Search the Community

A response to a criticism I see all over the internet.

Check out article version on Medium here! :https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/what-libertarians-really-need-to-understand-about-the-immigration-debate-ef2998589c18#.1mcn6cxx5 There’s a rather interesting objection I’ve heard in response to some of the arguments Stefan Molyneux has made in videos such as, “What Pisses Me Off About The Migrant Crisis”. It’s an objection that I’ve seen frequently enough that I think it deserves a response. The objection goes like this: “Stef talks about the terrible consequences of open borders in a welfare state. He says the mass importation of millions of people who are part of a culture that is antithetical to western values will result in a bloodbath, not assimilation, particularly because the welfare state allows for these little isolated communities wherein nobody has to adapt to the native culture at all, which would be required to some degree in a free society in order to enter into the job market. In other words, Stef is saying the consequences of open borders will be bad. But, Stef has also said that, ‘consequences don’t matter, only principles’ such as the non aggression principle, and it is a violation of the non aggression principle to close the borders. So, isn’t Stef being hypocritical? “ Admittedly, I am exaggerating a little bit. The objections I’ve read like this aren’t nearly as humble, curious, or articulate. But besides that, why is this objection wrong? Well, the first and most common mistake I see people make when they’re criticizing Stef is that they ignore context. This is not a minor error. This is like misreading the nutritionist’s recommendations so that you think it says to take 500 grams of a supplement, rather than 500 mg and then declaring the nutritionist is “trying to get people killed!” It shows a considerable lack of attention to detail. This is an important distinction. The people who are making the argument from consequences are the CEO’s , the leftists, and the politicians who are saying, ‘The most effective way to help the migrants would be to take them in. Taking in the migrants will have good consequences for the economy. Therefore, we should take in the migrants.” Talking about consequences is entirely appropriate when you are rebutting an argument from consequences. Stef is rebutting this mainstream narrative that taking in the migrant is the best way to help them by saying, “Actually, taking the migrants in is not the most effective way to help them, nor will taking in the migrants who hold an opposing culture benefit society and here’s the data that shows why. People imagine that Stef, by simply pointing out these facts is making a leap to saying, “Therefore, we should close the borders because the consequences of open borders would be bad.” It is true that Stef has said that there would be practical consequences to halting the mass importation of child hostile cultures into, for example, the United States that would be beneficial, despite the fact that closing the borders would be a violation of the nonaggression principle. “If the path to a free society requires friendly parents and if there are pouring into America hundreds and hundreds or thousands, if not millions of child unfriendly or child hostile cultures and if Donald Trump can put a stop to that, then that buys some time to convince people closer to the child friendly paradigm to change their behavior so that a more peaceful society can come about. I don’t view Donald Trump as someone who is going to bring about a free society, but if Donald Trump can buy enough time for the peaceful parenting message to spread against the massive influx of child unfriendly cultures and histories coming into america, which not only means that there are more people who are coming in who are child hostile, but it also means that the quality of the people’s childhoods and adult lives become tax slaves to child unfriendly cultures, the quality of families declines even for the people who are native. ( See Stefan Molyneux Podcast 3174 for full quote. ) But, because there’s a violation of the non aggression principle either way, since opening the borders also violates freedom of association due to the fact that so many illegal immigrants take welfare, it doesn’t matter. There’s no ideal short term moral solution to the problem and because of this all you can do is look at the practicality of each option and the evidence seems to suggest that closing the borders would result in less force that allowing them to be open. (See Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) “People say if people are not allowed to come into the country, then that is the initiation of the use of force. I completely agree with that. I completely and totally agree with that. However, if the actions of someone by entering a particular area results in the greater initiation of force, then it’s not as simple as people think. The problem is that people are showing it in isolation. So, let me give you a tiny example. If I go into my own house, I am not initiating the use of force. If some guy with a gun wants to come into my house, well, guess what? He’s initiating the use of force. If he comes in while I’m sleeping and steals from me he is initiating the use of force. Now, if someone comes into my house because I’ve invited them and we’re going to play Yahtzee and Monopoly or he’s going to fix my toilet because I had Indian food, then he’s coming into my house voluntarily and he’s not initiating the use of force and neither are his actions initiating the use of force against me. So, the reality is that statistically, by and large and by far both legal and illegal immigrants coming into America vastly increase the use of force in America. And so, simply by looking at putting putting a barrier around america to prevent people from coming into america and saying, ‘Well, that’s the only initiation of force that matters’ That’s ridiculous. There’s a little thing called the welfare state, which I believe I’ve seen a few Libertarians talk about. But, immigrants use welfare at vastly higher rates than domestic citizens. So, 51% of immigrants are using the welfare state, compared to 30% for natives. And those natives include high utilizers of the welfare state such as blacks and hispanics. Among illegal immigrants, it’s even higher. It’s more than twice the rate of natives. So, the reality is and this is a basic mathematical reality that you can only escape by sticking your head so far up your ass that you can drill though your nipples and call them telescopes. The reality is that immigrants in general, on average, coming into america are both going to use, be dependent on, and vote for increases in the welfare state. If you care about the welfare state, then you need to diminish the number of people on the welfare state. This is not brain surgery. People do not vote to get rid of or even intellectually oppose that which puts bread on their table and puts a roof over their heads that is necessary for their survival. And the fact that this is even debatable or even debated, I don;t even know what to say. It’s very hard to get a man to understand something when his livelihood depends on him not understanding something. And when you bring a bunch of people in with no history of free market thinking in their culture, and for illegal immigrants in particularly, get on welfare at a rate of 62%, those people in order to survive in america require massive amounts of government spending in America and indeed the only reason they can stay in America, as Dr. Steven Camarota has pointed out on this show, is by voting for an ever increasing welfare state. When, you get people coming in to a country who can only survive and live in that country because of government spending, what do you think they’re going to vote for? An expansion of extraction of government power? “- Stefan Molyneux(Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration) Still, even if closing closing the borders would result in less force than allowing them to be open, there’s a difference between saying, “If open borders, the consequences will not be good” vs “ Because the consequences will not be good if we open borders we SHOULD do X, such as close the borders or vote for Donald Trump.” When Stef says things like consequences don’t matter he was saying that the validity of a moral theory cannot be determined based on its outcome. If the consequences to freeing the slaves are negative, that is irrelevant because slavery is immoral. Context is key. Criticizing the government program called open borders is not by default endorsing a statist solution to the problem. It’s merely pointing out the facts. However, whenever you start to criticize open borders as the government program it truly is people, usually Libertarians, without giving your argument a moment’s thought will jump to the conclusion that you must saying, “I think we should shoot people!” The goal is not to impact statist policies, but to impact parenting. There is no contradiction. “Am I in support of closing the borders? I’m not sure what that would even mean? Because that would mean to say that I am in support of a government doing something effective towards whatever end I might have, which would be to accept that the government could do something competently”- (Stefan Molyneux Are Libertarians Wrong About Immigration?) Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisti... http://www.theguardian.com/world/data... http://www.economist.com/news/europe/... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world... http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/0... http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-... http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/ca... https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s... http://www.newsweek.com/become-even-more-prosperous-we-should-open-our-borders-372875

