on voting

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

Mary Ruwart is a lovely lady, very intelligent, but no one is ever going to take a radical libertarian seriously for the highest office in the world.

I think Paul has the rational position on immigration. First control the borders, then remove the welfare state, then look at a more laissez-faire policy.  The radical position doesn't play well with an electorate that is almost completely dumbed down.

I know the radical libertarian purists would have us remove the military, only minutes before an invasion by a foreign power, regardless if any PDAs are prepared, tested or even available, and see that as progress, but a more measured and tactical approach to problems has it's upside as well.

You and others on here who argue against politics seem to be attracted to a thread titled "voting" in an irrational manner.  And your understanding of Paul is very one-sided and regularly incorrect.

Nitroadict:

You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal".

This is another example of why radical libertarianism appeals almost exclusively to single young men.  It's easy to play games with the state with your own life.  Not so easy when you have a family that includes children to think about.  Not so easy to gamble while all of the theoreticians are on the sideline egging you on but not standing by your side.

 

 

Brainpolice:

It is blatantly obvious that immigration control violates both rights and the necessary conditions of a free market. It cannot be reconciled with free association and property rights. It belongs in the dustbin of paleoconservative huffpuffery, not serious libertarian thought.

And what has serious libertarian thought ever accomplished, besides more serious libertarian thought?

If the world was all about thinking for love, for sustenance, for happiness, you guys would be happier than Cheney receiving his Haliburton dividend.

 

katja328:

Considering all of the offered options for the November election are horrible I am considering not voting at all. I just don't see who I could possibly vote for. Does anybody even read the write ins?
Am I, by not voting, throwing away my right to vote or am I sending a signal that I am really not happy with what's going on?
What are your plans for November?
 

I am also, for this first time in my life since turning 18 seriously considering not voting. I may for a ballot initiative but I will not show up at the poles simply to vote for someone on the ballot. There have been a few cases where people have won through a write in vote so they do technically have to count them though I am not sure what they would do if Mickey Mouse won. There are also a few people who read the results in the newspaper and think they might get a laugh by reading what someone wrote down as a write in. I am thinking about voting Mises / Rothbard this year for my presidential ticket. Even in their current non-corporeal state they would make a better team than either Obama or McCain. If someone actually reads the results and gets curious enough that person might Google those two names and discover the LvMI as a result. It is worth a shot don’t you think?

 In 1996 I voted a Republican ticket, voted against all the increase-the-local-sales-tax-for-the-children crap, but didn't like either Clinton or Dole so I left it blank.  I read in the paper the next day that all the ballots that didn't have every hole punched got discarded.  At that point I realized that US democracy was trending toward vote-counting, not voting.  I voted for the LP's Harry Browne in 2000, and the more I read his stuff, the more I realize he was the LP's last best hope.  Ron Paul didn't have a prayer anywhere, and least of all in Georgia, so I didn't bother.  Haven't voted since 2000 and don't intend to.  Liberty-minded people need to start withdrawing from public life.

Byzantine:

 In 1996 I voted a Republican ticket, voted against all the increase-the-local-sales-tax-for-the-children crap, but didn't like either Clinton or Dole so I left it blank.  I read in the paper the next day that all the ballots that didn't have every hole punched got discarded.  At that point I realized that US democracy was trending toward vote-counting, not voting.  I voted for the LP's Harry Browne in 2000, and the more I read his stuff, the more I realize he was the LP's last best hope.  Ron Paul didn't have a prayer anywhere, and least of all in Georgia, so I didn't bother.  Haven't voted since 2000 and don't intend to.  Liberty-minded people need to start withdrawing from public life.

 
I feel conflicted on this issue. Very conflicted. I agree with you for the most part but I also think that in order to have any hope of convincing enough people to abandon the myth of the beneficial state we must preserve at least some measure of the quasi-freedom we now have. We need enough so that we can at least have a website like this without being thrown in jail. Voting – or at least stating a willingness to do so under certain circumstances – is, in my view, an act of self defense when performed by people who accept the NAP. Until we can get a critical mass of people on our side we must use every tool at our disposal to at least preserve the few scraps of freedom we have left. I do not enjoy hitting people but I am willing to use my fists in self defense if I must. That stated it may not make a difference whether it is Obama or McCain in the oval office in 2009. Some day there may be a clear difference between the candidates.

