No right to immigrate

[TronCat]

In response to Kowalski, who said this to me in another thread;

"Of course - you can prevent any race you want coming onto your property -
i.e. whatever land you bought with money from your labor. It's just you
can't reasonably or morally claim the entire abstract concept of
"Europe" or "America" belongs to an arbitrarty group of people with
certain physical traits, and that anyone without those traits who is
within that imaginary border is somehow committing an act of aggression,
making it OK to use force against them."

 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, says this;

 

"The
current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has
nothing whatsoever to do with "free" immigration. It is
forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is
the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote –
rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization
of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically,
the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands
of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces,
cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to
private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means
to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently
un-democratic, and un-majoritarian). One would be well on the way
toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion
as it is implied in the idea and institution of private property,
and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration
would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what
they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century
in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance
requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific
pieces of property (no beggars or bums or homeless, but also no
Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to kick out those who do
not fulfill these requirements as trespassers; and to solve the
"naturalization" question somewhat along the Swiss model,
where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who
can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen."

 

If I got together with some like-minded individuals to buy up a large
parcel of land and set up a private community, membership by invitation
only, we wouldn’t be infringing upon anyone's liberty by refusing entry
to some people. We'd be exercising our liberty, our freedom to associate
and disassociate.

If there is a right to associate and disassociate freely,
and to separate and secede from oppressive governments and their voters, then
there can be no such thing as a universal right to immigrate.

[Diabolus]

This is the distinction between nations and states that almost no one on these boards understands. Nations exist even in stateless regions. States may or may not overlap with one or more nations.

[JohnDJasper]

 

If I got together with some like-minded individuals to buy up a large
parcel of land and set up a private community, membership by invitation
only, we wouldn’t be infringing upon anyone's liberty by refusing entry
to some people. We'd be exercising our liberty, our freedom to associate
and disassociate.

If there is a right to associate and disassociate freely,
and to separate and secede from oppressive governments and their voters, then
there can be no such thing as a universal right to immigrate.

 

 

@TronCat - I'm fairly new at this but I cannot fault your reasoning here.  I also could not fault the owners of adjoining property which might include roads and businesses in general who would have the right to refuse entry/service to people they found disagreeable due to their willingness to discriminate against humans for whatever reason.  Fair is fair.

[Formelyknown]

You keep conflating and mixing statist problems with others anarcho ethics.Then mixing races with nation and genetic in a big pot so that it is impossible to have any constructive discussion.

I don't thing someone in this board disagree with someone refusing to associate with someone base on color. But tbat doesn't follow that mixing races is a good or bad thing.

Multiculturalism is a statist idea where is it possible to force peoples living together under the same government by hqving double standard under the law base on religion culture and color.

On another note. I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background. Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black. You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it is really a bad way to create a community.

And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture....

[TronCat]

 

You keep conflating and mixing statist problems with others anarcho ethics.Then mixing races with nation and genetic in a big pot so that it is impossible to have any constructive discussion.

I don't thing someone in this board disagree with someone refusing to associate with someone base on color. But tbat doesn't follow that mixing races is a good or bad thing.

Multiculturalism is a statist idea where is it possible to force peoples living together under the same government by hqving double standard under the law base on religion culture and color.

On another note. I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background. Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black. You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it is really a bad way to create a community.

And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture....

 

 

 

"I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background."

People generally tend to prefer their own race over others, this is Genetic Similarity Kin Selection.

 

"Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black.
You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the
really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it
is really a bad way to create a community."

I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper.

 

"And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture...."

Culture is a biological construct, and expression of our distinct genes. You're parroting Stef here.

 

[JohnDJasper]

 

"I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background."

People generally tend to prefer their own race over others, this is Genetic Similarity Kin Selection.

 

@TronCat - Parents and other adults tend to use violence against kids.  People in authority tend to abuse their authority. People brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences tend to segregate.  People who continue to propagate such dangerous nonsense when they know better have chosen evil over good.  We can only hope that education and time will correct all of these social problems.

