Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on July 07, 2009, 05:08:34 PM
-
There is only one way to be "conservative" and yet support "diversity".
www.lp.org.
What the $%**& does that mean? ???
-
That's just Jamis lobbying for the Statist wing of the Libertarian Party.
=D
-
What the $%**& does that mean? ???
I don't give a rat's hind end about "diversity," since it pretty much means folks that may look different but all think in lock step.
-
What the $%**& does that mean? ???
Jamis saying Libbies are conservatives who love gays.
-
Diversity happens on its own. It doesn't need support.
-
Diversity happens on its own. It doesn't need support.
Ooohhh.... Deep! =D
Support is by default a constraint on the flowing natural order of a particular object. A row of trees with support stakes to hold them in place through a windstorm will always be less diverse than if those trees were unsupported.
I dig it, man.... I dig it.
-
The (R) party has too long ignored important issues and focused on stuff that just doesn't matter.
-
The (R) party has too long ignored talked a good game on important issues and focused on stuff that just doesn't matter buying votes with tax dollars like Democrats.
FTFY
-
=D
Actually, in the originally quoted thread, I was being obtuse on purpose, and I will take any opportunity to shill for the lp. The GOP has given up virtue and value in favor of diversity and votes.
The lp doesn't care if you're black, white, gay, mormon, jewish, baptist or a furry. That's supporting diversity.
-
I see the LP has changed its immigration stance from open borders to immigration reform.
I might give them a closer look. =)
-
I see the LP has changed its immigration stance from open borders to immigration reform.
I might give them a closer look. =)
O rly? That was always one of my big 3 objections to them.
1. Open borders
2. Cowardly stance on abortion
3. Idiotic "concentrate on the PotUS elections we can't win instead of local elections" strategy
-
=D
Actually, in the originally quoted thread, I was being obtuse on purpose, and I will take any opportunity to shill for the lp. The GOP has given up virtue and value in favor of diversity and votes.
The lp doesn't care if you're black, white, gay, mormon, jewish, baptist or a furry. That's supporting diversity.
Tell me about it. If I hear one more clueless Republican talking about "How do we attract x type of voter?" :rolleyes: :mad: It's the ideas, stupid. Express the ideas well, and you'll attract people of various colors. Duh.
-
It's the ideas, stupid. Express the ideas well, and you'll attract people of various colors.
Yeah, but you've got to have ideas before you can even think about trying to express them. The only so-called "idea" the Republicrats ever come up with is getting back in office to feast on pork.
-
1. Open borders
If you fix the welfare situation, you have to leave the borders open so they can all get out.
2. Cowardly stance on abortion
And just what have you done to support your oh so courageous stance on it?
3. Idiotic "concentrate on the PotUS elections we can't win instead of local elections" strategy
The national LP handles that part. Local LP groups focus on local issues and elections. Even the Republicans focused on a Presidential election they couldn't win rather than throwing their entire national might behind some candidate for County Commissioner somewhere.
-
The lp doesn't care if you're black, white, gay, mormon, jewish, baptist or a furry. That's supporting diversity.
Is that "supporting diversity", or is it just not being exclusive?
-
Awww, big "L" libbie fanbois are so cute when they get all butthurt and defensive. :)
1. An open border is a concept so ridiculous on it's face one wonders how anyone could take it seriously. Just illustrates that one should follow an idea to it's logical conclusion before deciding it's The Way.
2. Their stance is cowardly because they refuse to touch it. Whether an unborn baby is a human deserving protection or not is hardly an issue for the states. To test this hypothesis, ask a big L if they think whether or not blacks are human and deserving of legal protection is a states rights issue. They use a legitimate concept in an illegitimate way, to duck out of having to take a stand.
3. Maybe you're right. Maybe the issue isn't the strategy they've employed; they really might just be a pack of losers who are incapable of doing significant things full stop. I had been giving them the benefit of the doubt, but.....
-
Why is abortion not an issue for the states?
I mean. The definitions of self-defense, murder, manslaughter and rape are all a state issue. Would you like to make them Federal? Surely not.
-
Why is abortion not an issue for the states?
