). There is not much of anything in Liberland yet, so there is little motivation for anyone to go there, but they do have ambitious plans for developing Liberland, and lots of liberty minded people have signed up to be on the list to go to Liberland. Once development happens in Liberland, it will start attracting people, and Vit Jecklicka is not so naive as to think people who do not believe in liberty may want to go there. He has said that Marxists, theocrats, and fascists are not going to be welcomed in Liberland. Liberland will of course have no welfare state, so it will not attract people for that, but there will be an immigration contract to move into Liberland, and given that it is a small country, there won’t be a lot of space. I tried to get a video interview with Vit Jedlicka, but unfortunately it did not come together.

    I did get an interview with “Bitcoin Jesus” Roger Ver (see here: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/03/andy-jacobs-interviews-bitcoin-jesus-roger-ver-at-anarchapulco-2-17-18/ ), who has started up a Free Society project, where he is raising money with the goal of purchasing land from some poor country, and forming an new libertarian country on this land. while at Anarchapulco, and Ver also supports the idea of a contract to live in the Free Society. I specifically asked Ver if he supports the idea promoted by Hans-Hermann Hoppe of “physical removal” of contract violators and Ver said is supportive of that concept.

    I also had an email correspondence with somebody who is behind the Liberstad project in Norway, which is a plan to build a private city, and have it based on libertarian values. I emailed them a link to by Libertarian Zone article, which is posted right here on IPR (see here: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ), and this person said that they agreed with me, and that they liked my idea of a Libertarian Zone contract, and of “physically removing” contract violators from the Libertarian Zone.

    So even the radical libertarians who are actually taking legitimate steps to build a libertarian society know that there efforts will not be successful if unlimited numbers of people can show up with no question asked. Ideology matters. People with radically different ideas as to how a society should operate in close proximity to each other creates conflict. Competition for scarce resources creates conflict. Land is a scarce resource. If you want liberty, you won’t have it if a majority of the people that you live around to not want it. Look at what is happening in South Africa right now. Heck, for that matter, look at what is happening in this country right now. The reason that you don’t live in a libertarian society right now is because most of the people you live around don’t want a libertarian society.

  22. Andy

    Don Will said: “is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?”

    Like I said above, every country in the world has some restrictions on immigration. The Mexican Constitution says that it is illegal for Mexico to have an immigration policy that upsets the demographics of Mexico. Israel has a border wall, and they only allow immigrants who are Jewish, and they DNA test people to verify if they are really Jewish. Japan barely allows any immigrants, and Japan is something like 97-98% ethnic Japanese. And so on and so forth.

    There is obviously a lot of hypocrisy here. All of this calling people “racist” or “xenophobes” or “bigots” or some other nasty sounding name is a tactic that is being used by subversives in order to try to guilt trip people into accepting the Marxist and globalist agendas.

    Here’s a great report from Brittany Pettibone about 65 countries that have some type of border wall. Note that India, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco are on the list (Morocco even has land mines protecting their border).

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

  23. Don Wills

    LibertyDave said that anyone opposed to open borders is a “bigot”, and provides the definition of “bigot” from a dictionary. That definition uses the words “hatred or intolerance” of a group of people, suggesting, but not limiting, such a grouping of people to those identified by “race or ethnicity”.

    Note that the concept of “hate” is not required for one to be a bigot, and that the grouping need not be by “race or ethnicity”.

    So parsing the words and according to that definition, yes I am a bigot. I am intolerant of certain groups of people. I would guess that everyone reading this comment fits that definition.

    I am “intolerant” of many different groups of people based on their actions, not their “race or ethnicity”. I am intolerant of murderers, burglars, people who drive while drunk, and people who try to enter this country illegally.

    So, LibertyDave, you have successfully labeled me with the pejorative “bigot”. This is yet another straw man argument that is “proven” so the argument can be “won”. Again, well played. (Not!)

    Putting the last 5 paragraphs aside, I will record LibertyDave’s vote in the NO column for the question “is anyone who opposes open borders a racist.” Paul?

    How about discussing the topic I brought up originally which is the incompatibility of open borders with the welfare state that exists today in western countries?

  24. Libertydave

    Andy,

    Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. In your example of gated communities, or using their other name, deed restricted communities you have to give up your rights to your land to the community to enforce your prejudices and keep the people you disapprove of out. And you want to turn the whole country into a gated community. This means it’s you who don’t believe in property rights.

    Also your claim that freedom to travel mean people have any other positive right is a lie. That just you trying to justify your fears and prejudices.

  25. Anthony Dlugos

    “His response was the best I’ve ever read concerning the impossibility of successful free movement of labor at this current point in history…”

    “Where libertarian dogma falls down is the failure of its advocates to understand that substantial changes to government remits are essential before this can take place.”

    A quite fit friend of mine at the gym I go to has a predilection for BBW. He’s the genuine article, and fully admits the type of girl he is attracted to. This makes him a convivial guy, in just the same way that a gay person who is out is usually a well-adjusted person because he/she accepts him/herself as he/she is.

    If this friend of mine chased around BBW, but insisted that he actually likes the model-type body and that he was just waiting for Jessica Rabbit to show up in his life, everyone would rightly call him a hypocrite. We see who you are chasing around, Pete (name not withheld because he is okay with who he is), don’t drop this jive about a girl that does not exist in order to hide that which you should not be embarrassed about.

    tl; dr: yea, you’re a bigot.

  26. wredlich

    “Some of my ancestors were American revolutionaries, as in they fought in the American Revolution and founded this country. So I have every right to use the roads and all of the rest of the public infrastructure in this country.”

    Translation: Some of my ancestors killed the natives and stole the land from their people. So I have every right to use this land we stole from them.
    🙂

  27. wredlich

    “Without the burden of welfare, free movement of labor becomes plausible, indeed desirable.”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. Government robbing us of our money to fund the welfare state does not make it okay for us to use violence against peaceful migrants.

  28. wredlich

    “Is anyone who opposes free and open immigration ipso facto a racist?
    The answer is of course not. It doesn’t make you a racist necessarily, it does make you a bigot though.”

    I love pointing this out to my liberal friends (who are generally registered Dems).

    If you oppose open borders, you inherently support discrimination based on national origin. As a defense attorney I’m trained to ask new clients: “Where were you born?” We ask this because it matters, because the results of their criminal case may lead to immigration consequences because our immigration laws discriminate based on national origin.

    My liberal friends tend to get really mad at me about this. 🙂

  29. wredlich

    “The public roads are for the public of the country where they are located, not for the population of the entire planet. This is much like how the private roads inside a gated community, or a private city, like the Disney World example I have used here many times, are for the people who live in the gated community, or for the people who live in, or in the case of Disney World, buy tickets, in order to use the roads inside the private city.”

    No, these are not the same thing. A gated community is a voluntary association of people. People in Disney World voluntarily chose to go there.

    A country is not a voluntary association of people. Most who are here are not here by choice but simply as a result of decisions made by their parents. The migrants are voluntarily trying to come here and you are using violence to exclude them.

    The very notion of government property is dubious to a libertarian, but of course so is the notion of government itself.

  30. wredlich

    “Every country in the world has some kind of restriction on immigration. I am not aware of any country in the world where people can just waltz in with no questions asked, and start using the commons as if they are a citizen of that country.”

    I suppose if every country in the world had some kind of socialism you’d say we have to have that too?

    Not aware of any country? How about the first 100 years or so of US history? See also Canada pre-1900. But that was when both countries were relatively libertarian.

  31. Andy

    Warren, most of the land that makes up the present day USA was empty at the time that the European explorers/pioneers/settlers/colonists arrived here. It is estimated that in the entire land mass that makes up the present day USA, there were around 1.7-2 million American Indians. That is less people than live in the city limits of present day Houston, Texas.

    The American Indians had close to zero infrastructure built, and it is not as though the European settlers were trying to move in with them, as they built their own settlements.

    We’re their cases where the European pioneers/settlers violated the rights of the American Indians? Sure, but there we’re also cases where the Indians attacked them. People have been fighting over land since the dawn of time. American Indians tribes fought among themselves before the Europeans arrived.

    Who settled the lamd and founded the great cities that are standing today? Who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Who designed and built all of the infrastructure? What would this country be without roads and brudges and sewer systems and water treatment and electricity and the rest of the infrastructure? Not a very pleasant or desirable place to live by modern standards.

    The preamble to the US Constitution says that it is to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..” I’m a part of that posterity, so damn right that I have a right of inheritance to it.

    Also, I was born and raised here, and outside of a couple of brief trips out of the country, I have spent all of my life here, and I pay taxes to support the roads, so damn right I am going to use them.

  32. Chuck Moulton

    I don’t understand why any of you bother talking to Andy. He is never going to engage you in an actual discussion or consider your points. He just rants as a crazy person and ignores the overwhelming evidence.

  33. robert capozzi

    wr: If you oppose open borders, you inherently support discrimination based on national origin.

    Me: Correct, as far as it goes. The question could be framed differently, though. There is a reasonable expectation that Person A born and raised in Nation 1 knows and will abide by the laws of said Nation. Taken in totality, those laws facilitate domestic tranquility, individual liberty, and life itself. (I stipulate that many/most laws don’t, but the contrast is with lawlessness.)