 

In my lifetime (currently 55 yo), I've seen society go from shock at a mixed race couple to almost general acceptance although I'm sure that there are plenty of diehard bigots of all persuasions who will go to their graves without changing their attitudes.

 

"Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black.
You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the
really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it
is really a bad way to create a community."

I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper.

 

Your last statement makes the assumption that while you and your people are segregating on racial/ethnical/etc lines that the blacks will be doing the same.  There's a very good chance that most communities will be made up of intelligent, tolerant people who recognise that we're all human and can help each other grow and prosper without prejudicial diversion.  Keep in mind that we're all descended from 1 of 3 groups of Africans that left that continent approx 59,000 years ago.  If the documentary below is correct, our differences are completely due to our adaptation to different environments as we spread out across the globe.  It's All in the Family!

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4]

[SimonF]

 

Culture is a biological construct, and expression of our distinct genes. You're parroting Stef here. 

 

Because you say so? Let's see the facts and logic to support this please.

[TronCat]

 

 

"I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background."

People generally tend to prefer their own race over others, this is Genetic Similarity Kin Selection.

 

@TronCat - Parents and other adults tend to use violence against kids.  People in authority tend to abuse their authority. People brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences tend to segregate.  People who continue to propagate such dangerous nonsense when they know better have chosen evil over good.  We can only hope that education and time will correct all of these social problems.

 

In my lifetime (currently 55 yo), I've seen society go from shock at a mixed race couple to almost general acceptance although I'm sure that there are plenty of diehard bigots of all persuasions who will go to their graves without changing their attitudes.

 

"Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black.
You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the
really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it
is really a bad way to create a community."

I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper.

 

Your last statement makes the assumption that while you and your people are segregating on racial/ethnical/etc lines that the blacks will be doing the same.  There's a very good chance that most communities will be made up of intelligent, tolerant people who recognise that we're all human and can help each other grow and prosper without prejudicial diversion.  Keep in mind that we're all descended from 1 of 3 groups of Africans that left that continent approx 59,000 years ago.  If the documentary below is correct, our differences are completely due to our adaptation to different environments as we spread out across the globe.  It's All in the Family!

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4]

 

 

Environmental determinism has been debunked. Stop being seduced by cultural Marxist pseudo science. You're parroting Stef's 'blank slate' idea.

[Diabolus]

 

@TronCat - Parents and other adults tend to use violence against kids.  People in authority tend to abuse their authority. People brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences tend to segregate.  People who continue to propagate such dangerous nonsense when they know better have chosen evil over good.  We can only hope that education and time will correct all of these social problems.

 

False equivalence. Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would acknowledge this. People should be able to do with their property as they wish, even if that means discriminating by standards that you don't happen to like. Calling it evil, I have no idea what you're hoping to accomplish with that. Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil?

 

You may hope that education and time will swing society in your favor, and I have precisely the opposite hope. Merely asserting that your goal is the same as what is ultimately good does not prove it is so.

 

In my lifetime (currently 55 yo), I've seen society go from shock at a mixed race couple to almost general acceptance although I'm sure that there are plenty of diehard bigots of all persuasions who will go to their graves without changing their attitudes.

 

Ironically you are expressing bigotry against people who don't happen to hold your egalitarian beliefs. You've described them as beleiving in evil, dangerous nonsense.

 

 

"Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black.
You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the
really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it
is really a bad way to create a community."

I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper.

 

Your last statement makes the assumption that while you and your people are segregating on racial/ethnical/etc lines that the blacks will be doing the same.

 

Generally speaking, blacks do tend to prefer to live near other blacks. Your wishing that they would prefer otherwise does not make it so. I could at this point bring in mountains of evidence to back up my point, but honestly I don't see why I should bother. You are the one asserting that in a different world, blacks would choose one way rather than the other. In the society we now live in, we have plenty of evidence that people self-segregate. You are the one proposing that they would prefer otherwise, I'd like to see the evidence in favor of this claim.

