Post: #51

(02-26-2016 11:52 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing is stopping Americans from hopping on a plane and flying anywhere, not to mention the long unguarded border to the North.

DON'T LISTEN TO SAMSEAU!!!! He's LYING to you!!!! The northern border is HEAVILY GUARDED!!! There's a MASSIVE WALL!!!! It's not even worth your time to even THINK about coming here. Seriously. I hear Snowden is having a GREAT time in Russia, though. Just FYI.

Post: #52

(02-25-2016 03:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The contention on the immigration issue is around the order of libertarian policies. If everything else was libertarian (e.g. no discrimination laws, no welfare, no minimum wage etc), open borders wouldn't be as damaging. Migration would be limited to sufficiently wealthy men or industrious men, who subject to the prejudices of the local population for his foreignness, could nonetheless persevere and become accepted.

However, enacting open borders in the face of existing leftism is pure madness. (Not that I agree with it in either case).

The crossover "sweet spot" between libertarianism/capitalism & nationalism is a contentious issue on the right. We don't get closer to choosing that sweet spot by character attacks, we only get there by debating the ideas.

Fairly well, and this is also an incomplete suggestion. Once more, it devolves down to narrow-viewing libertarian axioms around government, which get part of the picture but miss the rest.

While the welfare state exacerbates the migration problem, simply getting rid of it would only slow, not stop the problem.

The guys coming into the West right now either see weak people that they want to conquer, want to get paid more and live in a higher standard of living, and want ripe, easy pussy.

Libertarianism solves none of these.

The best solution I see going forward as right wing politics realigns from cuckservatism is a blending between libertarianism and nationalism, with the former usually subordinated to the latter when push comes to shove.

I'm working on some extended thoughts.

Either way, the fact that libertarians are aghast at Trump when his foreign policy is basically identical to Ron Paul's and he wants to audit the Fed is very telling.

Post: #53

(02-23-2016 02:21 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(02-23-2016 01:11 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I know, but he is absolutely correct that the West should not be taking out secular dictators in the region that keep these people in check, that the West should not be arming these "rebels," that the West should not be funding these "rebels," and that the West should not be training these "rebels." That is taking a bad situation and making it catastrophically worse.

True enough, but the answer isn't to put our heads in the sand and act like they DON'T want to steal from us, rape our women, and kill us. The answer isn't to pretend we somehow deserve their hatred because it's just "blowback" over something bad we did to them. The answer, in the words of the beautiful and wise Ann Coulter, is to invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. Make the Middle East Great Again!

(02-23-2016 01:11 PM)Libertas Wrote:  The region actually did seem to show some signs of promise in the latter 20th century until the West went in there and turned it into an unstable hellhole by funneling money, weapons, and training to Islamists.

Ummmm... hey bro... at what point do we begin to BLAME THE FUCKING ISLAMISTS? Let's compare Iranian women before and after the filthy mullahs took over, shall we?



Sure you can hate Carter for being a detestable fucking cuck and "funneling money, weapons, and training to Islamists", but he would have been just as happy to do that for the Shah as he was for Islamists. The point is, Islam took over and turned the place to shit. That's on Islam, not Carter. Just like communism took over Cuba and turned the place to shit. That's on communism, not JFK. Savvy?

(02-23-2016 01:11 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Applause doesn't mean shit in a debate. You know that. Trump's been booed and his cuck opponents cheered to the rafters.

You're using misdirection to avoid the relevant issue, namely whether or not Ron Paul the autistic blowback theorist got pwned, or not, by Rudy the crossdressing patriot in that debate. It is on this point, I think, that we disagree.

Anyone else out there in the forum have an opinion? What say you men? Did Rudy legitimately smack him down? Or was that applause astroturfed as my esteemed friend Libertas proposes?

You'll have to show me the Rudy vs. Ron video, but I'm guessing Rudy probably made some long winded reference to 9/11.

