What is with all the immigrant hate?

Miscellaneous General
241

You do realize that anarchists are a part of the libertarian movement, and this very website harbors many of them?

I do, that’s why I am here.

Oh, come on. Libertarians should know better then to make such cliche mischaracterization of what anarchism means. Anarchism does not mean nihilism or hedonism. It simply means “no rulers”, free association, and implies a polycentric or pluralist approach to social organization. “No rulers” does not necessarily imply no law or no social organization.

You sure made it sound that way. But isn’t the word ‘law’ just another term that means rule? If you are good for what you said above you agree that some laws are needed for the public good. I’m not quite sure, though, how you propose to set down these laws. Who is to decide which laws will be in effect? Who gets to decide which members of society have to follow them? Will it be you? Or should we gather together at predetermined intervals and decide what laws are to be in effect? Beginning to sound a little like government, isn’t it? I don’t believe men can live together without some sort of legal structure governing behavior. To believe otherwise is, in my opinion, pie in the sky, or in other words, anarchy. There are just too many people who will take advantage of me or you if given the opportunity. One need only walk down the streets of a major city to see that. You may be able to trust a stranger with your purse but, please, don’t entrust him with mine.

Murderers will be murderers regaurdless of wether or not a law is in place making murder illegal.

You’ve not been in a police action, have you? There were plenty of murders in Viet Nam. Look at what happened in Iraq with the Blackwater group. They were not subject to any laws but I’ll bet you when they get back to the states most, if not all, of those involved in shooting and killing those civilians will adhere to the law against killing just as those coming home from Viet Nam did. And don’t give me any static about that being in a time of war. I know the difference between murder and killing as an act of war. I’ve seen both. That argument doesn’t hold water. Laws do control people most of the time. You probably would not run that red light in the presence of a police cruiser for fear of getting a ticket. Your behavior, in that case, was affected. If you were a real anarchist red lights would be meaningless to you. That would be a government control on you. A rule. One may not be able to coerce morality but men can be coerced into acting in a moral way. One of us sure doesn’t understand human behavior. With statements like the one above it is clear that I am not the one with the misunderstanding.

“the people” are naturally bad in the first place

Not sure where you got that but let me try to explain. People are not bad as a general rule. People, however, do bad things from time to time when there are no controls on their behavior or when they think they can get away with it. I’m sure you would agree with that. My assertion was that there are various controls on behavior that, in most cases, are good for society. The laws laid down by representative governments, in most cases, allow us to live together without or with little strife. That is a good thing. One can do this, one cannot do that. Most of those laws regulating behavior between men (people) were derived from the ten commandments and expanded upon. I believe people would like nothing better than to get along with their neighbors. When a member of society engages in a violation of those commandments (laws) a remedy must exist. This, in no way, implies that people are naturally bad.

I believe a man can have a physical and emotional attraction to a female and, because of the emotional nature of females and their ability to be empithetic as well as sympathetic, he will be affected by her view of his behavior in a positive or negative way depending on that behavior. She will be able then, within limits, to control that man’s behavior. If you have been involved with a woman you will know what I mean. Women, as a general rule, will expect good behavior from the man. If he exhibits that behavior she finds pleasing he will, in various ways, be rewarded. This says nothing about “the people” being naturally bad. It merely states that there are rewards for pleasing behavior.

The church also recognizes good behavior as being good for society (Please don’t bring up the cruisades, inquisition or priests who molest. I’m talking here in generalities.) The church or religion holds out the promise of a reward and plays on the fear of a punishment. You may not believe in that but many do and either for fear of eternal damnation or for holding out for the promised post-worldly reward many comport themselves in such a way as to obtain those ends. Whether those fears and the promises are real is neather here nor there. As long as the believer does believe he will very likely act in a way that he hopes will attain his just reward. This, again, has nothing to do with man’s inherent goodlines or evil.

242

I’m not going to get into a debate about anarchism because that’s not what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that I don’t think you really understand what the anarchist position is, since you seem to equate it to the cliche of total chaos or no social cooperation, which no anarchist in history, from Proudhon to Rothbard, has ever actually advocated. “No rulers” (a ruler being one who violates your individual sovereignty) does not mean no rules, no social organization, no cooperation.