 

There's a very good chance that most communities will be made up of intelligent, tolerant people who recognise that we're all human and can help each other grow and prosper without prejudicial diversion.

 

Very good chance because you want it to be the case? Just saying it's likely doesn't make it so.

 

Keep in mind that we're all descended from 1 of 3 groups of Africans that left that continent approx 59,000 years ago.  If the documentary below is correct, our differences are completely due to our adaptation to different environments as we spread out across the globe.  It's All in the Family!

 

I don't know what point you're trying to make. A lot changes in 59,000 years. People, generally speaking, demonstrate a preference for their own race or culture group of some sort. You can moralize that preference all you want but it doesn't change reality.

[Formelyknown]

 

 

You keep conflating and mixing statist problems with others anarcho ethics.Then mixing races with nation and genetic in a big pot so that it is impossible to have any constructive discussion.

I don't thing someone in this board disagree with someone refusing to associate with someone base on color. But tbat doesn't follow that mixing races is a good or bad thing.

Multiculturalism is a statist idea where is it possible to force peoples living together under the same government by hqving double standard under the law base on religion culture and color.

On another note. I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background. Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black. You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it is really a bad way to create a community.

And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture....

 

 

 

"I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background."

People generally tend to prefer their own race over others, this is Genetic Similarity Kin Selection.

 

"Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black.
You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the
really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it
is really a bad way to create a community."

I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper.

 

"And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture...."

Culture is a biological construct, and expression of our distinct genes. You're parroting Stef here.

 

 

People don't tend to prefer their own races. They are borned surounding by a majortity of their own. It is only a question of proximity. In fact, more we go near a multicultural city like Montreal and more you'll see multiracial couples. 

Sorry but intelligent poeples don't like the other 80% of chimpazes. They are not from the same race or culture for them. I know, I can't live around 90% of the other whites dumbasses.

Culture is not a biological construst. Any person that know a couple adopting chinese babies can see that. It so dumb to even start a study on this. It is only a begot that try to rationalize his own prejudice. I'm not parroting Stef I'm not a FDR Lemming  and I'm far behond stef's. I was 12 and saw culture is just peoples scared to question the status quo of his environement. Any individual with a minimum of critical thinking can see that.

[TronCat]

 

 

 

You keep conflating and mixing statist problems with others anarcho ethics.Then mixing races with nation and genetic in a big pot so that it is impossible to have any constructive discussion.

I don't thing someone in this board disagree with someone refusing to associate with someone base on color. But tbat doesn't follow that mixing races is a good or bad thing.

Multiculturalism is a statist idea where is it possible to force peoples living together under the same government by hqving double standard under the law base on religion culture and color.

On another note. I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background. Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black. You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it is really a bad way to create a community.

And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture....

 

 

 

"I think is realy stupid to base association on race or cultural background."

People generally tend to prefer their own race over others, this is Genetic Similarity Kin Selection.

 

"Even if there is number saying that 100% of murderers would be black.
You still missing the 80 % who are good citizens and the 20% of the
really bright members that smarter that the 80% of white peoples. So it
is really a bad way to create a community."

I'm sure an intelligent black man could be of better use in a black community, helping it grow and prosper.

 

"And I didn't talked about that dumb religion we call culture...."

Culture is a biological construct, and expression of our distinct genes. You're parroting Stef here.

 

 

People don't tend to prefer their own races. They are borned surounding by a majortity of their own. It is only a question of proximity. In fact, more we go near a multicultural city like Montreal and more you'll see multiracial couples. 

Sorry but intelligent poeples don't like the other 80% of chimpazes. They are not from the same race or culture for them. I know, I can't live around 90% of the other whites dumbasses.

