Jump to content

[Central] - Immigration / (Forced) Multiculturalism topic

Torero
 Share

Recommended Posts

Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
Posted

Just like the Antropogenic Global Warming topic, a similar OP for the not less "hot" topics immigration, (forced) multiculturalism and related subjects.

 

Topics are sorted by popularity (# of replies)

Podcasts are sorted chronologically (newest to oldest)

Topic highlighted in blue contains scientific studies

 

Forum topics on Immigration et al.

FDR podcasts on Immigration

FDR videos on Immigration & YouTube Playlist

 

 

=====================================

 

External video

 

 

Interesting & Effectively Simple Video on the Uselessness of Immigration into the Western World - Roy Beck

  • Upvote 3
DataBrain Newbie

DataBrain

Posted
Posted

I don't understand Stefan's reason for being pro-Trump and wanting to ban Muslim immigration, as it seems to contradict with his ethical view towards Government programs.

 

Isn't Government-controlled immigration itself the initiation of force and therefore immoral? I don't understand this idea of a country/religion being collectively bad (Which is the "War on terrorism," or the idea of wars in general, that Stefan seems to be promoting).

 

Obviously, it is immoral for the government to spent money from taxes in order to help refugees into our country, but why is it a moral obligation (or at least not immoral) to ban immigration from Muslims (or any country, for that matter, as Donald Trump is trying to do)?

 

Stefan is against government programs because they are the initiation of the use of force. However, immigration is a government program. Additionally, Trump is planning to make Mexico pay for a wall so that they cannot immigrate into our country. Imagine how that can possible be enforced.

 

If you argued that a temporary ban on immigration would be for the greater good (meaning that immoral actions are excusable because they provide a huge benefit), would you not be arguing the same argument for other government programs such as Socialism?

 

I don't understand the ethical drive for Stefan wanting to ban immigration, especially Muslim immigration.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 4
shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

I don't understand Stefan's reason for being pro-Trump and wanting to ban Muslim immigration, as it seems to contradict with his ethical view towards Government programs.

 

It's simple, you don't want people to move next to you and have the ability to vote for policies that don't share your values. You certainly don't want people moving next to you who hate you and your values.

 

This is not a "pro-Trump" thing but a self-defense thing.

  • Upvote 2
Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The idea that the vast majority of muslims "hate you" is completely the result of media propaganda.

Muslims in general just want to live their lives, raise their children and all other things non-muslims want.

It's because we are bombarded (hihi) by media hoaxes that people started to think that way.

I myself was culpable of the same indoctrination by the media for sone 12 years.

 

Politicians drive, live and strive on irrational fears; tge whole idea behind the "rationwl" (=pseudo) state (+ mass media).

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
DataBrain Newbie

DataBrain

Posted
Posted

It's simple, you don't want people to move next to you and have the ability to vote for policies that don't share your values. You certainly don't want people moving next to you who hate you and your values.

 

This is not a "pro-Trump" thing but a self-defense thing.

I can see why, perhaps with radical Muslim values, this could be a self-defense measure. However, according to the video that Will Torbald posted, about a third of Muslims in the world are not "radicalized" by the definitions they use of radicalization.

 

Is it still justified to collectively ban immigration of those who don't have "radical" Muslim values, for the sake of being Muslim?

 

Though it's probably not possible, if we had some sort of "radicalization" test which only brought in non-radicalized Muslims (this is purely hypothetical), is it still self-defense for banning their immigration? If so, why?

 

"you don't want people to move next to you and have the ability to vote for policies that don't share your values" itself is not a valid reason. Otherwise, by this exact reasoning, we would be justified in deporting all leftists, fascists, communists, or anyone else who we happen to not share values with.

  • Downvote 1
shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

I can see why, perhaps with radical Muslim values, this could be a self-defense measure. However, according to the video that Will Torbald posted, about a third of Muslims in the world are not "radicalized" by the definitions they use of radicalization.

 

Is it still justified to collectively ban immigration of those who don't have "radical" Muslim values, for the sake of being Muslim?