Originally Published on Medium. https://medium.com/@joelpatterson_52315/whataboutery-don-t-do-it-df00f8667578#.anospiwty There’s a tactic I’ve noticed my opponents use in disagreements I’ve had recently that I find really irritating. It goes like this: You bring up a criticism of something, like say Islamic terrorism, and instead of having your criticism evaluated, accepted, or rebutted, someone completely bypasses everything that you had just said with a, “what about” statement. Here are a few simplified examples. Islamic terrorism has resulted in x numbers of civilian deaths this year. “Yes, but what about American foreign policy!?!” The contains anti male themes and here are the instances from that film which support that thesis.“Yes, but what about when this character did this in the prequels?!?” People on the left use this manipulative argument quite often. “Yes, but what about the right. People on the right use manipulative arguments too?!” Studies show that females abuse in this way at this specific rate each year. “Yes, but what about the MEN?!?!” Little do people know that cats bite humans at a rate of x per year. “Yes, but what about Dogs?!?” I’ve been trying to articulate my frustrations about these kinds of responses for a few months now, so it was to my great delight that Richard Dawkins did just that while I was listening to his autobiography , “Brief Candle in The Dark.” Hopefully, by giving others the language to identify this response, it will save people from the frustration and confusion I’ve been experiencing from it for some time now.