Culture is not a biological construst. Any person that know a couple adopting chinese babies can see that. It so dumb to even start a study on this. It is only a begot that try to rationalize his own prejudice. I'm not parroting Stef I'm not a FDR Lemming  and I'm far behond stef's. I was 12 and saw culture is just peoples scared to question the status quo of his environement. Any individual with a minimum of critical thinking can see that.

 

"People don't tend to prefer their own races. They are borned surounding by a majortity of their own. It is only a question of proximity. "

The reason that demographic clusters show that races generally tend to live together isn't just coincidental of environment, you nimrod. You have to understand Genetic Similarity Kin Selection.

Genetic Similarity, Human Altruism, and Group Selection: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/genetic%20similarity%201989.pdf

Ethnic Nationalism, Evolutionary Psychology, and Genetic Similarity: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

Evidence for Genetic Similarity: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/16/7/555

 

Also, just because there are a numerous reasons to critique culture to its greater extent, does not mean the basis of culture in itself is not biological.

 

 

 

[JohnDJasper]

@TronCat - Parents and other adults tend to use violence against kids.  People in authority tend to abuse their authority. People brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences tend to segregate.  People who continue to propagate such dangerous nonsense when they know better have chosen evil over good.  We can only hope that education and time will correct all of these social problems.

 
False equivalence. Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would acknowledge this. People should be able to do with their property as they wish, even if that means discriminating by standards that you don't happen to like. Calling it evil, I have no idea what you're hoping to accomplish with that. Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil?

@Ivan - Thanks for the response.  I've re-read your 1st paragraph above a few times and am having trouble understanding your "False equivalence" claim.  I linked teaching people to distrust others on a racial or ethnical basis with violence against kids and abuse of authority because all three are destructive present day realities.  Have I presumed that the perpetuation of bigotry is a destructive action?  If so, it behooves me to make a case in support of my position. Firstly, it might be wishful thinking on my part but I hope that we're both in agreement that violence against children is destructive to both the children and society.  Similarly, I'm hoping that we agree that abusing authority is destructive to society.  If not, then I'll have to admit defeat because the gap between us is beyond my limited abilities.

However, if we're ok so far, then perhaps I can make a small stab at establishing the destructive nature of instilling good-guy/bad-guy prejudice based on biological or place of birth differences. Keep in mind that I'm not an authority on this subject (or any other for that matter) but am speaking only from my 'school of life' credentials.

One of the most prominent stereotypes of American television and film is the white hat versus black hat in wild west mythology.  This symbolism is still routinely used in modern times quite recently in relation to white hat computer hackers who hack for good compared to the black-hatted destructive hackers.  Another media-ingrained prejudice is that of the beautiful princess/handsome prince=GOOD vs the ugly hag/brutish beast=BAD.  I vaguely remember a teaching aid from decades ago where the child is shown drawings of various people in typical costume/dress (e.g. typically fireman, doctor, attractive lady, rough-looking man with dark features and asked to identify which ones are strangers.  Almost invariably, children point to the rough-looking man upon which the instructor then tells them that actually, they're all strangers and none of them should be trusted fully.  The fact that even older children need this qualification of the meaning of a stranger is an indication of the level of influence that media stereotypes have on us.

Children that grow up in closed communities where they rarely if ever encounter anyone outside of their race, nationality, or religious/political influence will naturally have a difficult time when they first encounter someone who is clearly different.  Left to their own devices, they will decide for themselves if the stranger is good or bad over a period of time based on how that person interacts with them.  In practice though, they will see how others in the community treat the stranger and pick up on both their verbal and non-verbal clues.  If they are taught healthy caution which gradually becomes earned trust, they will no doubt adopt this in their own lives as they mature.  If, instead, they learn that the stranger is to be shunned based on their skin color, place of birth, dialect, religious belief or lack thereof, or for any reason besides the quality of their character, they will be hard-pressed to not adopt this way of judging people too.

