Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The pursuit of economic power is still the pursuit of power. History is overwhelming in the amount of evidence it presents in favor of the conclusion that the general tendency of Man is for the individual to cause evils, or to be indifferent to evils.

Disney got grilled for not allowing a greving father to put Spiderman on a grave they're not doing evil any time soon with every person keeping them under a microscope. The worst thing these corporations do is pollute third world countries but again they're paying off the state to not do anything about it. Again in this scenario it's once again the state and not really the corporation at fault.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:

The economic conquest is just as dangerous as physical or ideological conquest. The acquisition of economic power allows for the acquisition of the most durable and longer lasting of the political powers, it is also safer, as all action can be done via proxy.

Economic domination is not nearly as dangerous as ideological or physical domination. Economic domination would mean creating natural monopolies and history tells us they don't exist. Where monopolies do exist they're enforced by the state. One close case of a natural monopoly is standard oil, they had the best quality oil at the best possible price to beat competitors and where they tried to raise prices their competitors were still there to fill the gap. I hardly consider that economic domination and when standard oil was killed oil prices rose not too long afterwards. In short economic 'domination' leads to low prices and happy consumers. Ideological and physical domination has lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people

The New United States

Skaveria wrote:A corperation isn't inherantly bad; it depends on how they became a corporation.

Did they aquire their assets legally? Do they only continue to survive because of subsidy? Do they operate in such a way that is compatible with liberty?

Corporations are always bad. If they came about legally then it was off the backs of vulnerable workers and, if they came about illegally, well, that only adds to immorality of the corporation. Everyone here likes to talk about how taxation is theft, but not how profits are the stolen wages of the workers - that's also theft in my book.

West Smolcasm

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Agreed. Corporations are value-neutral. They don't kidnap you and force you at gunpoint to work for them at minimum wage. However government will force you at gunpoint to take a large percentage of your income that is generally used inefficiently. Which institution is the real evil here, hmm?

Both. The individual worker needs the corporation more than the corporation needs the individual worker, which always puts the individual worker at a disadvantage in the transaction of labor. Sure, nobody directly kidnaps the worker but the socioeconomic conditions that exist for disadvantaged people act as the agent for abduction that force the worker into settling for a low paying job and poor labor conditions.

West Smolcasm

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Agreed. Corporations are value-neutral. They don't kidnap you and force you at gunpoint to work for them at minimum wage. However government will force you at gunpoint to take a large percentage of your income that is generally used inefficiently. Which institution is the real evil here, hmm?

Given enough time and size, any institution will exert its power over the individual provided that doing so will help it get more.

Let's say you were a member of the lower class - unemployed, about to lose your apartment, running out of loaned money to keep adrift on, and if you had any marketable skills whatsoever, no one bothered to teach you how to flex them. "Opportunity" would exist in the forms of large businesses offering minimum wage for the most menial of labor. They wouldn't be forcing you to work for them - hell, in light of the circumstances, it might even sound like a damned good deal - but you wouldn't really have much choice in the matter, would you? To most of us living in a capitalist system, opportunistic and predatory business arrangements are nuisances; to people in more desperate situations, however, these arrangements are more often flat-out coercive and serve only to sustain certain corporate business models.

I won't pretend that government is a worthy contrast - for all its effort to maintain the pretense that it serves the people, it's quite obviously a wolf in sheep's clothing too. If the role of the state has changed since the age of feudalism, it has surely been for pragmatic reasons only, and it just so happens that not having a populace in constant revolt is a pretty good reason to change. It's still a predator, one that nips at nearly everyone's heels, but it's one that only chases those who have run afoul of it in some way. Corporations, though? If profit's on the line, they'll corner anyone and everyone they possibly can. If I had to pick one of these beasts to tame in the interest of public safety, I think government would have to be the obvious choice.

West Smolcasm wrote:

Let's say you were a member of the lower class - unemployed, about to lose your apartment, running out of loaned money to keep adrift on, and if you had any marketable skills whatsoever, no one bothered to teach you how to flex them. "Opportunity" would exist in the forms of large businesses offering minimum wage for the most menial of labor. They wouldn't be forcing you to work for them - hell, in light of the circumstances, it might even sound like a damned good deal - but you wouldn't really have much choice in the matter, would you?

.

Apartments and loans are personal financial choices. Nobody forced this hypothetical person into these circumstances and it's certainly not a corporations job to get them out as people have agency. A corporation isn't spying on people to find someone to take advantage of them. in low skill low wage jobs the wage offers are preset as a take it or leave it unless you have extra skills they want. Actions have consequences and a consequence of taking on debt is paying back the debtors and the easiest way to do that is a job

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Venomringo wrote:Inflation only occurs with increases in the money supply.

If you define "inflation" as the increase in the quantity of money, as Mises did, then of course. That's a tautology.

If you define "inflation" as the increase in the general price level, then you're wrong. There are many variables that could increase the level of prices generally - lower productivity, a shortage in capital goods, catastrophe, etc.

Implementing a UBI would surely have an inflationary effect on the CPI. Handouts to consumers will translate into greater demand for consumer goods, and greater demand for consumer goods will put upward pressure on prices.

Jadentopian Order wrote:So like, a lot of rich people?

Yes, we should abolish the Fed.

Venomringo wrote:Corporations are always bad. If they came about legally then it was off the backs of vulnerable workers and, if they came about illegally, well, that only adds to immorality of the corporation. Everyone here likes to talk about how taxation is theft, but not how profits are the stolen wages of the workers - that's also theft in my book.

That's assuming that Marx's labor theory of value, and thus the surplus value theory, is correct. It is plainly false. Profits aren't theft.

Pevvania, The United States Of Patriots

Venomringo wrote:Corporations are always bad. If they came about legally then it was off the backs of vulnerable workers and, if they came about illegally, well, that only adds to immorality of the corporation. Everyone here likes to talk about how taxation is theft, but not how profits are the stolen wages of the workers - that's also theft in my book.

The workers voluntarily choose to work for the corporations though. Even if the worker had no other choice, that's not the fault of the corporations.

Unless some CEO is running around abducting fathers from the home and forcing kids to not learn marketable skills, but I highly doubt that.

You could say that private prisons lobby to make more things illegal, thus taking fathers from the home, thus perpetuating poverty. I'd actually agree with you on that point.

The prison system is a part of the criminal justice system, which is among the four things that I think should be nationalized.

The military, the criminal justice system, the electoral process, and roads.

But literally everything else should be privatised.