243

I’m not going to get into a debate about anarchism because that’s not what this thread is about. Suffice it to say that I don’t think you really understand what the anarchist position is, since you seem to equate it to the cliche of total chaos or no social cooperation, which no anarchist in history, from Proudhon to Rothbard, has ever actually advocated.

I don’t blame you, given your logic so far.

244

Given that you don’t seem to understand what anarchism is, it would be a fruitless debate filled with straw men.

Now, back to immigration.

245

Given that you don’t seem to understand what anarchism is, it would be a fruitless debate filled with straw men.

Now, back to immigration.

I believe I know what it is but I also believe it will not work. Everything you have read in all of your books may lead you into the fields of Ambrosia but given the failings of normal men and the natural propensity to take and keep advantage I’ll just hang out with the rest of the uneducated, boorish louts who make due with the system we live in and deal with things in a common sense, pragmatic manner. Good luck though.

246

I need not repeat that your objections to anarchism on the basis the flaws of human nature are not a rational arguement for having a state, because it will be reflected and amplified in your state. The only way you can rationally justify the state on the basis of human nature is to assume some kind of “philosopher king” position, I.E. that members of the state are somehow specially endowed individuals. In short, to fall back on an elitist attitude. You have to assume that these “normal men” will not (1) be members of your state or (2) be represented by your state. You have to assume that this natural propensity to take and keep advantage can be held at bay when people are presented with control over a territorial monopoly. I do not assert that human nature can be improved by removing the state, but merely that, all else being equal, monopolizing these very base aspects of human nature, presenting them within a formal and coercive institutional framework to act through, is hardly a solution to the problem.

But I can see that by getting into this with you we’ll be going in circles.

247

And you don’t deny it. Why are you complaining?

248

Ha. Gobble Gobble Gobble.

I’ve slowly come to the realization that most “social anarchists” (I.E. anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-collectivists, anarcho-communists, etc.) are functioning as social democrats at best in the present because they paradoxically openly support the state as a means to their ends. Like when Noam Chomsky claims to be an anarchist and proceeds to advocate the welfare state.

I think I’m starting to realize that the same is true of many “anarcho-capitalists”, who are functioning as conservatives, perhaps classical liberals at best, in the present because they paradoxically openly support the state as a means to their ends, or at least tend to take a surprisingly reformist approach to the state.

249

What public? Last time I checked, I didn’t receive my special, collectors public-class-ring. How did I get into this club now? And how do I get out?

Just laws are not set down. No just laws exist that prevent person A from doing X.

If you’re speaking about defense against unjust acts, that’s an issue of defense and justice, not law.

God?

Oh, goody-goody-gum drops, another Myth of National Defense.

I live in the city. When I walk down the street I’m looking to avoid the cops, not the blacks down the road just because the former bothers me, whereas the latter wants to buy marijuana from me.

Ok, I won’t trust a stranger with your purse. I won’t conversate with you, live with you, enjoy your company or be in the same club as you. Sounds like Anarchy to me!

You mean military chaos causes murder? Sounds right to me.

By the way, I need a little more than 8 “supposed murders” to justify a state. Sorry, the blackwater argument ain’t going to cut it.

Not really. It depends mostly on the environment one finds oneself in at the time. “Not hold any water?” So, you think it’s equally likely for a murder to occur in a peaceful setting as opposed to a setting where a military occupancy is being openly contested? What a strange world you must live in, good thing I won’t be in any of your clubs!

Unless, let’s say, I just happen to stop at red lights without a cruiser being there, which most people do.

Really think you should have come in here better prepared. You’ll comeback with something to the extent of “Well, you’re just a “pie in the sky” AAAAAAnarchist! STUPID!” But it’s not really worth my time to go over these same arguments over and over and over again, they aren’t new, and they certainly aren’t uncontested. Please, Roderick Long spent a long time developing this list to those ten objections you will come up with, read that and develop your mind a bit, kk?

http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf

250

Of course, if the legal immigration process is easy enough one would have to question why a Mexican or anyone else for that matter would want to side step it if its concentration is on disease and criminality.

