Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
As if that would make it better?
Follow your own opinions and do your own considerations. Let neither celebrities nor intellectuals tell you how to think.
Rateria, Venomringo, Jadentopian Order
Liberal friends of Kanye have been sending him texts pushing the intellectually dishonest "party switch" narrative. This has been widely debunked. Yes, the GOP did begin courting Southern voters in the 1960s, but
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm suggesting that a liberal that has read the works of Keynes, Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz (who are all hacks, by the way) is infinitely more demanding of my respect than the college student getting all their political information from NowThis. Make up your own mind, absolutely. But without a solid theoretical foundation in understanding politics and economics, which I'm sure everyone in this region has, why should we listen to you? Intellectuals have frequently betrayed themselves as being both self-righteous and incompetent. But the theories of Milton Friedman, FA Hayek and Ayn Rand are the bedrock of conservative and libertarian ideology. Without a decent understanding of the political theory you subscribe to, you're just as easily manipulated as any other voter.
It can happen and I hope it will happen. We live in a high information society with low information voters - but things are improving all the time. No, you're not an average person Jaden. You follow politics and you understand political theory. You're insulting your own intelligence by implying the opinions of Clint Eastwood and Vince Vaughn matter considerably to you. We're all susceptible to the opinions of others. Critical thinking is about being able to respect someone and what they have to say, while looking honestly at their view and being able to critique it, even if you agree with it.
My point is this: people should be able to make up their own minds. But without a fundamental understanding of the issues and values, there's no framework to properly view politics.
Rateria
For what it is worth: http://kgou.org/post/oklahoma-libertarians-elect-first-transgender-party-executive-country
Sorry for the late reply, and thats literally the point of the channel, he also has a program called » Strawmen «.
Rateria
I love his Debates with Stawmen series.
You all talking about my boy freedomtoons?
Rateria
Oh yeah
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
New poll in the Federation Of Conservative Nations: If you are/were an eligible voter in the US, which political party would you best align with?
Vote here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=119974
Also, open invitation to apply with characters for the FCN's WWII-themed character RP, The Rising.
RP IC thread here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=442105
OOC discussion thread here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=441467
Dispatch here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1012054
FCN Secretary of Internal Affairs
Rateria
New Series i'm going to run along with all the other stuff I do. Election Pick'em.
Pick'em Here > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScYcHB94KNQoBvqpvJIw8hCCSdNxoIt0QBSR_Z-0eHP5e2aCw/viewform?usp=sf_link
To those that suggested Republicans should ignore California or prioritize our resources elsewhere: the Golden State is quickly emerging as one of the key battlegrounds in the 2018 midterms. Democrats cannot retake the House without flipping a majority of Republican congressional seats in Congress.
Contrary to popular belief, the state is not universally liberal. Outside of LA and SF, the state is fairly balanced, and there are pockets of strong Republican support in Orange County, the Central Valley and Northern California. I will be fighting on the ground this summer to retain the House and keep GOP House Reps in office, and I suggest you all work to do the same, even if you're more of a Libertarian. If the GOP keeps Congress, we'll get another shot at repealing Obamacare (we were one treasonous Senate vote away from scrapping it last year), won't have any issues with "impeachment", Pelosi will be gone and regulation cutting will continue. I doubt I can promise anything else like spending cuts, which at this point are unlikely to happen until it's too late, but who knows.
Myself and Humph are campaigning this season, please join us in your respective states and counties. Let's #KeepAmericaGreat!
Miencraft, Rateria
Funny thing, we were actually talking about the 2016 election the other day and California's electoral map was brought up. There's actually quite a good deal of red there, great opportunities.
Pevvania, Rateria
California is traditionally considered to be a swing state, but the upcoming midterms will still be all about Trump. To say that not all republicans support the president would be a serious understatement. As long as Trump is in charge, Cali will be a blue state.
Just out of curiosity, did many of you start out left-wing or right-wing? I became political in high school and I started out really progressive and socialist, then I gradually became more Libertarian until I started becoming more conservitarian, where I am today.