On another forum, the DailyPaul, there was a thread on the topic of "faith:" http://goo.gl/HdkDzBMyself (Enjoying The Deep End) and another member (Micah68) got on to a topic that he (Micah68) presented. You can go to the link and look at the back and forth there for full details into my thinking and his.Here is the argument. Having challenged him, he posted several different "versions" or "wordings" of the argument: Now I propose that the argument is fallacious. I propose that the argument ASSUMES that "personal realities" exist. I ask "How do we know that there is EVEN SUCH A THING as a PERSONAL REALITY?"I could equally posit a: "Feminine reality vs masculine reality," "Structured reality vs impulsive reality," "Joyful reality vs miserable reality," "Tasty reality vs bland reality," Bald reality vs hairy reality," etc....And does my mere proposing these "types of realities" therefore necessitate THAT THEY ACTUALLY EXIST? So there is actually a "Tasty Reality?"---- I see the argument as a "Begging the question fallacy." Because the premise necessitates the conclusion be true; that a "personal reality exists." The argument merely ASSERTS that "personal realities exist."----So can you guys jump in here with your thoughts? Let me know what your "position on the argument" is, and "if you think the argument is even valid or if it contains a fallacy." So do you think there is such a thing as an "impersonal reality" or a "personal reality?" Do you think these categories exist? And do you take a position on it; do you think reality is personal?I look forward to your thoughts.Thanks

I was researching The Laws of Logic and came across this... Found it slightly humorous, but mostly frightening. In some places I think he is using Aristotelian logic to disprove logic. And in another place he uses the fact that more than one system of logic exists as proof that all logic is relative. Let me know if I am correct in thinking that this guy is a well trained sophist. It's a a bit much for one person to try and digest. Below is the first little bit of a long article, here is the link to the actual article: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth INTRODUCTION Some people may be surprised to discover tons of self-professed Messiahs of Philosophy on the Internet, especially on YouTube. What is not surprising is that almost none of them have bothered to educate themselves on the 2500-year-old Philosophical concept called the “absolute”. These Priests of Philosophy have no qualms about claiming that there are “absolutes” or “absolute truth”. What kills their claims is that they cannot define the key words that make or break their argument: ‘absolute’ and ‘truth’. They are merely parroting what they heard from the grapevine: “ummm, duh,....are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes? See, gotcha....there are absolutes. Also, that there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement. Ha ha, gotcha again, I win!” These Priests of Philosophy are quick to break out the bottle of champagne in celebration of the argument which they won in their own mind. But, they are quite embarrassed when a member of the audience stands up and asks them to define “absolute” and “truth”. What is funnier is that they cannot even give a single example of a statement which resolves to absolute truth. And more embarrassing for them is that their silly childish questions are not even arguments....THEY ARE TRICKS! These trick questions have a very simple ANTIDOTE. Click on this link to see their tricks exposed: http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/ABSOLUTE-TRUTH-Is-it-Absolute-True-there-are-NO-Absolute-Truths This article exposes the Religion of The Absolute. You will understand why the "absolute" is the Hallmark of Religion and the Opium of Fanatics. We will explain why the word “absolute” ultimately resolves as a synonym of the word RELATIVE. Furthermore, you will understand why these Priests of Philosophy don’t want you to read this article and understand the critical analytical issues behind the words “absolute” and “truth”. Your ignorance is their blessing. After all, they have surreptitiously fooled you into having FAITH in absolutes; so they do deserve some credit. WHAT IS TRUTH? The word “truth” is a concept which has been conceived by humans for use as a conceptual label of validation on statement types known as propositions. Propositions are statements which propose an alleged case or scenario. This anthropocentric concept of truth is unwittingly used by many people to intentionally decree a label of “validated acceptance” (i.e. true) or of “validated rejection” (i.e. false) to propositional statements. But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labelled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such. Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use? A: Their subjective and limited sensory system! Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Your Priest may have convinced YOU of the truth for God, dark matter, black holes, warped space and energy, but he hasn’t convinced your neighbor. Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. Truth means that the Priest had his way with you while you were in the confession box. For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself. Remember: TRUTH = OPINION. Those who disagree, all they need to do is answer the following questions for the audience: 1) What magical means do they use to resolve their statement as being TRUE? Do they use their sensory system? Do they vote on the issue? Do they ask their Priest, God or a higher authority to decide? 2) Is it TRUE that TRUTH is correct? What standard does one use as a benchmark for testing and evaluating TRUTH to be correct? They obviously cannot use truth!!! Anybody wanna step in the lion’s den and answer these questions for the audience? Are you scared to answer because you will expose your Religion of Truth, or because you don’t know? Be honest with yourself.