    With that, is it reasonable to check to ensure that Person B born and raised in Nation 2 but wishing to immigrate to Nation 1 will also abide by the laws of Nation 1, as well as to ensure that Person B will not burden the taxpayers of Nation 1? And is such a “check” really “discrimination” as the word is currently used?

    My answers are Yes and No.

    wr: A country is not a voluntary association of people. Most who are here are not here by choice but simply as a result of decisions made by their parents.

    me: Again, true on one level, misleading on another. Anyone can slip across into Canada tomorrow. With a bit of work, anyone with some means to catch flights to Somalia. We may well not have chosen our parents and place of birth, but there’s nothing stopping us from voluntarily exiting this particular rule of law for another, or even to choose a lawless territory.

    wr: The migrants are voluntarily trying to come here and you are using violence to exclude them.

    me: Apparently not always are migrants coming to (in this case) the US. Some are coerced, e.g., sex slavery is apparently a real, but thankfully admittedly rare, phenomenon. “Violence” connotes kinetic action, at least for me, so I’d submit the more accurate phrase would be something like “threat of force.” Given that most remain in this particular rule of law because it affords them a reasonably durable level of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of said tranquility requires some level of vigilance. Protecting taxpayer’s interests, given the prevailing rule of law, strikes me as within the bounds of the “reasonable-man standard.”

    It seems you assume there’s a superseding “right” for anyone to go anywhere any time. If there is one, the burden is on you to prove that there’s is such a right. (Self-evident is not a persuasive argument!) If there isn’t, then we can have a more reasonable conversation about what the reasonable enforcement mechanisms might be to ensure domestic tranquility and to protect taxpayer interests.

  34. Anthony Dlugos

    “Some of my ancestors were American revolutionaries, as in they fought in the American Revolution and found it this country. So I have every right to use the roads and all of the rest of the public infrastructure in this country.”

    Alltime non sequitur by the resident xeonphobe/racist.

  35. Anthony Dlugos

    “Where libertarian dogma falls down is the failure of its advocates to understand that substantial changes to government remits are essential before this can take place.”

    Translation: I’m a xenophobe and probably a racist. So I’ll set a mobile, unreachable target in ONE PARTICULAR policy area in order to cloak my racism and xenophobia.

  36. Seebeck (the real one, not that imposter)

    Please remove the above comments at 9/3 at 17:34 and 17:35 as they were not me.

    FWIW, at such time yesterday, I was enjoying a vintage 1880s base ball game and nowhere near a computer.

  37. Don Wills

    Chuck wrote

    “I don’t understand why any of you bother talking to Andy. He is never going to engage you in an actual discussion or consider your points.”

    The pattern of talking past each other is endemic in America today, and is yet another indication of how civil discourse is dead and how far our republic has fallen.

    And none of you engaged in discussion with my original post. Yea a couple of you changed the subject and lobbed verbal hand grenades, but no one here seems interested in actually understanding why open borders are poisonous in today’s America.

    Trying to move the country toward libertarianism is futile if the small percentage of us who actually believe in libertarian values can’t elect representatives to state legislatures or Congress, with or without the LP label. Why is that? Could it be that issues like legalizing meth and opening the borders are abhorrent to 90%+ of voters?

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    Nobody in the LP, outside of the machoflash NAPists/radical/purists, is arguing for flinging the borders open and walking away, letting in anyone and everyone.

    But this,

    “The industrial democratic economies have far too much baggage to embrace free movement of labor.”

    Is what is called a non-sequitur. Its actually a dangerous non-sequitur that belies latent racism/xenophobia. In point of fact, the “baggage” almost certainly REQUIRES the free movement of labor, because our gargantuan welfare state requires a constantly growing economy.

    We need the immigrants, and since their labor is a resources just like any other, we need them all the more so due to the welfare state that your original posted quote refers to.

    Suggesting the U.S. needs to curtail immigration because of the welfare state is like suggesting that, after running up $50K in credit card debt, the first thing I need to do is to stop working so much.

    I am all for reasonable restrictions on immigration, as long as they are couched in the reality that immigration is not just a net benefit, but that it is actually necessary.

    On the other hand, if we are going to start limiting the “free movement of labor,” I would recommend we start with imprisoning xenophobes who think that, because they have ancestors who fought in the American revolution, or because their parents happened to have copulative sex inside the jurisdiction of the United States THEY get to travel freely but hard-working, dark-skinned Central Americans have to have their movements and labor restricted. Such people are frequently the biggest freeloaders of them all, and they are CERTAINLY among the greatest dangers to liberty.

  39. Andy

    I am a libertarian, which means I support property rights. Support for property rights means the right of property owners to discriminate against people.

    I only support government borders in so far as that government monopolizes the function of regulating them, as in it prevents property owners from doing this. So while government exists, I advocate that the government regulate the borders in such manner as to keep out/discourage destructive people from coming here, and if such people sneak in anyway, I advocate that the government not reward these people with welfare or other government services (beyond perhaps emergency healthcare, followed by deportation).

    If you take libertarianism to its logical conclusion, it leads to a private property anarcho-capitalist society. I agree with and advicate this, but being that that is not our present reality, there is nothing unlibertarian about advocating what a government policy ought to be while it exists, so long as that policy does not increase the level of coercion. So while government has a monopoly on criminal justice, I think it should prosecute murders, rapists, child molesters, armed robbers, burglars, extortionate, arsonists, and others who engage in acts of violence, theft, or property destruction. I think that while government monopolizes the roads, it ought to maintain them in good shape. While government monopolizes firefighting, it shoukd put out fires. While government elections exists, they ought to fairly count the votes. Etc…

    Advocating that while government exists, its border/migration policy should be one that blocks/discourages people who hold Marxist or theocratic ideologies, as well as those who are criminal thugs, welfare seekers, and the carriers of communicable diseases, from coming here and gaining American citizenship. This does not mean no immigration, it means an immigration policy that excludes some people. International tourism should of course be encouraged, and there are some cases for foreign guest workers (although I think there’d be less of a need for them if there was no welfare state), but it should also be recognized that accepting immigrants who are Marxists or theocrats or criminal thugs or welfare seekers or disease carriers is not in the best interest of liberty, and it should also be recognized that the vast majority of Americans (81% according to the most recent survey I read) do not want to be inundated with such a large number of immigrants that they are overwhelmed and it leads to wild shifts in demographics.

  40. Andy

    How have I not engaged anyone or not considered anyone’s points? I have engaged many people, and considered many points.

    This same accusation could be just as easily made against anyone who has ever posted here.

    If anything, I am one of the most open minded people to ever post here.

    I have responded to points made by others many times. If I think they are wrong I tell them why, and if I agree with them, I have frequently said so and explained why many times.

  41. dL

    but no one here seems interested in actually understanding why open borders are poisonous in today’s America.

    That’s because I reject your premise. There is no so-called overton window position on immigration. And if I had to walk around with my immigration position openly tattooed on my forehead, the open borders tat would cost me very little. Hardly poisonous. There are other positions that I have(e.g, my views on the military/police) that would be a lot more costly to me than that one.

    if the small percentage of us who actually believe in libertarian values

    There is nothing I read from you on this board that indicates you ascribe to libertarian values. Indeed, going by the written FAQ of the Wyoming Country Party(which I guessing you wrote), you explicitly reject libertarian values, calling them the values of dope smoking anarchists. Of course, going by the 2012 election results, there appear to be twice the number of dope smoking anarchists in Wyoming than Don Willis constitutionalists.

  42. dL

    I am a libertarian, which means I support property rights.

    Most people support property rights. That is not a sufficient condition to be a libertarian.

    Support for property rights means the right of property owners to discriminate against people.

    Unless, of course, the property is Whole Foods. Then Andy Jacobs has the unmitigated right to trespass private property. You even went as far as to claim Whole Foods is illegitimately acquired property which thusly forfeited Whole Food’s right to discriminate against Andy Jacobs. A strange argument, indeed. Open borders is not a right to trespass private property, but your position appears to be “open trespass.” Indeed, if one were to subject the just acquisition of property to a critical historical market analysis, your position would open up quite a bit of private property to outright public property open trespass. Of course, you then turn around and use the exact same reasoning(unjust property acquisition gives rise to a Dictatorship of the Taxpayer) to enforce an exclusionary East German border security. LOL. You’re a tankie masquerading as a libertarian to collect a paycheck.

    http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/08/major-donation-given-to-lee-wrights-for-governor-campaign/#comment-852562

  43. Libertydave

    Don Wills,

    You made a statement that has been debunked many times without offering any further proof or explanation. Then you complain because nobody addressing your statement.

    It’s obvious you have something you want to say about immigrates but you are waiting for someone to ask you what. So I’ll help you out.

    Why do you fear immigrants so much that you are advocating that the government arrest and jail people who haven’t harmed anyone? And how does violating the rights of innocent people move the country toward libertarianism?

    As far as you being against legalizing meth, tell me how keeping meth illegal is doing anything to stop meth use?

  44. robert capozzi

    AD: Nobody in the LP, outside of the machoflash NAPists/radical/purists, is arguing for flinging the borders open and walking away, letting in anyone and everyone.

