[Jetset]

(08-04-2017 08:17 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Sure, crime was rampant, you could be killed for a dollar, industrialist tycoons built their railways over the corpses of their workers, celestial miners were killed by the thousands, Indians moreso, immigrants were exploited mercilessly, slavery was abundant, racism drove literal violence, theft and dispossession of land rightly owned and in general a contract was only ever worth the number of guns you could bring to bear to enforce it.

"What have the Romans ever done for us!?"

[Mage]

(08-04-2017 04:56 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 03:54 AM)Mage Wrote:  

...
Isn't this what separates conservatives and liberals?

Natural law. A persons disposition towards it determines everything about that person.
Traditionalists (including most conservatives) want freedom to live according to natural law. To practice faith, survive and prosper by their own work, build home as they like, build a family, defend themselves and their family.

Liberals want freedom from natural law. To whore, ignore consequences of laziness, hypergamy, flakiness, sodomy, poor diet and so on.

Natural law is the key. Persons disposition towards it determines his political beliefs. Either you want to observe Nature's rules, looking at and learning from all previous generations that survived, prospered and procreated successfully to the degree they observed this law or you hope for technological revolution and social engineering - the so called "progress" to liberate you from ever being responsible before natural law again.

Not necessarily. Some conservatives want freedom to live traditionally in the manner of their ancestors while others seek the authority to force others to live in the manner of those ancestors or in any case either group could seek the authority to forcibly exclude anyone that refuses to abide by their way of life.

Likewise progressives might be libertarian in demanding their right to live in whatever retarded way they like, or they might be totalitarian in their demand that everyone live by their retarded laws, or in any case either group could seek the authority to forcibly exclude anyone that refuses to "respect their rights" or "conform to progressive law."

The reality is that libertarianism in either case is impotent in the face of an organised group that refuses to abide by the libertarian's "unwritten law of no laws".

Ok so basicly we have two axis - a traditionalist/progressive axis and a totalitarian/libertarian axis. This creates a coordinate system that I believe describes most of any persons political belief.

Except that pure libertarianism sems to quickly loop back into full totalitarianism. If you abandon all laws you create a vacuum of power and whoever is slightly strongest (bigger/more organized) in that point sets in and becomes the new dictator. I think it is really better to be centrist on libertarian/totalitarian axis and have some reasonable laws and some reasonable sized government force to enforce them.

[Jetset]

(08-04-2017 10:47 AM)Mage Wrote:  

Except that pure libertarianism sems to quickly loop back into full totalitarianism. If you abandon all laws you create a vacuum of power and whoever is slightly strongest (bigger/more organized) in that point sets in and becomes the new dictator. I think it is really better to be centrist on libertarian/totalitarian axis and have some reasonable laws and some reasonable sized government force to enforce them.

It's a bit of a circular conversation, in that the phrase "pure libertarianism" is often understood as Rothbard-style anarcho-capitalism.

This isn't quite the same as the night watchman state, probably the more common understanding in the United States.

Of course, anarchists will tell you that people would voluntarily organize to provide for their own security out of mutual self-interest, but that brings us to the classic South Park scene:

Hippy 1: "Right now we're proving we don't need corporations. We don't need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other."

Hippy 2: "Yeah, we'll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread, and one guy who like, looks out for other people's safety."

Stan: "You mean like a baker and a cop?"

Hippy 2: "No no. Can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?"

Kyle: "Yeah, it's called a town.

Hippy 3: "You kids just haven't been to college yet."

[Beyond Borders]

(08-04-2017 08:13 AM)heavy Wrote:  

This is a pointless discussion unless we know which beliefs OP is questioning. You're talking about millions of people, a lot of nuance, on a lot of different topics.

It's pretty clear the OP wasn't actually seeking an intellectually honest, levelheaded answer to his question.

[SlickyBoy]

I left the libertardians in the dust the minute I realized their already idiotic push for open borders would eventually kill off legal gun ownership in America and create a de facto end of the second amendment.

When a country imports large numbers of people from cultures that do not respect Anglo Saxon based law and order, soon enough the entire culture of rights everyone is used to is either voted out or forcibly changed to deal with the new wave of crime and social pressures. Leftists of course think this is a great combo - more diversity and no gun ownership, but it isn't long before the first amendment is curtailed along with the second.