I wanted to follow up with @PatrickC on this which came up on an unrelated thread. So I'm creating a new (and probably lengthy) thread. Here are the quotes from that thread to catch anyone who's interested up to speed. I've cut out a lot of the bulkiness... hopefully it still makes sense what is going on: I said: Patrick replied: First, know that it's been a while since I've studied logical fallacies, and when I did, my mind wasn't in the right place to absorb what was being taught. Must have been because I was used to engaging in conversations riddled with fallacies and thought that was normal. So I had a hard time stepping away from that to analyze it critically. Alright, so I think I see where you identified a straw man... but it took me quite a while to figure out if it truly is a straw man. The straw man would be that "someone who is downvoting has the same malicious intent as an abusive father." However, I didn't intend it that way, so I should have been clearer. What I was trying to convey is that I feel similarly when I get a downvote sans explanation to when someone makes me guess why they are upset or disapprove of something I've done. What results from this kind of interaction (or lack thereof) is only two possibilities--right or wrong. There's no discussion or negotiation... no opportunity to learn. So that is why I related the two scenarios. They are not related through abuse, because giving someone a downvote, even without an explanation, is not abusive I don't think. Key words here would be that "I feel"... this leaves it open enough for me to consider if it is a personal problem/baggage (which it probably is) or if my feelings are justified (which is also possible, I'm not sure yet). So I'm allowing myself to assess this further by talking about my feelings rather than making claims. I see that my original post may have been seen as a claim, but it wasn't my intent... just bad writing. So in order for it to be a straw man, I must have an opponent whose argument I've deconstructed and reassembled into something that is no longer the same, then I start attacking that invention. Now that I've clarified my intent, do you still consider my original post to be a straw man? Feedback is greatly appreciated. And patience is also greatly appreciated. Thank you!

I came across this video on money.com regarding India's gold influx. I wanted some freedom-oriented analysis so I come to you guys. http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2013/07/24/n-india-gold-imports.cnnmoney/index.html?iid=V_Taboola I can't work through the steps of what she's saying. This leads me to think through them and verify them mentally myself. But I cannot do it. It also feels very wrong. This is one of those things where I know it's wrong, but cannot pinpoint or show it exactly. So I ask you for help., 0:20 "The rupee is hovering at an all time low vs the dollar." 0:25 "Since India pays for gold in dollars, it puts a massive strain on its account deficit." 0:41 "To reduce gold imports, the finance minister doubled the tax on gold imports." 1:04 "If the people stop buying gold for ~1 year, the account deficit will improve and the stock markets would improve. 1) Milton Friedman explains the negative feedback on the value of currencies when you send them abroad. I'm not quite sure I understand Milton Friedman's scenario and dynamics fully, but maybe you guys can explain. Also note, Friedman's scenario is with both native currencis... whereas this Indian scenario is India buying gold (let's assume from America) with dollars... so we have to adjust our knowledge and approach a little bit, relative to Friendman's scenario with domestic currencies. So here is an inconsistency I'm wondering about: Mainstream economists normally talk about currency wars, where each country prints more and depreciates the value of their nation's currency as if it were a good thing. So if the Rupee is low, aren't they winning the currency war naturally.... all the while getting ACTUAL PHYSICAL GOLD? sounds like a double win. So what is the reasoning behind this contradictory perspective? is it simply that the rupee is TOO low? if so, what is the criteria to to determine that? 2) So Friedman, as well as Bastiat, in his books, explains the fallacy of export-import = net foreign trade balance. I get this. The imported goods have an inherent value, so important doesn't necessarily mean a loss. so that equation is misleading. k. 3) So ofc raising import duties will reduce import volume. But is this good for the economy? The goal, supposedly is to raise the rupeand stock markets, assuming that importing gold with dollars is not good. 4) ok, if ppl stop buying gold... we hvae to work through all the mess of #1-3... but why would the stock markets improve???? and after we work through that one, why is that necessarily good, or better than getting gold?