U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible

Marko:

Yes it is a part of a bigger picture. And you commit a fallacy in the bigger picture that then has consequences in specific scenarios. Your mistake is that implicitly lend the state some validity. You are not being doctinarian enough.  You are tricked into putting outcomes before principles.

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.

Marko:

Yes I agree with the  conclusions many libertarians make that a stateless society would see less and different migration than we see today, but for that to lead you to attacking "open borders" is fallacious. The borders should not only be open they should be erased. To speak for closed borders (or defend the people that do so) is commiting a fallacy. 

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.

Marko:

No the state should most definetely not act in the best interest of those that reside within its territory,  the state should be destroyed! Right now!

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.

Marko:

That is the only way to defeat the state rather than implicitly lend it support and legitimacy (provided it is pursuing the outcomes you approve of).

Exactly, so why are you so keen on further eroding property rights? Which is exactly what the state thrives off.

Marko:

The fact is that the state actually does sometimes suceed in outcomes, sometimes even where free society could not. It can rapidly industrialise a huge country (at a great cost in human suffering and institution of slavery), it can send a man on the moon (at a far too great cost monetary cost) it can socialy engineer a new nation in a matter of decades (unfortunately). Thus you can not consistently oppose the state on the basis of outcomes, only on basis of principle.

That would be all very on topic, if I had ever disagreed with that. But I haven't.

Marko:

It has squat all to do with race. I`m pointing out the inconsistency of your thinking. If the state should not keep the federal border open, then it should not keep the state borders open, the city limits open, the county limits open and the borough limits open. Close them all. Keep the hillbilly immigrants out, they`re violating property rights or something. They`re using state roads, the horror!

Only, allowing communities to decide who they want and who they don't want, is exactly what I advocate.

GilesStratton:

You're missing the point. By and large most people tend to view with immigrants with suspicion. Perhaps you come from a family that behaves different to most, I don't know.

Most people`s views don`t 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?

 

GilesStratton:

kiba:

Some people like me are fine with them. I don't see what so scary about a Catholic hispanic family that live down the street, do you?

You're missing the point. By and large most people tend to view with immigrants with suspicion. Perhaps you come from a family that behaves different to most, I don't know.

Without the state it would have not been so easy for you to find a property and to move in.

kiba:

I would wager that most Americans are just indifferent. They don't really know who is their next door neighbors anyway

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.

GilesStratton:

kefka888:

Businesses are forced to do business with immigrants? HA. Businesses want to do business with anyone that gives them money

Yes, once again, you're correct. But this isn't necessarily the case with business such as restaurants, where allowing immigrants will irritate the more regular customers.

Sure, in a society populated entirely by bigots,people will be irritated by immigrants and restaurants won't probably aloud "the unwanteds".

GilesStratton:

kefka888:

They also love the cheap labor that immigrants provide. The free flow of labor is important to any free society.

Once again, you're correct, but it doesn't follow that from wanting to do business with somebody you'll want to live with them. In any case, you're going off on a tangent.

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.

 

 

 

kiba:

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.

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.

CorporateGhost:

Sure, in a society populated entirely by bigots,people will be irritated by immigrants and restaurants won't probably aloud "the unwanteds".

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.

CorporateGhost:

Wanting to do business with someone and not wanting them to live anywhere near you brings you higher economic costs

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.

GilesStratton:

CorporateGhost:

Sure, in a society populated entirely by bigots,people will be irritated by immigrants and restaurants won't probably aloud "the unwanteds".

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.

I could use a nice euphemism like "racially conscious" if you prefer.

GilesStratton:

CorporateGhost:

Wanting to do business with someone and not wanting them to live anywhere near you brings you higher economic costs

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.

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.

GilesStratton:

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.

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.

Marko:

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 deleted it after I realised what you were getting at.

GilesStratton:

However, it has also received money voluntarily. In the form of government bonds, for example.

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.

GilesStratton:

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.

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.

GilesStratton:

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.

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)?

GilesStratton:

Exactly, so why are you so keen on further eroding property rights? Which is exactly what the state thrives off.

And where do I do that? 

You`re the one telling Jose he can`t have his cousin from Tijuana come for a visit.

kiba:

That's a bunch of crap. Tiny mercenary groups in the blood diamond wars were responsible for pushing back against a tyannical genocidal paramilitary thugs meanwhile thousand of hapless UN peacekeepers couldn't even defend themsleves and the people they were responsible for defending.

Given the performance of UN peacekeepers, I doubt the US military, with their hi-tech doodas, will be able to do such a competent job of beating the craps out of military-graded trained gangsters.

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.

kiba:

Beside the US is in part responsible for creating this mess of bloody drug trade where extortion and death is the norm..

Yes. This says a great deal about blowback but not a single thing about competance.

 

 

 

liberty student:

wombatron:

Truther in the sense of "The state lied/covered up what really happened and had some degree of indirect responsibility for 9/11" or truther in the sense of "ZOMG!!!  The CIA planted explosives in the Twin Towers so that the Jews can take over!!!"?

Truther in the sense of "If you believe what the state tells you as the truth, about an incident that allowed them to spend, murder and destroy liberty with impunity, then you're the nut".

 

I agree that one should not trust the government in general. On that we agree

 

kiba:

In fact, the shopowners are probably happy to serve them.

Commercial racism manifests itself in an obsession with serving only the colour green.

Eric:

It depends how it is handled by America, the conflict will probabley be blamed on too little government as usual.

this is why I think we will never win

ryanpatgray:

I notice that none of the responses have been about the Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008) report.

Not true. People were responding on topic until you changed the topic with your ad hominems.

The idea that mexico will "collapse" is bogus. Its just the propoganda machine for another war against mexico coming online.

JonBostwick:

ryanpatgray:

I notice that none of the responses have been about the Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008) report.

Not true. People were responding on topic until you changed the topic with your ad hominems.

The idea that mexico will "collapse" is bogus. Its just the propoganda machine for another war against mexico coming online.

Eric, the first person to respond did respond but after that it was almost all off topic. I have not made ad hominems.

ryanpatgray:

Eric, the first person to respond did respond but after that it was almost all off topic. I have not made ad hominems.

The first two posts were on topic, then you made the third.

ryanpatgray:

I should have known Byzantine would respond with a bigoted rant. I would not be surprised if he was a statist trying to give Austrians a bad name.

The second post was Byzantine's and was his usual racist rant. How was that 'on topic' ?

Juan:

How was that 'on topic' ?

Because it addressed the subject of the thread.

Even if we assume his post was racist, can something racist never be on topic?