 

Though it's probably not possible, if we had some sort of "radicalization" test which only brought in non-radicalized Muslims (this is purely hypothetical), is it still self-defense for banning their immigration? If so, why?

 

"you don't want people to move next to you and have the ability to vote for policies that don't share your values" itself is not a valid reason. Otherwise, by this exact reasoning, we would be justified in deporting all leftists, fascists, communists, or anyone else who we happen to not share values with.

 

You went a long way from me explaining that scrutiny of immigrants is warranted to the deportation and reeducation of my neighbors.

 

If I were to institute a test, it would be against the value statement of the US--the Declaration of Independence--and the charter--the Constitution--and go from there. Once you are here you are free, but getting here should be because you want to join the freedom club and not the gravy train. It's not up to me, so it's only a thought experiment.

  • Upvote 2
Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Right.

 

So to answer my point about "media propaganda" you bring up some "Ben Shapiro" clown who reacts with "bla bla terrorists" (he probably forgot to include the CIA-Mossad clowns either sparking or fabricating that "terrorism"...) to two media puppets (Ben Affleck and Barack Obama) and then calls "143 million people in Indonesia radicals". Only because also they are brainwashed by their own politicians, media and education...

 

Who is this "Ben Shapiro"?

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

In a column written for Townhall.com in 2003, Shapiro proposed to expel the Palestinian population from the West Bank. :sick:

 

Later he "changed his views", but he held these very anti-libertarian views...

 

 

 

Shapiro married Mor Toledano in 2008; both practice Orthodox Judaism

 

So, why do you bring this character up?

  • Downvote 3
  • 2 weeks later...
shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

So to answer my point about "media propaganda" you bring up some "Ben Shapiro" clown who reacts with "bla bla terrorists" (he probably forgot to include the CIA-Mossad clowns either sparking or fabricating that "terrorism"...) to two media puppets (Ben Affleck and Barack Obama) and then calls "143 million people in Indonesia radicals". Only because also they are brainwashed by their own politicians, media and education...

 

Who is this "Ben Shapiro"?

 

...

 

So, why do you bring this character up?

 

With that much poison in the well, why would we drink the water?

 

I'll take a sip, though. Care to address the point he made that a significant portion of Muslims hold views that are radical if not harmful to the Freedom Club?

  • Upvote 2
Worlok Newbie

Worlok

Posted
Posted

With that much poison in the well, why would we drink the water?

 

I'll take a sip, though. Care to address the point he made that a significant portion of Muslims hold views that are radical if not harmful to the Freedom Club?

The point already was made (by him?) that those Muslims are brainwashed by their government and media propaganda. Which isn't a legitimate point that western propaganda says there are so many radicals... Because there, in fact, are so many. So regardless of propaganda, there are huge amounts of Muslim extremists and inviting them into our homes is a bad idea.

 

If there is a group of ten people and you are told that 2 of them are child rapists, but nobody knows which ones, are you going to pick from that group of ten people to babysit your children? Or is getting your children molested better than discriminating against a group of people that partially consists of child rapists?

 

 

Facts, as have already been presented in this thread show that there are large percentage of what we consider to be "extremist" or "radical" Muslims and you don't want a child molester to babysit for you.

 

We can't actually determine if they are Muslim extremists or part of ISIS reliably.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/17/senior-obama-officials-have-warned-of-challenges-in-screening-refugees-from-syria/

 

Had anybody actually determined that trump actually means all Muslims or just not allowing people from terrorist supporting states? I assume the second and can't find an official clarification. Anybody have one?

Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

With that much poison in the well, why would we drink the water?

 

I'll take a sip, though. Care to address the point he made that a significant portion of Muslims hold views that are radical if not harmful to the Freedom Club?

 

Exactly; "would we drink the water?", no; the well is poisonous, I merely pointed out the poison.

 

If Ben Shapiro according to his own wiki is an Orthodox Jew (Judaist, not the child of a jewish mother), then his own religious views are:

 

- based on the Torah and Talmud, which are not less horrible (especially the Talmud in its talk about goyim) than the Koran and Hadith is in the texts

- promoting circumcision, religious/racial narcissicm

 

Such a person to bring into the discussion when we're talking about the not less bad principles in Islam is indeed poisonous and nonsense.