Patterns of behavior have to change too: "Don't wear that tonight honey, you might offend the neighborhood of Somali goat herders that moved into the area near the theater," etc.

As Vox Day pointed out, open borders and libertarian approaches only last as long as it takes to displace the libertarian-minded population - it is political (and sometimes actual) suicide.

Cucks like Grover Norquist are at the center of the problem, especially being on the NRA board with the idea that wide open borders will be just fine. He barely survived the removal vote - probably because a lot of NRA members don't know the truth about that asswipe. Don't get me started about the number of "Libertarians" who voted for that leftist in disguise, Gary Johnson - candidates like him rarely attract democrat votes only cost conservatives races in close contests like NH in the last election, where Trump lost by .2%.

Hard core adherence to all libertarian tenants is a path to political and cultural extinction.

[Jetset]

(08-04-2017 11:35 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 08:13 AM)heavy Wrote:  

This is a pointless discussion unless we know which beliefs OP is questioning. You're talking about millions of people, a lot of nuance, on a lot of different topics.

It's pretty clear the OP wasn't actually seeking an intellectually honest, levelheaded answer to his question.

The OP started another thread claiming that his father screams at him and beats him with tools on their construction site, and he wasn't sure if this was normal.

thread-64131.html

Here, he claims that he read libertarianism has to do with hatred of one's father.

Hmmm.

[ProGambler]

Erm... because we don't like to be slaves of the Jews. My relationship with my father is very good thanks.

[puckerman]

(08-04-2017 11:40 AM)Jetset Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:35 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

It's pretty clear the OP wasn't actually seeking an intellectually honest, levelheaded answer to his question.

The OP started another thread claiming that his father screams at him and beats him with tools on their construction site, and he wasn't sure if this was normal.

thread-64131.html

Here, he claims that he read libertarianism has to do with hatred of one's father.

Hmmm.

Thank you for pointing this out. This is just a troll thread, and I'm sorry I posted here.

[puckerman]

(08-04-2017 08:17 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

From bottom to top.

I was referring the to Gamma trait of believing themselves to be secret kings. The website is not called "return of the secret kings" for a reason.

Perhaps, I am not clear on what you mean by "secret kings." I assume you mean that these people will act like dictators if they are in a position of power.

Quote:

I agree that the boomer 'conservatives' are largely impotent, geriatric faggots who fall far to the left by any historical definition. This is changing rapidly as they die out and zillenials/millenials rail against 'the system' and the assholes that sold out their future. The rise of the alt-right and the election of Trump is testament to this.

It's still too early to tell. The only thing that has happened so far is that he is doing more to make it difficult for people to enter the foreign country. These same tactics are also being used to make it harder to leave this godforsaken country. I have said many times that America is a Titanic looking for an iceberg. I don't see Trump doing much to change this

The left and the right just look for different types of icebergs. The key fact is that they are still looking for them.

We also have to realize that it is going to take more than one Presidency to undo all the damage that has happened over the past 60 years.

Quote:

"American's wouldn't have put up with this 10/20/40/80/160 years ago!" Sorry, but they have and they did. This is another Libertarian trope. Romanticise about how things were totally different "back in the olden days" and then hold the modern world to the standard of a total fantasy.

I agree that libertarians spend too much time romanticizing about the past. But it's not a total fantasy. My grandfather walked two miles to school each way when he was six years old. They don't do that now. Americans dumped tea in the Boston Harbor over a tax of three percent. During the Civil War, men rioted in New York City against a draft. Democracy in America by de Tocqueville is a good read for this.

The worst changes in my own lifetime are government interference in parenting. My mom once left me in the car with the motor running. Today that would be on the news, and mom would be arrested. Kids' lives are more regulated and watched over. Has this happened Down Under?

Quote:

As for Australian libertarians, they're sad wankers. All five of them. There used to be six but I grew up. We're a colony and a prison colony at that. The mentality dogs us to this day. That said, not many of our police stations have APCs in the carpool, and our utterly tyrannical government not only taxes less than the American one (taking into account debt against future generations) but provides us with nominally low cost health care while balancing the federal budget from time to time.

