on voting

liberty student:

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.

 

Yes, everything is futile, we're all going to die, etc. etc.

:insert more pseudo-nihilistic thought here:

 I am not too unhappy with "immigrants". Most of them work harder than some Americans. Some work two, three jobs to feed their family in to provide their children with hopes for a better life.  As with everything in life, there are the bad apples that spoil it for everyone else. The ones who refuse to learn English and ride the gravy train and complain that back home everything was better.  Then of course there are Americans doing the same thing. They hold their hand wide open for Uncle Sam to provide them with money, food and health care. And there are plenty of them!

I'm gonna write in an office and vote for myself as supreme dictator of the universe. Since no one else will be running for it, I should win.

liberty student:

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.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that you argue against "radical libertarianism" as such, as if being a "moderate libertarian" is a good thing or has gotten the movement anywhere. "Radical" simply means consistant and certain. "Moderate" just means not having a backbone, being inconsistant and oppurtunistic.

I support saturating local governments with libertarians and anarchists to provide a margin of support between the higher levels of government and the counter-economy. Other than that, fail on voting. I wouldn't vote for another national election even if Rothbard's ghost were running.

 

I am most certainly not going to participate in this election. For instance, I would not participate in choosing a Chief Rapist, because I would be enabling someone to violate rights. So, all the more I would not choose a President, since he is the leader of a cartelizing monopoly on jurisdiction that may decide one's rights as it wishes, and in effect is just as much a ravisher.

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

It might not be the motivation for their coming here but they certainly take advantage of it once they get here.  And just so you understand I don't think ALL immigrants do that.  But there is enough of them that do to harm the rest of us.

I have more respect for an illegal immigrant who works hard in an orange grove and collects food stamps to supplement his income than I do a native-born American who watches TV all day and collects welfare without even trying to get a job. Before we start (rhetorically) beating up on migrant workers lets work on getting some of these truly lazy people to at least try to get a job.

I don't care if they are working in a orange grove but if they are on food stamps they are a leech.  It's just that simple.  Cold, perhaps, but that is how I view things.  My enemy is the one who leeches off of me.  I look upon the Mexican laboring the orange grove a little better than I do the lazy white trash who sit around drinking Keystone Light, rocking out to Lynard Skynard while they cash in their food stamps and take their welfare check to buy more beer and Pall Mall cigarettes but that doesn't change the fact that they have come here and started sucking off of welfare.

You might notice a recurring theme -- my violent opposition to welfare -- which is why I don't want more third world parasites to come up here and suck off of it.

ryanpatgray:

kingmonkey:

If someone should find offense with common names in those countries I really don't care.

I assume that you want a free society at some point in the future – preferably in both our lifetimes. Unless we take care with the manner in which we word our arguments that is not going to happen. Words mean things. I know that it is easy to get frustrated by the state of the world today but unless we are careful how we communicate our ideas it will not improve. Right now those who support true liberty are few in number and we need to persuade others. Not caring if you offend others essentially means not caring if you persuade others. If I may, I would like to recommend you listen to something. It is cheap – only $5.00 – but it has the potential to change the way you communicate and will help you persuade others that freedom is to their benefit. It is called The Essence of political Persuasion. Sometimes if I include a link these posts get delayed - so I will paste the URL as black type and you can paste it into your browser if you want to:

http://www.theadvocates.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=LS&Product_Code=EPP&Category_Code=AUD

And here's another thing! And this is what pisses me off about people like you or anyone else that MIGHT take offense at something.  Why is what I said any more offensive than saying "Tom, or Harry"!?!?!!?!?!  Does that mean I should get in a huff just every time someone says that?  Screw that crap!  If someone doesn't like me because I say something that MIGHT offend someone else then they live in a sad little world where nothing will ever get done.  I don't tip toe around bullsh*t like that.  Screw those people. They can all go to hell.

 

kingmonkey:

If someone doesn't like me because I say something that MIGHT offend someone else then they live in a sad little world where nothing will ever get done.  I don't tip toe around bullsh*t like that.  Screw those people. They can all go to hell.

Apparently you do not mind the fact that the vast majority of Americans (or any other nationality for that matter) are just fine with funding their favorite programs at the point of a gun. Libertarians in general and Anarcho-Capitalists in particular are so few in number that when you meet someone (excepting libertarian or free market economic events) you are probably the first one that person has ever met. The impression you make is likely to be a FIRST impression and may even be an ONLY impression. You may be the only chance that person has to hear the philosophy of freedom from a real flesh and blood person. Think about that the next time you are tempted to deliberately insult someone – try instead to PERSUADE that person. Giving a linguistic middle finger is not going to advance liberty one inch.

