Yes, everything is futile, we’re all going to die, etc. etc.
:insert more pseudo-nihilistic thought here:
I am not too unhappy with “immigrants”. Most of them work harder than some Americans. Some work two, three jobs to feed their family in to provide their children with hopes for a better life. As with everything in life, there are the bad apples that spoil it for everyone else. The ones who refuse to learn English and ride the gravy train and complain that back home everything was better. Then of course there are Americans doing the same thing. They hold their hand wide open for Uncle Sam to provide them with money, food and health care. And there are plenty of them!
I’m gonna write in an office and vote for myself as supreme dictator of the universe. Since no one else will be running for it, I should win.
I find it interesting that you argue against “radical libertarianism” as such, as if being a “moderate libertarian” is a good thing or has gotten the movement anywhere. “Radical” simply means consistant and certain. “Moderate” just means not having a backbone, being inconsistant and oppurtunistic.
I support saturating local governments with libertarians and anarchists to provide a margin of support between the higher levels of government and the counter-economy. Other than that, fail on voting. I wouldn’t vote for another national election even if Rothbard’s ghost were running.
I am most certainly not going to participate in this election. For instance, I would not participate in choosing a Chief Rapist, because I would be enabling someone to violate rights. So, all the more I would not choose a President, since he is the leader of a cartelizing monopoly on jurisdiction that may decide one’s rights as it wishes, and in effect is just as much a ravisher.
I don’t care if they are working in a orange grove but if they are on food stamps they are a leech. It’s just that simple. Cold, perhaps, but that is how I view things. My enemy is the one who leeches off of me. I look upon the Mexican laboring the orange grove a little better than I do the lazy white trash who sit around drinking Keystone Light, rocking out to Lynard Skynard while they cash in their food stamps and take their welfare check to buy more beer and Pall Mall cigarettes but that doesn’t change the fact that they have come here and started sucking off of welfare.
You might notice a recurring theme – my violent opposition to welfare – which is why I don’t want more third world parasites to come up here and suck off of it.
And here’s another thing! And this is what pisses me off about people like you or anyone else that MIGHT take offense at something. Why is what I said any more offensive than saying “Tom, Dick or Harry”!?!?!!?!?! Does that mean I should get in a huff just every time someone says that? Screw that crap! If someone doesn’t like me because I say something that MIGHT offend someone else then they live in a sad little world where nothing will ever get done. I don’t tip toe around bullsh*t like that. Screw those people. They can all go to hell.
Apparently you do not mind the fact that the vast majority of Americans (or any other nationality for that matter) are just fine with funding their favorite programs at the point of a gun. Libertarians in general and Anarcho-Capitalists in particular are so few in number that when you meet someone (excepting libertarian or free market economic events) you are probably the first one that person has ever met. The impression you make is likely to be a FIRST impression and may even be an ONLY impression. You may be the only chance that person has to hear the philosophy of freedom from a real flesh and blood person. Think about that the next time you are tempted to deliberately insult someone – try instead to PERSUADE that person. Giving a linguistic middle finger is not going to advance liberty one inch.
Saying “Tito, Juan and Julio” is no more insulting than “Tom, Dick and Harry.” If they get upset over proper names then so can I. From now on I will be violently insulted if someone uses the phrase “Tom, Dick and Harry” and will declare them to be racist pigs.
All insults exist because people give themselves permission to be insulted by them. Some, in fact, like being insulted. It gives them an excuse to act like a juvenile, because a grown-up doesn’t even acknowlege such an offense.
Sorry. I have been annoyed lately that the conversations are rarely grounded in reality.
My point exactly.
The key here is context. Three people who were actually called Tito, Juan and Julio would not at all find it insulting if you called them by these names.
In some cases you are quite correct. I am certainly no fan of the kind of shakedown artist made famous by the likes of Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton. I am in no way advocating that we bend over to someone else’s every whim. But there is a difference between being politically incorrect and being just plain rude. I find it quite unfortunate that some people in the past couple of decades have associated these two concepts as though they are one and the same. They are not. There is a difference between an airline asserting its right to not provide Halal meals (meals that prepared according to Islamic dietary guidelines) on every flight and that same airline mixing pork into every dish (even ones that appear to be vegetarian) and not informing the passengers until after the meal has been consumed. The first case is asserting a right – the second case is just plain rude. My original point was that if we want to persuade others of the benefits of a free society we need to, at the very least, be polite. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a monster. I would bet that many people on these forums at one time held viewpoints that are quite different from their viewpoints today.