While I haven't even visited the country, my general impression that Australians are more like Americans than anyone else. Both countries were founded by people who largely weren't wanted in England. Both countries also were born with a pioneer spirit. Both still have the great traditions of Anglo-Saxon liberalism (in the true sense of that word--Magna Carta, Common Law, etc.)

You do have the benefit of being a very isolated from the rest of the world. Australia and New Zealand will likely survive a lot of the potential insanity of the next 100 years because of that. England is already fucked, and I don't think Canada will do much better.

Another difference is that Australia has about 23,000,000. America has about 323,000,000. A larger country is more dysfuncional than a smaller one. Our federal legislators represent over 700,000 people. In Australia, it's about 160,000.

How much of an Israeli lobby does Australia have?

[puckerman]

(08-04-2017 11:39 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

I left the libertardians in the dust the minute I realized their already idiotic push for open borders would eventually kill off legal gun ownership in America and create a de facto end of the second amendment.

Please explain how this will happen.

[therealpoder]

(08-05-2017 05:16 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

(08-04-2017 11:39 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

I left the libertardians in the dust the minute I realized their already idiotic push for open borders would eventually kill off legal gun ownership in America and create a de facto end of the second amendment.

Please explain how this will happen.

Probably like this...

1. Most libertarians favor open borders or liberal immigration laws.
2. Most immigrants favor progressive and left wing parties such as the United States Democrats by huge margins.
3. If open borders or liberal immigration laws are implemented, more immigrants will come to the United States.
4. Many of these immigrants to the United States will be able to vote.
5. When these immigrants are able to vote, they will mostly favor the United States Democrats.
6. Additional immigrants voting will lead to landslide victories for the Democrats.
7. The Democrats will then have the power to implement their agenda, which includes gun control.
8. Therefore, libertarian support for open borders will lead to more immigrants to the United States. Immigrants to the United States largely favor the Democrats and will hand them victories. Democratic victories will lead them to implement gun control.

As an aside, libertarian support for open borders will allow left wing parties to get into power and these parties will ensure that the libertarian agenda is never implemented. As a result, libertarian support for open borders will ensure that libertarianism will never happen.

[puckerman]

(08-05-2017 08:26 PM)therealpoder Wrote:  

Probably like this...

1. Most libertarians favor open borders or liberal immigration laws.
2. Most immigrants favor progressive and left wing parties such as the United States Democrats by huge margins.
3. If open borders or liberal immigration laws are implemented, more immigrants will come to the United States.
4. Many of these immigrants to the United States will be able to vote.
5. When these immigrants are able to vote, they will mostly favor the United States Democrats.
6. Additional immigrants voting will lead to landslide victories for the Democrats.
7. The Democrats will then have the power to implement their agenda, which includes gun control.
8. Therefore, libertarian support for open borders will lead to more immigrants to the United States. Immigrants to the United States largely favor the Democrats and will hand them victories. Democratic victories will lead them to implement gun control.

As an aside, libertarian support for open borders will allow left wing parties to get into power and these parties will ensure that the libertarian agenda is never implemented. As a result, libertarian support for open borders will ensure that libertarianism will never happen.

9. Gun grabbers show up at the homes of gun owners to confiscate guns.
10. Gun owners shoot and kill gun grabbers.
11. Gun grabbers are dead and buried.
12. Gun owners continue to have guns.

Please also provide evidence that immigrants favor these gun laws and evidence that this immigrants favor politiicans will do this.

Here is some actual evidence that immigration, at least from Mexico, is a complete farce. More people are going from America to Mexico:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...2rank.html

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/mo...o-the-u-s/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/20/mor...-says.html

It's not hard to figure out why. America is a dying country.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Again, Puckerman, you're romanticising things that had nothing to do with libertarianism being derived from a rugged, pioneer spirit.

Your grandfather didn't walk miles to school in order to be ruggedly independant. I'm betting he did it because a second family car was still a luxury item in his region and his mother didn't have one.

If you go out to places where people still undergo hardship you will find the kind of "libertarianism" you're talking about. People rail against taxes when it means not being able to feed their children or keep their businesses alive. If the people of Boston back in the day could have eaten that tax with their pocket change then they'd have simply paid it and moved on with their lives. Men rioted against the draft because their wives, sons and daughters would have been left destitute and unprotected in their absence. A draft in this day and age would not lead to that outcome and so would not be as violently resisted.