I mean. The definitions of self-defense, murder, manslaughter and rape are all a state issue. Would you like to make them Federal? Surely not.
So everything is an issue for the states? Slavery, the legality of having sex with 5 y/o's, everything?
-
Everything which is not specifically outlined in the Constitution as a Federal issue (such as, for example, slavery), is a state issue. I fail to see how this is suddenly a problem.
-
Yeah, that is true. 10th amendment and all. I wonder if the LP enumerates that specifically, and how that affects their chances.
-
Everything which is not specifically outlined in the Constitution as a Federal issue (such as, for example, slavery), is a state issue.
Or is reserved to the people. =)
-
Oh, but to clarify abortion is not in fact a 10th issue.
-
There are such huge issues with making abortion a Federal issue I don't even know where to start.
-
I'd think it would be fairly obvious that deciding murder is ok as long as it's directed at a certain people group would be a fundamental violation of rights. I'm not seeing why that's a difficult concept.
-
To further clarify, slavery was based on the concept that blacks were sub-human, and undeserving of the rights enumerated. Abortion is based on the same premise. Just as we have come to recognize that a human is a human regardless of skin color, I hope we can someday realize a human is a human regardless of how long ago they were conceived.
The basic problem with "Abortion is a states rights issue" is that it empowers the states to choose who is really human and granted rights. Surely you see how giving the states that power would be a problem.
-
The basic problem with "Abortion is a states rights issue" is that it empowers the states to choose who is really human and granted rights. Surely you see how giving the states that power would be a problem.
Part of that is to get the pro-choicers as well as pro-lifers. Also, it's more likely to be successful than trying to ban abortion at the national level. It's an attempt to compromise on an issue where there's no middle ground.
-
Fistful Savalas speaks truth.
>Their stance is cowardly because they refuse to touch it. Whether an unborn baby is a human deserving protection or not is hardly an issue for the states. To test this hypothesis, ask a big L if they think whether or not blacks are human and deserving of legal protection is a states rights issue. They use a legitimate concept in an illegitimate way, to duck out of having to take a stand.<
My understanding is that they refuse to take a stance because you can argue either way, and someone is getting trampled. And, as was said above: there is NO middle ground in this one.
Or rather, there is. There's one side that's rabidly in support of outlawing every form of abortion for whatever reason. There's another side that thinks any woman should be able to abort at any time, just because she gets a wild hair. And hen there's the actual majority, which slaps their hands to their foreheads and proclaims "Not THIS again", and switches the channel.
The big "Ls" are trying to appeal to that third group.
-
2. Their stance is cowardly because they refuse to touch it. Whether an unborn baby is a human deserving protection or not is hardly an issue for the states. To test this hypothesis, ask a big L if they think whether or not blacks are human and deserving of legal protection is a states rights issue. They use a legitimate concept in an illegitimate way, to duck out of having to take a stand.
Or maybe the party as a whole just doesn't care that much. Tell me; which major party feels that the hot water tap belongs on the left, and which believes it should be on the right?
-
I can see why the libertarians were for open borders - that was because of their commitment to free markets.
It is impossible to believe that the free market is always the best method of allocating resources, but then to believe in border restrictions. That is because immigration rules artificially restrict and manage the supply of labor, which is a key resource in any market.
To believe in the free market is to believe in the free movement of labor according to supply and demand, not according to government mandates.
-
I'm actually one of the "safe legal and rare" crowd, as there are certain exceedingly rare conditions where it is inevitable mother and child will die.
Regardless, to say it's just not important... Well, that's your opinion based on the idea that the unborn aren't human or deserving of protection. I think that belief is pretty much invalid on it's face, but this is hardly the time or place to hash that out.
Regardless, as long as the LP remains a fringe group (which seems likely) I don't really care what they think.
-
I can see why the libertarians were for open borders - that was because of their commitment to free markets.
It is impossible to believe that the free market is always the best method of allocating resources, but then to believe in border restrictions. That is because immigration rules artificially restrict and manage the supply of labor, which is a key resource in any market.
To believe in the free market is to believe in the free movement of labor according to supply and demand, not according to government mandates.