Started as a typical conservative. Today I'm definitely not that lol. Still economically right wing, but heavily socially liberal
Rateria
I make a distinction between being socially liberal and socially libertarian. A libertarian wants the government out of marriage, but will settle for legalization. A liberal wants legalization as a bare minimum, but also forced marriage ceremonies and churches without their consent and governmental policing and social engineering for extreme tolerance.
Yeahhhhh no. That's some straight out of Alex Jones BS. Social Liberalism is expansion of civil rights. People can skew the meaning however they want, but it is still the belief in the expansion of civil rights
Rateria
So you would advocate the government using force to make churches marry homosexual couples?
How do you get that from anything I said?
Miencraft, Rateria
Presumably because he ignored the part where you went
Rateria
To be fair I also view social-liberalism and social-libertarianism differently, for the sake of clarity I'm using the American view of the word Liberal rather than the European view.
Social liberalism will change with the times. For example Social Liberals 20 years ago didn't care about transgenderism. A social Liberal is also, in my mind, personally liberal as well.
A good example between the difference is I personally don't think that sex-change operations are healthy choice for an individual. But if that's what an adult wants to do no one should stop them.
I'm personally socially conservative, in this case, and governmentally socially "Liberal"
Do you get my drift?
Rateria
Let me clarify then.
A government forcing a church to do x is not expanding civil rights in any way, in fact, it's restricting rights. A government saying "Churches can do whatever they want, but the government does not discriminate based on a, b, and c" is expanding civil rights.
If churches want to be dicks, let them. If gays want marriage licenses, let them have them (not that I agree with the govt in marriage, but that's another story).
Being a social liberal != being an SJW. You can stand for equal rights and liberty for every individual and group without being an SJW. Too many obnoxious pundits have turned politics into the generalization game where you have to share every viewpoint they do or else you're a traitor to their movement. People have turned liberal into a slur and changed the meaning to meet their shut-in world view. Too many people see their political rivals as strawmen of their real views. You can't be conservative without being a nazi-fascist-racist-whatever, and you can't be a liberal without being an SJW-soyboy-antifa-terrorist. It's sad, really. I'd really like to see the day where I can say "I'm a liberal" without people immediately assuming I want to open the borders or accept isis fighters into the US or abolish the cops.
Sorry for the rant at the end.
Miencraft, Rateria
Sorry, I assumed when you said that what I said was "Alex Jones BS" that you were going to be more hostile. My bad, you seem fine.
Rateria
I'm not sure if this was directed at me or Skaveria. I'm assuming the latter but if it was for me I think I should clarify.
When I say a social-liberal vs a social-libertarian I'm not talking about mutually exclusive groups. To use an example you brought up, a social-liberal might think that a church not marrying two dudes is a jerk thing to do, where as a social-libertarian regardless of whether he thinks it's a jerk thing to do mainly just doesn't want the government involved. By the same token social-conservatives can be social-libertarians. Going back to your example, I don't think its a jerkish thing for a church to not want to marry two guys. As I see it as a result of sincerely held beliefs rather than an act of malice or spite. But I more than anything don't want the government involved. This goes for things I'm against as well. For example I've never done any drugs, alcohol included, nor will I ever. I think that getting addicted to anything, especially any mind-altering substances, is something to be actively avoided. However for most drugs, with the exclusion of those that can cause externalities like PCP, I don't think the government should be involved.
Hence being a social-libertarian.
Jadentopian Order
Just because a substance "can" cause an externality, doesn't mean it will. A person's owning of PCP in and of itself does not violate anyone's rights. Whatever rights they do violate while on PCP should be considered only after the violation has occurred. I don't see a reason why any drug should be illegal.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
And thats fair, I do think however that some drugs should be illegal. I know thats not necessarily the most common belief among libertarians, and I fully understand the reasoning behind it. I just think in this case it's a risk reward analysis
Jaden, your definitions are wrong. Modern social liberalism requires coercion. Social libertarianism is advocacy for freedom of choice, association and speech. It's not "Alex Jones BS"; your lazy conflation of the two terms is BS.
Social Justice is the best kind of justice.