By your reckoning the tribal militias in Africa show more "American" spirit than even the founding fathers. They accept no authority whatsoever other than that of their own hierarchy. Yet if I gave them each ten million dollars and a mansion in Europe then they would disband in the blink of an eye and never see each other or pick up another gun ever again.

Do not confuse the insular nature that hardship breeds with "libertarian principles". It's just people doing what they have to to survive and get ahead in life. People might couch acts of rebellion with libertarian principles because it's much easier to rally around the idea of resisting taxation without representation than rallying around "most of us need that 20 bucks to keep gas in out car".

Even Jefferson said "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." And so it went. This is not the death of the "American spirit". It might feel patriotic to suggest that there was something inherently American about libertarianism but it was simply a wash-on effect of a rapid drive to pioneer through an entire continent, and now that knock-on effect is washing entirely out of your culture.

Aside, I'm not referring to what Trump has done or might do. Electing him was an act of rebellion against the old order, and once again I'm pressed to add it was done as an act of survival, not to preserve libertarian principles (Trump is no libertarian) but to preserve America's way of life, which is in many ways the most comfortable on earth. Enough people were finding themselves with too much week left at the end of the money and rebelled against the "more of the same" candidate. Keep in mind that four or eight years ago Trump would not have stood a chance because not enough people were financially hurting badly enough to take their chances on an outsider.

[therealpoder]

I don't think most people are willing to sacrifice their lives or are willing to kill government agents in order to keep their guns. Some will. Most people however prefer to live. The point is to keep things from coming where gun rights are threatened.

Immigrants don't have to favor the gun laws. In fact, immigrants and ethnic minorities are often more conservative than the politicians they vote for, at least on social issues. Doesn't matter as long as they continue to vote for politicians that favor gun restrictions. A lot of people didn't favor gay marriage. These same people still voted for the Democrats though. Immigrants only have to slightly prefer the policies of the Left more than the policies of the right, which they do and which is why they vote for the Left.

The United States Democrats have made it clear they want to restrict ownership of guns. They haven't been able to do it in a national level because gun control is not a popular issue with the electorate.

I wasn't referring to immigration from Mexico. Immigrants from various countries come to America and in general tend to vote for the Left.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The gun-grabbing/kill-the-feds debate is nothing but masturbatory chest beating.

They declare the guns illegal and from then on the only thing that keeping your guns does is makes you live in paranoia. No more parts. No more training. No more videos on the net. No more training sessions. No more range trips. Gun culture remains but "assault rifle" culture dies. And the cops aren't fucking retarded enough to assault hamburger hill ten million times. If you beat your chest and make noise about "mah cold dead hands" they'll just wait for you to go to the supermarket and then have a plain-clothed officer taze you in the back before ten more dogpile you.

"I'll just shoot the gun-grabbers" type tough men are lazy retards who will be outsmarted by people who enact these sorts of plans over decades, not weekends.

I know guys here that beat their chests in '96 before the vast majority of Australian gun owners took the cash for their pistols and rifles. The heroes that didn't 'sell out' were forced to concede that nobody was charging into the breach with them and they buried their guns. You know where those guys are now? In fucking retirement homes dying of cancer.

You engage your politicians from day one or they will simply wear you down over time.

[puckerman]

(08-05-2017 09:33 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Your grandfather didn't walk miles to school in order to be ruggedly independant. I'm betting he did it because a second family car was still a luxury item in his region and his mother didn't have one.

Actually they didn't have cars at all back then. He was born in 1897.

Quote:

If you go out to places where people still undergo hardship you will find the kind of "libertarianism" you're talking about. People rail against taxes when it means not being able to feed their children or keep their businesses alive. If the people of Boston back in the day could have eaten that tax with their pocket change then they'd have simply paid it and moved on with their lives. Men rioted against the draft because their wives, sons and daughters would have been left destitute and unprotected in their absence. A draft in this day and age would not lead to that outcome and so would not be as violently resisted.

Yes, I know what you mean here. We have higher taxes because we can afford to have them. So, what do you propose as a solution for this?

I think people were more willing to fight in the past because they had less to lose.