Law and order are also requisites for a functioning free market, which you can't have if your border and employment laws are being flaunted. Even worse is the situation we find ourselves in now, where immigration laws are selectively enforced against certain segments of the population/market and ignored for certain others.
And let's not even get into the question of whether or not the markets we have now are free markets. And let's not ponder the implications of trying to combine a welfare state, a free market, and open immigration.
I'm no fan of either the Libertarian Party or a sealed border, but even I have to point out that it's folly to say that free market ideals contradict a closed border. There's a wee little bit more to the equation that what you say.
-
The best argument I've heard for pushing Abortion to the state level is to put the decision closer to the People rather than having the decision made by a bunch of D.C. bureaucrats or SC judges. That is what happened decades ago and it is a still a hot issue today. Put it back on the states and let the people in each state decide how they want things done. IMO, our fed govt was set up to limit what is handles, not make every little problem a federal case.
The humanity decision is sort of BS at this point. Abortion is legal so the Federal Decision that currently stands pretty much says a fetus is not human. The states really can't go anywhere but up from there.
-
Regardless, as long as the LP remains a fringe group (which seems likely) I don't really care what they think.
So you basically don't care what "fringe groups" think?
-
So you basically don't care what "fringe groups" think?
^^^
Oh crap, I sense another attempt at sparking a bickerfest coming on.
Balog, please ignore the above question as you've already made yourself clear in relation to this topic.
Micro, stop trying to pick thread drift fights with Balog and go clean up your room. :mad: :laugh:
-
I am SERIOUSLY starting to wonder if one of them doesn't have a crush on the other. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were married...
-
I am SERIOUSLY starting to wonder if one of them doesn't have a crush on the other. If I didn't know better, I'd swear they were married...
I'm just trying to make you jealous. :P
Seriously though, I remember when Micro was a hardline socialist on THR. Admittedly he's probably swung to far the other way, but he has demonstrated that most rare ability; to evaluate one's beliefs logically and change them. So I keep hoping that arguing with him might actually bear fruit.
-
Hey, I never was a hardline socialist. Hardline socialists don't believe in RKBA. It's opposed to the socialist line. I believe. At least to the welfare-statist line.
I'm also not a hardline libertarian, for the obvious reason that I've never found a platform I've agreed on on everything.
Of the topics outlined here I'm actually in agreement with Balog re: open borders.
The real issues, however, are issues of philosophy, morality, and so forth. I've become a libertarian rather than a socialist by realizing that libertarianism is more in fitting with my views on those items, and abandoning my belief in moral subjectivism (or rather, formulating a belief in objective morality).
-
See? Isn't it cute how they flirt? :angel:
-
Law and order are also requisites for a functioning free market, which you can't have if your border and employment laws are being flaunted. Even worse is the situation we find ourselves in now, where immigration laws are selectively enforced against certain segments of the population/market and ignored for certain others.
And let's not even get into the question of whether or not the markets we have now are free markets. And let's not ponder the implications of trying to combine a welfare state, a free market, and open immigration.
I'm no fan of either the Libertarian Party or a sealed border, but even I have to point out that it's folly to say that free market ideals contradict a closed border. There's a wee little bit more to the equation that what you say.
Yeah, and if you abolish the anti-market border and immigration laws, they won't be flaunted - that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your argument would be the same with price controls - those are laws too, and flouting them by charging market rates is breaking the law too. Does that mean that obeying price controls is consistent with a free market, because "law and order" are necessary for the free market to exist?
The fact is, immigration rules mean that the government forbids you from choosing to whom you will give your money, and to whom you will offer your private property. That is the very definition of government interference in the marketplace.
If you own a factory, the government demands that you only hire people licensed to work there by the government. If you own a home, the government demands that you only make that property available to people licensed by the government.
That is the sum total of immigration restriction: it means you need a license from the government to participate in the economy. Hard to imagine a more clear cut restriction on the market there...
-
Are you talking about US immigration laws or European?
That is the sum total of immigration restriction: it means you need a license from the government to participate in the economy. Hard to imagine a more clear cut restriction on the market there...
