Well than Liberty Student, will simply have to deprogram these pro-state immigrants. I mean we were once statists but through a combination of appealling to emotion and rationality we were able to see through the mirage of the nation-state.
Where did I say it is the “only” possible way? I’m under the impression you’re not strongly aware of the position you’re arguing against (and are probably arguing against more comprehensive positions, most likely such as Pat Buchanan’s.) Tight restrictions on citizenship plus the possibility of guest workers are more or less what is being advocated… in the latter case, with the interested parties bearing all the costs.
Wait, so making it harder to qualify for access to the welfare state is not a means of restricting access to it? What?
Many of them are looters, just as many members of the citizenry are looters. They receive a net benefit from the state. In Canada, literally millions of people get “free stuff” and while they don’t pay or barely pay any taxes, will argue that taxes are necessary to keep their personal gravy train going.
Left-libertarians would like to pretend that all immigrants are not looters, but I’d guess the percentage of looters in immigrants and existing citizens is probably similar. Canada has a very generous immigration policy, and a very generous welfare state, and business is booming!
I agree we have to give the “illegal immigrants” the benefit of the doubt. I mean the majority of them are of average intelligence if not more and can be converted to our side if we play our cards right. They can be our allies if we reach out to them in a sincere and meaningful way. And that alliance would be an enormous asset to the movement in the future.
Canada has a very elitist immigration policy. It is possible to pay (in the range of several hundreds of thousands of dollars) in exchange for residency right.
I don’t know about that. IIRC, it is pretty similar to Australia and New Zealand. What stands out to me, is that if you get here, and claim refugee status, it is almost impossible to be sent out. And if you play your cards right, you never have to work again. And if you want to make a nice income, you can work and avoid taxes while collecting the dole.
I have had a lot of immigrant friends. I have helped people immigrate, my parents and grandparents were immigrants.
I have no problem with immigrants. I have a problem with the social welfare system. Unfortunately, it is a big draw for people looking to eventually import their entire family, including their aged parents and parents-in-law to suck off the already piss poor medical system.
So, why bring it up ? Borders can be completely opened right now. There’s absolutely no legitimate way for the state to enforce borders because doing so means violating the NAP. The only excuse that some ‘libertarians’ came up with was that free immigration means that immigrants will use the welfare state and become net tax consumers. IF that was true (which is probably not), then the solution is to simply not give welfare benefits to non-citizens.
Which is barely a ‘libertarian’ solution. The concept of citizenship should be nonsensical for any libertarian worth his salt. And what is a ‘guest worker’ anyway ? People should be free to enter any country whenever they please and live wherever they please. Of course provided they pay for their homes transportation and all the rest.
Yes I agree all of them are looters, but there are two type of looters: 1. the desperate-and-2.the freeloader. The freeloader I give you is a loss cause. BUT the desperate are very receptive if you approach them correctly. You explain to them in a savy manner how they themselves are being exploited by both their homeland AND by their host nation-state. You then turn them against the freeloader by explaining to them that there are finite resources and the freeloader will gladly screw them over for just a little bit more luxury, you get the desperate to become angry and at the same time feel that you’re their only real friend in this foreign land that they now inhabit. During this period of anger and insecurity you began to RADICALIZE THEM! Make them not have faith in religion, the state, or others that look like them, but instead, rely on you and eventually ONLY ON THE LIBERTARIAN IDEAOLOGY! If we do it correctly we spread the virus of freedom rapidly like a plague!
Nick, your inspiration is great.
lol. Well I hope you mean that in a good way. [;)]
Also I’ve seen that you posted on the" IWW matter" discussion board which is part of the Apolitical Libertarianism Group. I hope you read my post, if you did tell me what you think of my Umbrella Network Model theory, I can alway use the opinion of an educated man.
Any comments on the article itself?
The problem I have with the immigration arguments of statists are their inconsistencies. On one hand they think it is ok to restrict access to the country, on the other hand though they do not think it is ok for states and cities to restrict access. So how can one argue with them, when on the one hand they agree with us, that immigration laws are bad (strangely only for cities and states though), but on the other immigration laws are good (between countries).
How about as long as government commands a monopoly over all financial regulation, gold standard is preferable to fiat money?
Closed borders is very much like gold money to me. We don`t really want government golden money, we want no government money at all, but it is better than the alternative because it puts a greater restriction on the state. The same with immigration. Why should the state be allowed to invite people in?
Because you say so.
Well, perhaps it is no exactly the same. It is very obvious that golden money puts a greater restriction on the state than the fiat money does, because golden money does not break any moral rules that fiat money does not. Things are more fuzzy with immigration however.
The problem with open borders is they deny the rightful owners of “public property” - the taxpayers - their right to govern their property. In most cases people do not want more immigrants, and if public property was broken up in many tiny pieces and handed over to the taxpayers they would not invite immigrants onto that property in a free market.
The problem with closed borders is they deny other owners the right to invite “immigrants” onto their property. For example under closed borders there would be families that could not invite their relatives from abroad to move in with them.
So yes, moving from open borders to closed borders would not constitute an improvement in absolutely every way (while moving from fiat money to golden money would), but in my opinion it would constitute an improvement because the results would in my opinion be closer to what would occur under market conditions.
So why I prefer closed borders is that I think closed borders are more restrictive on the state and guard the rights of more people. You can hold an opinion that open borders are a greater restriction on the state and therefore favour that, without being a statist, but you have to cut me the same slack.
BTW, I started my post with a sentance that included the words “to me”. So to respond with “because you say so” is I think somewhat silly.
Well, if you’re just stating an opinion, fine. But if you’re advocating the violation of the NAP, I think I’m entitled to object…
Whether ‘people’ want more or less immigrants is an open question and your trying to be a spokesperson for ‘people’ strikes me as a bit far fetched.
Which ‘rights’ are those ? The ‘right’ to not see asians/blacks/whites/whatever in ‘your’ public streets ?
The right not to see any Danish people on my part of street. I don`t like Danish people. You have a problem with that?
I`ll stop arguing with you. You are being disingenious. Instead of making an attempt to understand my viewpoint you attempt to twist it to suit your needs.
See below. The scare quotes are unnecessary.
It is nonsensical. However, states employ it regardless as a criterion for access to welfare. The guest worker scheme eludes this problem by allowing non-citizens to work in an area without thereby benefiting from welfare schemes. If the criteria for citizenship are so low that anyone would rather opt to become a citizen than to be a guest worker, to benefit from welfare, the problem remains.
Ah, I see now. Well, it is possible to never grant citizenship to immigrants. And to do the same thing for their children…and so on.
Yeah well. But you don’t own ‘your’ street right now. So, the argument that people whom you don’t like can be removed because they are trespassers is a flawed argument.
I think I understand your viewpoint. You’re mixing an hypothetical ‘voluntary nationalism’(which only can exists in paper btw) with the current political system and trying to justify aggression…because, you say, ‘the market’ would restrict immigration anyway.