Quote:

Even Jefferson said "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." And so it went. This is not the death of the "American spirit". It might feel patriotic to suggest that there was something inherently American about libertarianism but it was simply a wash-on effect of a rapid drive to pioneer through an entire continent, and now that knock-on effect is washing entirely out of your culture.

There is a lot of truth to what Jefferson said there. It seems to work the same everywhere, too.

Quote:

Electing him was an act of rebellion against the old order, and once again I'm pressed to add it was done as an act of survival, not to preserve libertarian principles (Trump is no libertarian) but to preserve America's way of life, which is in many ways the most comfortable on earth.

The American people have rebelled like this before--Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980, the Congressional elections in 1994. None of these rebellions resulted in any change at all in the course of the country. Considering this, I am skeptical about what will result from Trump's election.

I grew up in a town which now has a population of less than 10,000. When I graduated from high school in 1989, my class had over 420 students. That same high school had a class last year of 254.

Most of the small towns in the USA have been suffering for a long time. In many of these areas, life expectancy is actually going DOWN. They have seen their jobs get replaced by machines or seen them shipped elsewhere. Parents see their kids leave town, and drug abuse is becoming a huge problem because the people have no hope.

What is it like in Small Town, Australia, Leonard? I don't have any idea.

Trump was the only candidate who told these people that he feels their anger and pain. While Obama and his ilk just say that "things are great," Trump told them, "Yes, I know it sucks." That is why they voted for him.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Life in a small town is frankly the typical cliche. You can find more details in my rural living datasheet.

As for rebellious voting not leading to change, there has never really been much on the line in America. The cold war was an external threat and nothing else has been relevant in terms of creating an existential crisis for the average American. The only thing that seriously triggered the primal panic alarms is the looming minority-majority situation. When a peoples get the sense that they or their culture are marked for extinction it creates a unique political dynamic. Trump's theme was MAGA but the reality is that "build the wall" and "stop immigration" was the foundation of MAGA. The truth is that MAGA would have rung quite hollow without the wall and the immigration stop backing it.

[N°6]

Their belief in the US is partly to do with some of the issues within the War of Independence making it a civil war between the American Whigs and Loyalist Tories.

The following century saw the rise of usury and money power which was marketed as free trade; this made a lot of people rich who had no stake in the running of the state.

Now the British Tories after Thatcher are more Whig than the Whigs.

[puckerman]

(08-06-2017 03:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Life in a small town is frankly the typical cliche. You can find more details in my rural living datasheet.

I am mainly asking about the overall economic picture. Maybe I will go back and read your data sheet. I can't remember it saying much about the economy.

I was born and raised in an American state that used to be a solid Democratic state. In the 1980 Presidential election, it was one of six states won by Jimmy Carter. In 2014, the state legislature turned Republican after about 80 years.

There used to be a large contingent of Country Democrats in America. They are almost extinct now.

Quote:

As for rebellious voting not leading to change, there has never really been much on the line in America. The cold war was an external threat and nothing else has been relevant in terms of creating an existential crisis for the average American.

One thing that has changed is that there is more of a sense of gloom and doom. The Presidential election of 1980 is the first one I remember--I was nine. Carter supporters weren't saying "Reagan is going to destroy America." Reagan voters weren't saying "Carter is going to destroy America." But in 2016, both sides were saying that about the other side.

In a weird way, libertarians have won this discussion. We have long said that both parties are destroying the country. Well, now, the Red Team says that about the Blue Team. The Blue Team says it about the Red Team.

Quote:

Trump's theme was MAGA but the reality is that "build the wall" and "stop immigration" was the foundation of MAGA. The truth is that MAGA would have rung quite hollow without the wall and the immigration stop backing it.

I have actually wrestled with the whole immigration issue in my head for a long time. I often say that America would have been better off if we had never had so much German immigration in the 1800's. They certainly didn't bring any good ideas with them.

Freedom creates wealth, happiness, and prosperity. People in other countries see those things and want to get a piece of the pie. They decide they want to move to that country. Unfortunately, they often have no understanding of the cultural underpinnings and the political systems that make it possible. They eat the fruit from the tree, while they are unknowingly harming the roots that make it possible for the tree to bear the fruit.