Miri Islands wrote:Apartments and loans are personal financial choices. Nobody forced this hypothetical person into these circumstances and it's certainly not a corporations job to get them out as people have agency. A corporation isn't spying on people to find someone to take advantage of them. in low skill low wage jobs the wage offers are preset as a take it or leave it unless you have extra skills they want. Actions have consequences and a consequence of taking on debt is paying back the debtors and the easiest way to do that is a job

My bad - I did leave out one itty bitty detail about this hypothetical person's circumstances (which is often true of those who find themselves in similar ones, hence why I took the idea for granted and left it unsaid): they come from a background filled with people in similar circumstances. Maybe some of these people made grave and foolish financial mistakes; maybe this hypothetical person made such mistakes. But whatever the reason for their poverty, no one gave this hypothetical person an inheritance, a marketable skill, or even actionable life advice on how not to be in those circumstances. And there they sit, wondering which they're really looking forward to: decades of back-breaking work, or an express trip to eternal oblivion.

The very idea of such a hypothetical person actually existing in any capacity, let alone numbering in the thousands, might seem ridiculous to some: This is America. We have books, libraries, the Internet - not to mention a government that throws welfare money at people willy-nilly, or at least that's how Fox News tells it. No job, home, cash, marketable skills, or even support system? How is that even possible? And even if it is possible, why is it my problem?

And then it's you.

Maybe not (in fact, almost certainly not) in entirety, but every once in awhile, someone will find themselves thrust into a financial death spiral, and the funny thing is that it could really be anyone - perhaps even you. Maybe your parents die, and you look to see if you're in their will, but find out that they've been playing it tough all these years for your sake and all they've really left you are calls from debtors asking you to pay up - and maybe, in your grief, you don't have the sense to know you're not legally obligated to until you agree to. Or maybe you're 18 and your folks are still alive, but they decide that - for reasons beyond your control - they can't stand you or something about you, and shut you out of their lives, along with any hope of getting any sort of charity or advice from them. Or maybe you're older and you have a weird cough, but it won't go away, and it's getting worse, and you've been hospitalized again and again and suddenly it's not just a cough anymore, and the costs just keep rising beyond your ability to pay. Or maybe you're perfectly healthy and want to share the secret of your incredible physique to the world: a curious diet of Mexican and Italian food blended together, so you do what any ambitious person would do and start your own small business dedicated to serving this novel blend of cuisines - and people aren't really flocking to this new restaurant as quickly as you might hope, and you hold out hope that you'll get a better turnout, but when you finally tally up your assets and liabilities, you find this bold red number with a dollar sign next to it that's five digits long and counting.

Point is, capitalism is like a grandiose public pool. It's great when you're floating on top of it - water's clear, weather's nice - and swimming in it, while often arduous, is similarly pleasant. It's such a nice pool - who would be so stupid as to drown in it? Why, this one inattentive lifeguard named Samuel, who's probably somebody's uncle, is perhaps too much of a safeguard against drowning; some here in the pool would prefer he go away and whistle at somebody else. And then, without warning, you fall off your raft, or you puncture one of your floaties, or your deep dive doesn't go as planned, and suddenly you're gulping mouthfuls of water and this paradise of chlorinated water around you becomes an ironic hell. (Or maybe you just didn't know how to swim to begin with and got in too deep.) Maybe someone stops to save you from drowning... or maybe everyone, Uncle Sam included, is embarrassed to watch you squirm and splash and writhe and won't lift a hand to pull you out. So I can see how it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to people who like a deep pool and minimal supervision that I'd rather it not be possible to drown... but I'd at least like to try and make it make sense.

West Smolcasm

There is a lifeguard in the pool, they're private charities. They won't solve all the financial problems of the hypothetical person but they will prevent someone from drowning in the pool.

Kek, I now conscript juvenile delinquents into the armed forces

Corporations don't have to be bad but if workers aren't allowed to organize then it leaves too much bargaining power to the corporations. The playing field has to be leveled. Strong unions and collective bargaining is the key to that in a market economy

Rateria, Venomringo, Skaveria, Jadentopian Order

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Corporations don't have to be bad but if workers aren't allowed to organize then it leaves too much bargaining power to the corporations. The playing field has to be leveled. Strong unions and collective bargaining is the key to that in a market economy

While I don't like unions I do agree collective bargaining can be a valuable tool but there should be right to work laws. Compulsory union membership is bull crap. It's just like compulsory voting

Miencraft, The United States Of Patriots

Private unions and collective bargaining are wonderful things. The workers are free to associate with whomever and however they wish, but when the government forces them to associate, that's when it violates liberty.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, The New Icelandic Commonwealth, Miri Islands

Thoughts on unions:

- Should be illegal to fire someone for joining one

- You should join unless you can’t/don’t want to pay dues

- Shouldn’t be mandatory

- Absolutely necessary

The New Icelandic Commonwealth wrote:Corporations don't have to be bad but if workers aren't allowed to organize then it leaves too much bargaining power to the corporations. The playing field has to be leveled. Strong unions and collective bargaining is the key to that in a market economy

https://i.imgur.com/gvP8M70.jpg

[quote=jadentopian_order;35913258]Thoughts on unions:

- Should be illegal to fire someone for joining one / Depends on the contract, if it says union membership not permitted then firing is an option

- You should join unless you can’t/don’t want to pay dues / Individual choice

- Shouldn’t be mandatory / Correct

- Absolutely necessary / Incorrect

Miencraft, Republic Of Minerva, The United States Of Patriots

[quote=stiltusgibberum;35914469][quote=jadentopian_order;35913258]Thoughts on unions:

- Should be illegal to fire someone for joining one / Depends on the contract, if it says union membership not permitted then firing is an option

- You should join unless you can’t/don’t want to pay dues / Individual choice

- Shouldn’t be mandatory / Correct

- Absolutely necessary / Incorrect

[/quote]

Idk who you are but we are friends now.

Stiltusgibberum

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

If a king's land is his private property, couldn't there be an anarcho-capitalist monarchy?

If I had enough money, couldn't I just buy the entirety of the former United States, then implement communism, but it'd be all good because it's my private property?

Skaveria wrote:If a king's land is his private property, couldn't there be an anarcho-capitalist monarchy?

If I had enough money, couldn't I just buy the entirety of the former United States, then implement communism, but it'd be all good because it's my private property?

That is an interesting idea. If the land owner is a king, who is by his very nature a government leader, it could not be anarcho-capitalism. At that point, he would just be a McLandlord™️.

As for communism on private property, you just created a rift in reality. Also, this hypothetical brings up the question of getting the land. Would you have to pay private landowners? Wouldn’t it be immoral to force people to stay on your land now? I’m just thinking about it a little bit. I might as well contribute to RMB discussions.

Rateria wrote:That is an interesting idea. If the land owner is a king, who is by his very nature a government leader, it could not be anarcho-capitalism. At that point, he would just be a McLandlord™️.

As for communism on private property, you just created a rift in reality. Also, this hypothetical brings up the question of getting the land. Would you have to pay private landowners? Wouldn’t it be immoral to force people to stay on your land now? I’m just thinking about it a little bit. I might as well contribute to RMB discussions.