But that is in large part because we don't enforce our immigration laws either on people or on corporations. We allow illegal immigrants to stay here as second class citizens instead of enforcing the laws or changing them. That frustrates not only them, but the rest of us who want clear cut rules/laws that are actually followed and enforced. It also falls in line with the idea that free markets need consistent rules of law that are enforced equally.
-
Open borders make a mockery of both national security and national sovreignity. And you are correct in that all laws are, by definition, an infringement. So what? Prohibitions on fraud are infringements of the market, prohibitions on dumping radioactive waste into lakes is an infringement of the market etc etc. Some infringement is necessary.
-
Are you talking about US immigration laws or European?
But that is in large part because we don't enforce our immigration laws either on people or on corporations. We allow illegal immigrants to stay here as second class citizens instead of enforcing the laws or changing them. That frustrates not only them, but the rest of us who want clear cut rules/laws that are actually followed and enforced. It also falls in line with the idea that free markets need consistent rules of law that are enforced equally.
Yeah, but consistent enforcement of laws that restrict the market does not lead to a free market. By that reasoning socialism could be a free market, as long as its rules are consistent and enforceable.
Forcing people to get special permission from the government before they can choose to enter into a mutually agreeable economic relationship is the antithesis of the free market. But that's exactly what US and European immigration laws both do. So, to reiterate the point, I can see why libertarians were opposed to it - that's the only intellectually consistent stance you can take if you favor free markets.
If you believe in immigration controls, you do not believe in free markets, at least to the degree that the employer/employee relationship is a feature of the marketplace.
-
Open borders make a mockery of both national security and national sovreignity. And you are correct in that all laws are, by definition, an infringement. So what? Prohibitions on fraud are infringements of the market, prohibitions on dumping radioactive waste into lakes is an infringement of the market etc etc. Some infringement is necessary.
Fine if those are your beliefs - they're just clearly inconsistent with free market principles, which is why free-market ideologues (like the old libertarian party) were for open borders.
The argument you cited is how socialist countries justify regulating everything, btw: if food isn't affordable, people will starve, if banks take too much risk, people will have no work, etc etc.
-
All society and governance is based on the idea that some regulation, some infringement, is necessary. The point you're arguing isn't the libertarian, it's the anarchist.
-
Additionally, your line of argumentation is critically flawed in that it presumes the primary effect of control of immigration is fiscal.
When the .gov locls someone up for armed robbery, they've removed him from the workforce and infringed on free markets. However, saying that punishing criminals is anathema to the free market is just silly.
-
Additionally, your line of argumentation is critically flawed in that it presumes the primary effect of control of immigration is fiscal.
When the .gov locls someone up for armed robbery, they've removed him from the workforce and infringed on free markets. However, saying that punishing criminals is anathema to the free market is just silly.
Yeah, but what's the crime with immigration? Working or occupying space without a government license.
That's why its primary effect is control of the marketplace. Immigration laws tell you, for the most part, with whom you can and cannot do business, full stop. That is the extent of the crime involved in violating an immigration rule.
A wealth redistribution tax is enforced by criminal laws in many cases too. And enforcement means punishing criminals, ie, those who violated the "take from the rich, give to the poor" laws. Simply claiming that a law involves crimes does not address the issue, even a little bit.
-
The crime is entering the country illegally. The purpose for which the person is trying to enter the country is irrelevant.
Note, I do not say no one should be able to come in. I simply say the fed.gov should be able to control it, so Mexico stops using us as the overflow valve on their prisons.
Also, you are ignoring my point. All laws by their very nature restrict the free market. You are arguing an anarchist point of view. I further submit your continued arguing for a view which as far as I can tell you don't actually hold is simply evidence that you use APS as a means of playing devil's advocate to train your lawyerly rhetoric, and I demand compensation for helping you polish your bs'ing skills. :P
-
The "free market" is a concept that evolved inside of a specific culture at a specific time and has spread to a limited sphere. It's obvious that most of the world never believed in it and still doesn't. The free market implies shared notions of honest and open dealing, reliable contractual agreements, latitude of action, and an absence of consanguinity as the social glue. It is supra-tribal.
