The Babypuke Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Is there a sensible voluntaryist position in regards to how to handle the refugee situation? Government must be used to pay for the support of refugees and put society at risk to the enemies that it (the gov't, not society necessarily) has made. Short-term what does a voluntaryist say? No, don't let them in? Sorry but it's going to sink the ship of the west faster? Or yes, we're responsible for stirring shit up (except the we is really our parents and grandparents, or at least the politicians they elected), we should fix it?I'm five. Literally I feel like I'm five.
Will Torbald Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Is there a sensible voluntaryist position in regards to how to handle the refugee situation? Government must be used to pay for the support of refugees and put society at risk to the enemies that it (the gov't, not society necessarily) has made. Short-term what does a voluntaryist say? No, don't let them in? Sorry but it's going to sink the ship of the west faster? Or yes, we're responsible for stirring shit up (except the we is really our parents and grandparents, or at least the politicians they elected), we should fix it? I'm five. Literally I feel like I'm five. Without the welfare state, refugees wouldn't want to go to those countries in the first place. I don't know why you need an anarchist answer to what the government should do. Like asking an atheist if we should allow refugees in purgatory, or something.
Mister Mister Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 I totally sympathize with the helplessness and confusion, babypuke. We can all speculate on what we would do if we were King, but that's all it is, speculation and wishful thinking. At this point I think all that can be done is to point out that there are legitimate concerns to have over this number of people from these cultures coming into Western countries on the public dime, and that raising these concerns doesn't make you a Nazi.
The Babypuke Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 Without the welfare state, refugees wouldn't want to go to those countries in the first place. I don't know why you need an anarchist answer to what the government should do. Like asking an atheist if we should allow refugees in purgatory, or something. I fully understand that, but being the broken record and constantly stating to the people I know: "you know we wouldn't have to deal with this shit if we were all anarchists" is not a helpful way to communicate in this situation. I totally sympathize with the helplessness and confusion, babypuke. We can all speculate on what we would do if we were King, but that's all it is, speculation and wishful thinking. At this point I think all that can be done is to point out that there are legitimate concerns to have over this number of people from these cultures coming into Western countries on the public dime, and that raising these concerns doesn't make you a Nazi. Well, that helps somewhat. I have kind of been trying to stress that point so far. The point being that regardless of the fact of my being willing to live next door to a refugee family if need be- I do not have the right to make that choice for the other tax slaves of my society. I've been trying to say that the politicians don't have the right subject us to those risks either, or invoke more unfunded liabilities and instead have been suggesting that if people really want to help, engage voluntarily, donate money or travel or do whatever you need to do to feel like you're helping if that's really what you want for these people, rather than tugging on the pant leg of the government to deal with the issue. Sometimes I feel like a dick though, that's probably normal when talking to a mostly left crowd though.
dsayers Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 Is there a sensible voluntaryist position in regards to how to handle the refugee situation? The only reason things like this look complicated is due to a lack of precise terminology. For example, take the phrases "sensible voluntaryist position" and "refugee situation." It's talking about people, so why is terminology that hides the people being used? As Stef recently pointed out, "refugees" aren't even what's being discussed. Secondly, let's boil it down to people. You are a person. Another person threatens you and wants to come live in your house and eat all of your food. Do you let them in? Since you asked for voluntaryist position, all that you need to ask is: Are you obligated to let them in? If you are free to decline, this is a philosophically sound proposition. You don't even have to have a reason. These sorts of things can only happen and/or be mysterious where there's a State. "State" and "government" also removes from the conversation that we're talking about people. You wouldn't let a threatening would-be thief into your house. But as a member of a "country," you "have to" because "your decision" is supposed to represent everybody. I'm more pissed off by this widespread obfuscation that anything. SO MANY PEOPLE are talking about this without realizing they're not actually talking about what they think they are. It's maddening.
Will Torbald Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 I fully understand that, but being the broken record and constantly stating to the people I know: "you know we wouldn't have to deal with this shit if we were all anarchists" is not a helpful way to communicate in this situation. Well, let's look at it from an analytical point of view. The refugees want welfare, and it's the only thing they want. How is that any different from them being parasites through the theft of the government? They are forcing their citizens to have a thousand leeches sucking their blood, and anyone who complains is a bad person. Having the conviction to call them for what they are is one thing, and fearing the backlash from others is another. So you either don't speak your mind, and lay low, or you prepare for fierce battle with bleeding hearts willing to self destruct and destroy you in the process for some supposed moral obligation.
The Babypuke Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 Well, let's look at it from an analytical point of view. The refugees want welfare, and it's the only thing they want. How is that any different from them being parasites through the theft of the government? They are forcing their citizens to have a thousand leeches sucking their blood, and anyone who complains is a bad person. Having the conviction to call them for what they are is one thing, and fearing the backlash from others is another. So you either don't speak your mind, and lay low, or you prepare for fierce battle with bleeding hearts willing to self destruct and destroy you in the process for some supposed moral obligation. I guess I don't feel like I KNOW that they are only interested in welfare and not fleeing violence. Maybe I have more research to do. I wonder what the anarcho-communists that I torture myself talking to would say if I said "okay, let em come, but no welfare, no government benefits". Not that it would happen, interesting thought though to see if the number of incoming people would change.
Wuzzums Posted November 19, 2015 Posted November 19, 2015 People have been moving from one part of the world into another all throughout time. The question is not whether to let them in, the question is whether to let them in indiscriminately the answer to which is if course HELL NO. When I move to another country they have to check to see, off the top of my head, if I'm not some rapist murderer. This check-up is what pro-multiculturalism people are fighting against. What sane person would want to move to a country that doesn't care about whether you're a criminal or not? A sane person would know such a country will select for murderers to emigrate to, which is why they will try to get into more stringent countries where it will be safe from all the murderers they're NOT letting in. Obama said they should let these immigrants in because the US has a tradition of tolerance and it shouldn't fear a bunch of orphans and widows. This is factually incorrect, 80% of the migrants are adult single males and the US rounded up all the japanese citizen and put them in camps in order to keep an eye on them until WW2 was over. If you wanna let in all the orphans and widows then by all means let them in, it's not as if letting in less than a dozen people will have any impact. Here's another WW2 example. Countless jews fled from nazi-occupied Europe to the US. Where are all the countless stories of jews raping local women and going on welfare? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc&index=
Recommended Posts