Check the CATO statistics. Nearly 90% of libertarians are white. Thats saying something.
No, it’s really not. And you’re making a terrible correlation/causation fallacy there.
Perhaps white people have a higher standard of living which allows them more time to theorize about abstract concepts of social injustice, while black people who live in inner city poverty actually have to hike up their sleeves and do stuff?
I haven’t seen many black survivalists, while white “return to nature” survivalism appears to be alive and thriving (that also goes along with the agrotourism of rich Europeans to poorer Eastern European countries).
I like your argument Gocrew, you make some interesting points, but I have to agree with Wheylous. In a welfare state the benefits of immigration are much lessened. For now it seems Illegal immigration gives us the best of both worlds. We get an influx of cheap labor and new minds and by the time they have children, their children may have the potential of having equal opportunities as the average American.
I believe the groping of airline passengers may be appropriate under wartime or emergency situations. You could argue that right now this is not one of those situations, but if it were, then the hazard would have to be removed before groping should stop. I understand it is not libertarian, but sometimes in order get the desired effect, you need to do things in a sequence. If you want to build a home, then you can not build the roof before the foundation. Maybe if we had a massive influx of immigrants welfare would die, but this is not realistic because of the public outcry and also it would stifle our economic growth until welfare would be abolished. Ron Paul is for having secure borders. I agree with him because I feel that there are many things that would be much more beneficial to do now, before we unsecure them and it will be easier to do these things having secure borders.
I saw that there was some discussion that Ron Paul is overhyped. I guess that depends where you look and what your subjective opinion is. Personally I don’t feel that way because I think he is the only one that will take the necessary, appropriate steps to getting the country out of a state of perpetual war and on a road to ever increasing prosperity. The direction that you are looking at I think, are supporters drawn solely upon his honesty, sincerity and message of liberty. Thankfully liberty and prosperity go hand and hand, so even for supporters only focussing on his message of liberty, he is not overhyped in my mind.
The immigrants coming to America are also leaving another unjust system. So to make your argument analogous - and I’m not completely certain that it is - you would have to note that while someone is entering group A in country 1, he is also leaving group A in country 2. It’s a wash, even if it is analogous, which I am not ready to concede yet.
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves is violence justified, because that is what it means to be a libertarian. If someone sells his home to a person, and that person now moves in to what he has justly purchased, are we permitted to use violence to stop him? I think the answer is clearly no, and we don’t need to ask if he crossed an imaginary border or not, or what kind of imaginary border he is meant to have crossed.
It certainly becomes problematic if he wants to start voting himself benefits. I have no problem with not giving citizenship to any immigrant, but their property rights should be sacrosanct until they forfeit them.
God keep you in that frame of mind. But RP has been doing more than just talking. Does anyone know how many times Dr. Paul has been the 1 in a 434-1 vote in the House?
Good points, gocrew. Blargh. I guess it’s just all the more reason to focus on the actual issues such as private property and not the fictional ones such as “national” immigration policy.
I don’t support other people’s property rights because it benefits me. And when you talk about the benefits of immigration it seems you are being a little chauvinistic. The immigrant does not derive his right to own property and live on that property because it benefits us.
Dear God! You need to read my article. This is hardly comprehensive, but it is enough all by itself to refute that.
Not an appropriate metaphor for this situation. Government is a gigantic monster infringing on our rights. If you have the chance to lop off a tentacle, then you do it. Period. The opportunity does not come around very often.
I think we have to act in the moment. If we see someone crossing a border, we can’t assume he will be soaking up welfare benefits (often, immigrants wind up paying for them while Americans soak them up). If we see him about to head to the polls and we know he is going to vote for welfare benefits… well, one vote won’t throw the election one way or another, so I say let him be and try to reason with him later.
Thank you for sharing your article with me Gocrew. It was very good, nice job. The point I was making though was not this current situation is infact an appropriate situation for groping, but that such a situation exists. “I believe the groping of airline passengers may be appropriate under wartime or emergency situations. You could argue that right now this is not one of those situations, but if it were, then the hazard would have to be removed before groping should stop.” Sometimes X is greater then (A-(B + C + D)).
What I really think we are debating is do ideals come before economics, or vice versa. I believe that economics should be directed towards meeting ideals, so therefore the ideal must be established first, but ideals are ends, not means, so economics should be impletemented first. I do think my metaphor is appropriate, as you can essentially build the roof before the foundation and still build a house, but wouldn’t it be less strenuous to start with the foundation?
You arguement is the Government is a gigantic monster, which if we are given a chance we must lop off a tentacle. I feel the governemt is in the market like all other things and it is our job to change consumer preference, by showing them the better product. Giving them awareness and urgency is I feel the better tactic then standing toe to toe with a larger more experienced opponent, hoping we can out fox him. Reaching the people through enterainment is I feel the most effective way, as they learn because they want to and it will appeal to larger audiences, then say books or articles. To ensure lasting change, we must not only change the government, but the people.
But it can’t ever be just if the government monopolizes the rules of air travel. Let people choose the amount of security they want.
Sure, but to make that analogy fit the situation, we are not building anything. In fact, the bit of house we do have is being destroyed by government. It might behoove us to build the foundation first, but if it’s been fifty years and not a bit of house has been built, and we suddenly see an opportunity to build a roof, then let’s do it! We’ll worry about fitting it on the walls if we ever get around to building walls.
I guess I am more optimistic. I see your point, but I don’t think the past necessarily dictates the future. Austrian economics has grown exponentially and if we take appropriate action, we can take advantage of this time of economic distress to ensure it never happens again. The youth are unhappy and want solutions and if we can explain to them how prosperity is created and what is stifling it, they will act and we will have the future we desire. There is no reason we must settle for any less. If it is beyond our talents, we must raise our talents.
The emergency situation is a grey area and looking at the U.S it is hard to imagine a situation where emergency actions are necessary, but what about a small country in turmoil that would face extinction without emergency actions? The important thing is that the people are aware that the government is only allowed to do this temporary, or we will have the natural progression we are witnessing. In America you may be right, that there is never a need for emergency actions, but such a situation does exist. It doesn’t meet my ideals, but I can’t deny its existence.
