Yea, because as our past exchanges have revealed, you seem to think that any criticism of or weariness towards racism is just lefty political correctness.
As Ryan points out, you’re making a sweeping collective generalization here. I was born of a Jewish mother myself and I oppose the Israeli state. There are also many other Jews who are critical of the Israeli state. I usually go out of my way to point out that opposition to Israel is not necessarily the same thing as anti-semitism, but you’re doing nothing but reinforcing that impression here.
As I already stated, characterizing illegal immigration as the government importing people is nonsensical. They’re not being imported, the’re being deported to the extent that the state is enforcing its own restrictive laws. Breaking the state’s restrictive laws to come here is not “importation”.
What you’re advocating is more intervention in reaction to the effects of previous interventions and no amount of obscurantism can get around that. Furthermore, you’re going to have to do a lot of twisting and turning to argue that purely homogenous nation-states aren’t held together by force when there are people within the territory who are perfectly willing to associate and integrate.
I’m advocating people being left alone to associate or not associate as they please. So if the Muslims don’t want your pig farm in their community, you will just have to find another community. This premise strikes at the heart of the secular US empire.
State-imposed Immigration restrictions and uniformly legally mandatory discrimination laws are not defenses of free association. It constitutes institutional and forced segregation. Forced segregation is not a solution to forced integration. State-imposed immigration restrictionism, including going after employers and citezens who sell to immigrants or allow immigrants onto their property, amounts to forced segregation and police-backed or even paramilitary-backed protectionism.
“Secular”? The bulk of people in America are some denomination of christianity. If they’re not christian, they’re most likely some other religion. The co-existance of people of different religious backgrounds to any extent is not “secular”. It might be “pluralistic” or “multi-religious”, but not “secular”. In either case, I hardly see how a bunch of mini-theocracies and forcefully segregated tribes is consistant with a free society.
Neither are civil rights laws, and guess which laws are the ones that get enforced?
This uneasy truce breaks down very quickly. For now, peace is maintained by an a-religious entity that declares, as it must, that diversity of faith, not a particular faith, is the ultimate virtue. For any sincere believer of whatever faith, this is a contradiction.
It is much more consistent with a free society than the US/EU/UN hegemonic model, because they will have to compete with each other for capital.
Since I’m not advocating in favor of civil rights laws, this is irrelevant to the meat of the matter at hand.
I fail to see how that logically follows from the mere co-existance of people from different religious backgrounds. The proposition that the only way to get any people whatsoever from different religious backgrounds to peacefully co-exist and cooperate is for this to imposed by a state is absurd and seems rather Hobbesian when it comes down to it. I fail to see how being of a particular religion makes it incumbent upon one to completely disassociate themselves from and refrain from all basic interactions with anyone from another religion. I fail to see how buying stuff from, selling stuff to, talking to and living in the same community with someone from another religion means that you must yield one’s concept of virtue.
I fail to see what the US/EU/UN model has to do with what I’m talking about and advocating. It is erroneous to assume that any opposition to nationalism inevitably amounts to a defense or support for globalism. My objection is that internal to your prefered nation and by the very nature of nationalist policy, you’re advocating something that violates liberty left and right. And no, theocracy and forced segregation is not consistant with a free society. What you advocate is forced segregation, theocracy and nationalism as a solution to forced intregration, marginally or vaguely multi-religious societies and internationalism. This is interventionism, and a very vulgar case of it.
This “truce” may be uneasy for you but it is not for most people of faith I know. As for coexisting with others as a contradiction I cannot know what faith you are but I know many people of many different religions and can tell you that for the Baha’i, members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), Unitarians, Smarti Hindus, Church of All Worlds members, Ahmadiya Moslems and Wiccans, this is no contradiction at all.
I think that people should vote for the LP this election and every election. The more people that vote for the LP candidates the more attention they’re going to get from the media and the general public.
I have always viewed the LP as an educational tool and not a normal political party in the sense that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are. This is why I care more about a candidate being true to libertarian principles than I do someone who could get ellected. Bob Bar may have changed his views since voting for the Patriot Act or supporting the War on Drugs - I do not know - I cannot look into his heart. What I do know is that people who see his name associated with the word Libertarian may come away with a tainted view of what it means to be libertarian.
The state will never go bankrupt so long as they have a monopoly on money. They can always print more dollars. While they might not be good for international trade they can always force the population to accept them. Which is what all of those bankrupted countries did.
I agree. But like I said perhaps there is a difference between the Cubans and the Mexicans because here in Texas Obama and Hillary are gods to these people.
There will come a point when the state workers who print the money will no longer accept wheelbarrows full of paper stamped with the words “Eine Milliarde Mark” as payment. The system will break down.
The people you seem most concerned about, people classified as illegal immigrants, do not even have the right to vote in U.S. elections.
I don’t know how many Cubans there are where you live - but where I live there are many. They tend to be very entrepreneurial. Many of them open up little sandwich shops. That is evidence of a capitalist spirit.
Again, history proves your theory wrong. Germany after WWI saw hyperinflation. I’ve seen pictures of women lighting their wood burning stoves with paper money but the German state did not collapse. In fact we got a more centralized and totalitarian state that went on to become of the worse human rights violators in history. Currently Zimbabwe is experiencing inflation that is that government claims is 165,000% but some independent estimates put it as high as 4 million percent. And yet their government still stands.
Starting a business doesn’t make you a capitalist. Marxist and social democrats who started and run businesses as well and I wouldn’t classify them as capitalist.
Again, these nations were bailed out by other countries and I have agreed that to KEEP government dead it is necessary to end the myth of the beneficial state. This does not mean that a government can keep inflating for infinity and remain standing. People will not accept a currency that is worth less than the paper and ink that it took to create it.
And why do you assume that they will have their parents’ political views? After a lifetime of living in the U.S. with only stories about the “old country” to connect them to the land of their parents they are not necessarily going to have the political beliefs of their parents. In the U.S. children often REBEL against the political views of their parents.
Owning a business means that you understand how capital works. It also gives you an incentive to support an economic system that preserves your enterprise. In the case of a small business with no government connections that means capitalism.