Blowback is a real thing. Our foreign policy has done nothing but to decrease the safety of its American citizens. Our support for Israel basically led us to 9/11. And we have inadvertently put weapons in the hands of ISIS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_fo...11_attacks

We even led a coup on a democratically elected prime minister.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...p_d%27état

Post: #54

(02-26-2016 02:05 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Fairly well, and this is also an incomplete suggestion. Once more, it devolves down to narrow-viewing libertarian axioms around government, which get part of the picture but miss the rest.

While the welfare state exacerbates the migration problem, simply getting rid of it would only slow, not stop the problem.

The guys coming into the West right now either see weak people that they want to conquer, want to get paid more and live in a higher standard of living, and want ripe, easy pussy.

Libertarianism solves none of these.


The best solution I see going forward as right wing politics realigns from cuckservatism is a blending between libertarianism and nationalism, with the former usually subordinated to the latter when push comes to shove.

I'm working on some extended thoughts.

Either way, the fact that libertarians are aghast at Trump when his foreign policy is basically identical to Ron Paul's and he wants to audit the Fed is very telling.

From my understanding of Libertarianism the giant socialist welfare state is the root cause of the problem because no person has the freedom to associate. Being forced to pay taxes for health care, housing, food, education, single mom's and other socialist programs.

In a more free society people would have more responsibility in their personal, family and community life. This would translate to benefit family orientated people the most.

Without all these safety nets like welfare for single mom's, government jobs, and government education. Women would naturally become more feminine and less promiscuous. Game would be less effective for casual sex, no easy ripe pussy for anyone.

For example in a libertarian society White Christians aren't going to welcome hordes of Middle Eastern Muslims into their community, or even do business with them, if they're advocating or following sharia in their own communities. They'd simply self deport or never come in the first place, not many flourishing Muslims communities in America or Europe in the 1800s or early 1900s. When their borders were open and much easier to cross even if they were closed.

Even without a border, nationalism and patriotism would naturally come about in communities. I don't see migrants as a problem if they're coming into a free society. When the welfare sirens are signalled in any country with an open border or semi opened, people will cross the oceans to get to them. Open border + welfare is suicide for the natives. Open borders with no welfare equals discomfort for migrants who either adapt or leave.

Post: #55

I don't understand how any Libertarian can be for open-borders. The very premise of the Libertarian ideology is respecting private property law, the right to exclude everyone bar those that you explicitly invite.

Migrants/refugees would have to be invited onto an owners property and who in their right mind would do that? The newcomers would bring crime, not be productive and significantly lower the value of your property not to mention cause your neighbors to thoroughly dislike the plague you have brought so near and ostracize you(stop trading with or helping).

In a world without the safety net of social security self destructive tendencies like that would simply not exist, or be very short lived.

Post: #56

(03-06-2016 04:24 AM)KeeperNine Wrote:  I don't understand how any Libertarian can be for open-borders. The very premise of the Libertarian ideology is respecting private property law, the right to exclude everyone bar those that you explicitly invite.

I don't think you understand Libertarianism. Or at least anarcho-capitalism(the no state version of it).

The idea is you voluntarily go into groups/housing boards/neighborhoods etc. And you voluntarily agree to keep the undesirables out if you choose. If they are srs business like the Somalians/Sub Saharans in Europe then you can even have your own DRO/mini police/military force to defend yourself against neighboring groups who allow them in, because they are compromising your safety.

But Ancaps don't believe in a "state", so obviously they don't believe in state borders. Which makes sense- if I want to exploit random Mexicans and have them pick fruit for a couple bucks on my private property everyone else around me can fuck off(if I'm not putting them in danger).

Post: #57

(03-06-2016 04:42 AM)Centurion Wrote:  I don't think you understand Libertarianism. Or at least anarcho-capitalism(the no state version of it).