This learned prejudice may never express itself as anything other than an uneasiness when the child reaches adulthood and finds itself having to work or socialise with "different" people.  But if taken to the extreme, these prejudices can erupt into horrifying genocidal violence.  To get to that extreme, no doubt, requires many decades of escalating, tit-for-tat retaliations until no-one remembers who actually started it.  Is there any question that prejudice too often leads to murder?  Is racially or ethnically inspired murder, whether individually or by the millions, destructive?  If you agree that it is, then you must accept my point that people brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences is dangerous.

Regarding your statement "Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that
you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other
people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would
acknowledge this.  People should be able to do with their property as
they wish...", I acknowledge the correctness of your statement AND that I never said anything to the contrary.

"Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil?"  Why would I when I was clearly talking about people being brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences?

Generally speaking, blacks do tend to prefer to live near other blacks. Your wishing that they would prefer otherwise does not make it so. I could at this point bring in mountains of evidence to back up my point, but honestly I don't see why I should bother. You are the one asserting that in a different world, blacks would choose one way rather than the other. In the society we now live in, we have plenty of evidence that people self-segregate. You are the one proposing that they would prefer otherwise, I'd like to see the evidence in favor of this claim.

Ivan, I couldn't possibly compete against your mountains of evidence so I'll bow to your unquestionable expertise in this area.

[Diabolus]

 

@Ivan - Thanks for the response.  I've re-read your 1st paragraph above a few times and am having trouble understanding your "False equivalence" claim.  I linked teaching people to distrust others on a racial or ethnical basis with violence against kids and abuse of authority because all three are destructive present day realities.  Have I presumed that the perpetuation of bigotry is a destructive action?  If so, it behooves me to make a case in support of my position. Firstly, it might be wishful thinking on my part but I hope that we're both in agreement that violence against children is destructive to both the children and society.  Similarly, I'm hoping that we agree that abusing authority is destructive to society.  If not, then I'll have to admit defeat because the gap between us is beyond my limited abilities.

 

It's a false equivalence because you're assuming that distrust based on racial or cultural background is indeed a "destructive present day reality". I don't agree with that assertion at all. And unless you can proviede a decent argument for why it is, you are making a false equivalence between something that happens purely in someone's head and harms no one, and actions of violence against other human beings.

 

However, if we're ok so far, then perhaps I can make a small stab at establishing the destructive nature of instilling good-guy/bad-guy prejudice based on biological or place of birth differences. Keep in mind that I'm not an authority on this subject (or any other for that matter) but am speaking only from my 'school of life' credentials.

 

Fair enough, just keep in mind that you're already making unjustified assumptions. You're the one talking about people instilling "good-guy/bad-guy prejudice" based on race; neither myself nor TronCat said anything of the sort. There is a world of difference between being a little more distrustful of foreigners and believing that all Japanese people are literally evil. If you can't see the difference, I don't think this converstaion is going to go anywhere useful.

One of the most prominent stereotypes of American television and film is the white hat versus black hat in wild west mythology.  This symbolism is still routinely used in modern times quite recently in relation to white hat computer hackers who hack for good compared to the black-hatted destructive hackers.  Another media-ingrained prejudice is that of the beautiful princess/handsome prince=GOOD vs the ugly hag/brutish beast=BAD.  I vaguely remember a teaching aid from decades ago where the child is shown drawings of various people in typical costume/dress (e.g. typically fireman, doctor, attractive lady, rough-looking man with dark features and asked to identify which ones are strangers.  Almost invariably, children point to the rough-looking man upon which the instructor then tells them that actually, they're all strangers and none of them should be trusted fully.  The fact that even older children need this qualification of the meaning of a stranger is an indication of the level of influence that media stereotypes have on us.

 

They may all be strangers, but some strangers are more dangerous than others. If you seriously think that teaching children that it's no safer to go to a fireman than it is to go to a drug-addicted homeless person if they're lost and need help, I worry for the state of common sense in our day.

