Open borders ? What (the hell) are you talking about ? Do you think that nonsensical claims like that will help you win your nonsensical argument ?
Are you, and Paul, and others, libertarians who believe the NAP can be violated in order to restrict ‘illegal’ immigration ? That is, are you a ‘libertarian’ who oppose the NAP ? A ‘libertarian’ who is not bounded by the only principle that defines libertarianism ? That is weird, no ?
Amazing. So the ‘rights’ of the criminal state should be respected, which means that the libertarian right to liberty, or ‘free movement’ should be suppressed.
You know what… Actually, I hope they don’t pay any taxes and they take as much welfare as they can get. It’s called bleeding the beast.
I do know that a good portion, however, have to pay the same taxes that most people pay and certainly pay no less than I do - as I pay a minimum of taxes and successfully avoid a lot of sales tax.
Of course it does. $30 billion vs. the small amount of taxation that goes into welfare? $30 billion is more.
Well, if you’re anything but hispanic, you’re a racist.
If you’re hispanic, then you’re a race traitor.
It’s in their self-interest to support a man that wants to kick them out of their rightfully homesteaded land?
Jesus! To hell with self-interest! Give me the commune!
If you pay taxes and don’t actively evade them, you’re a real weak f-ucker.
I don’t know how many times I have to tell you this either. I work in sales. I don’t live with my parents, and the only thing they pay for is college, for which there is an agreement that as the oldest son, I will provide for them when they are too old to provide for themselves.
You, however, live in Canada. Please, don’t talk to me anymore about living off of someone else’s dole.
Canada. Lol. It has the high taxes of Europe with none of the tax evasion. By the way, if Latinos are coming to the US for welfare, why not go all the way up to Canada? Surely your system is far more appealing to welfare recipients!
If you have immigration in the context of welfare, public roads, public education, birthright citizenship, and anti-discrimination laws, then that is what you are doing.
Back at ya. Let me know about all those libertarians crossing the Rio Grande, holding their Spanish editions of Human Action aloft to keep them dry.
Window dressing for political purposes. The government continues to pursue a policy of mass, indiscriminate immigration and weak border enforcement. Do you seriously contend that there has been LESS immigration post-1965?
Of course you would say that. You don’t produce or pay taxes. It’s easy for you to give away that which is not yours.
I’m talking about income and payroll taxes.
No, if production paid for welfare, then libertarianism wouldn’t be able to mount an economic defense against the state. Really, you’re being goofy now and pulling #s out of your behind like you tried to do in the Agorism thread. Spare us the BS.
How so?
What land have they homesteaded? They are migrant workers. Employees. Again, you said Paul had completely turned them off. Where is proof of that statement?
How would you know? You’re a teenager in college living off his parents.
I love how your Bio is ever expanding. One day, someone will write a song about you. The Ballad of Niccolo.
We have a lot of immigrants come here for welfare and jobs, specifically Latinos. In fact, in some southern states, they pay for buses to ship them to Canada so they become our problem. You can criticize Canada all you like, I’m not particularly nationalistic or patriotic.
Then again, your hero SEK3 was a Canadian, so you might want to mull that one over…
Well, the next time you rail about racist white Americans, spare a thought for the fact that the mestizos and indigenous peoples are clamoring to live in the US with me than under the Spanish-descended ruling class down there.
Is that a ‘yes’ ? You are claiming that anybody can freely enter the US ? You don’t realize your claim is nonsense ?
Do you think that preventing people from crossing political borders is consistent with libertarianism ? Do you think that so called state officials can lawfully use violence against peaceful people ? Does your beloved Paul support the use of violence against innocent people ?
Juan, if you don’t stop hyper-ventilating, I am going to make a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica about you.
I do not believe this is nonsense. I do believe that border security is lax and ineffective, and anyone can cross the border unannounced, and unrestricted if they want to.
No, I do not think it is consistent with libertarianism. However, there are literally thousands of things I do not think are consistent with libertarianism. For example, income taxes. Paul is against those. Does he get credit for that? No. He’s against a draft. Does he get credit for that? No. He is against the drug war, does he get credit for that? Nope.
Again, I can’t speak for Paul if he supports the use of violence. If you email his Congressional staff, they can get you answers directly from him. Maybe even an interview opportunity or a copy of Mrs. Paul’s family cookbook.
Do I think state officials can lawfully use violence? Yes. They write and define the laws. I don’t like it, but they do. And even if they didn’t, who is going to stop the state? Are you going to drop everything and place your soft mellon between an innocent immigrant and the policeman’s baton?
Our principles are high. Employing them under duress, is not easy.