If I give food to a dog, the dog doesn't know that I bought the food at a grocery store. He doesn't know that the grocery store bought it from a wholesaler. All he knows is that I bring him food. Economically, this is how most people think.

The only reason the election of 2016 was as close as it was is simple. For many Americans, the Presidency of Bill Clinton was the last time Americans had a good economy. Hillary Clinton ran on that memory, and that's why she got as far as she did.

That being said, I have no problem with Hispanic immigrants coming here at all. Unlike "white Americans," they still take marriage and family seriously. The women are still women and actually respect men. I would gladly trade 100 women born and raised in America for 100 women born and raised in any Hispanic country. Hispanics are the immigrants that most American scream about it when they talk about the border and the wall.

[godfather dust]

Whenever I argue against anarchy I make the point that in a land without law ruthless men will fill in the void and become the defacto government/authority.

I see the same issue with libertarianism​. If you strip capitalism of all rules the most corrupt companies will form monopolies in every industry.

[Llama Deam]

(08-06-2017 10:41 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

(08-06-2017 03:11 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Life in a small town is frankly the typical cliche. You can find more details in my rural living datasheet.

I am mainly asking about the overall economic picture. Maybe I will go back and read your data sheet. I can't remember it saying much about the economy.

I was born and raised in an American state that used to be a solid Democratic state. In the 1980 Presidential election, it was one of six states won by Jimmy Carter. In 2014, the state legislature turned Republican after about 80 years.

There used to be a large contingent of Country Democrats in America. They are almost extinct now.

Quote:

As for rebellious voting not leading to change, there has never really been much on the line in America. The cold war was an external threat and nothing else has been relevant in terms of creating an existential crisis for the average American.

One thing that has changed is that there is more of a sense of gloom and doom. The Presidential election of 1980 is the first one I remember--I was nine. Carter supporters weren't saying "Reagan is going to destroy America." Reagan voters weren't saying "Carter is going to destroy America." But in 2016, both sides were saying that about the other side.

In a weird way, libertarians have won this discussion. We have long said that both parties are destroying the country. Well, now, the Red Team says that about the Blue Team. The Blue Team says it about the Red Team.

Quote:

Trump's theme was MAGA but the reality is that "build the wall" and "stop immigration" was the foundation of MAGA. The truth is that MAGA would have rung quite hollow without the wall and the immigration stop backing it.

I have actually wrestled with the whole immigration issue in my head for a long time. I often say that America would have been better off if we had never had so much German immigration in the 1800's. They certainly didn't bring any good ideas with them.

Freedom creates wealth, happiness, and prosperity. People in other countries see those things and want to get a piece of the pie. They decide they want to move to that country. Unfortunately, they often have no understanding of the cultural underpinnings and the political systems that make it possible. They eat the fruit from the tree, while they are unknowingly harming the roots that make it possible for the tree to bear the fruit.

If I give food to a dog, the dog doesn't know that I bought the food at a grocery store. He doesn't know that the grocery store bought it from a wholesaler. All he knows is that I bring him food. Economically, this is how most people think.

The only reason the election of 2016 was as close as it was is simple. For many Americans, the Presidency of Bill Clinton was the last time Americans had a good economy. Hillary Clinton ran on that memory, and that's why she got as far as she did.

That being said, I have no problem with Hispanic immigrants coming here at all. Unlike "white Americans," they still take marriage and family seriously. The women are still women and actually respect men. I would gladly trade 100 women born and raised in America for 100 women born and raised in any Hispanic country. Hispanics are the immigrants that most American scream about it when they talk about the border and the wall.

Hispanic immigrants in America from what the stats say have a pretty high out wedlock birth rate and single motherhood rate. America isn't exactlty getting the cream of the crop of Hispanic immigrants, it's the same in England with Eastern European immigrants-we aren't getting the best.

Out of wedlock birth rates by race

Marriage rates by race

Good morals or not, Hispanic immigrants are going to act very different in a country with a more generous welfare system. Since a lot of these immigrant groups depend on welfare, they will favor big government programs.

[puckerman]

(08-06-2017 12:20 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  

Whenever I argue against anarchy I make the point that in a land without law ruthless men will fill in the void and become the defacto government/authority.

I see the same issue with libertarianism​. If you strip capitalism of all rules the most corrupt companies will form monopolies in every industry.