 

In the discussion about muslims it's hard as we have the media which are dominated by "terror". You take those "terror attack stories" seriously (the grand master event of all 9/11 is promoted by you in your own words). I do not.

 

I have quite some first-hand experience in muslim countries (2 of which have sharia law) and with muslims in Europe. So I have ample anecdotal evidence. These experiences include only a few where I can extract an "anti-freedom club view" from.

 

If you would not take my anecdotal evidence seriously, then look at the amounts of muslims, normal hardworking people (or trapped by the welfare system provided to them). Do they show large amounts of anti-Western aggression? Are freedoms in the West destroyed by muslims?

 

Most of the islamisation in Europe is self-islamisation. Schools taking away "christmas trees as that would be somehow "offending" muslims". Muslims are not asking for that; it's like pre-crime; leftist oikophobes are thinking for muslims and destroy western/christian values.

 

I am nowhere defending islam, the Koran or the enormously violent history of conquering terrain that muslim Elites have shown (Stefans "The History of the Crusades", the spread by the sword from Marrakech to Makassar and Kazakhstan to Kenia, etc.). The ideas about non-muslims, jews, women, gays, etc. in the Koran are horrible.

 

But if it would be that the vast majority of the muslims truly (and outside of the statist propaganda we dislike so much!) "hate the West" (and more than because of Western imperialist warfare), then tourists in those countries and westerners in their own by visiting muslims would be slaughtered by the millions.

 

If really 143 million Indonesians are anti-Western, why is there still tourism in that country? That would not be possible as 50% of them would kill off the tourists. No alcohol allowed in the Bali resorts, tourists en masse left for dead on Sumatran trails, etc.

 

Do we see that happening? In our everyday lives? Not the televised "reality" of "terror", no in our everyday lives? I have not but maybe you have numerous examples of everyday situations where muslims have acted anti-Western/anti-Freedom (club)?

  • Downvote 2
shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

 

...If Ben Shapiro according to his own wiki is an Orthodox Jew... Such a person to bring into the discussion when we're talking about the not less bad principles in Islam is indeed poisonous and nonsense.

 

... look at the amounts of muslims, normal hardworking people (or trapped by the welfare system provided to them). Do they show large amounts of anti-Western aggression? Are freedoms in the West destroyed by muslims?...

 

I find it interesting that a discussion that Ben Shapiro is bad because he's an Orthodox Jew talking about Muslim extremism ends with the point that not all Muslims are like that. Did the list of surveyed values he described fall into extremism in your view or not?

 

While it may be true that a random US resident is nine times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, that doesn't mean we should ignore terrorism. And, for the record, there have been tourists killed by terrorists. The Achille Largo, tourist kidnappings in Egypt, and the disco bombing in Bali spring to mind almost immediately.

  • Upvote 1
Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I find it interesting that a discussion that Ben Shapiro is bad because he's an Orthodox Jew talking about Muslim extremism ends with the point that not all Muslims are like that. Did the list of surveyed values he described fall into extremism in your view or not?

 

First: the label "extremism" is a bit awkward. Compared to what? The status quo? The "general" (collectivised individual) idea?

 

I've been called "extremist" in discussions with statists for advocating a free society and I am sure many more people on this forum are in similar discussions. A female muslim in a sharia law village advocating women's rights for education, non-circumcision and the right to drink alcohol would be considered "extremist". A muslim advocating sharia law in Shanksville would be considered "extremist", that same muslim with the same ideas in Riyad would not be considered "extremist".

 

I stopped watching the video halfway, so I don't know which values he takes for extremism.

 

And that was not my point. The point is you wouldn't present a video of a stalinist as "proof" that nazism is bad. Or inverse the point: if I would post a video of an "Orthodox muslim" (even if he had 2 PhD's at Harvard and skipped two years in school) as a response to "judaism has unfavorable/'extremist' values" I hope (!) that poisonous well would be questioned the same way as I did to Shapiro.