It's just a thought. Seeing as though you can put whatever ridiculous stipulation for coming on your property that you want, as long as you don't force people onto it. (If you wanna come to my house, you gotta wear a bowler hat, monocle, and speak like you're a rail tycoon from the 1890s.) That wouldn't violate the NAP, the people knew the rules before coming over.

Setting yourself up as a king wouldn't really be against ancapism either under that premise. Is it really only a government when you call it one? Is it the lable that makes the difference?

Really that's all a commune is as well, communism on private property. That land with all the hippies working on it is in somebody's name, probably the dead head in charge.

Venomringo wrote:Both. The individual worker needs the corporation more than the corporation needs the individual worker, which always puts the individual worker at a disadvantage in the transaction of labor. Sure, nobody directly kidnaps the worker but the socioeconomic conditions that exist for disadvantaged people act as the agent for abduction that force the worker into settling for a low paying job and poor labor conditions.

The worker is also trying to always get the best deal. Especially in lower brackets were jobs are plenty (to the point where the only people accepting such jobs are immigrants from poor countries).

It is worth noting that the bargaining power of the individual is diminished when government enters contracts and demands certain conditions, whether it is insuranced provided healthcare or a minimum wage. In this case the corporation needs to be more discriminatory to whom it hands jobs out to.

Miencraft

Skaveria wrote:If a king's land is his private property, couldn't there be an anarcho-capitalist monarchy?

If I had enough money, couldn't I just buy the entirety of the former United States, then implement communism, but it'd be all good because it's my private property?

Implementing Communism on private property is called a commune. They exist in capitalist nations like the US and rarely they see success like sunburst farms in California. Funny how communism can exist in a capitalist society but capitalism can't exist in a Communist society

Also I let kids read smutty novels and my political freedoms went up several points. wtf nation states?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Technically, communism can't exist within a capitalist society. By implementing communism they cease to be part of capitalist society.

#communesaren'trealcommunism

Miri Islands

Venomringo wrote:Corporations are always bad. If they came about legally then it was off the backs of vulnerable workers and, if they came about illegally, well, that only adds to immorality of the corporation. Everyone here likes to talk about how taxation is theft, but not how profits are the stolen wages of the workers - that's also theft in my book.

Sounds like communist propaganda to me but okay.

Miencraft, Rateria, Skaveria, Miri Islands, Stiltusgibberum

If one were to say... Show up at a rally that had a strong Antifa presence, wear something politically identifiable, like MAGA gear or something of the sort, wade into the lot of them, wait for them to inevitably attack, and then promptly serve them up a thorough ass-kicking; what would be the ethical and legal view of that?

Skaveria wrote:If one were to say... Show up at a rally that had a strong Antifa presence, wear something politically identifiable, like MAGA gear or something of the sort, wade into the lot of them, wait for them to inevitably attack, and then promptly serve them up a thorough ass-kicking; what would be the ethical and legal view of that?

If you're also wearing black covering your face and waving a Communist flag you'll be fine.

Also: deported Justin beiber from my nation and it only cost one civil rights point. Totally worth it

Skaveria wrote:If one were to say... Show up at a rally that had a strong Antifa presence, wear something politically identifiable, like MAGA gear or something of the sort, wade into the lot of them, wait for them to inevitably attack, and then promptly serve them up a thorough ass-kicking; what would be the ethical and legal view of that?

I see no ethical problem with what the theoretical man does here. It might be provocative of him, but is that necessarily bad? If someone aggresses against him, even if he's "asking for it," the aggressor is still squarely in the wrong and the MAGA-hat guy is justified in defending himself.

Miencraft

Antifa just committed an act of domestic terrorism...Portland drone strikes when?

New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=144933

Rateria

Zurkerx wrote:New poll in Zentari. Come and vote!

https://www.nationstates.net/page=poll/p=144933

How do you ban abortion after the third trimester? The baby is born after the third trimester.

Edit: I just remembered post birth abortions like New York and Virginia tried

Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:How do you ban abortion after the third trimester? The baby is born after the third trimester.

Oops, meant to say ban abortions while in the third trimester. Eh, I wish I could fix that...

The New United States, Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:Antifa just committed an act of domestic terrorism...Portland drone strikes when?

What happened?

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:What happened?

A guy fire bombed an ICE detention facility and got shot shortly after. He was the only one that died

The New United States, Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:A guy fire bombed an ICE detention facility and got shot shortly after. He was the only one that died

ICE sucks

Jadentopian Order wrote:ICE sucks

You don't get to firebomb buildings and cars just because: "ICE sucks"

Pevvania, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, Miri Islands, Kongeriget Island, Stiltusgibberum

Skaveria wrote:You don't get to firebomb buildings and cars just because: "ICE sucks"

You’re right, you do when they violate human rights and begin a process of dehumanization.

Jadentopian Order wrote:You’re right, you do when they violate human rights and begin a process of dehumanization.

What specifically have ICE Agents or Customs Officers done to warrant violent reprisal, and how will throwing molotov cocktails at Average Joe CBPO solve the problem?

Stiltusgibberum

The New United States wrote:What specifically have ICE Agents or Customs Officers done to warrant violent reprisal, and how will throwing molotov cocktails at Average Joe CBPO solve the problem?

1.) ICE officers are the ones carrying out the atrocities at the border

2.) It's sending a message that citizens aren't going to allow fellow human beings to be put into concentration camps.

Jadentopian Order wrote:1.) ICE officers are the ones carrying out the atrocities at the border

2.) It's sending a message that citizens aren't going to allow fellow human beings to be put into concentration camps.

Calling them concentration camps is disingenuous. Technically, they are a place where the government is sending a certain class of people, but most folks fail to understand the distinction between concentration camps and death camps.

Both invoke images of holocaust atrocities. It's a deliberately horror-invoking phrase meant to cause unrest and political action.

Narland, The New United States, The United States Of Patriots, Miri Islands, Kongeriget Island, Stiltusgibberum

Jadentopian Order wrote:1.) ICE officers are the ones carrying out the atrocities at the border

What "atrocities?" Be specific. Do these "atrocities" justify attempted murder against a LEO?

Jadentopian Order wrote:2.) It's sending a message that citizens aren't going to allow fellow human beings to be put into concentration camps.

There are no "concentration camps." Enough with the hysterics. The conditions in CBP detention facilities aren't anywhere even close to how bad it was in those that we associate with the term "concentration camps." To call them that is a cheap trick to associate them with things that were far, far worse.

If you want the detention facilities to be better, then lobby your congressman to support more funding for the facilities. Don't threaten the lives of those that have no power to change things.

Narland, The United States Of Patriots, Skaveria, Stiltusgibberum

Skaveria wrote:Calling them concentration camps is disingenuous. Technically, they are a place where the government is sending a certain class of people, but most folks fail to understand the distinction between concentration camps and death camps.

Both invoke images of holocaust atrocities. It's a deliberately horror-invoking phrase meant to cause unrest and political action.