I believe I have a firm grasp of it.
Let's talk America for example, if it became a true Libertarian society but Mexico was still a nation, there would be a border. A distinct line carved out by ownership of property, where the state of Mexico begins is the border where the anarcho-capitalism ends.
For an individual to step off Mexican land and onto 'American' land he would need to be invited or face quite severe consequences.


Of course you could exploit foreigners for cheap labor, it's your property after all. However in selecting the people that you would invite onto your property you would only want hard-working non criminal leaning fellas. After all as the owner of the property you would be solely responsible for the welfare and security regarding your imports. Neighboring owners/producers would not have a problem at all if they were decent folk or similarly kept under good control.

Post: #58

Not a word for Augustus Invictus?

Post: #59

(03-06-2016 04:58 AM)KeeperNine Wrote:  I believe I have a firm grasp of it.
Let's talk America for example, if it became a true Libertarian society but Mexico was still a nation, there would be a border. A distinct line carved out by ownership of property, where the state of Mexico begins is the border where the anarcho-capitalism ends.
For an individual to step off Mexican land and onto 'American' land he would need to be invited or face quite severe consequences.


Of course you could exploit foreigners for cheap labor, it's your property after all. However in selecting the people that you would invite onto your property you would only want hard-working non criminal leaning fellas. After all as the owner of the property you would be solely responsible for the welfare and security regarding your imports. Neighboring owners/producers would not have a problem at all if they were decent folk or similarly kept under good control.

You seem to be mostly in agreement with me. To clarify, I think the idea of being "invited" means that even if I lived really far inland from the border, there is an "easement" which means the immigrants can come to my property.

It must mean that the Mexican migrant crisis is a lot worse than I thought if someone who thinks similarly to me really doesn't like those people.

Post: #60

(02-23-2016 10:04 AM)Samseau Wrote:  As for taking care of the weak, it should be done via charity not government redistribution as it is notoriously corrupt and inefficient with resources.

What if no one contributes to the charity?

Then you have millions dying of starvation.

Wealth redistribution is necessary in post-industrial societies. Shit, public schools are a form of welfare and have existed for hundreds of years now. Public schools are literally a founding block of American society.

Post: #61

^ There it goes again, distancing language. 'Wealth redistribution' just sounds that much sweeter and pro-social than 'armed robbery'.

To claim no one would give to the charity, in spite of existing charitable giving evidence, and after welfare taxation disappears, is intellectually dishonest. There exists a natural charitable instinct in humans. People get pleasure when they donate to a good cause. That is more than sufficient. Government welfare reduces its quality, not improves, since they assign money based on voting power and not based on true need, and have no competitors.

The claim that welfare is good or necessary is merely an echoing lie produced by the state to benefit its own interests.

Post: #62

(03-06-2016 05:20 AM)Centurion Wrote:  You seem to be mostly in agreement with me. To clarify, I think the idea of being "invited" means that even if I lived really far inland from the border, there is an "easement" which means the immigrants can come to my property.

It must mean that the Mexican migrant crisis is a lot worse than I thought if someone who thinks similarly to me really doesn't like those people.

Indeed. An 'easement', payment for travel through others property, or of course air travel. You'd be accountable if they went 'missing' or committed a crime along the way though of course.
If there is a market, it will be.

Ultimately though it's not "open-borders" by any stretch of the definition.

Post: #63

(03-06-2016 05:43 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The claim that welfare is good or necessary is merely an echoing lie produced by the state to benefit its own interests.

Police and firemen are funded through taxes. Those jobs are a form of welfare.

Would you like to live in a society where we did not have police or firemen?

Post: #64

You know very well that isn't true, 'welfare' is understood to mean a form of 'state charity', and no service is provided by the recipient.

Policing is a separate topic. Your final question is a dishonest one, in which you inject a premise. Ask an honest one.

Post: #65

(03-06-2016 05:45 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Police and firemen are funded through taxes. Those jobs are a form of welfare.

Would you like to live in a society where we did not have police or firemen?

Not welfare, but I'll bite anyway.