There's no social libertarianism for the same reason there's no "social fascism"-- it's just a term people use when people dont want to be considered liberals. "Liberals" can call themselves whatever they want, but if they arent supporting what you listed, they are literally not liberals.
Rateria
Then we're just playing linguistic semantics. From what I've gathered, correct me if I'm wrong, you're advocating separating the word liberal from progressivism, like Dave Rubin? The thing is that, at least in America, most people who call themselves "liberal" aren't classical liberals like Rubin, they use it as a synonym for progressivism. It's not how it should be, but that's how it is.
Cappirt
Pringles are objectively better than than other chips because their shape ensures honest packaging
Real talk though if Hitler wanted to have a discussion about gun control or somethin I'd be on board
The discussion would go like this:
Hitler: "Give me your guns."
Everyone else: "No."
Everyone else: shoots Hitler
Hitler: proceeds to never invade Poland on account of he's dead
Rateria, Highway Eight
Be back next week after my finals are over.
Anyways hears what happening in this great stat!
http://www.wisn.com/article/video-shows-large-brawl-at-wisconsin-dells-resort/20676979
Highway Eight
I heard about that.
VOTING IS COMPULSORY IN 2024!
Rateria
Poopy-di scoop
Scoop-diddy-whoop
Whoop-di-scoop-di-poop
Poop-di-scoopty
Scoopty-whoop
Whoopity-scoop, whoop-poop
Poop-diddy, whoop-scoop
Poop, poop
Scoop-diddy-whoop
Whoop-diddy-scoop
Whoop-diddy-scoop, poop
Rateria
Thank you Kanye, very cool!
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Jadentopian Order
An update from your UDS friends, enjoy! :D
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1028032
Rateria
Once again, I am being attacked for presenting new ideas.
Rateria
Do you ever just not get flooded to flex on them sea level niggas
Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Sean stop being stupid
You know I originally tossed around the "remove all welfare" idea as a joke, but as time went on it became more and more appealing to me
Pevvania
Yes, let's remove the safety net that catches people that fall from structural changes in their career and the only government assistance that disadvantaged minorities can receive while being simultaneously institutionally discriminated against!
Jadentopian Order
We'd have to prove de jure discrimination was actually happening to use it as a reason to justify welfare to those groups being affected by it, and if we did, we should treat the disease, not just the symptoms by plastering over structural disadvantages with bribes. "Here, we know we're screwing you over, but take this money and shut the hell up."
That's exactly what I'm saying.
It's completely systemic - 400 years of slavery + Jim Crow Laws + Discrimination tends to have a lasting institutionalized impact that keeps minorities in a cycle of poverty and crime.
Sean stop being a dingus. Welfare is a large contributor to the cycle of poverty.
Ah yes, a larger contributor than the hundreds of years of deliberate institutionalized discrimination. Unfair drug laws, police brutality, inequality in educational opportunity, and coercive use of plea bargaining are the modern day culprits of the displacement of minorities, Balloon, not welfare. Yes, it needs to be reformed, but right now it is one of the few programs that actually help minorities. Oh, and not to mention that hiring discrimination has not declined in 25 years.*
*https://hbr.org/2017/10/hiring-discrimination-against-black-americans-hasnt-declined-in-25-years
Sean I'm willing to bet that a primary cause of poverty is shelling out money to the government to pay for programs like welfare in the first place.
My reasoning for cutting down welfare is to increase the value of one's work. And the best way to give more value to one's work is to stop giving free shint to people who are irresponsible and refuse to work. Which welfare does.
https://medium.com/2016-index-of-culture-and-opportunity/most-work-eligible-welfare-recipients-are-not-working-17d0004523b
Ok, but how can one work if they cannot get hired? As I said before and cited, hiring discrimination had not declined in 25 years. And what? You are literallly assuming that most welfare recipients are lazy and "refuse to work" when that is not the case - you've only affirmed your own confirmation bias by selectively watching/reading media on the abuses of welfare.