The essence of this nation is not "the free market" but individual political liberty and the "private property" that we must protect most militantly is our personal province of speech, ideas, physical integrity, and mobility, with private property being only the material outward expression of that but not its essence.
What some here fail to recognize is that technology is ideology, and the new ideology of easy access via transportation and telecommunications is attempting to rewrite and overthrow more fundamental predicates of personal liberty.
-
The sovereign nation-state, with citizenship and borders, is of a piece with modernity. To call for open borders is to turn one's back on progress, and toward the cosmopolitanism of medieval times.
-
You're assuming progress is teleological.
-
Yeah, but consistent enforcement of laws that restrict the market does not lead to a free market. By that reasoning socialism could be a free market, as long as its rules are consistent and enforceable.
Forcing people to get special permission from the government before they can choose to enter into a mutually agreeable economic relationship is the antithesis of the free market. But that's exactly what US and European immigration laws both do. So, to reiterate the point, I can see why libertarians were opposed to it - that's the only intellectually consistent stance you can take if you favor free markets.
If you believe in immigration controls, you do not believe in free markets, at least to the degree that the employer/employee relationship is a feature of the marketplace.
The primary purpose of laws is not necessarily to promote a free market. As longeyes pointed out, the free market is not the goal of all laws. Also, socialism/communism could not be a free market by any means as it strives for basically no market at all.
Immigration laws are not anti-free market IMO. They enhance security and provide some uniformity to the employment market which helps the free market. Employers know that immigrants applying for jobs are who they say they are, are not likely to be criminals, and are often better than the average person in their own country. Also, the movement of labor within the US is unimpeded. Free movement of labor is only a help to the free market within a consistent system of law and order. That might exist between countries or it might not. The business environment in Mexico and the US are not really the same.
-
Open borders work in a state in which government coercion, especially public welfare taxation and spending, are limited, with the government (or people) having little or no recourse to increase that level of coercion, at least beyond a certain level. To advocate for open borders in a welfare state (esp. one that has a functioning democratic apparatus, and especially one that is already a shining beacon of freedom and wealth) with the intention of decreasing government coercion is counterproductive, as it makes it possible for immigrants to simply vote themselves wealth from the productive.
Once the welfare state is severely limited or dismantled--at least semi-permanently so--then borders can and should be opened. Without government handouts and wealth redistribution, the perverse incentives for immigration vanish, and there is no longer any reason to restrict movement.
That some libertarians recognize this necessity is not a matter of failing to believe in free markets, it is a matter of stepping toward their end goals with understanding of the present situation, and the limitations it imposes on their strategy. Failure to recognize this necessity could easily result in the addition of more coercion to the system. Obviously, such an outcome is not what libertarian-minded individuals would want.
-
You're assuming progress is teleological.
Do you even know that means? :|
-
Do you even know that means? :|
You're assuming progress is moving from point A to point B in some form of predictable line, never to return. For example, liberals assume that progress is a movement from a mythical state of "social darwinism" as they call it to a "welfare state", and to repeal welfare would be "regressive".
-
No, you don't know what it means. =) Teleology relates to purpose.
Yes, progress could go in a different direction. But why throw out something that works?
-
Well, yes.
[My actual view on immigration is somewhat unique to me, and does not jive well with either conservatism or libertarianism or leftism].
-
The crime is entering the country illegally. The purpose for which the person is trying to enter the country is irrelevant.
Note, I do not say no one should be able to come in. I simply say the fed.gov should be able to control it, so Mexico stops using us as the overflow valve on their prisons.
Also, you are ignoring my point. All laws by their very nature restrict the free market. You are arguing an anarchist point of view. I further submit your continued arguing for a view which as far as I can tell you don't actually hold is simply evidence that you use APS as a means of playing devil's advocate to train your lawyerly rhetoric, and I demand compensation for helping you polish your bs'ing skills. :P
Yeah, and again, the de facto result of this law is that you need a government issued license to do anything.