    ME: I get that. But then why use the term “open borders”? I’d like to hear more specifics from you.

  45. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Do you mean in the platform, or just on websites like this one (where machflashing is more regular)?

  46. Andy

    There are people in the LP who think that the US border should be opened immediately, and that there should be unlimited no questions asked immigration, regardless of any other laws or conditions are in place. Some of these people post here.

    Fortunately, there are also still some people in the LP who realize how irrational, insane, unrealistic, and I would even say unlibertarian, that is.

  47. Andy

    Faith Goldy is currently running for Mayor of Toronto, Canada. I don’t know if she has a political party, or if she’s running as an independent, but I will say that Faith has got to be one of the best looking women in politics today.

    Faith Goldy – Insanity: Illegal Migrants Over Homeless Taxpayers?!

  48. Chuck Moulton

    Warren,

    When I went to IPR just a minute ago from my iPhone I got an obnoxious iOS popup ad that forced me off the site and opened an unsolicited app download. Whatever ad software you use is allowing viruses.

  49. Chuck Moulton

    No, Andy. You like to talk but you hate listening.

    Your positions have been repeatedly debunked, linking to mountains of evidence from economists, political scientists, and the news media. You never follow those links and digest those materials because they contradict your narrative. Arguing is not about who can talk the loudest wearing ear plugs. Go read all of the hundreds (if not thousands) of links Paulie has posted over the past 5 years. I’ll believe you’ve actually listened once you at least stop parroting the talking points that are demonstrably false, and maybe we can then give you a pass on the talking points which are crazy yet not falsifiable.

    All of you should consider: “what evidence would I need to see to change my mind on a position?” If there is no such evidence which could possibly change your mind, then you are being religious rather than logical.

  50. robert capozzi

    AD: Do you mean in the platform, or just on websites like this one (where machflashing is more regular)?

    Me: The platform is certainly sub-optimal. Personally, I find the rhetoric of the term “open borders” to be almost as radioactive as xenophobia, and I suspect the vast majority would have a similar reaction.

    Let’s start with you. If you were running for federal office or advising a L candidate, what would you say is the best boilerplate position on immigration. One paragraph or 2 in a campaign context.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Immigration and movement in general is limited by property rights.”

    And since the state is a criminal gang which has nothing it hasn’t stolen, it has no property rights through which to legitimately limit the immigration and movement of anyone.

  52. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If you were running for federal office or advising a L candidate, what would you say is the best boilerplate position on immigration. One paragraph or 2 in a campaign context.”

    “I support ‘open’ immigration: Free movement over borders by peaceful people. It’s not the government’s job to figure out how many engineers or landscapers or programmers or farm workers the US economy ‘needs.’ The economy figures out those things for itself far more efficiently than some bureaucrat ever could. … ‘coyotes’ don’t care one way or another whether the person they’re smuggling into the US is a janitor from Guadalajara or an al Qaeda fighter carrying the material to make a ‘dirty bomb’ in Dallas. And our immigration policy gives the latter type of ‘immigrant’ a huge crowd to hide himself in. The first step in providing for our national defense at the border is to let those who bear us no ill will to come in ‘through the front door’ — to walk across the border publicly and conveniently instead of sneaking over it in the middle of the night and in the middle of the desert.”

  53. robert capozzi

    2 questions, Mr. Kubby.

    First, how do you know who is “peaceful” and who isn’t? Who has no “ill will,” as you say, and who doesn’t? And what proof do you have that “open” immigrants is a better way to screen out criminals than our current immigration system?

    And, second, do you believe that immigrants should be able to receive free health care in our public hospitals, free education in our public schools, and receive public benefits like food stamps, AFDC, and other welfare programs?

  54. Andy

    Words of wisdom from Walter Williams.

    Immigrants and Disease
    By Walter E. Williams

    August 29, 2018

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/walter-e-williams/immigrants-and-disease/

    From the article: “The Immigration and Nationality Act mandates that all immigrants and refugees undergo a medical screening examination to determine whether they have an inadmissible health condition. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has technical instructions for medical examination of prospective immigrants in their home countries before they are permitted to enter the U.S. They are screened for communicable and infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, polio, measles, mumps and HIV. They are also tested for syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases. The CDC also has medical screening guidelines for refugees. These screenings are usually performed 30 to 90 days after refugees arrive in the United States.

    But what about people who enter our country illegally? The CDC specifically cites the possibility of the cross-border movement of HIV, measles, pertussis, rubella, rabies, hepatitis A, influenza, tuberculosis, shigellosis and syphilis. Chris Cabrera, a Border Patrol agent in South Texas, warned: ‘What’s coming over into the U.S. could harm everyone. We are starting to see scabies, chickenpox, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections and different viruses.’ Some of the youngsters illegally entering our country are known to be carrying lice and suffering from various illnesses. Because there have been no medical examinations of undocumented immigrants, we have no idea how many are carrying infectious diseases that might endanger American children when these immigrants enter schools across our nation
    According to the CDC, in most industrialized countries, the number of cases of tuberculosis and the number of deaths caused by TB steadily declined during the 100 years prior to the mid-1980s. Since the ’80s, immigrants have reversed this downward trend in countries that have had substantial levels of immigration from areas where the disease is prevalent. In 2002, the CDC said: “Today, the proportion of immigrants among persons reported as having TB exceeds 50 percent in several European countries, including Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland. A similar proportion has been predicted for the United States” (http://tinyurl.com/yca3y3zs). The number of active TB cases among American-born citizens declined from an estimated 17,725 in 1986 to 3,201 in 2015. That was an 80 percent drop. Data reported to the National Tuberculosis Surveillance System show that the TB incidence among foreign-born people in the United States (15.1 cases per 100,000) is approximately 13 times the incidence among U.S.-born people (1.2 cases per 100,000). Those statistics refer to immigrants who are legally in the U.S. There is no way for us to know the incidence of tuberculosis and other diseases carried by those who are in our country illegally and hence not subject to medical examination.

    This public health issue is ignored by all those Americans championing sanctuary cities. The public health issue is also ignored by Americans clamoring for open borders, and that includes many of my libertarian friends. By the way, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when masses of European immigrants were trying to enter our country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Americans hadn’t “progressed” to the point of thinking that anyone in the world has a legal right to prevent our fellow Americans from catching diseases from foreigners.

    But aside from diseases, there is the greater threat of welcoming to our shores people who have utter contempt for Western values and want to import anti-Western values to our country, such as genital mutilation, honor killings and the oppression of women. Many libertarian types make the argument that we would benefit from open borders when it comes to both people and goods. That vision ignores the important fact that when we import, say, tomatoes from Mexico, as opposed to people, to the U.S., they are not going to demand that we supply them with welfare benefits.

    The bottom line is that we Americans have a right to decide who enters our country and under what conditions. If we forgo that right, we cease to be a sovereign nation. But that may not be important to some Americans.”

  55. Don Wills

    dL – I appreciate your attempt to engage in discussion with me. However, you dismiss my explorations into politics as failed because of the failure of The Wyoming Country Party, at least as compared with the LP Congressional candidate that year. You conveniently fail to mention the fact that in my run for Governor of Wyoming in 2014 as an independent I received almost 6% of the vote, whereas the LP and CP candidates received about 2% each. My foray into politics was really about learning – I never expected to win. I learned a lot, but these two things stand out –

    1. The Ds and Rs will continue to control all political power until a different method of elections is adopted.

    2. The Libertarian Party is a running joke among the powers that be. I’m convinced that the establishment actually keeps the LP and Greens around to pretend that elections actually matter. Third parties are totally irrelevant. Full stop. (Don’t waste your time with the retort about margin of victory – it doesn’t matter whether it’s the D or R that wins – the point is that those in power stay in power.)

    Summarizing –

    We, as a society, are rotting away. Unless something radical changes with our system of selecting representatives who are given enormous power over our lives, we will continue on our path to ever greater poverty and despair. Continuing to petition for ballot access, lose elections and be ignored, all the while hoping something will change and good will come is utter insanity.

  56. dL

    However, you dismiss my explorations into politics as failed because of the failure of The Wyoming Country Party, at least as compared with the LP Congressional candidate that year. You conveniently fail to mention the fact that in my run for Governor of Wyoming in 2014 as an independent I received almost 6% of the vote,

    I didn’t dismiss your political forays; I dismissed your claim of libertarian values. And the 2014 omission wasn’t one of convenience; it was one of unawareness. Given that I don’t think poll numbers/election results determine the correctness of a position, I would never cite such to discredit a position. However, if the claim refers to the relative popularity of a position, I might resort to citing poll numbers/election results to debunk said claim. So, the 2012 mention wasn’t to dismiss your political campaign or the substance of what you wrote on the country party website. Instead, it was to simply point out that single digit election results no more turns libertarian values into dope smoking bong hits any more than the same results turns country party principles into smoke up your ass drivel.

  57. Andy

    Some of you people out there seem hell bent on turning the USA into something that resembles South Africa.

    Roaming Millennial interviews Lauren here.