I don't think we should get rid of the safety net entirely. But the current welfare system is horribly and inherently flawed because it provides people with enough to survive regardless of whether they work or not. The issue isn't that most welfare recipients ARE abusing they system, but that they easily CAN abuse the system.
To conclude: welfare is an easily abused organization that costs the poor more than it gives them and the only reason it's still around is because people are attached to the idea of a financial safety net without considering alternative options.
I'd also like to bring up that migrant workers working for low pay take jobs away from actual US citizens. And that's just one of many facets here. Treat the sources instead of the symptoms Sean.
Eh, I'd argue US citizens were never going to have those jobs to begin with. Nobody wants to pay a guy $11 minimum wage to dig holes when you can get the same work off the books for a quarter of the cost. And then there's the question of whether a citizen would even want to take such a job when they can get a much lower-intensity minimum wage job elsewhere and get paid just the same.
Rateria
You say that like you're entitled to a job just for being an American.
It's literally the free market at work. If you are willing to work a job for less, you're going to get that job. The vast majority of employers could care less who you are and where you're from or even if you're legally a citizen. There's very few upsides to hiring a more expensive American worker over a cheaper immigrant worker besides a raging freedom boner.
Its also worth noting that there is no shortage of jobs in the US. Forbes reported 6 million openings in 2017. Immigrants and whoever else you wanna scapegoat aren't taking jobs, we're just stuck up and don't want to work god-awful jobs for bare minimum pay. It's been happening for ages now (see: Irish, Eastern Europeans, virtually any poor immigrant group since 1700). There is a reason the jobs they work are described as "jobs Americans won't take".
But, how dare those evil poverty-ridden illegals try to make a better life for themselves and escape constant fear of cartels and violence, right? Why can't they just sit in line for years just for a chance to make it into the country? Like, dudes, America is the greatest country on earth, we can't have awful immigration policy and inefficient processing. Why would people living in a third world country even be willing to break the law for a shot at living in one of the best places in the world? I just don't get it...
Miencraft, Rateria, Venomringo
Jews are the source of the world's problems. Especially black Jews. Black Jews are the worst, and the women black Jews cannot even drive safely. Keeping quiet and out sight, making dinner, and taking care of the kids is all they can do. I speak for all of the National Socialist Technocrats and Feudal Anarchists when I say, "Adolf Hitler did nothing wrong."
One of the reasons for the issues in Boston that lead to the Boston Massacre was the fact that American workers were rioting because they we're losing work to immigrants and new British colonists.
I hate this argument every time I hear it. The old "immigrants do jobs Americans won't do." No, they do jobs that YOU won't do. Growing up in a working class family in the South my dad and I were ALWAYS in direct competition with illegal immigrants for the same work. We'll mow your damn yard and replace your damn roof, we're more than happy to. It's such an ivory tower argument I only ever hear from guilty, white, liberals.
Living Freedom Land
Yes, I have my own anecdotal evidence. I too live in the South and even the most redneck people I know refuse to work the types of kind immigrants do. None of the people around me would even dare step foot near a field to go pick fruit in the sun all day or honestly most wouldn't even consider working construction.
But just keep calling me a guilty white person because empathy is for libtard snowflakes.
Miencraft, Rateria
WHEN YOU
PUNCH TREE
MINECRAFT
Miencraft, Rateria
Here's the problem though. Illegal immigrants are almost always going to win that competition if it's an actual salaried job because you don't have to pay an illegal minimum wage.
If Americans wanted to do those jobs, and employers wanted Americans doing those jobs, there'd be Americans doing those jobs. But guess what, minimum wage means it's completely retarded to hire American for menial jobs when you can hire illegal for a fraction of the price.
Then there's the question of whether Americans would even want to do those jobs at wages low enough to compete with illegals. Americans don't tend to be interested in any job requiring them to actually do physical labor, and that's for stuff where you can get paid far more than minimum wage. Imagine telling them that if they want that job they need to be able to compete with an illegal who could get by being paid $5 an hour. It ain't gonna happen, not unless the American in question is absolutely desperate for any kind of work.