If companies are giving their customers poor service, other companies will fill that void. People always find other ways to do things. And the beauty of a truly free market is that people are always experimenting and trying new things.

And what do you mean by monopoly anyway? For example, JK Rowling has a monopoly on JK Rowling's writing. Steven Spielberg has a monopoly on movies directed by Steven Spielberg. Paul McCartney has a monopoly on Paul McCartney concerts. There are some monopolies that can't be eliminated.

I worked in the hotel business for almost three years. I have seen firsthand just how much businesses will bend over backward to serve customers. Businesses that don't do that don't last long.

The monopolies that last longest are the ones that are protected by the government. The first one that comes to mind is the US Postal Service.

[Leonard D Neubache]

If hispanics were were so preferable to whites then why is Mexico Mexico and why is America America?

I want to meet you half way, P, I really do, but like a lot of libertarians you're flexing your view of the world to meet your understanding of it rather than the other way around, but obviously the world itself isn't interested in flexing for your benefit or the benefit of any libertarian.

You want immigration but say "only hispanics". Do we have to use the dreaded "r" word? How can libertarian principles accommodate the dreaded "r" word? They can't. Because a principle is inviolate. The second you add "except for..." then you have small text. The moment you have small text you fail the purity tests of your brother libertarians, who are certainly not going to sully themselves by being seen with a racist because either all humans are equal or they're not.

In any case, those Mexicans you want in America vote overwhelmingly against liberty and are way over-represented in welfare reliance. Border cops are quite aware of their family values, having an unvarnished appreciation for latino culture. You know what they call domestic violence among such immigrants? "Mexican foreplay".

My marriage has given me an eyewitness account into latino culture. Gratefully my wife is exceptional among her race (or I'd never have married her) but she has no illusions about latinos in general and what consequences there would be for a large influx of them entering the West.

Her response to that idea runs to the tune of "fuck no, not on your life!"

As for red/blue politics, the people are getting desperate and the one thing a desperate man cannot afford is lazy delusions. People are waking up in record numbers to the swindle that's played out over the last hundred years. Laughable situations like foreigners explaining that they pay less taxes than Americans and still get free health care. Ten years ago the American would have laughed back and said "I still have more money than you regardless". These days his pockets are empty, he cant afford the insurance and he's rightly casting a wary eye on both sides of the political fence.

Prosperity has nothing to do with sweeping new "isms" being applied to fix what ails us. All it takes is to drive out the snakes and the parasites and once provide the representation that's supposed to come with the taxation.

[Australia Sucks]

Leonard illegal immigrants working cash jobs do not get access to welfare. As for legal migrants some Latin American countries and Asian countries have the right idea.

A lot of countries in Latin America and Asia make it easy to get a visa such as a student visa or business visa or long-term tourist visa, retiree visa, etc but they make it difficult for people with little or no money to get citizenship or even permanent residency. Even work visas are typically difficult to get. So people who have empty pockets can go to those countries but they cannot access the welfare benefits. Also its much easier to get a visa if you want to spend money (e.g. retiree, long-term tourist, etc) then it is to get a visa to work.

This is good as it encourages foreigners who to spend money or invest or do business but discourages foreigners for competing with locals for jobs. If you do not do that you end up with a farce like in Australia were plenty of backpackers and Asian students are working for very low wages cash in hand in small business while young locals are unemployed and collect welfare payments.

Australia (not as bad though), Europe, U.S.A. etc give permanent residency/citizenship to too many poor people who then proceed to simply live off the welfare system.

[puckerman]

(08-06-2017 09:05 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

If hispanics were were so preferable to whites then why is Mexico Mexico and why is America America?

Actually more people are going to Mexico from America.

Quote:

In any case, those Mexicans you want in America vote overwhelmingly against liberty and are way over-represented in welfare reliance.

This is always the big one that conservatives bring up. They say: "We can't have open borders because they go on welfare." This is why conservatives in America do ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOTHING to get rid of the welfare state. The welfare state provides them with way too many excuses for other things that they want--like a big wall on the Mexican border.

Conservatives in America didn't even kill the National Endowment for the Arts, even though they easily could have. At least guys like Clinton and Obama are honest about being socialists. That's preferable to dishonest ones like the Bushes and Reagan.