Saying "Tito, Juan and Julio" is no more insulting than "Tom, and Harry."  If they get upset over proper names then so can I.  From now on I will be violently insulted if someone uses the phrase "Tom, and Harry" and will declare them to be racist pigs.

kingmonkey:

Saying "Tito, Juan and Julio" is no more insulting than "Tom, and Harry."  If they get upset over proper names then so can I.  From now on I will be violently insulted if someone uses the phrase "Tom, and Harry" and will declare them to be racist pigs.

All insults exist because people give themselves permission to be insulted by them. Some, in fact, like being insulted. It gives them an excuse to act like a juvenile, because a grown-up doesn't even acknowlege such an offense.

Nitroadict:

Don't give me this "think of the children & family" argument, because you are not countering an unsympathetic & cold radical libertarian whom ignores obvious problems in living ethics of radical libertarianism while trying to maintain a standard of living for oneself & others (family included).

Sorry.  I have been annoyed lately that the conversations are rarely grounded in reality.

MacFall:

All insults exist because people give themselves permission to be insulted by them. Some, in fact, like being insulted. It gives them an excuse to act like a juvenile, because a grown-up doesn't even acknowlege such an offense.

My point exactly.

 

kingmonkey:

Saying "Tito, Juan and Julio" is no more insulting than "Tom, and Harry."  If they get upset over proper names then so can I.  From now on I will be violently insulted if someone uses the phrase "Tom, and Harry" and will declare them to be racist pigs.

 

 The key here is context. Three people who were actually called Tito, Juan and Julio would not at all find it insulting if you called them by these names.

MacFall:

All insults exist because people give themselves permission to be insulted by them. Some, in fact, like being insulted. It gives them an excuse to act like a juvenile, because a grown-up doesn't even acknowlege such an offense.

In some cases you are quite correct. I am certainly no fan of the kind of shakedown artist made famous by the likes of Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton. I am in no way advocating that we bend over to someone else's every whim. But there is a difference between being politically incorrect and being just plain rude. I find it quite unfortunate that some people in the past couple of decades have associated these two concepts as though they are one and the same. They are not. There is a difference between an airline asserting its right to not provide Halal meals (meals that prepared according to Islamic dietary guidelines) on every flight and that same airline mixing pork into every dish (even ones that appear to be vegetarian) and not informing the passengers until after the meal has been consumed. The first case is asserting a right – the second case is just plain rude. My original point was that if we want to persuade others of the benefits of a free society we need to, at the very least, be polite. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that person a monster. I would bet that many people on these forums at one time held viewpoints that are quite different from their viewpoints today.

ryanpatgray:

I work in a medical college and I know a great many such people. Some from Africa and elsewhere as well. They are almost all wonderfull people who I am proud to share a continent with.

 

Again, you need to bear in mind that you are working with people who are in the 90th (or more likely, the 99th) percentile back in their homelands.  Ask them what they think about bringing over all those folks that they are spending blood and treasure to stay the hell away from.

Central and South American immigrants work hard, sure.  They are also happy to consume whatever public services are on offer--visit a Social Security office, a public hospital ER, or a majority-Hispanic school district some time.  And when their children born on US soil grow up and vote, I can tell you it's not going to be for a libertarian candidate.

wombatron:

My second choice was the Libertarian candidate... who turned out to be Bob Barr.  Hell no.

If you don't mind me asking, what is the problem with Barr?  I honestly know almost nothing about his stances, but I had been planning on voting for him just because, as someone earlier had said, he had an L after his name.  Unfortunately I've noticed many people claiming the libertarian title who aren't at all libertarians.  Either way, I figured it would send a message if the libertarian party affected the national election enough to sway the vote democratic.  The republicans might re-think their positions, or at least might change what they lie about.

Byzantine:

Again, you need to bear in mind that you are working with people who are in the 90th (or more likely, the 99th) percentile back in their homelands.  Ask them what they think about bringing over all those folks that they are spending blood and treasure to stay the hell away from.

Their reasons for leaving their homeland are diverse. For some, it is that they can have a higher standard of living here. For others, it is political or religious persecution. In a couple of cases it is that when they were in college they fell in love with an American and the couple chose to stay here. In all cases but the last I mentioned the government where they lived was directly or indirectly involved.

Byzantine:

They are also happy to consume whatever public services are on offer—

How is that different from most native-born Americans? Ever see the guy with the question mark suit on TV selling his book with info on “free money”?

Byzantine:

  And when their children born on US soil grow up and vote, I can tell you it's not going to be for a libertarian candidate.

I have met a great many Hispanic libertarians. Perhaps you simply do not know ma