Still haven’t gotten it through your head that no one is talking about prohibition, have you? And you wonder why people call you an idealogue…

You don’t get it because you’re still stuck in your fantasy world and can’t understand the practical difference, to extend the analogy, between outlawing all sales of alcohol and merely having an age limit and laws against drunk driving.

Here’s hoping you never have to.

Well, then we’re in agreement because after this many posts you are of course well aware that I do not want immigration restricted more than it is now, I want it made easier. Which of course you knew, since I’ve written it repeatedly several times by now, though somehow it has barely entered into your responses.

251

Not the point and you know it. Answer the point: is a less statist society the same as a totalitarian society in your view? Is there no difference in your world between the America of old and now, between a constitutional republic and the USSR, or is there no differentiation in your mind between any form of governed society and anarcho capitalism?

Once more you have failed to read. Legalizing drugs and setting an age limit on their sale would the be the equivalent of what I am proposing. I guess however since the age limit would be enforced by the state then it must be statist, collectivist, and as such indistinguishable from our current situation of locking up nonviolent people by the millions. Neither situation is desirable since neither is a perfect anarcho capitalist utopia.

I’m honestly tired of ‘debating’ with people who are so blind by ideology that they can’t make a very simple differentiation in points of view. Have a good time with your circle jerk.

252

He’s right on that point. Read some of Robert Murphy’s work, he gives good examples of incidents of order that arise even though there is no top down authority imposed. Language is one, the sciences being another. What anarchists miss in their arguments is that people often want a top down imposed authority, a final decider of right and wrong, legal and illegal. They want categorical distinctions made and generally speaking go to the state or the church for such things.

253

Because once it’s self evident moving past that is generally considered a good idea. Unless of course your idea of debate is summed up by, “That doesn’t agree with my ideals, therefore…”, well I’m not sure where the therefore leads, because all actions in the real world deviate from the ideal. So, unless you, BP, and Jim S are prepared to claim all your actions are perfectly in line with an anarcho capitalist ideal, then I would have to assume the therefore only leads to a disagreement in method. You think the use of state services and power is wrong in all instances, I don’t. But then if the former is your view, as I said, stay home, never leave the house, stay off the internet (started by the state you know, think of all the stolen tax dollars…), etc. Truly live up to that ideal, or admit your actions are just as much a compromise as anyone else’s.

Of course the practical need to live in this world precludes such action. But the practical need that allows you to use government roads while still fighting for their privatization is not yours alone to assert. Those of us who have to deal with the hell illegal immigration causes us also have that option. Unless of course you think that opposing all new roads and then only using them grudgingly and under duress counts. But then in real terms that like getting a little bit pregnant. And when one is suggesting a retraction of law and enforcement of remaining existing laws already on the books, what is being advocated is still a net reduction in regulation: legal immigration made easy, laws already on the books against illegal immigration enforced, and then only the ones that will have a practical effect.

That you people can’t see the difference between that position and locking everyone in their houses and shooting anyone without a federally issued Permit to Move only shows why your views will get you no where in the real world. They are completely impractical and, because they dismiss everything outside of the ideal as an inherent failure of equal magnitude, provide no process for change to even start to reach for the ideal other than hacking away at the government no matter the immediate effects on people. You’re like a group of people with a destination in mind but no practical means of reaching it, and rather than using the horribly compromised roads open to you have decided to build a dirigible out of your underwear because it’s what you think your ideals dictate. Good luck with that.

254

Hummm…I only see one person proposing radical changes here regarding immigration. Frankly, I could live with the status quo, then make minor changes, like those proposed by the other candidates (than RP, that is). What RP is proposing IS a radical change, and not for the better. I’m having to justify RP as a real libertarian, and someone who isn’t going to destroy the movement with a lot of long time, prominent Canadian libertarians. I can’t and won’t defend his stand on immigration, and nothing I’ve read here has changed that.