    Theft & Murder in South Africa | Lauren Southern Interview 2018

  58. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    “The platform is certainly sub-optimal. Personally, I find the rhetoric of the term “open borders” to be almost as radioactive as xenophobia, and I suspect the vast majority would have a similar reaction.

    Let’s start with you. If you were running for federal office or advising a L candidate, what would you say is the best boilerplate position on immigration. One paragraph or 2 in a campaign context.”

    I agree that “Open Borders” is almost as radioactive as nativist sentiment. Politically, its surely more radioactive. I too think the “Free Trade and Migration” plank is sub-optimal, although better than it was prior to the 2018 Convention.

    As far as the boilerplate position for a Libertarian candidate goes…as I may have mentioned before, I have yet to run across a Trump supporter, even ones who started out a conversation with me railing about immigration, who did not respond at least somewhat favorably to a guest worker program. along the lines of the Bracero program Cato’s Nowrasteh describes herein:

    https://www.cato.org/blog/enforcement-didnt-end-unlawful-immigration-1950s-more-visas-did

    Update and expand that policy, and that’s the core of an immigration platform I would suggest for a Libertarian.

  59. Anthony Dlugos

    As an aside, RC, your questions regarding peaceful/not peaceful filtering and undocumented immigrants receiving free medical care/schooling/welfare are fair ones that would need to be handled by a Libertarian candidate.

    But such reasonable questions are not of the same class as, “Until government welfarism is halted, we must reduce/limit/stop immigration,” which is thinly-veiled racism. IMHO, he only question being how aware of their own racism such folks are.

  60. dL

    As an aside, RC, your questions regarding peaceful/not peaceful filtering and undocumented immigrants receiving free medical care/schooling/welfare are fair ones that would need to be handled by a Libertarian candidate.

    Let’s see, if that question is asked vis a vis “natives,” it is an example of unbridled “NAPsterism.” If it is asked vis a vis those who do not look like “natives,” it is suddenly a sensible and reasonable question. Hmmmmm….

    IMHO, the only question being how aware of their own racism such folks are.

    yep….you might want to further examine your own advice.

  61. NewFederalist

    We, as a society, are rotting away. Unless something radical changes with our system of selecting representatives who are given enormous power over our lives, we will continue on our path to ever greater poverty and despair. Continuing to petition for ballot access, lose elections and be ignored, all the while hoping something will change and good will come is utter insanity. – Don Wills

    That’s as good a summary as I have read in… well… forever!

  62. robert capozzi

    AD,

    A guest worker program is a start, I agree.

    I’ll take a swing at my boilerplate. Feedback appreciated.

    >Immigrants were instrumental in building this country, and as far as I’m concerned, we should be as welcoming as possible for those who want to breathe free the blessings of liberty and America. We need more people — good people who work hard and add value to our society.

    Our current immigration system is broken. I believe we need to rethink it. I’d like to start a conversation. What if we had a guest-worker program, one that allowed foreigners to be screened to work in seasonal jobs like agriculture and hospitality? And what if we had a streamlined but strict entry check system that allowed immigrants to come here to live and work SO LONG AS we can be assured that they would not be a burden to American citizens and taxpayers? What if immigrants had to post bond on entry as insurance against their using public funds or for deportation if they are convicted of a crime? It could be a potential game-changing model.

    We should WELCOME immigrants, but we should send a strong signal that we will not tolerate their coming here to collect welfare or to commit crimes.<

    Or something.

  63. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    Leaving aside the bond idea (I guess I’d have to see policy details on it first), the basic framework I was thinking was essentially the same as yours, except I had flip-flopped your first two points.

    In other words, from the perspective of maximizing votes in favor of a libertarian solution, I was thinking I would present in this order:

    1. Current system is broken.
    2. Immigrants are good.
    3. Guest worker program.

    I was thinking in that order because I figured just about everyone agrees the current system is broken, so I’d lead with that, then use #2 to get further agrement from everyone outside of the nativists/restrictionists/xenophobes, then present the guest worker program as the libertarian solution.

  64. robert capozzi

    AD,

    At another level, I’d like to see a UBI (I prefer “citizens dividend”), where immigrants would not get the dividend. Might have a dividend of maybe $15K a year, the first $30K of income exempt, and then a low-flat rate. Broad strokes, it solves — I think — a lot of problems. End all transfer payments except SS.

    I think the bond idea is fair and reasonable in concept. They get it back with interest when they become citizens or when they return to their native nation.

  65. wredlich

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    “It seems you assume there’s a superseding “right” for anyone to go anywhere any time. If there is one, the burden is on you to prove that there’s is such a right.”

    Nice twist. While I do believe freedom of movement is a fundamental right, that’s not the point.

    The point is that to prevent such freedom of movement, you authorize the State to use violence against non-violent migrants. The burden is on you, the advocate of such violence, to justify where you or the State get the right to use violence against non-violent migrants.

    Your denial of the right to movement and support of state violence is a denial of individual rights in favor of state power.

  66. wredlich

    Chuck Moulton wrote:

    “When I went to IPR just a minute ago from my iPhone I got an obnoxious iOS popup ad that forced me off the site and opened an unsolicited app download. Whatever ad software you use is allowing viruses.”

    That seems unlikely. The ad software is Google AdSense.

    It is more likely that your phone already had something on it. Or it could be one of our plugins. I’ll see if it’s that.

  67. wredlich

    FYI my efforts to resolve Chuck’s issue indicates it was probably a corrupted plugin. I removed a couple plugins, then discovered another longstanding issue that was keeping the site down. I was able to fix that as well.

    If anyone notices any issues like what Chuck noticed, anything that looks like malware, please e-mail me at wredlich@gmail.com so I can address it.

    Thanks,
    Warren

  68. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    I definitely like the UBI as a theoretical replacement for all current welfare programs (both from a fiscal perspective and from the perspective of a positive increase in individual liberty), and as a political maneuver to shed the worst parts of our p.r. image in the minds of the typical voters.

  69. robert capozzi

    wr: The point is that to prevent such freedom of movement, you authorize the State to use violence against non-violent migrants. The burden is on you, the advocate of such violence, to justify where you or the State get the right to use violence against non-violent migrants.

    Me: I reiterate that your use of “violence” is non-standard, but — having gnawed my way out of the NAP-construct yoke — I don’t have a problem with “authorizing” the State to use force minimally but if necessary to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility and to protect the interests of taxpayers. I’m OK with the State enforcing traffic rules like drivers can’t drive drunk on the left.

    Rights are made up things — useful contrivances. The rule of law is a means for civil societies to arise and thrive, and they invariably involve the threat of force. Even nonarchic configurations involve some threats of force. The only question that I find interesting on a theoretical plane is whether those threats of force should be delivered by monopolies or not. Personally, I’ve tabled that question until the State is small enough to make a reasonably informed conjecture about the sustainability of the Zomia model. Until then, I consider the question unacceptably speculative.

  70. Andy

    Freedom of movement is limited by property rights. Acting like people have a “right” to go anywhere is bullshit. I have not right to travel into your yard without your consent.

    The fact that states exist does not erase the fact that movement is limited by property rights.

  71. Anthony Dlugos

    oof. Is that entire 2 hours with Larry?

    What’s the education discussion and the contrary dialog?

  72. robert capozzi

    Yes, AD.

    He got REALLY bogged down on his education plans, one that is really difficult to get one’s head around.

    He lashed out at JR with false accusations on several occasions. JR was simply asking (generally good) questions, and LS left to conclusions about JR’s intent.

    LS had some good moments, but he overall was far too grandiose on policy issues.

    Overall grade: C-

    He had some moments where he was performing at an A level.

  73. Chuck Moulton

    🙁 RIP Stephen Gordon. He was a great LP activist and a longtime friend. I always enjoyed talking politics (internal and external) with him. He will be missed.

  74. Andy

    Great video that shows how a combination of low birthrates (caused by crushing taxation, radical feminism, and abortion) in European based countries (as in countries in Europe, as well as the USA, Canada, Australia, etc..), combined with exploding birthrates in the third world, along with welfare statism and mass immigration, presents a threat to Western Civilization, and to liberty.

    Video description from YouTube: “This video explores the enormous demographic changes occurring in the developing world, and how they have the potential to also completely change the west. I compare the fertility rates of different countries and regions, look at how long it took different countries to double their population, and explore the effect western aid money has had on population in the developing world.”

    How Global Demographics Threaten to Transform the West (Remastered)

  75. Andy

    Anyone who thinks that the current situation with immigration has something to do with liberty, or is somehow desirable, is either an idiot, or an active enemy of Western Civilization, and of liberty.

    The Death of the West – Immigration, Fertility and Demographics

  76. Andy

    “Paul
    September 6, 2018 at 07:48
    Andy,

    Part of property rights is letting me rent my house to people from other countries.”

    You act as though people are just going to rent your house and not leave it, as in they are not going to use the roads, the sidewalks, or any of the public infrastructure, nor are they going to become citizens and start voting in elections, nor are they going to have any kids, and enroll these kids in the public schools.