Children that grow up in closed communities where they rarely if ever encounter anyone outside of their race, nationality, or religious/political influence will naturally have a difficult time when they first encounter someone who is clearly different.  Left to their own devices, they will decide for themselves if the stranger is good or bad over a period of time based on how that person interacts with them.  In practice though, they will see how others in the community treat the stranger and pick up on both their verbal and non-verbal clues.  If they are taught healthy caution which gradually becomes earned trust, they will no doubt adopt this in their own lives as they mature.  If, instead, they learn that the stranger is to be shunned based on their skin color, place of birth, dialect, religious belief or lack thereof, or for any reason besides the quality of their character, they will be hard-pressed to not adopt this way of judging people too.

 

You seem to be arguing against someone who lives only in your head here. Who said anything about "shunning basede on their skin color, place of birth..."? Neither the OP nor I said anything of the sort. You're arguing against some kind of racist boogeyman strawperson that exists only in your imagination. Find me one person who is actually arguing in favor of what you're arguing against and I would change my mind about that, but as I see it now, I dont' think you're very interested in having an honest discussion. Instead you seem to be more interested in assuming things that all "bigots" must inherently believe and arguing the way that you were taught to react against alleged "bigots".

This learned prejudice may never express itself as anything other than an uneasiness when the child reaches adulthood and finds itself having to work or socialise with "different" people.  But if taken to the extreme, these prejudices can erupt into horrifying genocidal violence. To get to that extreme, no doubt, requires many decades of escalating, tit-for-tat retaliations until no-one remembers who actually started it.  Is there any question that prejudice too often leads to murder?

 

Prejudice alone cannot ever lead to violence. I can have extreme prejudice against you, I could hate every word that comes out of your mouth, and I would still have no motivation to do you physical harm. Wanting to commit violence against another person requires much more than prejudice. It requires a belief that the violence is warranted, justified, and even necessary. It's no coincidence that every example of genocide you can find was instigated by states. States are experts at manipulating populations into killing masses of peope and getting them to believe it is justified. Arguing that prejudice leads to genocide is as dubious as arguing that eating one potato will give you diabetes.

 

Is racially or ethnically inspired murder, whether individually or by the millions, destructive?  If you agree that it is, then you must accept my point that people brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences is dangerous.

 

But mass murder inspired by any reason is destructive. How on earth is the particular motivation for it relevant? Why is any one reason for killing masses of innocent people worse than any other bad reason? Recently a man walked into a school and murdered dozens of children before killing himself. Does the motivation matter? Is the crime worse if he did it because they were black, then if he did it because he believed they were possessed by extraterrestrial spirits? Again, false equivalence. You're equating all prejudice with mass violence and assuming that they are interconnected, while ignoring the vast majority of violence in this world that is not racially motivated and is just as horrifying. The problem with the logic is analogous to the following: imagine if I point out that x% of planes crash and therefore planes should be banned, but then you point out that more than x% of cars crash and to be consistent I should advocate that cars should also be banned.

 

Regarding your statement "Discrimination by race, nationality, culture, or any other criteria that
you don't happen to like is not the same as violence against other
people. If you have any belief in property rights at all, you would
acknowledge this.  People should be able to do with their property as
they wish...", I acknowledge the correctness of your statement AND that I never said anything to the contrary.

 

Yes, you did. You stated that racial/cultural prejudice is inherently evil and destructive.

 

"Are you going to even make an argument for why you think segregation on a voluntary basis is dangerous nonsense and evil?"  Why would I when I was clearly talking about people being brought up to distrust people based on racial or ethnical differences?

 

You were talking about people brought up to distrust people of other races, and you called that dangerous, evil and destructive nonsense. You said that those people tend to segregate. Do they not do so voluntarily? I am asking you to make an argument for why you think that voluntary segregation that no one is being coerced into is dangerous, evil and destructive nonsense.

 

Generally speaking, blacks do tend to prefer to live near other blacks. Your wishing that they would prefer otherwise does not make it so. I could at this point bring in mountains of evidence to back up my point, but honestly I don't see why I should bother. You are the one asserting that in a different world, blacks would choose one way rather than the other. In the society we now live in, we have plenty of evidence that people self-segregate. You are the one proposing that they would prefer otherwise, I'd like to see the evidence in favor of this claim.