 

 

While it may be true that a random US resident is nine times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, that doesn't mean we should ignore terrorism. And, for the record, there have been tourists killed by terrorists. The Achille Largo, tourist kidnappings in Egypt, and the disco bombing in Bali spring to mind almost immediately.

 

 

Yes, those are media stories. And they are presented indeed. But to take your comparison; it would be "nine times" more likely that a tourist is robbed in Indonesia, than suffer a "terrorist attack". Which would make stealing (so based on financial gain rather than ideological warfare) more likely than anti-Western/Freedom club attacks without financial incentives.

 

Outside of media hyping craziness there surely is anti-Western frustration among muslims. Last summer I was in southern France where a group of typical low-life Moroccan youth was targeting non-muslims (physically, insults, etc.). They were really behaving like monkeys/hyenas. If you know the movie La Haine, it was exactly like that. That is not an incident; in France the situation in many cities is really bad. And some of that behaviour stems from the indoctrination with islamic values (lack of respect for non-muslims). Also parts of it are due to the failing education of absent or abusive parents, etc.

 

The police (!) was literally standing next to it and not doing anything. Those apes (really, watch La Haine, intro below, and you know what I am talking about) were showing completely unacceptable and stupid behaviour (throwing bottles, hitting people, shouting insults in their horrible type of French, etc.). And were not corrected for that behaviour. AT ALL.

 

So that there are multiculturalist problems and increasingly so due to the import of more of those "people" into formerly peaceful societies in Europe is definitely true. Outside of the media stories which should be looked upon with great skepticism.

 

That's why I used the wording "Forced Multiculturalism". I've lived in multicultural neighbourhoods in Holland myself and fair to say without many problems. But that does not make the problems that are there go away, that's leftist looking away speech.

 

  • Downvote 2
D-Rex Naptime Newbie

D-Rex Naptime

Posted
Posted

Admittedly, I have not read all the replies yet.  I just need to get this off my chest though...

 

I just listened to a Podcast call in show where Stefan made the case for liberty on purely moral grounds.  This comports with all arguments I'm used to hearing from Libertarians, Anarchists, and Stefan.  On this one issue of immigration, we suddenly become consequentialists.  Why?

 

Don't get me wrong, I've made cases against immigration myself, but not for more government control over it.  I don't have a reason to disagree with the statistics, but I just think using force in the form of immigration control is wrong.  Borders aren't real.  We don't believe in collectivism, so why do we now feel entitled to land we do not formally own?  We can make the case that since we are taxed by the government, and government owns the land, we should have a say as to whom inhabits that land.  However, that is the same argument socialists make to advance socialism, or liberals and conservatives use to ban guns and drugs.  There is no end to where that logic will lead.  If the collective was forged from force, it does not justify further collectivization and/or force.  Last, saying we need to curtail immigration because they'll suck up our welfare is a great argument against welfare, but not immigration.  That is like saying we need to have population control because babies may grow up to need welfare. 

 

Why is it just immigration we are trying to control when there are many avenues to the welfare state?  If it is because of homogeneity and merely having a productive society, I just want to hear it.  Are we now "the ends justify the means" people, or are we consistent in our application of the non-aggression principle?  l've heard Stefan discuss this with a caller, but he dodged it by saying that guns were pointed in every direction, so therefore it is not immoral to enforce immigration law.  That is not true though, if we remove the state gun (welfare) which is what I thought this was about.

 

Please don't misunderstand.  I get the argument and I understand that importing votes and welfare seekers may be bad for liberty.  I just want to hear someone's take on addressing the moral question alone.  Thank you.

jpahmad Newbie

jpahmad

Posted
Posted

 

mmigration control is wrong.  Borders aren't real.  We don't believe in collectivism, so why do we now feel entitled to land we do not formally own?  We can make the case that since we are taxed by the government, and government owns the land, we should have a say as to whom inhabits that land.  However, that is the same argument socialists make to advance socialism, or liberals and conservatives use to ban guns and drugs.  There is no end to where that logic will lead. 