Rateria, Jadentopian Order
I never called you a libtard snowflake and when I said "you" I didn't literally mean YOU. Also, I get that what I said was a personal anecdote, but what I'm getting at is that an influx of illegal immigration takes jobs away from working class Americans because they're competing for the same work. The illegal workers have an illegal advantage in that their work doesn't have to be taxed and their employers don't have to abide by the minimum wage and workplace safety laws. Also, I know many people who would pick fruit, I literally used to pick cotton, that's not that far off. It's also a misnomer that illegal immigrants only do agricultural work. My father was laid off from a carpet cleaning company years ago as a direct result of illegal immigrants coming into his industry and undercutting him with an ILLEGAL competitive advantage.
I'm very uncomfortable with the "taking our jobs" argument, because it rests on the Marxist idea that the economy is one static pie and wealth is distributed rather than created or earned. Nonviolent, independence-minded, law-abiding illegal immigrants do a tremendous service for our economy by filling low-skilled gaps in the labor market. In the long run, this expands our economy and, according to the evidence, actually increases employment for American workers. Seen vs. unseen.
However, I still want to stop illegal immigration because of the myriad other problems it causes. We need the wall, we need to deport all criminal illegal immigrants, and we need to fix the legal immigration system and give some kind of amnesty to law-abiding illegals.
Miencraft
Exactly, there's your problem. Illegal immigration is rampant entirely because of our own policies.
We spend millions of dollars each year fighting this dumb war on drugs, driving up the price of drugs all across the US and Central America, feeding the cartels and making their situation even worse than it already is. It's at the point where cartels can force teens to leave their families to join them and their governments are too poor to do anything. If we want to stop the massive influx of people crossing over, we need to start seeing why they do it. It also does not help that we have an awful immigration system that leaves people waiting for years. Reform is badly needed so that everyone has a fair shot at a job.
Also, sorry for being a bit of a dick, it was like 6 AM and you know how Mondays are.
Miencraft, Rateria
No problem, I was a little dickish as well. I'd like to see mass decriminalization and a repeal of the minimum wage, but I still believe a nation fundamentally has the right to protect its borders. It's completely up to the United States as to who gets to enter into the United States. It's a matter of sovereignty. A nation also has a right to deport people who violate that sovereignty.
Rateria
The war on drugs definitely creates a push factor, but I'd imagine the bigger factor is the pull of economic opportunity. It's not like the war on drugs is presenting these Latin American countries with instability on par with ISIS.
Rateria
"I did my work"
"You just typed 'I'm Solo, I'm Han Solo, I'm Han Solo, I'm Han Solo Solo'"
Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Central Gadsden
Econ class is a weird place man
Rateria
Illegal Immigrants (i.e. mostly Mexicans) do not have a higher crime rate than natives. If anything, they have lower.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/14/gary-johnson/mexican-immigrants-more-law-abiding/
Can we have the old Pev back now?
Rateria
It's pretty bad, however: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/12/mexico-drug-war-eyes-children-161201085109758.html
Whether it is immigrants from Mexico or refugees from Syria, the US is to blame for these people fleeing their countries. Intervention doesn't work, whether it is military intervention or state intervention into the lives of its own people.
Rateria
NB: don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of deporting immigrants who cause violent crimes. But the whole "we need to secure the border" trope is flawed. And from an ethical standpoint, should we really be turning our backs on people who have fled the problems in their home countries caused by us?
Rateria
I never said they did. You're probably right. But there are still thousands of them that are considered removable criminal aliens - 1.9 million, according to DHS - and thousands of them that are committing violent crimes on the weekly, and numerous deluded politicians that will literally protect them. Kate Steinle, a graduate of my school, Cal Poly, was callously murdered by an illegal because the SF PD wouldn't tell ICE when he was being released from custody. The criminally negligent mayor of Oakland tipped off hundreds of VIOLENT FELONS in the illegal community that ICE was coming to raid, and they escaped. Sanctuary state policies are literally killing people. How can anyone defend this insanity? I'm not saying deport the farmers and students, I'm saying get the scum off our streets. Why is that so controversial?
