White trailer trash don’t pay taxes. Nobody earning under $50K/yr +/- is a net tax producer. And at best, you can only argue that open borders lower the costs for the services they’re competing to provide. Ree-eal persuasive, pal.
I don’t think you’ll like where this is going. And I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of persuading any white (or black) trailer trash who peruse this site.
The bottom 50% only pay 1% of the taxes. Poor (white) people don’t pay taxes.
The masses are net tax consumers.
so with this thread we just arrived at the conclusion that free trade would hurt the masses (ie trailer trash)[:^)]
Sure. I mean, it’s incredible how the government made it illegal for whites to compete in the 100M dash.
HAHA. Well that’s the kind of thing you get when people who are concerned with their own little tribal problems babble about economics.
Under free trade, higher IQ’s of any race would do fine. But since most individuals of any race aren’t high IQ, and since some races have more high IQ individuals than others, then we arrive at the conclusion that free trade would produce inequality of outcomes for a majority of indiviudals.
I.e., truly free trade is against most individuals’ self interest as presently constituted. Unless you truly believe Michelle Obama (or George Bush) is worth over $100K/year.
The problem isn’t in choosing sides, its in choosing the wrong side?
Roflcopter.
Don’t the mass get to decide for themselves what enemies they want to have?
Comming from that background, and knowing quite a few in the largest area where they are concentrated (NW Ohio/ Southeast MI) I can’t name any I know that would even care.
Wait, since when was allowing abortion considered official libertarian practice? Any reference at all to this? I don’t believe I’ve ever heard this. In my dreams of a libertarian, anarchical society, abortion would be outlawed as murder. I’m not trying to start a debate over it, I’m just wondering, when did this become official libertarian doctrine?
That is because there is a huge, anti-Muslim US government that backs their civil rights. As that central power diminishes (and the perceptive Lebanese Christians see it very clearly), the distinctions between here and Lebanon become less sharp.
My family and friends have been steadily migrating over here (To Ohio and MI) scince the 50’s from Syria and Lebanon. While my family and their Xtian has the background of Orthodox Christain (and some VERY devout) they mingle completley with the Muslims. There is absolutly no tension, their never has been. Many of the closest friends to the family are VERY devout muslims. This is not a group of less than 50 people I am talking about, this is a very substatial portion of the NW Ohio and SE MI Arabs (not just Syria and Lebanon) as well as some sprinkles in more southern and eastern parts of Ohio.
That being said the majority of them that I know came over here in poverty (particularly those from the 50’s and 60’s) and all of them made off into the middle class, most w/o govt jobs or welfare. I would imagine the avg IQ ranges from 90-120 on most of them.
Lower labor costs = lower prices for goods. You probably would need to combine it with an appeal to eliminate the minimum wage in order to soak up unemployment. It does go to show that liberalism/libertarianism doesn’t work in bits and pieces, and that some propositions which are difficult to swallow are just as important as the “friendly” parts. It’s also not such an obvious proposition, since wealthy countries can afford to subsidize consumption (eg through agricultural subsidies) in order to placate the poor. Panem et circenses.
Care to explain?
I think inequality is a revolt against nature. Although hierarchies are expedient at times, they are on shaky ground at best. Those who are widely admired today could be reviled tomorrow; those wealthy today could be paupers tomorrow; and those who are weak today may be strong tomorrow. Attempts by those with economic or political power to preserve that power forever inevitably lead to oppression, revolutions, and war. And they always fail.
It’ s high time we realize that the masses will prevail, and it is impossible to adopt economic policies that are against their interests.
Think about it.
Of course the poor suffer. Who else pays to keep the machine running?
The ones making $50K or less are the ones hardest hit by monetary inflation and interest on counterfeit $$$. They are the ones whose livelihoods are threatened by every twist and turn of the money spigot.
The rich, on the other hand, are the ones benefitting from monetary inflation, interest on counterfeit money, intellectual property, government contracts, the military-industrial complex, and Obama bailouts.
Roflcopter
The funny (or rather sad) thing is, saying that will get you branded as an egalitarian marxist or something…
Funny you mention that. While I have not noticed it as a common trait, I have noticed that attitude by some libertarian types. From my experience they happen to be “intellectual”, much like the annoying and dangerous “intellectuals” of the left. How common a trait do you think this is?
As far as the most ineptly defended thing by libertarians. To me it is succesfully getting the masses and the intellectuals the AMAZING success in propaganda by leftists, and the AMAZING hypocrisy of leftists.
The fact that libertarians don’t understand anarchy, which leads them to say silly things about Somalia not being anarchist.
The strength of familial bonds shows the huge productivity of the family. The family has only really gone into decline since the 20th century, namely when government power and size exploded.
Libertarians define anarchy as being related to circumstances where the NAP prevails more than not.
Technology has started to change the nature of socio-biology. That trend will continue. Women no longer will need men to hunt or for protection, and both sexes will not longer need one another for procreation. Whether that is moral, desirable, etc, I don’t think that it is achievable can be of doubt.
“The family” as you constantly refer to it is quickly becoming an anachronism. Again, I’m not saying that is desirable, but it’s an acknowledgement that not all evolutionary paradigms are fixed.
Do you mean immediate family (parents, siblings) or a wider sense of the term, such as a House, GilesStratton?