They are concentration camps, yes.

The New United States wrote:What "atrocities?" Be specific. Do these "atrocities" justify attempted murder against a LEO?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/migrant-children-border-soap.html

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/447278-watchdog-finds-conditions-egregious-at-4-immigrant-detention

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/12/us-immigration-detention-facilities

https://www.axios.com/migrant-detention-center-conditions-6a45648a-8fba-4b5e-acfa-5e4ce033aada.html

This isn't some sort of "liberal" issue, this is an issue of humans being treated as sub-human.

And to answer your question, yes. When your own government is treating other human beings like this you need to stop it. I know full well this is not a popular opinion.

The New United States wrote:

There are no "concentration camps." Enough with the hysterics. The conditions in CBP detention facilities aren't anywhere even close to how bad it was in those that we associate with the term "concentration camps." To call them that is a cheap trick to associate them with things that were far, far worse.

I can give you plenty more articles that explain the sub-human conditions these people are placed in. Saying they're not concentration camps is ignorant and downplaying the horrific conditions.

The New United States wrote:

If you want the detention facilities to be better, then lobby your congressman to support more funding for the facilities. Don't threaten the lives of those that have no power to change things.

That sounds really great, but there has been outrage for months and no significant change has happened. People are still being treated like animals and shoved into cages. Direct action needs to be taken, a message needs to be sent that it is not okay for a government to be running concentration camps.

The New United States wrote:When did so many Libertatemites become Marxians and histrionic liberals?

This isn't and shouldn't political issue. It's an issue of human rights.

Jadentopian Order wrote:1.) ICE officers are the ones carrying out the atrocities at the border

2.) It's sending a message that citizens aren't going to allow fellow human beings to be put into concentration camps.

This is a parody account. No one is that dumb.

Stiltusgibberum wrote:This is a parody account. No one is that dumb.

How are people who raid homes and send people to concentration camps not committing a crime against humanity?

ReHello Libertatem. 120+ posts after being away for 10 days. It is encouraging to see so much engagement. I hope everyone is doing well.

Skaveria wrote:But Kant was very much against...
Sorry, I don't remember the train of thought, but I will get back to you about it shortly.

Kongeriget Island wrote:No
Why am I am not surprised? A yr7 Social Studies teacher, Mr. M. insisted that the highest age of majority of any (Western) country had once been Iceland at 35 years of age and the lowest was some tribe in Papua New Guinea as soon as they could speak. I took it as gospel.

Suzi Island wrote:State: Pat Buchanan

Treasury: Stephen Moore

Defense: Tulsi Gabbard

AG: Trey Gowdy

Interior: Dean Heller

Agriculture: Paul Ryan

Commerce: Linda McMahon

Labor: Mark Mix (current chair of National right to work committee

HHS: Rand Paul

HUD: Marco Rubio

Transportation: Gary Kelly (CEO of Southwest Airlines)

Energy: Mike Sommers (head of API)

Educarion: Larry Arnn

VA: Joni Ernst

Homeland Security: Tom Cotton

State:

Someone who:

would fire 80% of the paper pushers and restore the State Department back into a mere adjunct of the White House and Senate with the goal of becoming more constitutional in a manner similar to Switzerland during later her Republic era. Switzerland has no State Department per se and that is an excellent target to strive for.

Eliminate redundant operations.

Do a Reagan and call in all CIA assets out of the cold, eliminate those who refuse and go one better than Reagan call in the Marshall's service to full investigate any and all criminal activity perpetrated against any law-abiding Citizen of the United states. Reconstitute the CIA under American principles instead of Prussian.

Treasury: Any litigical Austrian-American Economist successful small business entrepreneur who will fulfill the Federal Reserve Act (fully complete the audit) so as to lawfully proceed in dismantling the FRB. Actively seek prosecution of the Banksters and their Congressional accomplices for their fraud against the American people. Trade in the privately owned certificates of indebtedness (Federal Reserve Notes) that masquerade as lawful US currency at an appropriate ratio with US Treasury Notes denominated as US Dollars until such a time as a legal, lawful, and sound commodity backed US currency (the Constitution stipulates gold and/or silver) under direct Congressional authority can be established.

Defense: Anyone willing to divorce the deep Administrative State and Military Industrial Complex, fight to restore the National Guard back to Being a National Guard with the goal of returning to the States their military assets back to the County and Municipal Armories as a United States under authority as a States Guards.

AG: Andrew Napolitano but anyone willing to fire 80% of the riff-raff, deputize a corp of US Mars halls to zealously prosecute any and all criminal activity, but especially "deprivation of rights under color of authority" and misprision by coworkers.

Interior: Appoint any cabin born irascible Western State mountain man who would rather shoot you than look at you to eliminate the department and return responsibility for the administration of all public lands back to the States who (except for specific spots like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon) own the title deeds to that land anyway.

Appoint anyone in these department with the goal to:

Agriculture: Eliminate Department

Commerce: Eliminate Department

Labor: Eliminate Department

HHS: Eliminate Department, return Surgeon General back to Dept of Defense.

HUD: Eliminate Department

Transportation: Eliminate Department

Energy: Eliminate Department

Education: Eliminate Department

VA: Eliminate and put assets under Surgeon General who is now back in the Department of Defense

Homeland Security: Eliminate Department

The New United States

Narland wrote:

Appoint anyone in these department with the goal to:

Agriculture: Eliminate Department

Commerce: Eliminate Department

Labor: Eliminate Department

HHS: Eliminate Department, return Surgeon General back to Dept of Defense.

HUD: Eliminate Department

Transportation: Eliminate Department

Energy: Eliminate Department

Education: Eliminate Department

VA: Eliminate and put assets under Surgeon General who is now back in the Department of Defense

Homeland Security: Eliminate Department

https://i.imgur.com/ikDN9xm.png

Narland, The New United States

Miri Islands wrote:Corporations aren't inherently bad. It takes a state giving those corporations laws to weaponize against competitors to turn them from companies you're willing to give your money to into basically government monopolies that are insanely difficult to get rid of. A good example is General Motors; a gigantic failing corporation that uses it's massive size as a bargaining chip to get government subsidizes and bailouts while small companies like American Motors Company drown not being able to compete on the slanted playing field

I think all corporations are bad when they are required to be creatures of the state like we have had since 1953 (where every company must incorporate as a mini-politbureau) instead of the organically structured contractual personal property of the most direct interested parties concerned. If so-called Conservatives would stop defending corporate Statism just because Leftists hate corporations (even though most of our laws regarding Trusts, Foundations and Corporations come from Progressivist ideals) and work to eliminating impediments to the right of the pursuit of happiness by restoring Free Enterprise, starting/running a business probably wouldn't be so distasteful to the average American. But I grew up on a Ranch and was raised to see the world through the eyes of a free person in a free society with gifts, skills and traits to offer to others to our mutual benefit with those willing to do the same. It is very hard to consider any business forced to incorporate especially since the 60s as anything but a patsy of state interference, classist wranglings, and untenable/insufferable legal fictions.