I miss the old Pevvy, straight from the Go Pevvy
Chop up the soul Pevvy, set on his goals Pevvy
I hate the new Pevvy, the bad mood Pevvy
The always rude Pevvy, spaz in the news Pevvy
I miss the sweet Pevvy, chop up the beats Pevvy
I gotta say, at that time I'd like to meet Pevvy
See, I invented Pevvy, it wasn't any Pevvys
And now I look and look around and there's so many Pevvys
I used to love Pevvy, I used to love Pevvy
I even had the pink polo, I thought I was Pevvy
What if Pevvy made a song about Pevvy
Called "I Miss The Old Pevvy"? Man, that'd be so Pevvy
That's all it was Pevvy, we still love Pevvy
And I love you like Pevvy loves Pevvy
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Jadentopian Order
[I]Technically illegal immigrants would be the only demographic to have a 100% crime rate in general considering their being here is a crime. But that's really twisting what a crime rate is.
There's a middle-ground here where you can take in refugees and block people from coming in illegally. It's not like "secure the border" means "nobody comes in no matter what". It means "nobody comes in illegally, and if you want to come here go through the damn system we set up already".
We've got our borders, and they don't really mean anything if you don't enforce them. Stop the guys from coming in when they shouldn't be, get the violent ones out immediately, and deal with the rest later since they're not actually doing any harm to anyone.
Rateria, Central Gadsden
The United States is under no obligation to take in any refugees or accept illegal immigrants. Legal immigration is fine, but there's no excuse for violating our borders illegally. We need to stop intervening and being the world police, yeah, but I'm not trying to let undercover ISIS agents into America. As far as I'm concerned the U.S has more of an obligation to protect it's current citizens than to worry about upsetting potential ones.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Narland, Rateria, Central Gadsden
Thank you Pevvy, very cool!
Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria
It is sad that the only form of corporal punishment progressives are want to allow is imprisonment (yes prison is technically a form of corporal punishment) and even then they want to make it more like a social club for the asocial than a place to be punished for ones bad choices. I am a supporter of returning to public caning for adults. Caning from deprivation of rights under color of authority by bureacrats to juveniles committing malicious destruction of property and driving drunk through the local shopping mall without purchasing anything. Save on prison space and get the perp back into learning how to participate as a free and responsible being in a (once and hopefully once again) free society.
No shame -- for any Jew or Goy it is a bargain. I attended sabbath school and synagogue as a young man and stopped shy of Bar-Mitzvah. The community of Jews in the Chicagoland Area are some of the best people I have had the pleasure of knowing. Learning how the community cares and looks out for each other in the bond of fellowship was worth the cost and is to be envied worldwide. Little wonder Jews have thrived over the centuries in diaspora with the synagogue system. The combined knowledge, wisdom, and guidance they provide for young men is worth more than a good college education--although a good education should include some collegiation. Even at twice the cost it is a good deal.An acquaintance (college age American Citizen) who worked in as a clerical secretary for WHO in Switzerland but resided in a Schengen area deliberately let one of her work visas expire for 90 days (and unwisely told Swiss Immigration Officials that it was willful neglect). Judgment: 30 days prison and a 30,000 Euro fine. If she returns to Europe and spends the jail time they will put her on work release (her employers want her back), and commute the E30,000. She seemed to think that the rest of the world has the lawless (anti)immigration system was foisted on the United States no thanx to Senators Bell and Kennedy.
Rateria
I don't think it's that simple. We, (Ruralites) used to hire our neighbors and bus people from urban areas (jobless, school-age kids in the summertime with their parents etc) and bus them back at the end of the week as well as hire immigrants. Immigrants made up a small minority. They were paid cash daily and given a bunkhouse to sleep in and fed by the ranch cook. Thanks to Creeping Socialism and the start of LBJ's war on Rural America (which continues against us by seceding bureaucracies) and the (then) new employment laws creating the current corrupt and rigged system it became infeasible and wasteful to continue to do so. It is far easier post-cultural revolution to hire an illegal immigrant (both employer no employee are more willing to engage in 'don't ask don't tell' and neither are likely to volunteer their contractual agreements). If/When we return to free and open markets with free enterprise, i think you will once again see able bodied people of all demographics once again returning to seasonal work on our farms and ranches.