    Also, there is a difference between somebody renting your house who is on vacation, and bringing in immigrants. A foreign tourist could rent out your house on say Airbnb for a week or two, or maybe even a month, and then they are gone. Immigrants can rent your house, and have a big impact on taxes, crime, culture, voting patterns, use of public resources, the spread of diseases, etc…

    Look at what has been happening in the United Kingdom with Muslim rape gangs having moved into houses in what used to be traditional English neighborhoods. Somebody such as yourself could have said, “Hey, it is a part of my freedom to rent out my house to whoever I want.” Well, look at what has happened as a result of this mentality that says that culture and ideology do not matter. Thousands of English girls and women have been raped, and some were murdered. The English people are now a minority in London, and also in Manchester. Violent crime has skyrocketed. Third world migrants have now brought acid attacks into the UK, as in they throw acid in the faces of unsuspecting people on sidewalks, which was unheard of before their government started allowing for the importation of large numbers of people from the third world.

    Let’s say we all lived in a condominium complex. Let’s say that I decided to rent out a unit that I owned in the condominium complex to members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang. Let’s say they threw wild parties where they drove their motorcycles through the halls, they threw around beer bottles, they engaged in rowdy “horseplay”, they played loud music, etc… If you went to complain to the property manager, and I said, “Hey, part of my freedom is that I can rent out my condo unit to whoever I want,” would this excuse fly with the property manager, and the other members of the condo association? I think not.

  77. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “I’ll take a swing at my boilerplate. Feedback appreciated.

    >Immigrants were instrumental in building this country, and as far as I’m concerned, we should be as welcoming as possible for those who want to breathe free the blessings of liberty and America. We need more people — good people who work hard and add value to our society.

    Our current immigration system is broken. I believe we need to rethink it. I’d like to start a conversation. What if we had a guest-worker program, one that allowed foreigners to be screened to work in seasonal jobs like agriculture and hospitality? And what if we had a streamlined but strict entry check system that allowed immigrants to come here to live and work SO LONG AS we can be assured that they would not be a burden to American citizens and taxpayers? What if immigrants had to post bond on entry as insurance against their using public funds or for deportation if they are convicted of a crime? It could be a potential game-changing model.

    We should WELCOME immigrants, but we should send a strong signal that we will not tolerate their coming here to collect welfare or to commit crimes.<"

    This is pretty good, but I'd add the word some before the word welcome. I do not believe that all immigrants should be welcomed. I do not welcome welfare recipients. I do not welcome criminal thugs. I do not welcome Marxists and theocrats. And so on and so forth..

    Some immigrants should be welcomed, some should not.

    I also question the part where you said, "We need more people.." There are over 325 million people in this country right now (this is the third most populated country in the world). Do we really need more people? Also, would it be better to bring in more foreigners, or for the people who are already here, particularly the traditional American population, to simply have more children? Birthrates have dropped to record lows among European based people, including here in the USA (thanks to crushing taxation, radical feminism, abortion, and divorce laws being biased against men). Also, lots of people are currently unemployed, and many of these people are sitting around collect government welfare. Lots of the immigrants who are coming here are on welfare as well, and out of the ones who work, many of them are doing menial jobs, many of which could easily be done by people who were already here who are not working. Another thing to consider is that emerging robot technology will mean that less people will be needed to do a lot of jobs.

    Your suggestion of immigrants posting a bond falls inline with what I said in my proposal for a Libertarian Zone (see here: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ).

  78. wredlich

    Robert writes:

    “I reiterate that your use of “violence” is non-standard, but — having gnawed my way out of the NAP-construct yoke — I don’t have a problem with “authorizing” the State to use force minimally but if necessary to maintain a semblance of domestic tranquility and to protect the interests of taxpayers. I’m OK with the State enforcing traffic rules like drivers can’t drive drunk on the left.”

    Not sure what you mean by non-standard or why you’re dodging the state’s use of violence.

    If you don’t have open borders, it means you have men with guns at the borders, and they sometimes shoot people (yes, they do) to enforce your non-open policy. It’s violence. How is it anything other than violence?

    Your reliance on taxpayer interests can be used to justify any policy including the drug war. A slight extension relies on “national interest’ to justify all the wars.

    I prefer that the state kill fewer people, none if possible. I think libertarians could communicate our ideals more effectively if we talked about that more. I find many Republican and Democrats agree with us that we shouldn’t have troops in 177 countries, that we shouldn’t be bombing 7 countries, that we shouldn’t be arresting 600K/year on marijuana violations, etc. If we talk about it on terms that resonate with them, instead of high-minded libertarian philosophy, we can win them over

    If we ramble or fail to directly answer questions like LS did with Rogan, we lose people fast.

  79. dL

    Great video that shows how a combination of low birthrates (caused by crushing taxation, radical feminism, and abortion)

    ladies, the solution to the western civilization low birthrate crisis…

  80. Paul

    You know, Andy’s bigoted rants and links make the comment section embarrassing to look at in public.

    I wonder if that is intentional.

    Also Andy, you assume that government tyranny usurps my property rights, again. Tyrannical government that seeks to arbitrarily deny access or rights to people based on imaginary lines has no rights, property or otherwise, and has no rights that supersede mine or anyone else’s.

    tl;dr: Xenophobic Marxism seeks to deny my property rights again.

  81. Chuck Moulton

    Paul wrote:

    You know, Andy’s bigoted rants and links make the comment section embarrassing to look at in public.

    Yep. This site has basically turned into the Independent Andy Report and it has driven away most of the commenters and traffic. Quite sad.

    There are a multitude of things happening at the national, state, and local level within the LP that I would love to be discussing here. I (and most other sane people) are
    not going to bother when every thread turns into Andy’s “I hate brown people” bigoted immigration rants and Robert’s “natural rights Libertarians are crazy” rants.

  82. DJ

    CM: There are a multitude of things happening at the national, state, and local level within the LP that I would love to be discussing here.

    Me: What’s stopping you?

  83. DJ

    It appears the Libertarian way of discussion in this forum is one way or no way- one period to the right of accepted US leftist is alt-reich extremism and anybody with a differing opinion is to be ignored or ridiculed.
    Differing opinions are not to be discussed- that could be a reason for a drop in rebuttals (visitors)- I guess it’s not occurred to you brainiacs that others may not have the same opinions or see things the same way- and no, I don’t agree with Andy’s stance on immigration or Capozzi’s natural rights beliefs, but neither do I shun them as though I’m better like you (and I’m being kind) brainiacs do- you fuckers (I stopped being kind) are the reason the party (and this forum) doesn’t grow- just look in a mirror or look at those 3 fingers pointing back at you when you are pointing- reminds me of an analogy I came up with years ago about a lot of people that complain about what’s going on in the world: They come home, slap the wife, cuss at the kid, kick the dog, grab a beer, turn on the news and wonder what’s wrong with the world- SMH- lack of self awareness runs amok everywhere.

  84. robert capozzi

    DJ: I don’t agree with … Capozzi’s natural rights beliefs…

    Me: I’m not convinced you don’t agree with my natural-rights beliefs. I simply state that they don’t have matter, that they are a contrivance — a useful contrivance. If rights actually EXIST, show me. I’m open-minded.

  85. Andy

    I am posting this again as a reminder to those arguing with me on the proper application of borders and immigration policy from a libertarian perspective that the late Murray Rothbard agreed with me.

    So when you argue with me on this issue, you are also arguing with the ghost of Murray Rothbard.

    This is from Murray Rothbard’s Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State. It was published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1994.
    Full quote & context below.

    IV. THE PURE ANARCHO-CAPITALIST MODEL
    I raise the pure anarcho-capitalist model in this paper, not so much to advocate the model per se as to propose it as a guide for settling vexed current disputes about nationality. The pure model, simply, is that no land areas, no square footage in the world, shall remain “public”; every square foot of land area, be they streets, squares, or neighborhoods, is privatized. Total privatization would help solve nationality problems, often in surprising ways, and I suggest that existing states, or classical liberal states, try to approach such a system even while some land areas remain in the governmental sphere.

    Open Borders, or the Camp of-the Saints Problem

    The question of open borders, or free immigration, has become an accelerating problem for classical liberals. This is first, because the welfare state increasingly subsidizes immigrants to enter and receive permanent assistance, and second, because cultural boundaries have become increasingly swamped. I began to rethink my views on immigration when, as the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples. Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints, in which virtually the entire population of India decides to move, in small boats, into France, and the French, infected by liberal ideology, cannot summon the will to prevent economic and cultural national destruction. As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer.

    However, on rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

    Under total privatization, many local conflicts and “externality” problems-not merely the immigration problem-would be neatly settled. With every locale and neighborhood owned by private firms, corporations, or contractual communities, true diversity would reign, in accordance with the preferences of each community. Some neighborhoods would be ethnically or economically diverse, while others would be ethnically or economically homogeneous. Some localities would permit pornography or prostitution or drugs or abortions, others would prohibit any or all of them. The prohibitions would not be state imposed, but would simply be requirements for residence or use of some person’s or community’s land area. While statists who have the itch to impose their values on everyone else would be disappointed, every group or interest would at least have the satisfaction of living in neighborhoods of people who share its values and preferences. While neighborhood ownership would not provide Utopia or a panacea for all conflicts, it would at least provide a ‘second-best’ solution that most people might be willing to live with.