This argument about "all laws" has been frequently raised by social democrats and labour parties around the world to justify market socialism. It is false. For example, a law that requires you to honor your contracts does not restrict the free market. Neither does a law requiring that you not harm other people's property. It takes no rhetorical trick to recognise that there are indeed basic laws that clearly promote the free market, and then other laws that clearly restrict it (like immigration and price control laws.)
And I'd be happy to pay you if only we'd agreed on that first - you knew you were giving away for free the moment you posted though :).
-
The sovereign nation-state, with citizenship and borders, is of a piece with modernity. To call for open borders is to turn one's back on progress, and toward the cosmopolitanism of medieval times.
Yeah, sorry, but open border systems have lasted far longer in prosperity over the historical record than any extant nation-state. Technological development tends to mask inefficiencies, which is why people argue that the current system is the best of all possible worlds. But then again, people were saying that in Russia when the communist actually did bring Russia out of medieval times and into the industrial world.
Mech, your argument could just as easily be applied to full protectionism: "there is a free market for steel - you just can't buy any from anywhere except the 50 states!". It simply doesn't add up to say "well, the market for labour is free, it's just that you can't hire anyone who doesn't have a government license."
Why not let employers freely decide if they need all that protection of government issued records and citizenship? That would be the free market approach.
I realise many of you do not believe in the free market, but you should at least see how it's obvious that a true libertarian free market party would oppose immigration restrictions.
-
Free market only works when government removes restrictions on labor, as in Minimum wage restrictions.
-
I'm pretty sure I never said it was inconsistent for the L's to want open borders; I just said it was stupid.
I also disagree that the primary effect of border control is on wages.
-
The whole problem of open borders is that America has such an entrenched social welfare policy that consumes a huge portion of the country's wealth. If Third and fourth worlders from the south, if borders were open, would be excluded from that system for a period of time, open borders would make more sense.
Undocumented people are a huge drain on the social welfare and eductional system.
It makes more sense to secure the ports and borders, but have a realistic and workable guest worker program that allows immigrants to earn their citizenship by assimilation into society.
-
The borders issue is about more than labor, it is also about culture. This nation is already in danger of losing its spiritual birthright by failing to educate its citizens about the nature and essence of America. It seems to have lost control of its own legal population, and from what I can see--at ground zero in Los Angeles--it has even lost control of its illegal population in terms of inculcating core values. America is more than just a workplace and it will stand or fall on whether it effectively communicates that to those who are here and wish to be here.
-
The humanity decision is sort of BS at this point. Abortion is legal so the Federal Decision that currently stands pretty much says a fetus is not human. The states really can't go anywhere but up from there.
I find it interesting though that a couple years back (in Alabama at least, not sure if this was a national thing or not) they passed a lwa that if you killed a pregnant woman you were charged with two murders...1 for the mother and 1 for the unborn child. SO, how does the gov't, pro-abortion, SC, bring those two ideas togeether? An aborted fetus is not murder, but a murdered fetus is murder...hmmm...quite a pickle.
-
The humanity decision is sort of BS at this point. Abortion is legal so the Federal Decision that currently stands pretty much says a fetus is not human. The states really can't go anywhere but up from there.
No. It doesn't say that.
-
The point you're arguing isn't the libertarian, it's the anarchist.
Yup. Free market != anarchy.
-
The point you're arguing isn't the libertarian, it's the anarchist.
Anarchism is a legitimate part of the libertarian movement.
-
Anarchism is a legitimate part of the libertarian movement.
More reason the libbies are so ineffective.
-
The borders issue is about more than labor, it is also about culture. This nation is already in danger of losing its spiritual birthright by failing to educate its citizens about the nature and essence of America. It seems to have lost control of its own legal population, and from what I can see--at ground zero in Los Angeles--it has even lost control of its illegal population in terms of inculcating core values. America is more than just a workplace and it will stand or fall on whether it effectively communicates that to those who are here and wish to be here.
You are quite right, longeyes. But this very important aspect of the question will continued to be ignored by all parties to the discussion. Those that dare to bring it up will be accused, falsely, of racism or other vile things.
-
Anarchism is a legitimate part of the libertarian movement.
And a good part of the reason it is a failure as a political movement.
-
And a good part of the reason it is a failure as a political movement.