Rateria
Fine, you win. Here's my solution then: make immigration legal. Then there won't be any illegal immigrants, and none of them will commit any crime.
On the flipside, illegal immigrants get no services and still pay taxes, such as the sales and gas tax. The crackdown on illegal immigration is therefore illogical since the vast majority of law-abiding (outside of their 'illegal' presence) do not commit crimes. On the other hand, my tax money is being used to commit a greater number people to detention, people who need to be fed and clothed as they await their deportation.
https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607652253/studies-say-illegal-immigration-does-not-increase-violent-crime
Rateria
Dammit my authoratarianism
My author tatratamiraniasm
My other terraria
I mean, sure we're not, but it isn't even slightly morally wrong to you that many would rather deport illegals fleeing their hellhole of a country rather than give them a path to citizenship?
I'm all for rule of law and I think there has to be some sort of punishment, but when you live in countries dominated by murder and cartels, I think it's understandable that someone would rather break the law than sit in line for years. If we want to secure our borders we need to focus on reforming our legal immigration system first. Building a wall without putting any sort of acceptable solution in place is not going to help anyone.
Miencraft, Rateria
Unfortunately two of the cited studies by NPR includes self-reporting data. Most people do not self-report their own crimes, and I would think illegal aliens less inclined to do so. The other study does not take into account charges dropped against aliens because of potential deportation which happens quite often.
I would love to live in a world where all immigrants are welcome and everyone loved truth, justice, liberty, and self-responsibility. But we live in a world with people and groups of people many of whom hate life, hate liberty and despise the freedom that others enjoy. In our own country we are awash with those who hate the fact that we are (to a great extent) allowed to enjoy the fruits of our own individual labor to do with as we see fit. Not only are there those home and abroad that hate/fear these things but seek to alter or destroy them for some supposed good. Already we have raised a generation where half of us do not even value our own traditions of freedom and equality, and would rather have the destitution of socialism or some other form of statism foisted upon us.
Those whose lifestyle and values are conducive to and enhances the respect for the life, liberty, and property (in the Classical Liberal sense) of each and every individual should always be welcome. I only want those who are willing to embrace the American Ideals of Liberty in Law(fulness) on or near my property. Those unwilling or unable to do so are a detriment to freedom, a danger to civility, and need to be removed from our borders.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-illegal-immigration-and-criminal-activity
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/crimes-illegal-aliens-not-legal-immigrants-are-the-real-problem
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/326272-most-illegal-aliens-routinely-commit-felonies
Rateria
Rateria
Socialists often complain that Libertarians let corporations walk all over us, but it seems to me like they are the ones who are submissive to corporate overlords.
-Often very well off
-Want to give the government more power despite obvious corruption
-Can't stand up to businesses and say "no", expect other people to cover their mistakes
-Want to get rid of borders
-Support highly imperialistic idea of global communism
Miencraft, Narland, Rateria
Three big bipartisan WINS for liberty heading to Trump's desk: right to try, bank deregulation and the VA Mission Act, which expands private care options for our vets. So good folks, getting tired of winning!
Miencraft, Rateria
Source pls? Communism is NOT socialism
that being said, make socialism 1890s again
Rateria
Dang, my bad
The Chad Elon Musk
Rateria
communists are impatient socialist zealots with guns and a plan.
Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Venomringo
Chad Elon Musk vs Virgin Donald Trump
Rateria
I was thinking more the virgin journalist given recent events.
Rateria
I legitimately do not understand a lot of the hate tossed at libertarians. Libertarians have become a scapegoat nowadays. I think it's because people expect the government to solve their problems for them and any attempt to take that away is met with jostility.
Rateria
Probably going to go to college eventually because parental expectations but considering not doing it immediately.