    If you haven’t read Raspail’s ‘The Camp of the Saints’ that Rothbard referenced, you should at least read about the book to understand what influenced him and what he was referring to:

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

  86. Andy

    Excellent speech! Everyone in the Libertarian Party and movement should listen to this speech, or read the text of it. Hoppe paints a realistic picture of what it would take to establishing and maintain a libertarian society, and he debunks multiple leftist narratives, such as the one that says that indiscriminate mass immigration and “open” state borders (which he correctly points out is forced association, and under current systems in place, is inviting welfare bums from hostile cultures into countries) has anything to do with actual libertarianism, or that it is somehow desirable.

    Hans-Hermann Hoppe – Realistic Libertarianism as Right-Libertarianism (PFS 2014)

  87. Andy

    ” what it would take to establishing and maintain a libertarian society,”

    Should read, “what it would take to establish and maintain a libertarian society..”

  88. George Phillies

    Excellent short article

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/

    “Overall, advertising ends up being the major expense for campaigns, said Travis Ridout, professor of government and public policy at Washington State University. In 2012 and 2014, the average Senate campaign spent 43 percent of its budget on ads, he told me, and the average House campaign spent 33 percent. Presidential races spend an even bigger chunk of their budgets on advertising. In 2012, for instance, ads made up more than 70 percent of President Obama’s campaign expenses and 55 percent of Mitt Romney’s.”

    Readers may readily compare these numbers with the performances — I use the word ‘performance’ broadly — of the Barr 2008 and Johnson 2012 campaigns.

  89. Anthony Dlugos

    from the article:

    “That matches up with other research suggesting that advertising can have a serious effect on how people vote if the candidate buying the ads is not already well-known and if the election at hand is less predetermined along partisan lines.”

    I’d say both of those are true for Libertarians running for President.

  90. Paul

    Oh look, Andy is quoting another racist and DJ is getting triggered by people saying racism is bad.

    …And I enjoy RC’s bizarre ability to turn everything into a NAP argument.

  91. Andy

    What cool kids? I would say that more accurate descriptions of these people would be that they are naive and/or uninformed and/or unprincipled and/or stupid.

    If this is what paases for being cool these days, then I’d say that it is no longer desirable to be cool.

  92. robert capozzi

    P: …And I enjoy RC’s bizarre ability to turn everything into a NAP argument.

    Me: Glad you like it!

    It’s really quite simple when one recognizes that NAPism is the main constraint on the ability of lessarchism to rise. Sans the NAP, L-ism would be busily rolling back the state. Instead, Ls are relegated to the fringes.

  93. Andy

    Another great speech from Hoppe.

    Hans Hermann Hoppe, Democracy, De Civilization, and Counterculture (PFS 2015)

  94. Andy

    “Andy
    September 10, 2018 at 16:36
    What cool kids? I would say that more accurate descriptions of these people would be that they are naive and/or uninformed and/or unprincipled and/or stupid.”

    Another possible description of my critics is that they are strategically inept. A person can be informed, and/or good on philosophy, but when it comes to actually implementing their philosophy, they are strategically inept, as in they have no clue when it comes to having a realistic plan to establish and maintain a libertarian society, or to even move our present society in a libertarian direction.

  95. Andy

    Interesting presentation that was given on September 10th, 2018, in San Diego, CA.

    Christopher Bollyn Explains Who Really Did 9/11

  96. robert capozzi

    wr: Not sure what you mean by non-standard or why you’re dodging the state’s use of violence.

    me: Straight up, of COURSE the State sometimes uses kinetic violence. So do private security firms. Some NAPists view the existence of, say, the police as “violence.” This doesn’t work for me, since keeping the peace, privately or publicly, involves some coercive force.

    wr: If you don’t have open borders, it means you have men with guns at the borders, and they sometimes shoot people (yes, they do) to enforce your non-open policy. It’s violence. How is it anything other than violence?

    me: Yes, if people are shot at the border, that qualifies as “violence.” The question is: Is it justified violence? It might not be. How a rule of law is enforced can take many forms.

    wr: Your reliance on taxpayer interests can be used to justify any policy including the drug war. A slight extension relies on “national interest’ to justify all the wars.

    me: Right, I agree. I don’t know of a viable alternative framework, however. I would submit that a basic rule of law is necessary for a civil society to survive and thrive. My sense is those rules should allow for maximal individual liberty and minimal coercion. Negotiating that balance involves the recognition that some level of State coercion is necessary for the foreseeable future. Most nonarchists I’ve encountered reluctantly agree to this assertion. You may be the exception.

    wr: I prefer that the state kill fewer people, none if possible.

    me: Agreed.

    wr: I think libertarians could communicate our ideals more effectively if we talked about that more.

    me: I’m skeptical that what you propose is a winning formula. I see no evidence that that’s a widely used filter that people use to decide whether policy X is wise or not.

    wr: I find many Republican and Democrats agree with us that we shouldn’t have troops in 177 countries, that we shouldn’t be bombing 7 countries, that we shouldn’t be arresting 600K/year on marijuana violations, etc. If we talk about it on terms that resonate with them, instead of high-minded libertarian philosophy, we can win them over

    me: Yes, these are far more concrete, persuasive ideas. My feedback is that Ls too often overplay their hands. Many agree it’s terrible that unauthorized families being separated at the border feels inhumane. But almost no one leaps to the conclusion: Therefore we should have NO border checks whatsoever. Only a subset of NAPists and perhaps some progressives believe that. Political loser, in my assessment.

    wr: If we ramble or fail to directly answer questions like LS did with Rogan, we lose people fast.

    me: 100% agreed.

  97. Anthony Dlugos

    “My feedback is that Ls too often overplay their hands.”

    No doubt about it. Probably because of the NAP millstone hanging around our neck, voluntarily by some, methinks as a way to remove the logical untidiness and frequent supplication of politics. Many of us recoil from meeting people where they are in order to get them to join us (c.f., Johnson-Weld, “Be Libertarian With Me.”), we instead look at every outreach attempt as an argument to be won.

    ‘Oh, so you think marijuana should be decriminalized? Now I got you, because what’s the difference between marijuana and heroin? Its your body either way, and the NAP says no one can aggress…”

    Of course, you’ve already lost them anyway. No one has to be logically consistent in order to cast a vote.

  98. Anthony Dlugos

    To wit:

    https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2018/02/professor-nancy-maclean-claims-founders-of-libertarianism-are-on-the-autism-spectrum

    “Speaking at New York City’s Unitarian Church of All Souls last week about her book, MacLean, William H. Chafe professor of history and public policy, answered an audience member’s question about the motivations of the late economist James Buchanan, whom she considers to be one of the founders of libertarianism. In response, she suggested that Buchanan might have been on the ‘autism spectrum.’

    “It’s striking to me how many of the architects of this cause seem to be on the autism spectrum,” she said an hour into the talk. “You know, people who don’t feel solidarity or empathy with others and who have difficult human relationships sometimes.”

    Now, Democracy in Chains has been eviscerated, as work so shoddy that MacLean’s mistakes may have been intended prevarications, but I’ll be damned if she didn’t hit on something there.

    Its not just someone hostile to libertarianism that sees this either.

    Brink Lindsey:

    https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/lifes-more-complicated-non-aggression-principle

    “The idea of the NAP as a fundamental axiom amounts to a dream of life without politics: there exists one neutral, value-free basic principle that can generate an entire neutral, value-free system of rights and obligations. The legitimacy of the legal order, in this view, comes from nature: the order commands our assent because it recognizes and vindicates our pre-existing natural rights. All disputes are logical disputes over what specific rules needed to cover a given situation are implicit in the NAP. Value-laden disputes over rival conceptions of the good are irrelevant and out of bounds.

    It’s a dream of understandable appeal, given the inevitability of moral squalor and distinct possibility of outright horror that come with politics. But it is a delusion all the same, for the truth is that politics is unavoidable. There is no possibility of constructing a legal order without taking sides repeatedly in value-laden controversies: some visions of the good will win, and others will lose…Politics just is the process whereby some people impose their values on others, and there’s no getting around it.”

  99. Andy

    Warrem Redlich said: “If you don’t have open borders, it means you have men with guns at the borders, and they sometimes shoot people (yes, they do) to enforce your non-open policy. It’s violence. How is it anything other than violence?”

    The initiation of force is committed by the trespasser. Using violence, or the threat of violence, against an aggressor, which in this case is a trespasser, does not violate libertarian principles.

    You may not like the fact that the world is divided up into states, but this is the reality in which we live, and even if someone was able to wave a magic wand and rearrange the world into private property anarcho-capitalism, there would still be men with guns defending private property borders against trespassers.

    Go to any country in the world and their are men with guns at borders. When I was in Mexico earlier this year they had men with guns checking passports.

    The hotel I was at had security guards around it with guns.

  100. Andy

    “and their are men with guns at borders.”

    Should read, “and there are men with guns at borders..”