You'd voluntarily pay for the service as you see fit. Private security firms exist, that's no secret and without a Government Fire Brigade private ones would emerge.

Vital services wouldn't just disappear because they aren't paid for by the Government. That's a ludicrous argument you're trying to make.

Post: #66

"Open borders" and "Welfare" are terms which have a lot of semantics.

I think borders imply a state's borders. So open borders seem closest to a lack of a state. That's the main reason why libertarians would want open borders. It means very different things to your own private property borders.

Also any government job counts as welfare imo. But that's not to say they wouldn't exist better without government(if they are actually a net good).

Post: #67

(03-06-2016 05:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  You know very well that isn't true, 'welfare' is understood to mean a form of 'state charity', and no service is provided by the recipient.

Police provide protection to recipient and the recipient(s) provides no service back.

Firemen fight fires (obviously) and help people in emergency situations (car crashes) and the recipient(s) provides no service back.

Providing protection and help in emergency situations are "state charity".

Based on your own definition, police and firemen provide welfare to society.

Quote:Policing is a separate topic. Your final question is a dishonest one, in which you inject a premise. Ask an honest one.

I did not inject a premise because I am following your own definitions. My conclusion is correct following a logical procedure based on basic knowledge of what libertarian ideology is and definitions provided to me regarding what welfare is.

I would like to know whether or not you would like to get rid of police and firemen, since technically those jobs are a form of state welfare. Because all welfare is bad... right?

Post: #68

@All or Nothing

All those are standard anti-libertarian arguments which have been said and shot down countless amounts of times. Try finding a decent Libertarian resource which takes down all of these shitty non-arguments. Basically like "who will build the roads"(hint: the government hires non government workers to build the roads).

It's a dishonest question because people were mainly thinking about wealth distribution in another(socialist) sense.

Post: #69

(03-06-2016 06:10 AM)Centurion Wrote:  Basically like "who will build the roads"(hint: the government hires non government workers to build the roads).

I hope you realize this already happens. The government hires contract companies to do a lot of construction jobs. Money is still being funneled through taxation of the people though.

Boeing and Honeywell live and breathe off of military contracts with the government and both are private entities.

Quote:It's a dishonest question because people were mainly thinking about wealth distribution in another(socialist) sense.

It's not dishonest though because welfare can be broadened or narrowed in scope however one sees fit.

I think the libertarian approach is dishonest because the sole focus is on food stamps and social security while ignoring the fact that public education, police, and firemen are also paid for through taxes.

Public education, police, and firemen are a form of wealth redistribution because they are paid for through taxes.

On top of this, a lot of people are on food stamps because the cost of living is too high while they simultaneously lack the innate skills necessary to perform in the current job market to survive. Do you want those people to starve?

How about social security? A lot of people on social security are old people who paid into it for decades. Should we just throw them out on the street and let them die just because the libertarian ideology says so?

Post: #70

(03-06-2016 06:22 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Public education, police, and firemen are a form of wealth redistribution because they are paid for through taxes. [correct]

On top of this, a lot of people are on food stamps because the cost of living is too high while they simultaneously lack the innate skills necessary to perform in the current job market to survive. Do you want those people to starve?

How about social security? A lot of people on social security are old people who paid into it for decades. Should we just throw them out on the street and let them die just because the libertarian ideology says so?

If you can refrain from the the anti-intelligent character attacks in red, Leftist, we can have a debate.

Perhaps you are simply incapable, so I'll give you some tips on how to debate calmly and intelligently:
Do you want those people to starve? => Wouldn't there be some individuals who starve due to this?
Should we just throw them out on the street and let them die just because the libertarian ideology says so? => Should they lose their promised benefits?

Give it a go.

Post: #71

(03-06-2016 10:29 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  If you can refrain from the the anti-intelligent character attacks in red, Leftist, we can have a debate.