The New United States

Jadentopian Order wrote:How are people who raid homes and send people to concentration camps not committing a crime against humanity?

1. They aren't concentration camps of the ilk the language suggests.

2. iirc those detained in these camps are those detained at crossing and not people who where subject to raids.

3. If they were subject to raids they didn't show up for their court date when they crossed the boarder or they just crossed and where never processed. Both of which are illegal. Until and unless the law is changed they are subject to immigration law just like everyone else

4. this exact argument could be made for anyone who broke a law and is taken to prison, not even immigration detention centers

All this being said I think the conditions, which according even to the articles you shared are caused by scarcity, should be improved. Because the number of people who will attempt to cross our boarder is beyond our control in order to reduce the overcrowding one of two things needs to happen:

1. Change the law to not require people to be held when they are caught attempting to cross or when they go to a port of entry.

2. Grant more funding to remove the scarcity.

Neither of these things will be changed by attempting to firebomb and kill ICE members and potentially burn all of those he was supposedly trying to help.

And to compare these camps to the concentration camps in nazi germany, which is exactly what the language does, is completely absurd

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:You’re right, you do when they violate human rights and begin a process of dehumanization.

I don't see how this is a violation of human rights. They're being legally held in detention for committing the crime of crossing the border illegally. Most of the problems in the facilities is due to over crowding. They're putting them in unpleasant conditions because there's no alternative. If conditions were so horrible in these camps why aren't they electing to be deported instead of waiting God knows how long to get in front of an immigration judge

Pevvania, Narland, The New United States, Stiltusgibberum

Tbh, I don't see a problem with deporting every illegal immigrant. It's actually pretty lenient compared to some countries. Some countries just kill you if you try to cross their border.

Think about it, illegal immigration is a crime, deportation just undoes the crime they did.

It's the equivalent of me getting busted with an 8-ball in my car, and the police just takes my coke and let's me go.

Still unjust, because all drugs should be decriminalized, but still fairly damn lenient considering the alternatives.

Narland, The New United States, Stiltusgibberum

Jadentopian Order wrote:How are people who raid homes and send people to concentration camps not committing a crime against humanity?

If you truly support terrorism then we have a problem.

The New United States

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Well, to be fair, if it were an actual rebellion, ICE would be a legitimate target.

In that rebellion I would stand with ICE, so I guess I should be ready to defend myself from you.

I hate it when I get issues like

1. Ban X industry they are bad

2.dont ban X industry in fact give us government subsidies

Why isn't there an option to just keep the industry and not give them taxpayer money

Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:Tbh, I don't see a problem with deporting every illegal immigrant. It's actually pretty lenient compared to some countries. Some countries just kill you if you try to cross their border.

Think about it, illegal immigration is a crime, deportation just undoes the crime they did.

It's the equivalent of me getting busted with an 8-ball in my car, and the police just takes my coke and let's me go.

Still unjust, because all drugs should be decriminalized, but still fairly damn lenient considering the alternatives.

Those who drink Dr. Pepper don't need to worry about police taking their Coke. I keep the eight ball on the billiards table. If I ever need an Orb of Infinity, I know where to find it.

The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria

Miri Islands wrote:I don't see how this is a violation of human rights. They're being legally held in detention for committing the crime of crossing the border illegally. Most of the problems in the facilities is due to over crowding. They're putting them in unpleasant conditions because there's no alternative. If conditions were so horrible in these camps why aren't they electing to be deported instead of waiting God knows how long to get in front of an immigration judge
I agree. Also I think we are negligent to a fault. We must be one of the few if only countries that lets aliens wander the hinterland.

Towards the end of the Cold War some eastern Europeans who had escaped over the Iron Curtain were in holding camps in places like Italy for almost a decade before finding sponsors to be released. Most couldn't go back to the Socialist Utopias without being shot as enemies of the state or put into truly inhumane gulags. One of the Romanians we sponsored for US Citizenship (at that holding camp) was the only survivor of a family of 8 (all of whom where murdered) as they tried to escape (he was a teenager at the time.) He is now am aeronautics engineer.

Two years ago, one of my more leftist acquaintances from Idaho let her Swiss European work visa expire over 30 days while working for UNICEF in Berne. She was arrested and given the choice to go to jail or leave the country. She came back to the States. The judgment against her (in abstentia) is a € 50 000 fine, and one month in a Swiss prison. If she pays the fine, and serves her time, her work visa will be renewed and can return to her job (if it is still there) when she gets out. Most nations are not so lenient.

The New United States, Rateria, Stiltusgibberum

I looked through the population history of this region and I noticed a sharp climb in 2017 then a rapid decline not too long afterwards. What happened?

The New United States, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

I could go all straw liberal and debate (or pretend to debate) the ethics of interning people for the heinous crime of breaking and entering into a almost-incomprehensibly vast strip of land, but I find that I lack the patience. Suffice it to say that I disagree with taking punitive measures of any kind against "illegal" immigrants - however ridiculous that may sound to you - and leave it at that.

If there's one thing I'm curious about, though, it's what it means for such a strip of land to exist as something of a political entity - even among those of you who would see government reduced to its bare minimum or even done away with altogether. Why do political borders exist? What purpose would they serve, if any, in a libertarian model?

Jadentopian Order

https://fee.org/articles/how-believing-in-socialism-can-make-you-miserable/

Narland, The New United States, Stiltusgibberum

West Smolcasm wrote:I could go all straw liberal and debate (or pretend to debate) the ethics of interning people for the heinous crime of breaking and entering into a almost-incomprehensibly vast strip of land, but I find that I lack the patience. Suffice it to say that I disagree with taking punitive measures of any kind against "illegal" immigrants - however ridiculous that may sound to you - and leave it at that.

If there's one thing I'm curious about, though, it's what it means for such a strip of land to exist as something of a political entity - even among those of you who would see government reduced to its bare minimum or even done away with altogether. Why do political borders exist? What purpose would they serve, if any, in a libertarian model?

Arbitrary lines for "me feel good about land where me come from"

Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbishing, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is."

- JM Keynes, the father of the economics they teach you at school

https://mises.org/wire/illusion-keynesian-multiplier

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Stiltusgibberum

West Smolcasm wrote:I could go all straw liberal and debate (or pretend to debate) the ethics of interning people for the heinous crime of breaking and entering into a almost-incomprehensibly vast strip of land, but I find that I lack the patience.

I could go all straw liberal and debate - Translation: I'm about to go all straw liberal...

The New United States

West Smolcasm wrote:

If there's one thing I'm curious about, though, it's what it means for such a strip of land to exist as something of a political entity - even among those of you who would see government reduced to its bare minimum or even done away with altogether. Why do political borders exist? What purpose would they serve, if any, in a libertarian model?

