Mary Ruwart is a lovely lady, very intelligent, but no one is ever going to take a radical libertarian seriously for the highest office in the world.
I think Paul has the rational position on immigration. First control the borders, then remove the welfare state, then look at a more laissez-faire policy. The radical position doesn’t play well with an electorate that is almost completely dumbed down.
I know the radical libertarian purists would have us remove the military, only minutes before an invasion by a foreign power, regardless if any PDAs are prepared, tested or even available, and see that as progress, but a more measured and tactical approach to problems has it’s upside as well.
You and others on here who argue against politics seem to be attracted to a thread titled “voting” in an irrational manner. And your understanding of Paul is very one-sided and regularly incorrect.
This is another example of why radical libertarianism appeals almost exclusively to single young men. It’s easy to play games with the state with your own life. Not so easy when you have a family that includes children to think about. Not so easy to gamble while all of the theoreticians are on the sideline egging you on but not standing by your side.
And what has serious libertarian thought ever accomplished, besides more serious libertarian thought?
If the world was all about thinking for love, for sustenance, for happiness, you guys would be happier than Dick Cheney receiving his Haliburton dividend.
I am also, for this first time in my life since turning 18 seriously considering not voting. I may for a ballot initiative but I will not show up at the poles simply to vote for someone on the ballot. There have been a few cases where people have won through a write in vote so they do technically have to count them though I am not sure what they would do if Mickey Mouse won. There are also a few people who read the results in the newspaper and think they might get a laugh by reading what someone wrote down as a write in. I am thinking about voting Mises / Rothbard this year for my presidential ticket. Even in their current non-corporeal state they would make a better team than either Obama or McCain. If someone actually reads the results and gets curious enough that person might Google those two names and discover the LvMI as a result. It is worth a shot don’t you think?
In 1996 I voted a Republican ticket, voted against all the increase-the-local-sales-tax-for-the-children crap, but didn’t like either Clinton or Dole so I left it blank. I read in the paper the next day that all the ballots that didn’t have every hole punched got discarded. At that point I realized that US democracy was trending toward vote-counting, not voting. I voted for the LP’s Harry Browne in 2000, and the more I read his stuff, the more I realize he was the LP’s last best hope. Ron Paul didn’t have a prayer anywhere, and least of all in Georgia, so I didn’t bother. Haven’t voted since 2000 and don’t intend to. Liberty-minded people need to start withdrawing from public life.
I feel conflicted on this issue. Very conflicted. I agree with you for the most part but I also think that in order to have any hope of convincing enough people to abandon the myth of the beneficial state we must preserve at least some measure of the quasi-freedom we now have. We need enough so that we can at least have a website like this without being thrown in jail. Voting – or at least stating a willingness to do so under certain circumstances – is, in my view, an act of self defense when performed by people who accept the NAP. Until we can get a critical mass of people on our side we must use every tool at our disposal to at least preserve the few scraps of freedom we have left. I do not enjoy hitting people but I am willing to use my fists in self defense if I must. That stated it may not make a difference whether it is Obama or McCain in the oval office in 2009. Some day there may be a clear difference between the candidates.
Back when I was a conservative, some conservative friends of mine told me they were voting for Clinton rather than Dole in 1996. Their theory was that Dole would become what people thought of as Republican if he won - a prospect they did not like. They also said that Republicans in Congress are at their best when they have a Democrat to oppose in the White House. This kind of Reminds of that: Voting for someone you hate to get a desired outcome is an interesting strategy.
And that’s the problem we all face when dealing with theory and reality. In theory I support no borders and the free movement of people. Don’t misunderstand me, I am all for that. But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services. I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things. More immigrants consuming more social services will only give you more welfare, more socialism and more taxation. So in theory you can be whatever you want and believe in whatever you want but in reality we are both hypocrites. Until the problem of welfare and socialism is dealt with I cannot with a good conscience support open borders which will only lead to more plunder here at home.
Many of these people contribute far more to society than they use. Some try to avoid government funded services altogether. My pragmatic stance is that recent immigrants, especially those who are harassed by government thugs on a regular basis, are potential allies. These people fundamentally understand the nature of government. They also often come from places that have a natural distrust of the police. When a libertarian comes out against “illegal aliens” it has a great potential to alienate potential allies. Liberty has enough enemies as it is. We do not need to make more of them.
Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.
I’d rather vote McCain than Obama. At least with McCain, you know what he is going to do. Obama is a turncoat and probably worse than McCain on war and intervention and (trade, McCain’s only libertarian like quality.
At least we have a free traitor vs. a fair traitor
Kudos to Kucinich for saying " I’ve never heard of illegal people ", when asked about immigration
I never said they are aggressing against me or you or anyone by moving here. They are the aggressor because they move here and then use the social welfare services. They aren’t being forced to use them and they certainly aren’t paying for them therefore they have employed the State to steal from me and you and everyone else. And I would support the idea that calling the police is an act of aggression because you are now supporting the State and their institutionalized theft scheme. Why not? It works for agorist.
No one forces them to use welfare either. That is how they become an aggressor – they have taken it upon themselves to go down and file the paperwork to receive food stamps and free education and all other manner of welfare.
I’m not talking about public roads. I’m talking about the things they can voluntarily use. I will give you this that there are certain things we are all forced to use such as police, fire services, public roads, etc. But NO ONE is forcing these people to use Medicaid, SCHIP’s, public education, food stamps, etc. Those are all things they can freely chose to not use. Those are the things I am railing against here. More immigrants who sign up for these services means more money out of my pocket that could have stayed there. But that applies to the worthless and lazy who are born here as well. I’ve got no use for a person who consumes welfare services.
Yeah, some don’t even plan on moving here to consume our welfare services. Some just come here to use the health care services, go home and stick us with the bill.