Perhaps you are simply incapable, so I'll give you some tips on how to debate calmly and intelligently:
Do you want those people to starve? => Wouldn't there be some individuals who starve due to this?
Should we just throw them out on the street and let them die just because the libertarian ideology says so? => Should they lose their promised benefits?

Give it a go.

Wouldn't there be some individuals who starve due to losing their food stamps?

Wouldn't some people who aged out of the workforce lose their homes should they lose their promised benefits?

Now please answer my questions.

Post: #72

(03-06-2016 04:31 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Wouldn't there be some individuals who starve due to losing their food stamps?

Wouldn't some people who aged out of the workforce lose their homes should they lose their promised benefits?

Now please answer my questions.

This is one of those difficult problems of governance. Should we bankrupt the government, print money until the currency collapses, then take away food stamps and promised benefits when we have no choice, or should we start cutting off unaffordable benefits sooner, even though it will cause pain?

I say the latter. Yes, it will always be possible to find a terrible story made for SJWs on the MSM to wail about, where some unfortunate soul is starved, and thrown into the street to die (figuratively). Some will slip through the cracks. This is why government should never have taken on so large a role in maintaining social welfare. This is always the end game pattern. Individuals and families should take care of each other and save for old age. Voluntary charities should fill the gap. Individuals should live their lives in such a way that they do not alienate their support networks.

Inescapably, it will come back to this, when the government is unable to print or borrow any more. Now is the better time to begin the transition.

Post: #73

(03-06-2016 06:10 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  This is one of those difficult problems of governance. Should we bankrupt the government, print money until the currency collapses, then take away food stamps and promised benefits when we have no choice, or should we start cutting off unaffordable benefits sooner, even though it will cause pain?

I hope you realize when you leave people to starve and survive without shelter, they end up revolting. This was how the French Revolution started and it ended with Louis XVI's head on a pike.

This approach has been historically proven to fail.

Also, we can collectively afford the tax schemes necessary to provide welfare for the entire society. When "Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1%
" it should be easily affordable by taxing the wealthy and redistributing those gains made through automation and eliminating or outsourcing human labor.

The benefits are easily affordable while simultaneously allowing people to continue to be wealthy. They just need to give up a share (not the entire portion) of their wealth to maintain financial stability for the whole of society.

The US government already does this and is a hybrid of free market capitalism and welfare society. In fact almost all post-industrial societies are a hybrid of free market capitalism and welfare societies.

Libertarianism is an archaic and outdated approach to running a society. It is literally a pseudo monarchy where the wealthiest assume direct power over society by being uninhibited from government regulation and taxes.

Edit: I realize I'm being harsh on libertarianism. I just wanted to point out how it is too fiscally conservative of an approach to running society. We can have free market capitalism and welfare, we just need to work to find the sweet spot where everyone can survive while simultaneously allowing talented people to succeed and prosper.

Post: #74

Another failure of libertarian policies is that they do not address how to correct the wealth imbalances created by leftist policies and crony capitalism. We need to use government intervention to unfuck the system, but according to a libtard, this "big government."

Post: #75

(03-06-2016 06:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  I hope you realize when you leave people to starve and survive without shelter, they end up revolting. This was how the French Revolution started and it ended with Louis XVI's head on a pike.

This approach has been historically proven to fail.

Of course, but you're talking as if America never dealt with the same poverty the French did, and at the same period in history, which is a wrong assumption. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin condemned the French revolution and warned Thomas Paine not to support it? These were Paine's dying words:

Thomas Paine Wrote:I would give worlds, if I had them, if The Age of Reason had never been published. O Lord, help me! Christ, help me! Stay with me! It is hell to be left alone.

Paine came to regret not listening more carefully to Franklin. Franklin was a genius, a polymath, and he knew the way to handle poverty. Franklin said it thus:

Benjamin Franklin Wrote:I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

"On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor"
The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766

America didn't have the kind of problems the French did because of the American cultural differences that were ingrained by historic American heroes like Franklin. Franklin knew that America needed a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" culture. And she needs to get back to that. Trump smash.