In an established libertarian model borders wouldn't be necessary.

The Socialist Model /Hybrid demands borders due to welfare. Welfare breeds dependency and the evil theft of self-belief from the individual. The now soulless Socialist is placed on the payroll in exchange for a vote and then looks the other way during the shakedown of the still alive required to fund their bribe. Pumped with envy and victimhood the lie is perpetuated.

The New United States, Miri Islands

Its worth noting that the amount of South/Central American immigrants coming to the US now is rather paltry compared to the number of Irish immigrants during the middle 1800s.

And in anyway, claiming we should focus on cutting down immigration in order to stop abuses of welfare could be extrapolated thus: we should also go after drug sellers in order to stop money being spent on hospitalizations and rehabilitations. This is a very conservative position.

West Smolcasm wrote:I could go all straw liberal and debate (or pretend to debate) the ethics of interning people for the heinous crime of breaking and entering into a almost-incomprehensibly vast strip of land, but I find that I lack the patience. Suffice it to say that I disagree with taking punitive measures of any kind against "illegal" immigrants - however ridiculous that may sound to you - and leave it at that.

If there's one thing I'm curious about, though, it's what it means for such a strip of land to exist as something of a political entity - even among those of you who would see government reduced to its bare minimum or even done away with altogether. Why do political borders exist? What purpose would they serve, if any, in a libertarian model?

Why do borders exist? because I am scared of my brown neighbors.

What purpose do they serve? i am afraid of my neighbors

Venomringo

Stiltusgibberum wrote:I could go all straw liberal and debate - Translation: I'm about to go all straw liberal...

Oh, given the time and patience, I could do a great deal better than that, but what would be the point? I'd only be reciting or paraphrasing the words of more intelligent, dedicated political scientists irrespective of my endeavor to come up with new ideas to justify my beliefs - just the same as damn near anyone else. If a pithy one-liner can't convince a cadre of Internet randos to reassess their view of a given hot-button issue, it's most unlikely that paragraphs upon paragraphs of rhetoric they'll more likely liken to that of their opponents' than scrutinize would either.

I did so anyway a couple of times already, but over time, each word I typed reminded me that it would be futile to challenge people's preconceived notions; if my words sound socialistic, then in their eyes I'd be a socialist regardless of how practical, diverse, and median my political views are. If I am to whittle my time away on a pointless exercise, I'd at least like to have fun doing it - hence my interest in turning to general philosophy over specific events I am (and, in all likelihood, everyone else here is) largely in the dark about.

Thank you for indulging me.

Stiltusgibberum wrote:In an established libertarian model borders wouldn't be necessary.

I had assumed so, but I'll confess I was a bit confused at all the seemingly contrary insistence that violating a border is criminal. Does something about whether a model is established have any bearing on the necessity (and sanctity) of a legal border?

Stiltusgibberum wrote:The Socialist Model /Hybrid demands borders due to welfare. Welfare breeds dependency and the evil theft of self-belief from the individual. The now soulless Socialist is placed on the payroll in exchange for a vote and then looks the other way during the shakedown of the still alive required to fund their bribe. Pumped with envy and victimhood the lie is perpetuated.

That's quite a lovely and dystopian picture, and as I understand it, that's one way you could look at even the current model. Would, then, there be any particular point to protecting the boundaries of a system with which you disagree? My imagination is perhaps too limited to conceive of one.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Why do borders exist? because I am scared of my brown neighbors.

What purpose do they serve? i am afraid of my neighbors

thanks jaden very cool

Jadentopian Order

Crossing the US border is illegal yes, and so is smoking marijuana in many states, or opening an unlicensed lemonade stand. Certainly legality shouldn't be the measure used to judge. I'm assuming Mr. Gibberum has nothing against the latter.

Rateria, Jadentopian Order, West Smolcasm

West Smolcasm wrote:What purpose would they serve, if any, in a libertarian model?

To quote Murray Rothbard on the matter, from the essay [I]Nations by Consent[/I]:

"... 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."

https://mises.org/library/nations-consent

West Smolcasm wrote:Why do political borders exist?

Borders are a natural delineation between the properties of one person or people and those of another. Borders exist because property exists.

Narland

Jadentopian Order wrote:Why do borders exist? because I am scared of my brown neighbors.

What purpose do they serve? i am afraid of my neighbors

A community certainly has the right to regulate immigration if that's what it takes to preserve what makes them special, no? To quote the great Lew Rockwell:

"Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

Narland, Miri Islands, Stiltusgibberum

West Smolcasm wrote:thanks jaden very cool

Well I don’t really have the time and or patience for an actual reply, and I don’t think I’m gonna be changing any minds around here, so I decided it would be easiest just to make a dumb sarcastic reply that explains my position on borders.

West Smolcasm wrote:

I did so anyway a couple of times already, but over time, each word I typed reminded me that it would be futile to challenge people's preconceived notions; if my words sound socialistic, then in their eyes I'd be a socialist regardless of how practical, diverse, and median my political views are. If I am to whittle my time away on a pointless exercise, I'd at least like to have fun doing it - hence my interest in turning to general philosophy over specific events I am (and, in all likelihood, everyone else here is) largely in the dark about..

I forgot to respond to this in my last post but yeah agreed. I could go on and on about stuff but I’m most likely just going to get the “libtard” or “socialist” label and neither of those are correct so I’ll just stick to badmouthing authority figures.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Shut up socialist libtard.

Thats stupid dumb gay idiot libtard socialist to you

The New United States, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight, Stiltusgibberum

I have the perfect idea to eradicate illegal immigration.

Steps:

1. Close all our bases around the world and transfer all our military assets to the southern border.

2. Decriminalize all drugs, so cartels have literally no reason to come here and the ones already here will leave to persue illegal markets.

3. Make it easier to actually get here the legal way, maybe so it doesn't take twenty years.

Narland, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, West Smolcasm

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:I have the perfect idea to eradicate illegal immigration.

Steps:

1. Close all our bases around the world and transfer all our military assets to the southern border.

2. Decriminalize all drugs, so cartels have literally no reason to come here and the ones already here will leave to persue illegal markets.

3. Make it easier to actually get here the legal way, maybe so it doesn't take twenty years.

I’m not so sure about the closing all of our bases thing, but I can get behind drug decriminalization and cleaning up the immigration process.

Republic Of Minerva, West Smolcasm

West Smolcasm wrote:I could go all straw liberal and debate (or pretend to debate) the ethics of interning people for the heinous crime of breaking and entering into a almost-incomprehensibly vast strip of land, but I find that I lack the patience. Suffice it to say that I disagree with taking punitive measures of any kind against "illegal" immigrants - however ridiculous that may sound to you - and leave it at that.