The libertarian movement is plenty effective as a political movement. The movement =/= the party.
-
The libertarian movement is plenty effective as a political movement. The movement =/= the party.
What're you basing that little nugget on?
-
What're you basing that little nugget on?
Let's review.
Libertarianism as we know it only dates back to the 1930's, and guys like A. Jay Nock, Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson, and so forth (although you can find its intellectual roots in earlier movements, it's really not fair to claim "the Founding Fathers were libertarians"). It only really gets "formed" as a movement in the 1970's, and its really very, very small.
So the libertarian movement advances its goals by several means:
1. Separating the "libertarian agenda" into separate ideas and marketing them to a larger movement. School vouchers are an awesome example of this, and the larger separation of school and state agenda.
2. Marketing efforts on the intellectual/academic level. Libertarianism is now at about the stage socialism was in the late 19th century, where it was mostly the province of intellectuals and exciteable 16-year-olds, and it promoted itself from there. This is where anarchists like Rothbard excel - because to recruit academics it's entirely unnecessary to discuss politically achievable goals. That's not what this game is about at all.
3. Political activism. This is arguably the least effective front at the moment, but libertarians do excel in those venues which reward activism and dedication more than they reward sheer numbers - for example, the courts. It is libertarian attorneys and Free State Project members that gave you Heller.
-
The borders issue is about more than labor, it is also about culture. This nation is already in danger of losing its spiritual birthright by failing to educate its citizens about the nature and essence of America.
No. America is a melting pot.
It started that way, and there's no reason to stifle the cultural diversity that we've had since well before the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence.
While I bristle at the thought of Sacramento schoolteachers being forced to hold classes in Spanish, I bristle even more at those pushing some sort of Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda. Diversity is but one thing that makes America great.
-
No. America is a melting pot.
Very true, and that is America's culture. It is based on assimilation, and is unique in that respect. That is the essence and spiritual birthright that longeyes was referring to.
But many of today's immigrants have no desire to assimilate, they have no desire to contribute to America's unique culture by adding parts of their own. They wish to stand apart, stand separately. To their and our nation's detriment.
And no one here is pushing that "Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda" sickness.
-
You call yourself "Gewehr98" and yet you imply that my view smacks of pro-Aryanism? Uh, what's wrong with this picture? =D
But seriously...look, neither of us are Nazis, and I am certainly in favor of the proverbial melting pot. All four of my grandparents were European-born. You know quite well what I am talking about and it is not about DNA or skin tone or what's in the pantry for dinner. It's about recognizing the shared values that define America and make it strong. It is also about not pretending that those values are universally shared, because plainly they are not. America has always been about where you are going and not where you came from; unfortunately, the pro-tribalists and pro-ethnicists would have you think otherwise. There is too much pride in one's genetic and cultural origins and not nearly enough pride in and, more important, awareness of the spiritual and cultural aorta of America.
-
I'm from Imperial German stock, thank you.
My predecessors immigrated well before WWII, part of that whole Ellis Island diversity thing.
If you want to take jabs at me, Longeyes, may I suggest you take it to PM?
Otherwise, you're just making yourself the topic of discussion in the staff lounge (again).
-
Very true, and that is America's culture. It is based on assimilation, and is unique in that respect. That is the essence and spiritual birthright that longeyes was referring to.
But many of today's immigrants have no desire to assimilate, they have no desire to contribute to America's unique culture by adding parts of their own. They wish to stand apart, stand separately. To their and our nation's detriment.
And no one here is pushing that "Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda" sickness.
Yup. I love immigration. The average legal immigrant has an appreciation for the freedom and beauty of America that I'd wager not 1 in 100 native born Americans do. Few things inspired me as much as my brothers in the Corps who were serving as a means to gain citizenship. Now that's patriotism, and I have far more respect for them than all the whiny little birth right citizen bastards who take our heritage for granted.