  101. Andy

    Let’s say that we all lived in a condominium complex, and let’s say that the condominium complex had a pool, tennis courts, a golf course, a gym, picnic areas, and other common spaces that were for the members of the condominium complex, or their guests. Let’s say that in order for a guest to use the commons of the condo complex, they had to register as a guest with the property management office, and they had to be accompanied by a condo unit owner while using the recreational facilities in the commons. Let’s say that this condo complex had men with guns working as security guards around the complex. Now let’s say an uninvited person sneaks into the condominium complex, and starts using the pool or the other facilities, or let’s say that a person is invited, but they do not register as a guest with the property management office, or they do register as a guest, but they go and use the recreational stuff in the commons without being accompanied by somebody who lives in or owns a condominium unit, as per the condo association rules. Would the “men with guns” security guards be violating any libertarian principles if they threw this person out?

  102. Seebeck

    from the article:

    “That matches up with other research suggesting that advertising can have a serious effect on how people vote if the candidate buying the ads is not already well-known and if the election at hand is less predetermined along partisan lines.”

    Well, they obviously didn’t research my 2016 campaign, where I did 31% of the vote with a campaign budget including advertising of $0. All I did was show up to candidate events while my opponent ran and hid (and later lied about it, claiming that there were no opportunities to debate when there were). I had no media coverage save one hostile article in a local secondary paper. I had one, maybe two endorsements. I had no swag. I walked no precincts. I knocked on no doors. I did have a Facebook page. My name recognition was very low.

    And I led all Libertarian candidates in the state, and had the 6th best percentage nationwide.

    On $0.

    Imagine what I would have done with actual money and could afford the 80% pay cut if elected…

    Moral of the story: it’s not so much what you have, but how you work with it. I kicked major-league ass.

  103. Seebeck

    As much as I don’t like him for other reasons not relevant here, I have to point out that Andy is correct:

    Property rights are enforced and defended by force. They are infringed by aggression.

    The core of the individualism that is libertarianism is self-ownership, which in itself is the penultimate in property rights, and the root from which all other property rights derive.

    I as an individual have the right to defend my property, be it myself, my physical property, or my land, from aggression.

    That means I can erect a boundary around that land and determine who I let into it.

    That means I can neutralize someone who is not authorized to be there.

    That means I can delegate that power to others, including the state.

    That also means I can sell or cede land to the state to do similar with my property or theirs.

    And that is what they do.

    And race, creed, ethnicity, or any other arbitrarily-laid-by-government-guilt-trip classification doesn’t matter. The action of violating property rights is what matters.

    One’s belief in peaceful open travel does NOT allow that as an excuse to infringe upon the rights of others. Period. Full stop.

  104. Anthony Dlugos

    “Well, they obviously didn’t research my 2016 campaign, where I did 31% of the vote with a campaign budget including advertising of $0. ”

    Kudos to your success, but to be fair I think the 538 article was referring to federal, big money elections. (Maybe statewide elections would fall under the 538 analysis as well.)

    Given the nationwide reach of a presidential election, and the relative unknown that Libertarian candidates are, advertising is probably ALL that a Libertarian presidential ticket should spend money on, other than getting to free media appearances.

  105. Libertydave

    Seebeck,

    No you and Andy are not correct. Nobody’s property rights are being violated by immigrants traveling on public roads. You both should look into something called “public easement” and what it means and why it’s included in contracts when private land is sold.

    And for those who are extremely dense, it means that you can’t trespass on public roads and it means that you can’t use property rights as an excuse to restrict immigration. Period. Full stop.

  106. wredlich

    Libertydave – Amen. Comparing migration to trespassing is nonsense. It assumes property rights that are not in existence. If I own property on the border and I want to let someone from Mexico come onto my property, what business do the Feds have to shoot my guest?

    You’d almost think that some people only pretend to believe in property rights, when what they really believe in is government power.

  107. dL

    You’d almost think It is conclusively evident that some people only pretend to believe in property rights when it is convenient, when but what they really believe in is government power.

  108. Andy

    Here are some more stories about those “peaceful people” that have recently migrated into Europe. I’m sure that you’ll build a libertarian society if lots of people like this enter the same country where you are located.

    (Sarcasm intended)

    Stabbing Rampage In Paris | Murder In Germany | The Apathy That Allows It | Welcome To Europe

  109. Paul

    Hey Andy, which minority do you want to stereotype and demonize next?

    While using a fallacy of composition is good at stoking xenophobia, it’s not so good at making friends at parties.

  110. Seebeck

    Sorry, but both libertydave and redlich ignore two important points of reality:

    1. We the people, the property owners or not, have delegated part of our power to the federal government to regulate the permissions of being present in the nation. It’s that consent of the governed thing. If you think that the government has no such authority, then you undermine the delegated power of the people, and thereby the people themselves. That denial doesn’t reflect the reality of the now, and it certainly doesn’t do a thing to respect property rights regardless of owner. The people have decided that their leadership should properly enforce the nation’s property rights by limiting border permissions for entry, just as we have made the same call for own own property.

    2. Government does in fact own property and like every other property owner has the authority to determine who can be on it or not. Don’t believe me? Do a title search. If you think that they don’t have that authority, then try to test it and hope you have the bail money for the trespassing charges–assuming you don’t get shot.

    As for easements, I am not only well aware of them but probably far more versed in them than libertydave realizes, since I am on my HOA board and not only does the HOA have property easements, but so does all of the utility companies. We have to not only keep track of them but also use them from time to time in order to maintain the HOA’s property–just like any other government or pseudo-government does.

    Your reality checks have bounced. Twice.

  111. wredlich

    “We the people, the property owners or not, have delegated part of our power to the federal government to regulate the permissions of being present in the nation. It’s that consent of the governed thing.”

    You start from the premise that “we the people” have the power to decide permission to be present here “in the nation”. You also assume we’ve consented to be governed, and apparently you assume that migrants have consented to be governed.

    “Government does in fact own property”

    Yes, though its extensive ownership is dubious under the Constitution. And more important, they do not own all the land on the border. So you appear to contend that the government’s property rights supersede the property rights of those who own land on the border.

  112. dL

    We the people, the property owners or not, have delegated part of our power to the federal government to regulate the permissions of being present in the nation. It’s that consent of the governed thing. If you think that the government has no such authority, then you undermine the delegated power of the people, and thereby the people themselves.

    authoritarian drivel…try passing these buttons around at the next libertarian convention

    “We the people have delegated the power to the federal government to collect taxes. It’s a consent of the governed thing. If you think that the government has no such authority, then you undermine the delegated power of the people, and thereby the people themselves. ”

    Government does in fact own property and like every other property owner has the authority to determine who can be on it or not. Don’t believe me? Do a title search

    lol…Seebeck is a tankie…

  113. DJ

    The Unpardonable Heresy of Tucker Carlson

    Our diversity is our greatest strength.

    After playing clips of Democratic politicians reciting that truth of modern liberalism, Tucker Carlson asked, “How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Since you’ve made this our new national motto, please be specific.”

    Reaction to Carlson’s question, with some declaring him a racist for having raised it, suggests that what we are dealing with here is not a demonstrable truth but a creed not subject to debate.

    Yet the question remains valid: Where is the scientific, historic or empirical evidence that the greater the racial, ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of a nation, the stronger it becomes?

    From recent decades, it seems more true to say the reverse: The more diverse a nation, the greater the danger of its disintegration.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/30067-the-unpardonable-heresy-of-tucker-carlson

  114. Anthony Dlugos

    A Pat Buchanan article defending Tucker Carlson, and when I opened the link I saw an ad for joining the John Birch Society ($5K lifetime membership).

    That’s a whole lotta derp right there.

  115. paulie

    I rarely bother anymore, since someone keeps spamming the reich wing noise machine faux facts on immigration, but I’ll post these as I come across them, if I feel like it. There are literally thousands like this which I posted in past threads but some people just doesn’t listen and learn, they prefer to just repeat bullshit endlessly regardless of how many times it is disproven.

    https://www.cato.org/blog/murder-mollie-tibbetts-illegal-immigrant-crime-facts

  116. Anthony Dlugos

    Its never bad to post Cato’s Norwasteh on immigration. He went into the belly of the beast and spoke to Tucker Carlson on the issue not that long ago.

  117. paulie

    I just seem to be talking to a brick wall sometimes. But maybe it’s because that brick wall is so prolific and single-minded on pushing that particular issue. Makes you wonder, why?

  118. DJ

    AD:

    A Pat Buchanan article defending Tucker Carlson, and when I opened the link I saw an ad for joining the John Birch Society ($5K lifetime membership).

    That’s a whole lotta derp right there.

    Me: I posted the article for evidence that others think differently- the source is immaterial if the content is accurate- your joining any organization is your choice, ads or not. Judging from the pissing contests in this forum I can’t see where joining the Libertarian Party is any better. Reading articles from non-approved by you sources by non-approved people you don’t like says a lot more about you than your “perp” nonsense says about the article, its source or its author.

  119. DJ

    From paulie’s link:

    “Punish the murderer of Mollie Tibbetts, don’t punish those who share the same immigration status as him for crimes they didn’t commit.”
    ………….

    The “American culture” demands punishing the many for the actions of the few-

  120. Andy

    The people with the status of the murderer of Mollie Tibbits have no legal basis for being in the country. They are the equivalent of people who snuk into Disney World without buying a ticket, or people did buy a ticket, but who overstayed their ticket time.