If there's one thing I'm curious about, though, it's what it means for such a strip of land to exist as something of a political entity - even among those of you who would see government reduced to its bare minimum or even done away with altogether. Why do political borders exist? What purpose would they serve, if any, in a libertarian model?

The internment is to vet for determination of reason and purpose for immigration to the Country so as to not subvert the basis of good governance (our Liberty), which are not punitive but procedural. Those who are rejected yet return subversively should be justly fined and jailed for their criminal trespass. Those who refuse to follow procedure and cut in line against those who have been waiting patiently to migrate here are defrauding and show their inability to respect the rights of others and the laws of the place they putively seek domicile. I think the agency involved should be a part of Federal Customs and the same administration as the the Coast Guard, not some efette labyrinth of administrators spawned by political Statism. It should not be hindered by politics in efficient and effective immigration services. Unfortunately we are stuck with a DC Administrative State of swamp creatures from both parties profiteering off of various aspects of the deliberately broken ramshackle.

That strip of land is an extension of individual rights of personhood -- the right to property, the right to freedom of association, and the right to freedom of conscience of those who occupy and possess that strip of land. The aggregate rights of those people allow them to defend and protect that strip of land from those who seek to coerce or defraud their lawful activities. My opinion is that some Libertarians have not thought property rights through to their logical conclusion. I think it is consistent with the full ramification of property rights to conclude that civic boundaries naturally follow as an federal aggregation of self-governance.

Political borders exist because of individuals who congregate with an affinity in their common language, culture, and heritage (or Weltanschauung in the broadest sense of the term). Those who rise to the occaission to love liberty and self-government get to live relatively free from tyranny and despotism, and protect themselves from invasion of those who despise/hate how they live whether by one or many. At the individual level, good fences make good neighbors. At the community level well defined civic boundaries make good neighbors. At the State and National/Federal level, good borders make good neighbors.

***anecdote alert***

I have chosen to live in a community of mostly Paleo-Conservative Classical Liberals of Evangelical Christian persuasion with a strong Libertarian bent. The next community down the road is mostly Quakerene Bapticostals (private joke, Social Conservatives) who have local blue laws, very strict alcohol regulations, require all draft able men to report regularly for bucket duty, and request that every house be adequately armed. They are happy and enjoy their serene and plain lifestyle. I enjoy them being there, and they enjoy me being over here. Recently a California couple moved into their fair little haven and raised a stink because they could not buy wine on Sunday. I do not feel sorry for them. The arrogant narcissistic clodpates think that the whole community should change to suite their lifestyle instead of leaving their illiberal cultural baggage at the California border and integrate into the local community that they choose to move into. They then had the nerve to sue (and complain that the community hated them) when the solution would be for them to find a community of like mind and principle in which to live.

***end anecdote alert***

The New United States, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Stiltusgibberum

Rateria wrote:I’m not so sure about the closing all of our bases thing, but I can get behind drug decriminalization and cleaning up the immigration process.

Perhaps, at least keep the bases that the host is willing to fully subsidize for benefit of having our military presence close at hand. When I was in the service I would have liked that to have been the Bahamas, Monte Carlo, 6 Flags Over Texas and Disneyland. I was surprised when we were ready to close the base in Guantanamo and Castro begged us not to leave because we were paying Cuba in gold to be there, and he needed the gold more than he wanted us (the US Military) gone.

The New United States, Rateria

Narland wrote:

***anecdote alert***

I have chosen to live in a community of mostly Paleo-Conservative Classical Liberals of Evangelical Christian persuasion with a strong Libertarian bent. The next community down the road is mostly Quakerene Bapticostals (private joke, Social Conservatives) who have local blue laws, very strict alcohol regulations, require all draft able men to report regularly for bucket duty, and request that every house be adequately armed. They are happy and enjoy their serene and plain lifestyle. I enjoy them being there, and they enjoy me being over here. Recently a California couple moved into their fair little haven and raised a stink because they could not buy wine on Sunday. I do not feel sorry for them. The arrogant narcissistic clodpates think that the whole community should change to suite their lifestyle instead of leaving their illiberal cultural baggage at the California border and integrate into the local community that they choose to move into. They then had the nerve to sue (and complain that the community hated them) when the solution would be for them to find a community of like mind and principle in which to live.

***end anecdote alert***

I know what you mean, I live in a conservative pocket of California and the liberal pr*cks from the LA basin have started moving to our towns because they screwed up LA with liberal policies and suprise suprise old habits die hard and they're bringing their asinine liberal policies with them. They're trying to shut down construction projects like a new Amazon distribution center that got shut down because of potential (environmental damage) they're basically pushing modern day bussing. My high school went from one of the best in the region to a ghetto sh*t hole right before my eyes because it was disadvantaging Hispanic and black youth from across the valley. The principal who has been fighting their efforts finally retired and the flood gates opened. Our football team went from regular state championship participants to getting destroyed by other sh*t hole highschools. We went from one of the best schools in the county to below mediocre. Another blow was our school district was forced to unionize against it's own will which lead to the layoffs of many good new teachers, but hey, those who didn't get a pink slip got a pay raise. Fortunately we still have a sheriff who cares about law and order but the town's across the valley have basically given up and submitted. Drugs and homelessness is spilling into my town and it's something that is almost unprecedented as we did have a guy who wanted to be homeless before. He just liked wandering the desert. But now we are getting crazy homeless. It was a shock reading the news and seeing a stabbing near our grocery store. Light pollution is filling the sky as the city across the valley grows larger and looms on my town. It's shocking looking back just 10 years and seeing how far things have fallen. I want to flee the state. I'm afraid California is FUBAR and I want to reenforce a community to make it stronger against the leftist policies that destroyed my home.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Its worth noting that the amount of South/Central American immigrants coming to the US now is rather paltry compared to the number of Irish immigrants during the middle 1800s.

And in anyway, claiming we should focus on cutting down immigration in order to stop abuses of welfare could be extrapolated thus: we should also go after drug sellers in order to stop money being spent on hospitalizations and rehabilitations. This is a very conservative position.

Due to the current system enticing immigration you need to tackle it to reduce all crimes including welfare costs. Legalise drugs. If you choose to use them them don't expect others to pay for your hospitalizations and rehabilitations.

Jadentopian Order wrote:Why do borders exist? because I am scared of my brown neighbors.

What purpose do they serve? i am afraid of my neighbors

Orange man bad... Come on Jaden that's Antifa playbook codswallop...I know you know that ;)

The New United States

West Smolcasm wrote:I had assumed so, but I'll confess I was a bit confused at all the seemingly contrary insistence that violating a border is criminal. Does something about whether a model is established have any bearing on the necessity (and sanctity) of a legal border?

By established i meant fully implemented in that all the statist pull factors have been elliminated. People would only enter if invited due to having something to exchange or as a guest.

West Smolcasm wrote:That's quite a lovely and dystopian picture, and as I understand it, that's one way you could look at even the current model. Would, then, there be any particular point to protecting the boundaries of a system with which you disagree? My imagination is perhaps too limited to conceive of one.