But the border jumper who's very presence is an act of defiance of the sovreignity and rule of law of this country disgusts me. They have no respect for this country or it's culture of freedom and the supremity of the rule law. I've spent time on the border helping to clean up the mess they make, and I've seen the incredible damage they do to innocent citizens who's only crime is living near the border. One of the few legitimate roles of fed.gov under a strict Constitutional interpretation is protecting it's citizens from foreign aggression. When foreign citizens using weapons acquired in one way or another from that nations military invade our soil, assault our citizens, and defile our property and the fed.gov does piss all..... well, that makes me mad.
Race has nothing to do with it. If you don't believe me, ask my wife. Her grandparents came from Mexico legally, and she takes it as a personal insult when people think she's pro-illegal just because she's brown. Oh, but if you do ask her let me know first; I want video of that. :D
-
Yup. I love immigration. The average legal immigrant has an appreciation for the freedom and beauty of America that I'd wager not 1 in 100 native born Americans do. Few things inspired me as much as my brothers in the Corps who were serving as a means to gain citizenship. Now that's patriotism, and I have far more respect for them than all the whiny little birth right citizen bastards who take our heritage for granted.
I saw this during my time in the Corps, as well, but I was too young (read: naive) to understand and appreciate it. I envy you in that respect, Balog.
-
Immigration (legal or otherwise) is our heritage, like it or not.
Even Los Illegales bring their culture into that big old mix, whether we want them here or not.
I saw it everywhere, from Sacramento to San Angelo to Cocoa Beach to Madison.
They may not choose to speak the language, but it doesn't stop me from walking down to the local taqueria and getting a fresh batch of tortillas hot off the machine, made by somebody who'd run like a bat out of hell if I yelled "La Migra!"
Is there a problem with Los Illegales sucking up our social benefits?
Yes, that's not in dispute. But as a descendant of former immigrants myself, I'm loathe to cut off my nose in order to spite my face.
Now, in a perfect world...
-
It simply doesn't add up to say "well, the market for labour is free, it's just that you can't hire anyone who doesn't have a government license."
Why not let employers freely decide if they need all that protection of government issued records and citizenship? That would be the free market approach.
I agree small government is the best government, but the only way this idea would work would be if (as someone said somewhere else in this thread) all welfare incentives were removed. Then the only people moving here are those who are willing to work hard for what they get. HEY! If we did this, I wonder if some of our naturalized dregs would head south of the border with the illegals?
I don't have a problem with immigrants (my grandfather arrived here on a ship from Belgium), I do have a problem with immigrants who do not want to play by the rules. To my way of thinking, if you are willing to discount the laws that restrict you from illegally entering this country, then you quite likely won't have a problem with discounting other laws in this country.
-
Nah, I think y'all who came from immigrants should just go back home... :P
Nevermind that would require 3/4 of ME leave too...
-
While I bristle at the thought of Sacramento schoolteachers being forced to hold classes in Spanish, I bristle even more at those pushing some sort of Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda. Diversity is but one thing that makes America great.
If you want to take jabs at me, Longeyes, may I suggest you take it to PM?
Otherwise, you're just making yourself the topic of discussion in the staff lounge (again).
No one is taking jabs at you, Gewehr98, especially given your "imperial German stock." How could I be so bold? YOU brought the "jabs," amigo. You imply, obliquely, that I'm a Nazi with gratuitous references to "pure blood" and "Aryanism" when I have been very clear about exactly what I'm talking about, and yo think you are going to get away with shifting the blame to me? No way. I don't care how much you talk to about me or anyone else in "the staff lounge." When you're wrong, you're wrong.
-
Nah, I think y'all who came from immigrants should just go back home... :P
Nevermind that would require 3/4 of ME leave too...
As long as the 1/4 that's left doesn't pester me for sammiches... =D
-
Very true, and that is America's culture. It is based on assimilation, and is unique in that respect. That is the essence and spiritual birthright that longeyes was referring to.
But many of today's immigrants have no desire to assimilate, they have no desire to contribute to America's unique culture by adding parts of their own. They wish to stand apart, stand separately. To their and our nation's detriment.
And no one here is pushing that "Aryan Nation "pure blood" agenda" sickness.
Rocketman made a very good point.
The use of the word "You" ought to be avoided in political discourse because things tend to go downhill quickly the minute someone uses it. :|
-
This one's done.