    The murderer of Mollie Tibbits is from Mexico, and they do not allow foreigners to sneak into Mexico, and if they do and get caught, the Mexican government kicks them out. They also put a time limit on how long one can be in Mexico as a tourist. Canadian libertarian Jeff Berwick spends most of his time in Mexico, and he is even married to a Mexican woman, and they have one or two kids together, yet Berwick does not want to apply for Mexican citizenship (note that it us very hard to get Mexican citizenship, but Berwick could probably get it since he is rich, and since he married a Mexican woman, but he does not want it), so he is in Mexico as a tourist, which requires him to leave the country every few months, but then he cones back as a tourist, and he repeats the cycle.

    Notice how you don’t see lots of Mexicans lobbying the Mexican government to open their borders to mass inducriminate immigration? Notice how you don’t see anyone doing this anywhere, other than Marxists and globalist, and even then, it only happens in European based countries, and it is not even the majority of people in these countries.?

    Numerous surveys inducate that European based countries want immigration reduced. A recent survey in the USA indicated that 81% of Americans want less immigration, and it was not just white Americans who want immigration reduced, the vast majority of black Americans also want to see immigration reduced. Similar surveys conducted in Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, France, and other European based countries have yielded similar results.

  121. Anthony Dlugos

    “I just seem to be talking to a brick wall sometimes. But maybe it’s because that brick wall is so prolific and single-minded on pushing that particular issue. Makes you wonder, why?”

    I can only say that it wasn’t until the Trump phenomenon until I realized that it wouldn’t be all that inconceivable to witness a fascist or quasi-fascist national electoral victory in this country. I don’t mean in some sort of conspiracy theory coup, I mean a straight-up, legit electoral victory. As we discussed before, we are one catastrophic event…possibly natural or possibly man-made…from watching it happen.

    If so, Andy and the alt-right infiltration into the LP will be the least of our concerns.

  122. paulie

    LOL, there he goes again,

    They are the equivalent of people who snuk into Disney World without buying a ticket

    Only if the country was the private property of the government, which it isn’t.

    Mexican government kicks them out.

    The actions of other regime gangs don’t justify the actions of the US regime gang. If they did, any type of tyranny which is commonly practiced by many regime gangs around the world would be justified. It isn’t.

    only happens in European based countries

    Not true, as you would know if you had followed links I posted before. It appears you haven’t followed this one either, as one would expect. If you had, you would know that your frequently repeated assertion that immigrants commit more crimes than native born Americans is false, as can and has been showed repeatedly about your other assertions as well. You don’t follow the links and keep repeating the same nonsense endlessly though. After some point it really makes me and others here no longer want to even be here.

    Numerous surveys inducate that European based countries want immigration reduced.

    There are lots of tyrannical government policies which are popular, and in many cases popular support for making them even worse. So what?

    Also as yet unanswered is why you obsess so much about the immigration issue. I used to think that you weren’t a bigot, but the more you rant and rave about immigration and other topics in terms that come straight out of the racist playbook the more I think you are. Maybe you latently were all along and I just didn’t see it, or maybe the endless confirmation bias and repetition has nudged you in that direction. I don’t know.

    When anyone else posts the kind of garbage you do here we just take it down. We have had many requests to do the same with your comments as well.

  123. DJ

    AD: I can only say that it wasn’t until the Trump phenomenon

    Me: LOL, yeah, Hillary would have been better. Not!

  124. Anthony Dlugos

    Hillary, while at the head of a no-doubt corrupt political machine, almost certainly would have been a better president than trump, especially given the fact that the republicans would have been in control of Congress.

    Then again, I think Hillary would have been a better president that Obama too.

  125. paulie

    Hillary, while at the head of a no-doubt corrupt political machine, almost certainly would have been a better president than trump, especially given the fact that the republicans would have been in control of Congress.

    Agreed.

    Then again, I think Hillary would have been a better president that Obama too.

    Dunno.

  126. paulie

    As far as I can remember I never met Obama. It’s possible I could have as we did both live in NYC at the same time at one point, and I spent some time in Chicago while he lived there but if I did it would have been before I knew who he was.

    I spent some time around both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 1980s, when they were both already public persons, and my sense is that she is a terrible person and he is even worse. Of course a lot of time has passed since then, but from what I have seen of them thru the public lens in the last few years they are still both essentially the same people as they were then.

  127. Anthony Dlugos

    “I spent some time around both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 1980s, when they were both already public persons, and my sense is that she is a terrible person and he is even worse. ”

    I wouldn’t doubt that she is probably as horrible a person as she is corrupt.

    But in terms of being president, I think the general Clinton disposition to be conservative democrats, combined with her predilection to cover her ass politically would have redounded to the benefit of the citizenry.

    I wouldn’t see her, for example, pushing through HillaryCare on Democratic support only. Obama had the spirit of the idealist in him, while Hillary understood better that business does need a predictable environment not cluttered with too much in the way of government-imposed obstacles.

    That (Hillary better than Obama) is just one man’s opinion, of course…but the danger from a Trump presidency is potentially much more catastrophic.

    In other words, Governor Weld was right.

  128. paulie

    In other words, Governor Weld was right.

    Maybe. But his gushing over her as a wonderful person and lifelong friend and great public servant was unfitting for a LP candidate. It’s already a radical step to vote for a non-duopoly candidate, and when that candidate tells you one of his opponents is wonderful and the other one is horrible, I wouldn’t fault any voter for concluding that such a person is not serious about running. He should have said that Clinton would be terrible but Trump would be even worse, or better yet just stuck to that they would both be terrible, which is true.

    He wasn’t exactly giving anyone on the fence reasons to vote for him. The ticket did as well as it did because their credentials gave them a higher level of media attention than LP presidential tickets usually do and because their major party opponents were even worse than usual. But they did not use that media attention well and shot themselves in both feet, shedding tentative and even hardcore supporters at record pace as the election drew closer.

  129. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “That (Hillary better than Obama) is just one man’s opinion, of course…but the danger from a Trump presidency is potentially much more catastrophic.

    In other words, Governor Weld was right.”

    I see zero evidence to back this up. If anything, not that I think that Trump is wonderful, but with the way that elements within the Deep State have been attacking Trump, and were supporting Hillary Clinton, and note that as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Bill Weld is a servant of the Deep State, I have to wonder if Hillary Clinton would have been worse.

    Regardless of whether or not Hillary Clinton would have been worse, or the same, or better, than Trump, the more important issue here is that Bill Weld was running for office as a Libertarian Party candidate, and his job as a Libertarian Party candidate was to promote the libertarian philosophy, the Libertarian Party, and the ticket on which he was nominated. His job was not to promote one of the candidates he was running against, and it was not to urinate all over the libertarian philosophy, nor was it to marginalize the Libertarian Party, and the ticket on which he was a candidate.

    I never thought I’d see the day when any Libertarian Party candidates started gushing over how wonderful Hillary Clinton is.

    I have talked to many Libertarians and small “l” libertarians from all over the place, both in person and online, and I have never met any kind of self identified libertarians from anywhere who has had anything good to say about Hillary Clinton, besides Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

  130. Andy

    Paulie said: “But they did not use that media attention well and shot themselves in both feet, shedding tentative and even hardcore supporters at record pace as the election drew closer.”

    Just imagine how much better the LP’s presidential ticket could have done if candidates who were better than Johnson/Weld had been nominated.

    2016 was another wasted opportunity for the Libertarian Party.

  131. Anthony Dlugos

    paulie,

    “But his gushing over her as a wonderful person and lifelong friend and great public servant was unfitting for a LP candidate. It’s already a radical step to vote for a non-duopoly candidate, and when that candidate tells you one of his opponents is wonderful and the other one is horrible, I wouldn’t fault any voter for concluding that such a person is not serious about running…He wasn’t exactly giving anyone on the fence reasons to vote for him.”

    I think I won’t disagree with you here.

    My guess is that Governor Weld was at some level truly disturbed by the possible ramifications of a Trump presidency, realized that the J-W ticket was going to win, and decided he had to do his part to try and avoid potential catastrophe, even if it meant sinking his ticket’s chances.

    I’ll be the first to admit this was a possible downside of selecting a recent convert to the party like Governor Weld; his attachment to the party wasn’t going to be as strong (maybe that’s a good thing. Do we want candidates who would sacrifice the country in order to protect the party? I don’t think so).

    But like you said, the alternative would have been a credential-lite candidate who wouldn’t have provided the high-profile media attention in the first damn place.

  132. wredlich

    We’re getting closer to November. What are some of the big races we should watch involving third party and independent candidates?

    I’m watching Larry Sharpe in NY and Gary Johnson in NM. What else?

  133. wredlich

    “That (Hillary better than Obama) is just one man’s opinion, of course…but the danger from a Trump presidency is potentially much more catastrophic.”

    What is this supposed danger from a Trump presidency? I hate the rat, but I don’t see how he’s any worse than Hillary or Obama.

    If anything Trump helps libertarians make the argument for smaller government. If you’re so afraid of a nut job getting all that power, the easiest solution is reduce the power.

    Not that any statists are interested in any argument that calls for reducing government power.

Leave a Reply

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