I never said I support border enforcement either. I don’t know how you can control the flow of people between the border without further aggression. I know I DO NOT support them coming here. I don’t know how to stop them. I do, however, support ending welfare for them. The wonderful thing about living in a fantasy world of theory and logic is that you can say anything you want and believe however you wish. The problem I face living in a border State is reality. More crime, higher taxes, over crowded schools, hospitals that must charge more because of everyone (not just immigrants) who use their services and don’t pay the bill, more pressure on the state budget to meet the expenses incurred with these socialist systems of welfare – essentially I live in reality where theory comes second.
My reality is that more immigrants means more money stolen from me. I’ve said it a hundred times before: Stop giving them and everyone else welfare and I’ll support open borders and the free movement of people.
Trust me I know all about “illegal” immigrants. I’ve got more than a few friends that are in that situation (from Mexico to Ireland to Thailand). I don’t need to be lectured on how immigrants “contribute” to society. In one neighborhood I lived in which was made up of mostly “illegals” and their familes from Mexico, most of whom I was good friends with (BBQ’s on Sunday, soccer games in Spanish, etc.) about half of them were using some form of welfare or another. Most of them were on food stamps, their kids were on Medicaid and SCHIP’s, etc. Yeah, I know all about there contributions. Cheap slave labor and higher taxes for me and you. But let’s not discount the poor white trash I’m around as well. At least Mexicans work!
I agree. But if the government was giving away free cocaine to be paid for with my extortion dollars I could not support the idea of people moving here and receiving the free cocaine. It’s bad enough the government gives “free” cocaine to people who were born here but it’s worse that they are now giving that “free” cocaine to every Tito, Juan and Julio who moves here.
Again, get rid of welfare and then I can support open borders. I shouldn’t have to pay for everyone who moves here. It’s hard enough to pay for the ones who are born here.
And I too am glad that so many engineers and doctors have chosen to come here from India and China. The ability to cull the 90th percentile from the rest of the world has contributed greatly to the US economy.
I’m guessing you have in mind immigrants from Central and South America, and you are right: they understand that government is a spoils system because back home they weren’t allowed a shot at the spoils. But under social democracy, they can turn such things to their advantage quicker than you can say blood is thicker than water. And so they do.
In case you are unaware, slavery (except by the government) is illegal in this country. Working for a wage that you would not be willing to work does not equal slavery. Food prices have been increasing recently. Imagine how expensive they would be if it were not for these “illegal immigrants”.
Your assumption is that at least part of their motivation is that they can receive free goodies courtesy of a pointed gun. I have met enough recent immigrants to know that is not their motivation.
This is the kind of language that has the potential to alienate people. I will not call you a bigot because I am fairly certain that you are not. However, a recent immigrant from Latin America could easily assume you are with that sort of phraseology. I am not “politically correct” by any stretch of the imagination. Far from it. But at the same time it is important to understand the power of language.
I work in a medical college and I know a great many such people. Some from Africa and elsewhere as well. They are almost all wonderfull people who I am proud to share a continent with.
Not if they don’t vote. Illegal immigrants cannot vote in the United States (at least not for U.S. Elections, sometimes Mexico, durring thier elections, provides voting booths on U.S. soil for their citizens here. No joke, they sometimes do.)
Yes I am quite aware of that. I was using a common phrase in our language that is used to illustrate substandard wages no matter how freely accepted.
It might not be the motivation for their coming here but they certainly take advantage of it once they get here. And just so you understand I don’t think ALL immigrants do that. But there is enough of them that do to harm the rest of us.
The language used only reflects the fact that 90% of the immigrants coming to the United States come from Central and South America. If someone should find offense with common names in those countries I really don’t care. I take greater offense to them coming here and sucking off of welfare.
I have more respect for an illegal immigrant who works hard in an orange grove and collects food stamps to supplement his income than I do a native-born American who watches TV all day and collects welfare without even trying to get a job. Before we start (rhetorically) beating up on migrant workers lets work on getting some of these truly lazy people to at least try to get a job.
I assume that you want a free society at some point in the future – preferably in both our lifetimes. Unless we take care with the manner in which we word our arguments that is not going to happen. Words mean things. I know that it is easy to get frustrated by the state of the world today but unless we are careful how we communicate our ideas it will not improve. Right now those who support true liberty are few in number and we need to persuade others. Not caring if you offend others essentially means not caring if you persuade others. If I may, I would like to recommend you listen to something. It is cheap – only $5.00 – but it has the potential to change the way you communicate and will help you persuade others that freedom is to their benefit. It is called The Essence of political Persuasion. Sometimes if I include a link these posts get delayed - so I will paste the URL as black type and you can paste it into your browser if you want to:
Your assumption is idiotic. I more or less said it wouldn’t be easy, which can mean next to impossible for some, depending on circumstances.
Don’t give me this “think of the children & family” argument, because you are not countering an unsympathetic & cold radical libertarian whom ignores obvious problems in living ethics of radical libertarianism while trying to maintain a standard of living for oneself & others (family included).
I am sympathetic, and I while I cannot imagine what it is like to have children, I’m not foolish as to pretend it doesn’t affect how one would live, especially in regards to the concflict of providing for your family vs. living your ethics, whatever they may. As a parent, whether it’s by abiding by Statism or not, you have to provide for them & be the best parent you can be.
Anything further regarding parenthood would be beyond my experience, though, so I apologize if I’m being assumptious in anyway.
I will not pretend in thinking that I know how difficult it is, because my situation is different, but I will not point my finger at you and yell that you aren’t trying hard enough; I’m pretty sure I didn’t do that in regards to kingmonkey’s situation.
Your post is an example of jumping the gun a little, honestly. The way I see it, you do the best you can, especially if you have a family that may or may not hold the same views as yours.