 

 At this point, I'm in favor of whoever will topple the house of cards more quickly.  Maybe I'll vote for McCain.

Byzantine:

 At this point, I'm in favor of whoever will topple the house of cards more quickly.  Maybe I'll vote for McCain.

 Back when I was a conservative, some conservative friends of mine told me they were voting for Clinton rather than Dole in 1996. Their theory was that Dole would become what people thought of as Republican if he won - a prospect they did not like. They also said that Republicans in Congress are at their best when they have a Democrat to oppose in the White House. This kind of Reminds of that: Voting for someone you hate to get a desired outcome is an interesting strategy.

Brainpolice:

It is blatantly obvious that immigration control violates both rights and the necessary conditions of a free market. It cannot be reconciled with free association and property rights. It belongs in the dustbin of paleoconservative huffpuffery, not serious libertarian thought.

And that's the problem we all face when dealing with theory and reality.  In theory I support no borders and the free movement of people.  Don't misunderstand me, I am all for that.  But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services.  I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.  More immigrants consuming more social services will only give you more welfare, more socialism and more taxation.  So in theory you can be whatever you want and believe in whatever you want but in reality we are both hypocrites.  Until the problem of welfare and socialism is dealt with I cannot with a good conscience support open borders which will only lead to more plunder here at home.

 

kingmonkey:

But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services. 

Many of these people contribute far more to society than they use. Some try to avoid government funded services altogether. My pragmatic stance is that recent immigrants, especially those who are harassed by government thugs on a regular basis, are potential allies. These people fundamentally understand the nature of government. They also often come from places that have a natural distrust of the police. When a libertarian comes out against “illegal aliens” it has a great potential to alienate potential allies. Liberty has enough enemies as it is. We do not need to make more of them.

kingmonkey:

I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.

Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.

I'd rather vote McCain than Obama. At least with McCain, you know what he is going to do. Obama is a turncoat and probably worse than McCain on war and intervention and (trade, McCain's only libertarian like quality. 

At least we have a free traitor vs. a fair traitor

Kudos to Kucinich for saying " I've never heard of illegal people ", when asked about immigration

Brainpolice:

The aggressor is the person using the system which is stealing from me as well as the system that performs the theft.  It's no different than me hiring someone to steal from a neighbor for my own benefit.

It is very different because noone "hires" the state. No immigrant is actually aggressing against you by merely moving here. The act of moving here and buying a home isn't a rights violation. Using your exact same line of argumentation, one could argue that if I call the cops to pursue someone who raped my wife, I am stealing from everyone else since this is funded through taxation. Or that by driving on the public roads I am stealing from everyone. Nevermind the fact that the theft is done by the state and that as an average person existing in this society I have no choice in the matter and am not truly voluntarily patronizing anyone.

I never said they are aggressing against me or you or anyone by moving here.  They are the aggressor because they move here and then use the social welfare services.  They aren't being forced to use them and they certainly aren't paying for them therefore they have employed the State to steal from me and you and everyone else.  And I would support the idea that calling the police is an act of aggression because you are now supporting the State and their institutionalized theft scheme.  Why not?  It works for agorist.

Brainpolice:

They are hiring the State to steal from me and you for their benefit. 

Again, this language is deceptive because noone actually "hires" the state for anything. The state imposes its services upon everyone. Noone "hires" the state. Everyone is essentially forced to consume the state's services in one way or another. All an illegal immigrant is doing is crossing unowned land and then buying a home from a willing seller. This in and of itself doesn't violate anyone else's rights.

No one forces them to use welfare either.  That is how they become an aggressor -- they have taken it upon themselves to go down and file the paperwork to receive food stamps and free education and all other manner of welfare.

Brainpolice:

Everyone, both legal citezens and illegal immigrants, have no choice but to make use of things such as the public roads. It is disingenous to speak as if we are voluntarily patronizing the state for these services. We have no choice but to use them. We are the victims, and so are the immigrants who also have no choice but to make use of some of these services. 