Rateria
As a minarchist libertarian, I don't believe in positive rights, for example, a positive right would be the right to not be hungry, a negative right would be the right to work in order to make yourself not hungry. I'm pretty extreme on this point as I don't believe in negligent homicide. That being the case, parents have the responsibly to not starve their children, if this was made a crime, it would be implicit that children have a right to food, which means government would have the responsibly to feed children without parents, if this were the case, this would acknowledge positive rights in the case of children. That being the case, where do those positive rights end? Is it a valid role of the state to provide public education for children without parents. Even if you believe it is a parent's job to educate their child, if a parent is not in the equation, to what extent is the government valid in the feeding, education, and overall survival and raising of children?
Narland, Rateria
I think the confusion is in not understanding the nature of rights regarding what it means to be a human being, of necessity and fitness. It is fitting to feed, educate and discipline one's own child in a manner befitting one's ability. It is the right of the parent to be allowed to be as free as possible in their pursuit of happiness (i.e., despotic government to get out of the way to secure a trade, profession, vocation, occupation, enterprise, or if incapable of the former at least a job or set of jobs) to offer a desired product or service at a reasonable price) to accomplished this.
It is in the nature of most parents to care for their own children. Those who cannot or do not are the exception and an orphan is much better off in a free market environment than in the hell-hole of a police state orphanage ala Soviet Union or dysfunctional progressivist so-called foster-care system of abuse from a state like California. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a free, responsible, mature, self-interested family. It takes such families to raise a village.
Rateria
Obviously it isn't optimal to legislate for extremes like the small amount of children who are orphans, but my question rather, to put it more precisely, is, why would the negligence to care properly, meaning basic needs are met for survival, for children, be illegal, if it were the case that no force was applied to the child in any way? For something to be illegal, someone's rights must have been violated, in this case it would be the rights of the child, but, if the rights of the child were violated, but no force was applied on the child, this would mean, by default, the child has positive rights of some kind. Assuming these positive rights expire the moment of their eighteenth birthday, what positive rights must be provided to children?
Rateria
It is the responsibility of the family and community, and in a free market environment neglected children can flourish, for example Thomas Edison. It is in the nature of most people (not all) to see that children are cared for. Thus it is a function of community (the public), not government (the state). In a Classical Liberal state such as how the US was founded their is a bright red line between public (which belongs to the individuals of the community -- the people) and the government (which belongs to the state on behalf of the people).
I agree with you. Most people when given adequate instruction, and the ability to make ends meet (pref. through free enterprise) can Raise their children adequately. Some do well, some do not. My point was that it was the responsibility of the family and community who do so by their very nature for the most part and not the government to interfere in the well being of children under the excuse of neglect. is the job of the govt to get out of the way so the family can provide for their children. Those who are neglected can find reprieve from the community without the help (God forbid) of the state. Babe Ruth, Leo Tolstoy, JRR Tolkien, Thomas Edison are some examples.
Sorry for repeating myself I have several voices in my ear talking at me while writing this. The govt has no business enforcing "positive" rights since it always creates unintended consequences -- what the founders would call folly. It then feeds on itself by creating more laws to fix the problems they created by the previous legislation. This includes interfering (especially at the State and Federal level) in the natural rights of individuals and families to raise both children and communities.
Rateria
Generic Presidential Election Poll
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=colorado-kansas/detail=factbook/id=1034618
Over the next week, the candidates will take to the streets of Iowa and New Hampshire as we will hold Primaries for the 5 largest Parties in the US, you may vote in as many primaries as you wish.
Living Freedom Land, Rateria
So that would mean that the government has no place in ensuring the survival of children, I see your line of reasoning and I agree that the community would be better suited to care for orphans, but the reason I ask this question is because it's a common critique of libertarianism to suggest the legality of child abuse through negligence. I suppose this is one of those things where the state has no business in enforcing morality. For example, it might be morally wrong to indulge in heavy drug use because of the effect it could have on the people around you, but the government should only get involved AFTER someone's rights have been violated, like arresting a drunk driver after he hits someone, but not prohibiting alcohol. This actually brings another thought to my mind. Why would driving while intoxicated be illegal in itself if no damage was done to anyone while the person was driving? Sorry for getting offtrack.
Rateria
Do you guys support a free Tibet?
Rateria
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.