Again, you need to bear in mind that you are working with people who are in the 90th (or more likely, the 99th) percentile back in their homelands. Ask them what they think about bringing over all those folks that they are spending blood and treasure to stay the hell away from.
Central and South American immigrants work hard, sure. They are also happy to consume whatever public services are on offer–visit a Social Security office, a public hospital ER, or a majority-Hispanic school district some time. And when their children born on US soil grow up and vote, I can tell you it’s not going to be for a libertarian candidate.
If you don’t mind me asking, what is the problem with Barr? I honestly know almost nothing about his stances, but I had been planning on voting for him just because, as someone earlier had said, he had an L after his name. Unfortunately I’ve noticed many people claiming the libertarian title who aren’t at all libertarians. Either way, I figured it would send a message if the libertarian party affected the national election enough to sway the vote democratic. The republicans might re-think their positions, or at least might change what they lie about.
Their reasons for leaving their homeland are diverse. For some, it is that they can have a higher standard of living here. For others, it is political or religious persecution. In a couple of cases it is that when they were in college they fell in love with an American and the couple chose to stay here. In all cases but the last I mentioned the government where they lived was directly or indirectly involved.
How is that different from most native-born Americans? Ever see the guy with the question mark suit on TV selling his book with info on “free money”?
I have met a great many Hispanic libertarians. Perhaps you simply do not know many Hispanics personally. I do. Some of the most active libertarians I have met are the children of “illegal immigrants”.
You’re missing the point. Don’t focus on how they are the same or whatever focus on this one important point: We cannot support the people who are born here now so how the hell could we possibly support the millions of people who would move here and get on welfare?
And that is the root of my argument! We cannot support all of the lazy and worthless who are born here and get on welfare. If we cannot support them then why on God’s green earth should I EVER support an idea that would allow MORE people from OTHER countries to come here, who CANNOT support themselves (unlike that 90th percentile), and who WILL get on some form of social service? The end result is more taxation, more inflation, more pressure put on the middle class and the destruction of MY way of life.
You have only two solutions to the problem. 1) End the welfare state completely for everyone or 2) try to keep as many of those people out of here until we can end the welfare state. It cost considerably less money to keep someone out than it does to support them for the rest of their life. For those of you who might say “We don’t have the support them on welfare” or whatever argument you have try living in reality and not some fantasy world of theory. The reality is the government WANTS to take care of these people and they WILL raise taxes to do it. The reality is that most of the people in this country SUPPORT the welfare state and don’t want it to go away. So while in THEORY I support open borders and the free movement of people the REALITY is that a support for that type of policy RIGHT NOW only means that I support MORE taxes, MORE welfare services, MORE state control, MORE inflation, a LOWER standard of living for myself, my family and everyone else. And it will only get worse when the Democrats create a national health care system. The young illegal immigrant will receive better care because he is younger whereas the older citizen of this country, who has worked all their life and paid this extortion money, will be treated far worse because they are old. That is the way things work. And how much more money am I going to have to send to the government when we do have universal health care and even MORE illegals come hopping across the border for medical treatment, which they can’t be denied and which must be paid for by the taxpayer?
Open borders are an impossibility right now, no matter how much you want them. Open borders will mean more theft and more inflation more welfare and a lower standard of living. Get rid of the welfare state and we can fling open the doors and let everyone and anyone in (or out).
I’m sure there are some libertarians who had “illegal immigrant” parents. But most of the ones I’ve met prefer the policies of the Democrats. Why? Because they come from socialist states where the government takes care of them. They want more welfare services here, they want universal health care here, they want everything their little Marxist eyes can behold and they want ME and YOU to give it to them. Maybe there is a difference between the Hispanics where you live and the ones in Texas but all of the ones I’ve ever met (and there are a lot) like Hillary, they like Obama and they like the type of “change” these two creatures would bring.
"I have met a great many Hispanic libertarians. Perhaps you simply do not know many Hispanics personally. I do. Some of the most active libertarians I have met are the children of “illegal immigrants”.
Ah, right. They cross the Rio Grande with their copies of Human Action held aloft to keep them dry, and immediately ask for directions to the nearest Ron Paul campaign office.
I live in Atlanta, and we have one of the largest Hispanic populations in the country. Maybe you could go to Buford Highway and let me know how the locals react to your exposition of libertarian political theory.
At this point I think the fastest rout to a free society will be bankrupting the government while people who understand economics turn a lot of their assets into precious metal form.
I live in Florida and many of these people understand what it is like to live under Marxist economic theory. Many of them built little rafts that carried them to Key West or Miami. These are brave souls who want nothing more than to live free and to warn others of the dangers of Communism.