If the majority decides on literacy in the lingua franca, income sufficient to avoid the welfare rolls, and lack of criminal history or communicable disease, would you have any objection?
Juan,
Your country is 97% whites of Spanish and Italian descent, with only 3% mestizo and indigenous allowed in the place. If you want to rail about racism and bigotry, I’d say Argentina is a much bigger target.
I assume you campaign vigorously against your country’s restrictionist and discriminatory immigration policy?
Juan, my dear friend. You have many times called both me and my posts conservative.
I hope you are not implying that I would justify bigotry. There is a difference between acknowledging the existence and nature of evil, and promoting that evil. Please don’t be a philosophical luddite.
Because you sometimes seem to regard libertarianism as ‘utopian’.
I don’t think you ever said that some ‘races’ are superior to others. But if you believe that’s true, I’ll call you a bigot all right =]
No. Only a world where everyone conforms to libertarian ideals naturally, without coercion, and without dissent or deviation.
I’m all for your libertarian utopia, I just don’t think it is realistic.
You’re right. I have not. Because I am composed of an amalgamation of races. Only the most superior ones however. [:P]
Sure it is, to people who value dissociation from other races.
-Jon
There’s no need to confuse the confused any further…
-Jon
Where did you get that information from ? It’s wrong. Off the top of my head I’d say the mestizo and indian population here is 30%, or more.
Oh, Are you subtly telling me to get lost ? =]
I doubt there’s any or that it’s enforced. You see, people don’t want to immigrate here because the place is a mess. And this highlights another point which is being conveniently overlooked by ‘restrictionists’. The fundamental reason why people want to move to the US and western europe is not becaue of state handouts, it’s because in those places there’s more capital, which means wages/standard of living are higher.
I’d argue that people want to move to the US because they are tired of being slaves and want to be the masters. The third world produces a lot of value for little return (relatively) for the West. If we understand the basic scientific notion of diffusion, then there will be shifts towards equilibrium. Not just in population movements, but also in political philosophy, capital, etc.
I’d argue people love moving to Canada for the welfare. We’ve got a pretty impressive house of cards of our own going on up here.
So what is it your favour, “forced tolerance”?
Sounds a bit Orwellian, no?
Can you explain to me what is libertarian about individuals who judge their fellows based on skin color ? I’d say such mindset can be safely described as collectivistic.
Maybe racists in a libertarian society are so out of luck ? If you don’t like the color of your neighbors, what are you going to do ? Being black/white/yellow or pink is not a crime, is it ? Maybe “forced deportation” is what you favor ?
Let’s just make one thing clear: literally ALL property will not be owned in any society, libertarian or not. There can be plenty of simply unowned property, and right now there is - especially the spaces that illegal immigrants pass, which is simply unused territory in the middle of nowhere that the government has claimed dominion over. I don’t recall ever reading that the logical implication of libertarianism is that every single square inch of space on the planet is privately owned by someone.
I don’t know if you’re aware of this or not, but absolute cultural homogeniety is monocentric relative to each group, whereas a genuine “multi-culturalism” is polycentric. You know what mono and poly mean, right?
Yes, what is your point?
In the context of a discussion of state policy, no. What we’re talking about is political borders, which is not privately owned property. This has been obfuscated over and over again and I don’t understand why, for the propertarian arguments are entirely out of context.
What it is, is that you keep strawmanning people as utopians. You just straw manned him.
What is libertarian about forcing “tolerance” onto others?
Whether or not it’s collectivist doesn’t matter, people are still well within their rights to associate with whomever they please, you can’t seem to understand this. If a group of individuals voluntarily agree to refuse to associate with blacks/ mexicans/ (insert oppressed minority here), who are you to stop them?
You seem to assume that once we get rid of the state, racists will suddenly realise they’re wrong and racism will die out, that’s wishful thinking.
Noone has advocated forcing tolerance onto others.
What you and others have continually obfuscated is that we’re talking about political borders here, not private owners in a theoretical future free society. Do you not see how ridiculous it is to continually flip flop between these two contexts, to continually bring up private property and free association when we’re talking about illegitimately controlled property? Do you not realize that propertarian arguments do not justify state-enforced migration controls?
I don’t think anyone is under the delusion that racism will magically dissapear anytime soon, state or no state. However, we might have a problem with some people who seem to have no problem with overt bigotry and try to defend it on libertarian grounds, even in the context of a free society, and who continually engage in a rhetoric that seems blatantly biased against the idea of actually having cross-cultural cooperation or totally indifferent to people’s concerns at best.
Racism is a legitimate concern and it seems ridiculous to me to see libertarians brush such concerns off wholesale and strangley always find themselves in the position of defending the homogeneity crowd. With regaurd to some there seems to be a preconcieved bias or preferance for racial exclusivity to begin with, and libertarianism is being used as a tool. And then to have to gaul to construe matters as if the anti-racists are inherently authoritarian while playing the victim card with respect to the homogeneity crowd. There’s clearly an agenda.
But I don’t support state-enforced migration control, never have, so why bother with the straw man?
Once again, I’m not defending bigotry, I’m defending ones right to be a bigot, is that so unlibertarian?
Sorry but you came up with the orwellian idea of ‘forcing tolerance’ - which of course is a straw man. And please explain to me what is libertarian about racism.
Why not ? Because it highlights that you invoke the libertarian principle of free-association just to pursue the collectivistic goal of racism ?
When did I say that people don’t have the right to free-association ?
Where did I say I want to stop them ? You see, your ‘argument’ is just a straw man.
I’m correctly assuming that a ‘free’ society, composed 100% of bigots who sign a ‘social’ contract in order to exclude people they don’t like, is nonsense.