The state does have some validity though. It is, it’s activities aside, merely an organization of people. Now, the fact is that it has stolen vast sums of money throughout it’s history and doesn’t have nearly enough to pay any back. However, it has also received money voluntarily. In the form of government bonds, for example.
Nonetheless, breaking the rules of the state’s roads, when you voluntarily enter them is theft. Perhaps you’re justified in doing in since they owe you the money anyway, but it is theft regardless.
Yes, you’re quite correct. State borders should be erased and people should be able to enforce their own property lines. This means no entry unless you’re specifically invited, and even then it is contingent. Now, currently that’s not possible. Closed borders, however, will bring us far closer.
Second best solution: the state should strive to conduct itself as it were a business as much as possible. The conclusion being that the state ends up being a business and not a state.
Exactly, so why are you so keen on further eroding property rights? Which is exactly what the state thrives off.
That would be all very on topic, if I had ever disagreed with that. But I haven’t.
Only, allowing communities to decide who they want and who they don’t want, is exactly what I advocate.
Most peoples views dont matter. We are not democrats.
Maybe there was one guy in Los Angeles who didn`t like all the Oakies coming in. Maybe the state should have dismanteled the open border policy on city limits for him?
In my experience, most people don’t think twice about what immigrant group you’re from. They just accept who you are. Some people might bully me if I look vunerable but now that doesn’t even happen.
Perhaps I am just socially oblivious. My thinking of other people are mostly about thinking which girls look hot and I mostly judge by personality. If someone just blend right in, I just ignore them.
Sure, in a society populated entirely by bigots,people will be irritated by immigrants and restaurants won’t probably aloud “the unwanteds”.
Business have economical reasons for not isolating their labor force. Wanting to do business with someone and not wanting them to live anywhere near you brings you higher economic costs.If an employer hires an immigrant but wants him to live in a far away, isolated immigrant ghetto, he wold have to absorb the cost of transportation(road usage,vehicle,gas) of the employee among other costs.
A closed,restrictive society would also be less competitive compered to others because it would have to deal with higher wages and a scarce labor pool.
Now, I don’t know you. But you seem like a nice enough person. Moreover, you seem fairly intelligent, you go to school, or have, I’m guessing.
That’s about all I know (or think I know) about you, in any case that already puts you in a different league to the idea most people have of immigrants.
Honestly, I’m quite disappointed with the ease with which bigot is used around here. I thought Austrians/ libertarians generally frowned upon such PC nonsense. Apparently not, it seems that a few people could learn some things from Dr Block’s recent drama.
So what? They still need customers, which they’re not likely to get if they’ve irritated most people in the area by bringing in immigrants.
sicsempertyrannis, I saw that your post disappeared. Did you delete it or was it a forum glitch? I`ll anwser in case it was the later.
By saying that the state sometimes suceeds in outcomes I meant that it suceeds provided your personal preference for an outcome happens to be the outcome that is brought forth by the state. I don`t mean it in the absolute sence, but in the relative sense.
Lets say there was a man for whom the only important thing in life would be for an American to step on the moon before anyone else. Well for such a man NASA would be a resounding success. Since he prefers an American landing on the moon to liberty, then judging from his perspective the state is perfectly OK because it did not go against his prefered outcome but in fact made it happen sooner than he ever could.
I could use a nice euphemism like “racially conscious” if you prefer.
Again, provided that we are talking about a society that is mostly populated by “racially conscious”[;)] people who wold be upset by having a non-caucasian siting in a table near them.
That give me the “???”. I just don’t understand why some people are irritated by areas serving immigrants. Seem to me a non-issue.
In any case, are we forgetting ethnic shops and resturants that are concentrated in certain area? I am sure most immigrants goes there instead of American shops, because well they prefer to shop there.
I often went to Asian markets and restaurants. When some white guys or some out of place persons are here, they seem to me more of a curioisty if anybody care at all. In fact, the shopowners are probably happy to serve them.
The bonds only have value because the state has the ability to tax people. This ability is not legitimate however, instead it is founded on violence. Those who buy bonds are therefore a party to plunder of the taxpayer.
It is not theft, because the state does not own the roads. It claims it does and as the final arbitrer recognises its own claim, but in fact it is usurping roads that are not its rightfully property.
No more than the cotton produced by slaves was the rightful property of the plantation master.
Closer to the outcome, but further away from the principle.
Until the day that the state is dismanteled you want for the state to maintain a closed border policy, because that although it is illegitimate is closer to the outcome we would see in the stateless society.
Now first tell me how is that an anti-statist position?
And second, tell me how does that make you any different from a cultural marxist who belives that in condition of statelessnes society is going to be highly promiscuous and very marijuana friendly and therefore although he is otherwise an anarchist until the day the state is destroyed he supports there be a lot of mandatory, taxpayer funded free love and pro-drugs propaganda in schools? Because although not ideal, it brings closer the stateless outcome (as he predicts it)?
And where do I do that?
Youre the one telling Jose he cant have his cousin from Tijuana come for a visit.
One problem the military sometimes has is micromanagement from the top. Watch Hotel Rwanda sometime. The UN peacekeepers were not allowed to have loaded guns. If you have that kind of micromanagement of course there will be serious problems.
Yes. This says a great deal about blowback but not a single thing about competance.