Ivan, I couldn't possibly compete against your mountains of evidence so I'll bow to your unquestionable expertise in this area.

 

 

Okay, I may have exaggerated the amount of evidence I have the patience to look up. []

 

But my point stands. The fact is that if you look at the world today, even after all the civil rights crap we've endured, neighborhoods remain heavily segregated in most areas of the world. Attempts by governments to awkwardly incentivize or even force people into living with other ethnicities always turn out badly. In fact in my experience, the neighborhoods that I lived in that were the most multicultural were always, without failure, the most impoverished shitholes you could possibly imagine. The evidence in all of our lives points to segregation being the current state of humanity. You are saying that it is not the natural state, that humans would prefer to live in proximity to each other without regards to race or culture in some other hypothetical world. I am saying that the burden of proof for that claim is on you.

[Kowalski]

 

In response to Kowalski, who said this to me in another thread;

"Of course - you can prevent any race you want coming onto your property - i.e. whatever land you bought with money from your labor. It's just you can't reasonably or morally claim the entire abstract concept of "Europe" or "America" belongs to an arbitrarty group of people with certain physical traits, and that anyone without those traits who is within that imaginary border is somehow committing an act of aggression, making it OK to use force against them."

 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher, says this;

 

"The current situation in the United States and in Western Europe has nothing whatsoever to do with "free" immigration. It is forced integration, plain and simple, and forced integration is the predictable outcome of democratic – one-man-one-vote – rule. Abolishing forced integration requires a de-democratization of society, and ultimately the abolition of democracy. More specifically, the authority to admit or exclude should be stripped from the hands of the central government and re-assigned to the states, provinces, cities, towns, villages, residential districts, and ultimately to private property owners and their voluntary associations. The means to achieve this goal are decentralization and secession (both inherently un-democratic, and un-majoritarian). One would be well on the way toward a restoration of the freedom of association and exclusion as it is implied in the idea and institution of private property, and much of the social strife currently caused by forced integration would disappear, if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars or bums or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to kick out those who do not fulfill these requirements as trespassers; and to solve the "naturalization" question somewhat along the Swiss model, where local assemblies, not the central government, determine who can and who cannot become a Swiss citizen."

 

If I got together with some like-minded individuals to buy up a large parcel of land and set up a private community, membership by invitation only, we wouldn’t be infringing upon anyone's liberty by refusing entry to some people. We'd be exercising our liberty, our freedom to associate and disassociate.

If there is a right to associate and disassociate freely, and to separate and secede from oppressive governments and their voters, then there can be no such thing as a universal right to immigrate.

 

This is exactly what I said - you have the right to disallow anyone you like from coming on your private property. Please point either to where I said you didn't have that right, or to where I said there is a "universal right to immigration" including infringing upon private property??

Also please explain how and why white nationalists currently own all of Europe or America, then you'll have an argument against immigration.

[Diabolus]

 

Also please explain how and why white nationalists currently own all of Europe or America, then you'll have an argument against immigration.

 

 

No one is making that claim. You accuse TronCat of misrepresenting your argument, then here you go doing exactly that.

 