 

 

 

If someone steals my bike.  Isn't it still my bike?  If given the option, shouldn't I still be able to at least say who gets to ride it?  The immigrants who utilize urban infrastructure/utilities/school etc..are knowingly making use of stolen goods.  They're not just simply "moving from one place to another."  They're knowingly consuming stolen property.  It's collusion.

D-Rex Naptime Newbie

D-Rex Naptime

Posted
Posted

Now we are saying that we need more coercion (immigration control) because we already have coercion (taxation for infrastructure, etc.)  This is like Elizabeth Warren's argument that we need more socialist policies, because we didn't get rich on our own, being that we drove on roads that everyone paid for, so forth and so on.  Furthermore, if we take this logic to its extreme, we would have a great argument for population control.

 

Be against welfare, if immigrants are taking your welfare.  Be against taxation, if you feel others are freeloading off of your subsidization of infrastructure.  Just don't capitulate to the notion that coercion is justifiable against those who have not aggressed against you.  Simply moving to a space is not a violation in its own right, unless you concede to the notion that the land we share is legitimately owned by the government, and by extension, "us."  If you make the argument that "we" own this public space, you are therefore morally validating the government's right in taxing us for the public good in the first place.

 

To come back to your bike predicament, the bike is still yours.  However, if you aggress against the beneficiary of the bike (immigrants) vs. the person who actually stole your bike (the government), you exonerate the actions of the true aggressor.

  • Upvote 1
jpahmad Newbie

jpahmad

Posted
Posted

 

 

To come back to your bike predicament, the bike is still yours.  However, if you aggress against the beneficiary of the bike (immigrants) vs. the person who actually stole your bike (the government), you exonerate the actions of the true aggressor.

 

No, the beneficiary of the stolen bike is exonerating the actions of the original aggressor.  I can't believe you don't get this.  The immigrants are intentionally and knowingly utilizing stolen goods.  This is aggression.  If you walk into a bike store and buy my stolen bike, knowing that is my bike, you are aggressing against me.  Me using force against you is simply self-defense.

  • Upvote 1
D-Rex Naptime Newbie

D-Rex Naptime

Posted
Posted

Believe me, I get it.  Your counter isn't anything I haven't thought of before, as I've once made that justification myself.  The solution, however, is shut down the illegal bike store (welfare).  You don't outlaw people just because people may commit crimes, just like you don't outlaw guns just because they may lead to gun violence, or drugs, because they may lead to a desperately criminal lifestyle.  You use common law.  You recognize welfare as theft and you outlaw that action.

B0b Newbie

B0b

Posted
Posted

It's simple, you don't want people to move next to you and have the ability to vote for policies that don't share your values. You certainly don't want people moving next to you who hate you and your values.

 

This is not a "pro-Trump" thing but a self-defense thing.

But what if some Americans want some Muslims over? Who decides who should come?

shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

But what if some Americans want some Muslims over? Who decides who should come?

 

Not sure why you are deflecting from the topic, but the mechanisms for who makes policy are pretty clear and established. Voicing disagreement to the mechanism or to the character of those admitted is hardly initiation of force.

shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

Shirgall, my question is, in a stateless country, who decides who can get in?

 

Every single owner of each piece of private property that has to be transited gets to decide who can and cannot transit that property.

  • Upvote 1
shirgall Newbie

shirgall

Posted
Posted

What if 40% of the private owners are ready to let Muslims in and 60% not?

 

I'm not sure why you are asking. Are you claiming that I'm asserting a homogenous border?

B0b Newbie

B0b

Posted
Posted

Donald Trump wants to prevent Muslims from certain countries to get in because 1% of them might be potential terrorists. In a libertarian country, who would decide to let or not let them in?

  • 1 month later...
ShadowWhoWalks Newbie

ShadowWhoWalks

Posted
Posted

Donald Trump wants to prevent Muslims from certain countries to get in because 1% of them might be potential terrorists. In a libertarian country, who would decide to let or not let them in?