It's not dystopian it is the current model. If wolves are constantly stealing an ever greater number of your chickens the answer is not to leave the door open. If the wolves are starving you could / should choose to help them but this should not be used as smokescreen to muddy the waters and divert attention from the real issues.

The New United States

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Crossing the US border is illegal yes, and so is smoking marijuana in many states, or opening an unlicensed lemonade stand. Certainly legality shouldn't be the measure used to judge. I'm assuming Mr. Gibberum has nothing against the latter.

The moral "measure used to judge" should be the outcome. "smoking marijuana...opening an unlicensed lemonade stand" I believe shouldn't be illegal. Socialist policy which entices illegal immigration often results in poor outcomes.

Stiltusgibberum wrote:Due to the current system enticing immigration you need to tackle it to reduce all crimes including welfare costs. Legalise drugs. If you choose to use them them don't expect others to pay for your hospitalizations and rehabilitations.

But you see we are already paying for the costs of people overdosing on heroin and other drugs, whether it means higher insurance costs or healthcare spending. Logically, shouldn't we then limit drug use?

If not, whats your gripe with immigration then? If immigration creates negative externalities, why does it suddenly mean we should cut down on immigration vs. say welfare spending? Is it because it isn't as popular?

West Smolcasm

Stiltusgibberum wrote:The moral "measure used to judge" should be the outcome. "smoking marijuana...opening an unlicensed lemonade stand" I believe shouldn't be illegal. Socialist policy which entices illegal immigration often results in poor outcomes.

If you are against illegal immigration, then I would advocate legalizing it, as we do with drugs, in order to reduce negative externalities (in this case, illegal immigrants not paying taxes.)

West Smolcasm

Republic Of Minerva wrote:But you see we are already paying for the costs of people overdosing on heroin and other drugs, whether it means higher insurance costs or healthcare spending. Logically, shouldn't we then limit drug use?

Drug use is currently limited in part due to the outcome of increased costs to healthcare. If drug use was legalised with personal responsibility for the cost of any care then there would be no need for others to pay the costs of people overdosing.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If not, whats your gripe with immigration then? If immigration creates negative externalities, why does it suddenly mean we should cut down on immigration vs. say welfare spending? Is it because it isn't as popular?

Immigration is useful and generally provides positive outcomes. It needs to be managed, more so currently due to welfare policies but also to protect local individuals and their legal property rights. Welfare spending should gradually be reduced to zero over time as individual charater and self reliance is restored to all individuals.

The New United States

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If you are against illegal immigration, then I would advocate legalizing it, as we do with drugs, in order to reduce negative externalities (in this case, illegal immigrants not paying taxes.)

Immigration is legal but I agree it should be far easier for individuals that are able to support themselves or who have a guaranteed supporter. Difficult immigration results in lost potential but is, I believe, an unavoidable consequence of socialist policies.

Pevvania, The New United States

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If you are against illegal immigration, then I would advocate legalizing it, as we do with drugs, in order to reduce negative externalities (in this case, illegal immigrants not paying taxes.)

I am in favor of limited immigration at the moment and completely against illegal immigration not for taxes but the dangerous ideas coming across the border. I describe myself as a Civic nationalist. Many come here for the generous welfare benefits which brings a crop of people who oppose freedom for the sake of welfare. If there were no benefits to be gained in this country we would get a fair better immigrant who has similar values to the founding principles of this nation at which point I would support a streamlined immigation process

Pevvania, The New United States, Stiltusgibberum

Stiltusgibberum wrote:Drug use is currently limited in part due to the outcome of increased costs to healthcare. If drug use was legalised with personal responsibility for the cost of any care then there would be no need for others to pay the costs of people overdosing.

Immigration is useful and generally provides positive outcomes. It needs to be managed, more so currently due to welfare policies but also to protect local individuals and their legal property rights. Welfare spending should gradually be reduced to zero over time as individual charater and self reliance is restored to all individuals.

I don't disagree with you here.

I disagree with the notion that *until* we have libertarian affairs in regards to welfare, healthcare, etc. that we should do nothing with drug legalization or easier immigration. Like free trade vs. tariffs, I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

Rateria, West Smolcasm, Highway Eighty-Eight

Miri Islands wrote:I am in favor of limited immigration at the moment and completely against illegal immigration not for taxes but the dangerous ideas coming across the border. I describe myself as a Civic nationalist. Many come here for the generous welfare benefits which brings a crop of people who oppose freedom for the sake of welfare. If there were no benefits to be gained in this country we would get a fair better immigrant who has similar values to the founding principles of this nation at which point I would support a streamlined immigation process

If you worry about dangerous ideas coming from abroad, but not about dangerous ideas at home?

West Smolcasm

Republic Of Minerva wrote:If you worry about dangerous ideas coming from abroad, but not about dangerous ideas at home?

We have enough trouble keeping domestic socialists at Bay we don't need to be importing more

The New United States, Stiltusgibberum

Narland wrote:....

***anecdote alert***

I have chosen to live in a community of mostly Paleo-Conservative Classical Liberals of Evangelical Christian persuasion with a strong Libertarian bent. The next community down the road is mostly Quakerene Bapticostals (private joke, Social Conservatives) who have local blue laws, very strict alcohol regulations, require all draft able men to report regularly for bucket duty, and request that every house be adequately armed. They are happy and enjoy their serene and plain lifestyle. I enjoy them being there, and they enjoy me being over here. Recently a California couple moved into their fair little haven and raised a stink because they could not buy wine on Sunday. I do not feel sorry for them. The arrogant narcissistic clodpates think that the whole community should change to suite their lifestyle instead of leaving their illiberal cultural baggage at the California border and integrate into the local community that they choose to move into. They then had the nerve to sue (and complain that the community hated them) when the solution would be for them to find a community of like mind and principle in which to live.

***end anecdote alert***

This is why I hate it when ever I see California plates. This is like knowing exactly what the conditions of moving into a new apartment are, exactly what the patterns of your soon to be roommates would be, hating it all, moving there, and then expecting everything to change just for you. And then condemning everyone around you as backwards neanderthals if they don't adopt your lifestyle.

...

I hate California so much.

Miencraft, Narland, The New United States, Rateria, Stiltusgibberum

The United States Of Patriots wrote:This is why I hate it when ever I see California plates. This is like knowing exactly what the conditions of moving into a new apartment are, exactly what the patterns of your soon to be roommates would be, hating it all, moving there, and then expecting everything to change just for you. And then condemning everyone around you as backwards neanderthals if they don't adopt your lifestyle.

...

I hate California so much.

There's nothing more enraging than west coast leftists coming to my state and demanding that our laws conform to their values and their failed policies - [I]or else[/I].

If you like libertine statism, then stay in libertine, statist California.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Stiltusgibberum

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.