I'm not talking about public roads.  I'm talking about the things they can voluntarily use.  I will give you this that there are certain things we are all forced to use such as police, fire services, public roads, etc.  But NO ONE is forcing these people to use Medicaid, SCHIP's, public education, food stamps, etc.  Those are all things they can freely chose to not use.  Those are the things I am railing against here.  More immigrants who sign up for these services means more money out of my pocket that could have stayed there.  But that applies to the worthless and lazy who are born here as well.  I've got no use for a person who consumes welfare services.

Brainpolice:

If their intent is to come up here to work and use our welfare system then in my opinion they have become an aggressor against me and everyone else.

I reject the assumption that this is the actual intent of most immigrants.

Yeah, some don't even plan on moving here to consume our welfare services.  Some just come here to use the health care services, go home and stick us with the bill.

Brainpolice:

So long as I'm being robbed at gun point I don't think I should have to support allowing more people in so they can further plunder me.

Your proposed solution is to rob more people at gun point to fund your immigration bureaucracy and the police state apparatus necessary to try to control immigration, which of course violates rights in and of itself. You are not in a morally superior position here. You're proposing rights violations as a solution to rights violations and intervention as a solution to intervention.

This whole thing is a nothing but a silly interventionist crackdown on "free riders", or at least alleged "free riders".

I never said I support border enforcement either.  I don't know how you can control the flow of people between the border without further aggression.  I know I DO NOT support them coming here.  I don't know how to stop them.  I do, however, support ending welfare for them.  The wonderful thing about living in a fantasy world of theory and logic is that you can say anything you want and believe however you wish.  The problem I face living in a border State is reality.  More crime, higher taxes, over crowded schools, hospitals that must charge more because of everyone (not just immigrants) who use their services and don't pay the bill, more pressure on the state budget to meet the expenses incurred with these socialist systems of welfare -- essentially I live in reality where theory comes second. 

My reality is that more immigrants means more money stolen from me.  I've said it a hundred times before:  Stop giving them and everyone else welfare and I'll support open borders and the free movement of people.

 

 

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

But the reality is that as more and more people come here from other nations and consume more and more social services more and more of our money (which must be stolen from us) is going to be needed to pay for these services. 

Many of these people contribute far more to society than they use. Some try to avoid government funded services altogether. My pragmatic stance is that recent immigrants, especially those who are harassed by government thugs on a regular basis, are potential allies. These people fundamentally understand the nature of government. They also often come from places that have a natural distrust of the police. When a libertarian comes out against “illegal aliens” it has a great potential to alienate potential allies. Liberty has enough enemies as it is. We do not need to make more of them.

Trust me I know all about "illegal" immigrants.  I've got more than a few friends that are in that situation (from Mexico to Ireland to Thailand).  I don't need to be lectured on how immigrants "contribute" to society.  In one neighborhood I lived in which was made up of mostly "illegals" and their familes from Mexico, most of whom I was good friends with (BBQ's on Sunday, soccer games in Spanish, etc.) about half of them were using some form of welfare or another.  Most of them were on food stamps, their kids were on Medicaid and SCHIP's, etc.  Yeah, I know all about there contributions.  Cheap slave labor and higher taxes for me and you.  But let's not discount the poor white trash I'm around as well.  At least Mexicans work!

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

I find equally hypocritical to preach against welfare, socialism and institutionalized theft (taxation) and still support a program that would increase the size of all of those things.

Removing a program is not the same as supporting a program. Ending the War on Drugs is not the same as a program that hands out free cocaine.

I agree.  But if the government was giving away free cocaine to be paid for with my extortion dollars I could not support the idea of people moving here and receiving the free cocaine.  It's bad enough the government gives "free" cocaine to people who were born here but it's worse that they are now giving that "free" cocaine to every Tito, Juan and Julio who moves here.

Again, get rid of welfare and then I can support open borders.  I shouldn't have to pay for everyone who moves here.  It's hard enough to pay for the ones who are born here.