255

Devil is in the details, not the labels. In case it’s not clear, “USSR” stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and it too had a consitution, so guess what? The USSR was a constitutional republic.

While the drinking age law is better than the ridiculous total Prohibition, let’s not forget that the US has a far greater problem of teenager and college binge drinking than any country that does not have any prohibiiton or age limit on drinking. Any theoretical policy proposal of both expanding the scope of legal immigration and cracking down on illegal immigration is highly dependent on which one comes first: the loosening comes first or the cracking down first. If a dramatic loosening comes first, the problem will mostly solve itself as “illegal immigrants” will be defined away as they are legalized. If it’s the cracking down first, followed by loosening when supposedly we have the illegal immigration problem solved, then the policy proposal is funcationally equivalent to proposing cracking down and not loosening ever . . . because a policy of prohibition will never succeed; any theoretical loosening after its success is a charade. The Stalinist soviet constitutional republic promised its citizens prosperity and fair distribution of wealth after a collectivist “sacrifice” to jumpt start industrialization; well, since collectivism could never deliver prosperity, so the shared prosperity and fair distribution of wealth never came about. FDR ran for president on a platform of small government (yes, believe it or not), but justified his collectivist policies on a temporary “national emergency.” Well, guess what, after nearly 3/4 of a century, we are still waiting for the national emergecy to pass so that we can undo Hooverism and get our small government back. Yes, that’s three or four generations now, and still waiting.

The bottom line is, a “temporary” policy of draconian enforcement against illegal immigration will be plenty enough to drasticly increase the size of the government and dramaticly reduce civil liberty for all US citizens; not even our great grand children would live to see such a “temporary” policy drawing to a successful conclusion because Prohibition can never succeed. It would only make the trafficing of “illegal labor” all the more profitable due to monopolization by organized crime.

256

What minarchists often miss is that people want to steal, and want to take stuff, so you shouldn’t outlaw theft. No, that conclusion doesn’t follow? Then what follows from the observation that people want some authority to crack in the heads of people with whom they disagree?

257

xahrx,

Not sure why you keep saying my objection to anti-immigration policies are theoretically based. All along, I have been pointing out the practical cost of enforcing “laws already on the books against illegal immigration.” Do you believe finding and deporting every Canadian who has stayed in this country for 91 days or sold anything on Ebay or to anyone during the first 90 days that he is here is going to be easy or cheap? Do you believe that removing 12 million people from their existing jobs and existing homes is going to be cheap or easy? or cheap or easy on their counter parties in the economy? or cheap or easy on the tax collectors who receive taxes from these counter parties? Do you really believe the removal of 12 million people in our society won’t entail a national ID system? Do you believe that such a national ID system won’t result in new cheats and criminal organizations that infilterate the database and manufacture fake ID’s and fake database entries? Do you believe that it won’t be necessary to have another layer of bureacracy to crack down on such ID thieves? Do you believe that the next layer of bureacrats will be immunte to corruption?

None of these questions are theoretical ones, but very concrete and easily anticipated consequences of prohibition policies. Refusing to acknowledge these inevitable consequences is as silly as refusing to acknowledge the social consquences of welfare tax and redistribution that we are all against.

258

Let me guess, your parents used baby language when you were an infant?

259

Prominent Canadian libertarians are afraid Ron Paul is going to destroy the movement? Are they aware of Ron’s other positions? Are they aware that he has re-introduced libertarian lines of thinking to American political dialogue? How is seeking to eliminate the IRS, end the drug war, eliminate the departments of education energy homeland security, lower federal government spending, work toward phasing out certain entitlements, etc, etc, going to kill the movement? How is a candidate who constantly extols small-government virtues going to destroy the libertarian movement?

No matter how much a libertarian might disagree with the one issue, I don’t see how it could possibly trump his entire small-government platform and the good he has already done for the movement.

260

You’d have to ask them. I still support Ron Paul because he’s still a thousand times better than the alternatives from my perspective. The ad he’s run, however, is Disgusting .