The claim that white nationalists are actually making, not that you care to listen to it anyway because you'd rather appeal to your preconceived notion of what it means to be nationalistic, is that the private means of right to association have been entirely disallowed to such an extent that deportation is a reasonable response even if you disagree with the state. Basically, the state fucked it up to begin with, and the sitiuation has become so intolerable that it isn't possible to wait out a few generations and hope the tides of public policy swing in their favor. Due to the very nature of the issue, it is a time-sensitive manner; populations either grow, stay about the same, or shrink. it isn't unreasonable to try to undo the damage that has been done, even if the only means of doing that involve state aggression. Currently welfare states are actively incentivizing masses of immigrants to flood into countries that historically have consisted of one major ethnic group and dominant culture, and it is not going well. The native populations are not just failing to coexist peacefully with the masses of suddenly introduced foreigners, they are failing to even sustain their population numbers in most first world countries. Were it not for those foreigners, we would see that population levels in those regions of the planet are shrinking quickly. But instead, the population is being replaced with the immigrant populations, and this works in two major methods. Firstly, the immigration has tended to continue generation after generation, so that even if all the immigrants in one generation didn't have children in their new country, the population would continue to grow due to the new immigrants in the next generation. And the second effect, of course, is that immigrants do tend to have children, and when they do, they tend to outbreed the natives. So you have an introduced population that is outbreeding the natives at a certain proportion, and on top of that waves of new immigrants are coming into the first world all the time, adding to the phenomenon.

 

The point being that in no more than a few hundred years' time, at the rate of current trends, those countries as we know it will have had their native populations essentially gone extinct. That's if the current political trends continue indefinitely, which may or may not be the case.

 

If you have no attachment at all to your particular racial ancestry or nation (nation ≠ state! Even Mises knew this and defined the difference carefully!), I can understand why you're not especially thrilled about the suggestions of nationalists on how to best save their favored groups from extinction. But look at it this way. Imagine that you did have a preference for a certain kind of person, a certain culture, a certain language and collection of traditions. Maybe you don't even necessarily believe it is a superior group to all others, you just like it and don't mind belonging to it. Can you sympathize with people who detest their government's failure to preserve their history, their identity, their people? Hundreds, even thousands of years went into forming these distinct peoples all over the world. Eons of history, countless lifetimes of work that their ancestors passed on so their children's children could have a good place to call home. And historically speaking, within what is nothing more than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of time, modern democratic governments have so poorly managed human populations across the globe that in some places certain peoples are shrining rapidly, in other places certain populations are growing far more rapidly than their own countries can deal with, and the overall effect is instability and conflict everywhere. There is not a nation on this earth that hasn't been affected by the disruption of populations in the last century.

Certainly you could at least imagine why there is a sense of urgency to the problem, why some people are resentful that centuries of history and heritage are being wiped away in mere decades because bureaucrats don't understand the tragedy of the commons.

 

Even if you personally believe race, culture, tradition and all of that is all nonsense, I would hope that you can sympathize with the sense of loss and understand why there are some people who, otherwise opposed to any state action at all, condone using aggression to deport foreigners.

[Rudd-O DragonFear]

This is the first time in my life I have heard ahyone say that Stef believes and defends "the blank slate". Having read the book and listened to Stef, I know the person who made that claim is dead wrong. Having read that person, how he clearly did not understand Stef's arguments, and his flippant non-responses "you are parroting so and so", I think this person is not looking to have a sensible cinversation, but rather he wants to feel right at all costs, truth be damned. I would suggest not engaging him anymore.

[Diabolus]

 

This is the first time in my life I have heard ahyone say that Stef believes and defends "the blank slate".

 

Then you haven't heard much criticism of anything Stefan has ever said. I'm not talking about the idiots who call FDR a cult, I just mean valid, reasoned criticism. I've heard the point made quite commonly. It is true, Stef's philosophy is founded on a blank slate theory of human nature.

 

Having read the book and listened to Stef, I know the person who made that claim is dead wrong.

 

Fantastic. Would you care to share how you derived this omniscient knowledge, or do you just hope we'll take your word for it?

 

Having read that person, how he clearly did not understand Stef's arguments, and his flippant non-responses "you are parroting so and so", I think this person is not looking to have a sensible cinversation, but rather he wants to feel right at all costs, truth be damned. I would suggest not engaging him anymore.

 

Well. There are people here interested in making arguments to back up their assertions, and some who are not. In your single contribution to this thread, you have fallen more into the latter category. I can't help but wonder if you're talking more about yourself than the OP when you suggest that certain people want to feel right at all costs.