More like 0.0001%. Refugees are a non-issue in the US, and not only because of the ocean barriers. They get in through the UN's Refugee Resettlement Program; first applying to the UNHCR (United Nation High Commision for Refugees) and undergo rigorous screening, which includes multiple interviews, background checks, reference checks, and biological screening. A military combatant is screened out, while those deemed to be most vulnerable are selected for resettlement at a country; they do NOT select which country they are referred to. In the US they get even more screening; if they look suspecious they go back. Only 2% of Syrian refugees accepted in the US are men of combat age.

 

It would be the dumbest plan I've heard of for a terrorist to carry out an attack through this program. They would spend a couple of years sitting in some camp with a high probability of not being selected, plus the rigorous screening, and if they get selected they have no knowledge of where they would be going (would be a bummer for them if they went into a country they have no grudge against, hehe). Obama promised to take 10000 refugee, while Canda which has about 1/10th of the US population resettled 25000 refugees; around 2000 only have been resettled in the US so far.

 

 

The radical Muslim narrative is getting ridiculous. An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology or belief system, but rather someone who claims to follow a particular one while holding views which go outside its bounds (ex. someone professing belief in Communism while advocating private property and free market, a Libertarian who rejects the requirement of a state to protect individualism can be called an extremist). If the Islamic orthodoxy and most Muslims don't support terrorism, then so be it; the Islamic terrorists are extremists (which is made more credible by the terrorists being less engaged in their community, low theologically educated, and citing revenge as justification). Staying true to what they perceive as a comprehensive way of life doesn't make them extremists. If anything, a minority who would like to misrepresent Islamic principle, acting like there is no such thing as an Islamic tradition, scholarship, and jurists all for lobotomizing Islam into compatibility with secularism and liberalism would be extremists.

Imagine if a Muslim country's media selectively reports the crimes of secular liberalists and states their ideology along their crime when it is not relevant, while calling 'political' secular liberals extremists, and a danger to society because their philosophers justify killing civilians and that their ideology has spread with bullets and bayonets; all while inviting 'reforming non-political' secular liberal minority to speak for the rest of secular liberalists and Unitarian Christians who reject Jesus' divinity to speak against and on the behalf of Tritarians.

 

All in all, don't get cosy with 'rights' in nationalism; as long as it is no longer convenient, it is gone.

Torero Newbie

Torero

Posted
  • Author
Posted

More like 0.0001%. Refugees are a non-issue in the US....

What about refugees from the "conflict"/"war" created by the US powers in Central America?

The smaller countries south of Mexico suffer greatly and their population is limited so in numbers it may be "not an issue", but Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are greatly damaged by this "war" and or hindered in their economic developments.

 

Northern and West-Central Mexico are warzones with bodies hanging from bridges, kidnappings and terrorized families. Are the people fleeing those horrors not refugees? :huh:

 

a Libertarian who rejects the requirement of a state to protect individualism can be called an extremist.

Sorry, but what??

 

Some may call this mildly offtopic but I'd say individualism is directly attacked by forced multiculturalism (hence my choice to name this topic that way).

 

Me (and other individuals here) "can be called extremists"??

- on who's authority?

- on which basis?

"The State is required"?

- by whom?

- why?

"The State protects individualism"?

- how does "the State" do this?

- what about the destruction of individualism by:

* cultural marxism

* active policies or indirect actions (license policies) against individuals who want to do business as entrepreneurs?

* that same forced multiculturalism

* generalization of individual people

 

Your response in this topic confuses me and I guess I am not the only one...

B0b Newbie

B0b

Posted
Posted

More like 0.0001%. Refugees are a non-issue in the US, and not only because of the ocean barriers. They get in through the UN's Refugee Resettlement Program; first applying to the UNHCR (United Nation High Commision for Refugees) and undergo rigorous screening, which includes multiple interviews, background checks, reference checks, and biological screening. 

 

0.0001%? This is so ridiculous. Even the Muslims that were born in the US turn Islamic terrorists at a much higher frequency.

Oh yes, the the screening is so rigorous. Is it the same screening that was used for 9/11?

 

 

The radical Muslim narrative is getting ridiculous. An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology or belief system, but rather someone who claims to follow a particular one while holding views which go outside its bounds

 

So Jihad goes outside the bounds of Islam. interesting. You must be highly theologically educated about Islam.

 

 

If the Islamic orthodoxy and most Muslims don't support terrorism, then so be it; the Islamic terrorists are extremists (which is made more credible by the terrorists being less engaged in their community, low theologically educated, and citing revenge as justification). 

 

It is exactly the opposite. The less theologically educated they are, the less prone to Jihad they are. Buy a Coran, instead of saying silly things.

Hi there Newbie

Hi there

Posted
Posted

Does anyone else see borders as applied in the NAP argument where the person in the train car pulls the lever to switch tracks and save five people tied to the tracks, but this is said to be initiation of force on her part if there is a single person tied to the track she's switching to?

 

I guess I'm with the camp that says the aggression is in the setup, and an act of empiricism or consequentialism on the part of the victimized populace might be morally sound, or at least an action not defined as initiation of force.  For those that have seen this argued, is there recognition for the fact the switch operator lifts aggression, in a positive sense, from the five when she chooses the fate of the one? I mean, if we're pretending she is the moral actor and she's been "given" choice, rather than having had it taken from her in a circumstance imposed on her. She had everything in the venn diagram outside of two discrete realities stripped from her potential, and seeing the two, she chose the one with four more people in it.  She has no absolute guarantee the switch will work, just as I have no guarantee that supporting a candidate who supports screening differently than they currently screen will make any difference at the border.

 

If one were to keep to the principle of owning what you create through your labor, then I would argue that an act of patrolling the border of your property to impede other's passage would be an act of statism, but patrolling, for example, one's corn crop to ensure no one trampled or stole it would be an act in keeping with non-aggression and free market principles.

 

Just as a mental exercise (and this is me musing, feel free to disregard), let's say a farmer has a corn crop on some land, and an oil company surveyor suspects a great wealth of oil is to be found in the ground beneath the crop.  Does the farmer own the oil?  No.  But his corn crop just became a very valuable road to where the oil is, and he chooses to develop this and sell/lease it to the oil company.  I think that works...seems like a place where non-aggression can remain.

labmath2 Newbie

labmath2

Posted
Posted

Do principles apply even when following them makes you worse off?

If countries are immaginary creations that legitimize initiation of force, then does promoting an idea that is predicated on the legitimacy of a country make you inconsistent?

 

If you act in self interest now by supporting restriction on muslim immigration, what makes you different from the Bernie Sanders voters doing it for thier own profit?

B0b Newbie

B0b

Posted
Posted

There is a difference between not wanting to invite someone over and wanting to take the money of your neighbor.

labmath2 Newbie

labmath2

Posted
Posted

There is a difference between not wanting to invite someone over and wanting to take the money of your neighbor.

That is true, yet it does not address my point. Are countries valid entities and if so are governments also valid entities? If governments are valid entities and you are morally free to vote your interests, then so are the socialists.
B0b Newbie

B0b

Posted
Posted

That is true, yet it does not address my point. Are countries valid entities and if so are governments also valid entities? If governments are valid entities and you are morally free to vote your interests, then so are the socialists.

Countries and states are neither valid nor invalid, they are human organizations. Some organizations seem to correspond to the choices of the citizens, some not. Of course socialists are free to vote for what they want, including stealing money from others for example. If this is what people want in a country, so be it. If they vote to bring over tons of immigrants, so be it.

labmath2 Newbie

labmath2

Posted
Posted

Countries and states are neither valid nor invalid, they are human organizations. Some organizations seem to correspond to the choices of the citizens, some not. Of course socialists are free to vote for what they want, including stealing money from others for example. If this is what people want in a country, so be it. If they vote to bring over tons of immigrants, so be it.

If you are fine with the system i don't suppose we have much of a disagreement. I was under the impression people were not fine with voting for welfare state but were happy to vote to limit immigration.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept