Libertarians for Trump? and.. the immigration debate.

[jrodefeld]

This post is partly a response to the recent debate Stef had with Adam Kokesh, though I want to broaden the topic quite a bit so I thought my comments warranted a separate thread.

I'm not a regular listener of Stefan's show though I've been a committed libertarian anarchist for a good seven or eight years at this point.  I've been firmly on the side that libertarians had/have no reason to support Donald Trump during the last election cycle.  Stefan has been decidedly on the other side of this issue and I've been very critical of him for this.  I think it was a strategic error and a betrayal of principles to jump aboard the Trump movement in the manner that Stef and (even more so) Alex Jones and his ilk have.

I got a bit more information on Stef's current thinking from the Adam Kokesh debate video but I still have many questions.  I'm guessing that a fair number of active forum members here were or are somewhat supportive of Trump's agenda, perhaps just on immigration but maybe on other issues as well.  I'd like to understand a bit more about your thinking and about Stefan's on these issues.

My understanding is that owing in part to his research into the topic of race and IQ, Stefan felt that the most urgent issue of the day is the need to prevent demographic change by permitting supposed low IQ immigrants from the third world into the country.  People with low IQs don't support liberty and therefore we have an obligation to support Trump because he will presumably follow through on his promise to drastically curb immigration.

Before I give my position on the immigration debate, I'd like to know whether I'm correct in saying that Stef's endorsement of Trump was contingent on this issue nearly exclusively?  I know that Walter Block organized the group "Libertarians for Trump" prior to the election but has since largely recanted and admitted that his judgment was in error.  After a year in office, do any of you regret your support for Trump?  

My position on the immigration debate is this:

In a free society, all property is privately owned.  There is no immigration problem because people can only go where they are invited.  Some communities will be very restrictive and discriminate against all kinds of people.  Other communities will be very racially diverse and open.  

Since we are not close to a private property society, we have to imagine second-best government policies which protect property to the greatest extent possible.

Any government action will be rife with corruption, inefficiency and unintended consequences and enforcement of immigration laws are no different.  In contrast to many other government policies that are more innocuous, immigration enforcement is far more likely to lead to abuse of civil liberties and police state conditions.  What would a "libertarian for Trump" be willing to tolerate to prevent immigration from the third world, or deport illegals who currently reside here?  Should we empower ICE officials to randomly stop and harass Hispanic-looking people and demand that they prove their citizenship?  Should we permit them to intimidate and crackdown on business owners and charities who might employ or provide aid to immigrants?  Stories of ICE agents grossly violating civil liberties are rampant.  It's just another government police agency with all the attendant violence and intimidation tactics that the State always uses.

As for the construction of a border wall, we have to remember that governments will have no compunction about using a beefed-up security presence on the border to crack down on emigration and the free movement of American citizens.  In the event of a major crises, some of us may want to withdraw our money from the bank and get out of the country.

Why wouldn't we think that a border wall and immigration restrictions that Stefan supports won't be used against us?

 

I completely agree that a person needs a reasonably high IQ to read and comprehend Murray Rothbard and Austrian economics.  But if what is required for a free society is a majority of people who think deeply about philosophical issues, value consistency and morality, and spend their free time reading dead economists and classical liberal literature, then we are surely doomed.  There is only going to be a small number of people who are willing to do this.  For the masses to follow, liberty has to be practical, it has to provide material value to people in a tangible way and it has to be "cool".  A healthy economy is always going to be replete with menial tasks that don't require a high IQ.  The division of labor is able to accommodate people of varying intelligence levels.

Even with the welfare incentive, the levels of legal and illegal immigration from Mexico and South America ebb and flow with the health of the economy.  Following the economic crash of 2008, there was a sharp decline in immigration and many immigrants self-deported when there were fewer jobs to be had.

 

I don't think the prospects for liberty turn on whether or not we have a couple million more Hispanic citizens with low IQs in the United States.  We didn't give up on the Republic because of third world immigrants.  A far less racially diverse, majority white population gave up on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government more than one hundred years ago.  

 

Here's a better plan for immigration:  Have the Federal Government adopt a relatively hands-off approach but do everything to strengthen the rights of private property owners to discriminate against or disassociate with immigrants if they choose to.  Push for further restrictions on eligibility for welfare payments for non-citizens, allowing private organizations to shoulder more of the load for providing charity to immigrants. 

Finally, start pushing for peaceful secession movements around the country.  If California wants to maintain a massive welfare State that is open to all immigrants, let them do it.  If they are independent, their fiscal recklessness won't impact citizens of other States.

Foolhardy policies will be more readily exposed since people are more able to move to more solvent political units.

 

Yes, immigrants from the third world use welfare at much higher percentages than do immigrants from Norway.  But the trouble with generalizations like this is that you have to then figure out whether a particular immigrant is a net parasite or a net producer.  Poor people of any stripe use welfare at higher rates than more affluent people.  

We're not going to avoid fiscal collapse by preventing immigration from the third world.  If our paper fiat currency isn't spent on food stamps, it'll be spent on foreign aid, or military spending or bailing out the banks or subsidizing big business.  The dollar will fail at some point, taking the welfare state with it.

Promoting the principles of decentralization and subsidiarity, while enhancing property-owners right to freedom of association and discrimination against whoever they please are FAR more likely to lead to a libertarian society than is empowering the Federal Government to build a border wall, keep out or deport third world immigrants and unleash ICE agents to violate our civil liberties.

These are just my thoughts on the matter and I'd like to get some healthy debate going on the subject and maybe better understand Stef's position.  

[ofd]

Quote

But the trouble with generalizations like this is that you have to then figure out whether a particular immigrant is a net parasite or a net producer.

How does that follow? The average IQ of Somalis is about 68, close to retardation. Why is it rational to check a group of 100 people, only to find out that 2 or 3 can function in a modern western society?

[Jsbrads]

Also, free movement in the US means the immigrants can travel anywhere and commit property crimes, sexual assaults, murders...

We also have amnesty looming ahead, and these people when given the opportunity, will vote to violate your property rights further thru government.

Freedom to leave: The North border is still open. Civil Aviation. Boats...

[jrodefeld]

15 hours ago, ofd said:

How does that follow? The average IQ of Somalis is about 68, close to retardation. Why is it rational to check a group of 100 people, only to find out that 2 or 3 can function in a modern western society?

We're not facing the prospect of mass immigration from Somalia.  If we eliminated the welfare State, then immigrants from any country would come here if they either have a sponsor or the prospect of employment.

The majority of our immigration from the third world has come from Mexico and South America.  I live in California and I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of manual labor jobs in agriculture, landscaping and construction, among others, that American-born whites simply don't want to do.

Suppose I am an employer who has experience working with Mexican laborers.  I've noticed a strong work ethic in those that I've employed and I'd like to employ more people from Latin America.  But suppose the Federal Government refuses entry to a Mexican immigrant because he is assumed to have a lower than average IQ (even though no IQ test was performed) or it is assumed that he will end up consuming welfare at a higher rate than native-born people or vote for socialist politicians.

This is a type of "pre-crime" restriction of a person's liberty, both the liberty of the immigrant who wants to seek employment and the employer who wants to offer a job to the immigrant.

By all means strengthen the rights of domestic property owners to exclude or disassociate from immigrants if they choose and ensure that the movement of people does not lead to greater violations of the non-aggression principle, but seeing people only in broad-categories and assaulting their liberties because we ascribe features to them as individuals simply owing to the aggregate statistics of their membership to a particular ethnic group is contrary to the libertarian principle of individualism.

The libertarian position as I understand it is that people have the right to associate or disassociate with anybody they want.  On your property or in your neighborhood, you can have entry requirements.  You may wish to live among people who are culturally and ethnically homogeneous.  

But the fact remains that other people in society wish to live in a more ethnically and culturally diverse community.  There are employers who want to hire immigrants from different parts of the world, and people who would be happy to provide charity for refugees and asylum for political prisoners.  Supporting the Federal Government in banning entry of particular people simply because you'd choose not to live near these people is a violation of rights, in particular the freedom of association.

If you accept the premise that we can restrict peoples liberty because the ethnic group they belong to is more likely to commit crime, then you open the door to all manner of domestic liberty abuses.  What objection could you have to stop-and-frisk policies where police ethnically profile, stop, harass and search blacks in New York?  As a group, they are more likely to be involved in gang activity and criminality, so why can't we violate their liberties before there is evidence of a crime?

The government should have nothing to do with centrally-planning immigration in the sense that they should not make any attempt to choose the demographic makeup of those they choose to admit or reject.  There shouldn't be any Federal policy which officially grants asylum or importation of Islamic refugees, though they shouldn't stop private groups who want to sponsor them.

If stopping immigration is of such paramount importance for libertarians, why shouldn't we habitually support any and all right-wing Republicans who are sufficiently anti-immigrant?  There have been a large number of them over the years.  Remember Tom Tancredo?

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that so-called "open borders" is not exactly the correct libertarian position.  I've listened to people like Hans Hoppe on the matter, but I still think it is wrong to empower the Federal Government to crack down on immigration, build a wall on the Southern border or support right-wing Authoritarian anti-libertarian politicians like Donald Trump.

As I said before, the better solution is to support the principle of subsidiarity and secession into smaller political units.  This would include supporting the cities who are so-called "sanctuary cities", even if we wouldn't want to live there.

If we are pie-in-the-sky idealists about the government's ability to solve a problem like immigration, even as a second-best measure, I don't see why it's more likely that Trump's Administration will solve the immigration problem in a way that would be satisfying to Stefan than it would be to reform the welfare State such that the property-rights violations that immigrants cause to domestic citizens owing to their higher use of social services is not ameliorated.

 

[lorry]

 

20 hours ago, jrodefeld said:

But the trouble with generalizations like this is that you have to then figure out whether a particular immigrant is a net parasite or a net producer.

 

Statisticians, please respond!

 

[jrodefeld]

1 hour ago, lorry said:

 

 

Statisticians, please respond!

 

You can cite statistics all you like that compare the use of welfare services by different ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean that a person who happens to belong to a particular ethnic group should have their liberty abridged because we think they are likely to benefit from government programs that we disapprove of in the future.

In the ideal anarchist libertarian world, there is no State and all property is either unowned and subject to homesteading or is privately owned.  Do you agree with this?

In such a world, any person can invite anybody from any part of the world onto their property.  The private ports, private airports, and private roads would have to accept people from different parts of the world, but in a territory as large as the continental United States, there will be undoubtedly many, many different areas where immigrants are welcome.

Our current government foolishly provides a welfare State which forcefully deprives people of their property in order to redistribute it.  Nearly every one of us take advantage of SOME social services.  It is unavoidable in a society where the State is so pervasive as a monopoly.  Some of us pay far more in taxes than any benefits we receive, while others receive far more benefits than they pay in taxes or in wealth that they produce.  A fair accounting of all this is not exactly easy.  Yes there are some complete welfare bums who do no productive work and leech off the taxpayer.  I'd argue that the most pernicious of these welfare bums are wealthy special interests, big banks, pharmaceutical companies and defense contractors that mooch off the taxpayer to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars each year.  But most of us fall somewhere in the middle.  We pay a lot in taxes and we are involved in productive work, but we receive (or have received in the past) Medicare, Social Security, Disability or food stamps at some point.

The libertarian is against all this, but we have to exist in the society as it is currently constructed.  Walter Block argues, and I agree with him, that it is a virtuous act for a libertarian to take advantage of government services since depriving a criminal gang of their stolen wealth, especially when you promote liberty with it, is a noble endeavor.  

The problem is that the welfare state exists, not that people take advantage of it.  As I understand it, immigrants are not eligible for many welfare benefits for a number of years, though they must be taken care of at hospitals and they take advantage of certain benefits regardless.

There are many businesses who want to hire the best workers from all around the world.  There are private charity groups who want to sponsor refugees or political prisoners.  There are communities that value ethnic diversity to an extent that you or I might not personally approve of.  

Why should a libertarian support a State bureaucracy getting in the way of voluntary association?  

The end goal is absolutely a Hoppe-ian private property society that doesn't have "free" immigration, since individual private property owners determine who they permit and don't permit on their property.  Thus, private property would naturally limit the number of people who could come to our society without violating our rights.  But short of this, there are MANY places where immigrants are welcome by employers and different groups of people, and I don't see why any of us should have the right to interfere with this right to free association, whether we're basing it on aggregate IQ levels or predictions on how they might vote.

I'll just add that two of the major contemporary problems that the West is facing from immigration are entirely products of our government's actions.  In the first place, the migrant crisis plaguing Europe and potentially impacting us is the result of the US Empire's war-making, destabilization and regime-change that they've pursued over the past several decades.  Our military has literally displaced millions of people.

The second major problem, one that effects the United States more than Europe, is entirely a product of the War on Drugs.  The crime, drug smuggling and violence associated with immigration from Mexico and South America is largely, if not nearly entirely, a product of drug prohibition and would drastically decrease if we ended drug prohibition.

This would have a two-pronged effect.  First, it would put the drug smugglers out of business since legal drugs could be bought and sold legitimately in the United States.  This would drastically lower domestic crime, restore our civil liberties and reduce our prison population.  But it would also make Mexico and South American countries vastly safer and less corrupt.  Therefore less people from those countries would be seeking to flee to the United States.

 

I just don't see how we achieve a libertarian society just by keeping out a couple hundred thousand, or even a couple million, immigrants from the third world.  Especially when our government's other policies, specifically the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, are primarily responsible for the immigration problems we are facing.  And especially when the obsession on IQ and demographics drive some of us to support right-wing authoritarians who are disastrous for liberty and who support the same horrendous policies that drive the immigration problem in the first place.

[M.2]

Do the behaviours of libertarians coincide with their words at all?

If I were a libertarian or an anarchist, I would move to the place where there is the most amount of liberty. I have tried a number of times to engage with people on the forums to try to figure out where the most liberty is to be found, but pretty much everyone seems disinterested.
By the way, is Mr.Molyneux still in socialist Canada? If so, why? Does he not care about his daughter who will grow up under Communism? He could be producing videos in the Svalbard Islands or in Zug equally well; he doesn't need to be in Canada. As far as I know, libertarians and anarchists are lazy idealists (salute the exceptions). Supporting Trump is the smallest of their cardinal sins.

[lorry]

9 hours ago, jrodefeld said:

You can cite statistics all you like that compare the use of welfare services by different ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean that a person who happens to belong to a particular ethnic group should have their liberty abridged because we think they are likely to benefit from government programs that we disapprove of in the future.

 

Yes I can. And I can because you run a business. And because you run a business you segment your customers, don't you?

[jrodefeld]

15 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Do the behaviours of libertarians coincide with their words at all?

If I were a libertarian or an anarchist, I would move to the place where there is the most amount of liberty. I have tried a number of times to engage with people on the forums to try to figure out where the most liberty is to be found, but pretty much everyone seems disinterested.
By the way, is Mr.Molyneux still in socialist Canada? If so, why? Does he not care about his daughter who will grow up under Communism? He could be producing videos in the Svalbard Islands or in Zug equally well; he doesn't need to be in Canada. As far as I know, libertarians and anarchists are lazy idealists (salute the exceptions). Supporting Trump is the smallest of their cardinal sins.

There are a lot more values that one has to consider when choosing where one lives than simply how much they are taxed, or how onerous are government regulations.  People are tied down with connections to friends and family, job opportunities or a shared culture.  There is a point at which a State becomes oppressive enough that you'd have to flee, but for many people that would have to be a last resort because they'd have to give up so much in order to do so.

Furthermore, if we want to live in a freer world, I think it is wrong for libertarians to collectively emigrate and congregate in some isolated territory where we can be ostensibly free while the rest of the world collapses into Statist chaos.  We can't save just ourselves.  It's better to associate with people who are not (yet) libertarians and try and move the needle towards liberty as much as possible.

Plus, for all the problems with the United States government, there is a liberal tradition in this country that we can appeal to.  There is more fertile soil here to spread these ideas than there are in many countries around the world.  Of course I support efforts to advance the ideas of Austrian economics and libertarian theory around the globe, but we have to start where we are.

To answer your question, where is the most liberty to be found?  Probably in countries like Switzerland, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Hong Kong or Singapore, to varying degrees.  

[jrodefeld]

11 hours ago, lorry said:

 

Yes I can. And I can because you run a business. And because you run a business you segment your customers, don't you?

Yes, you have the perfect right to discriminate against anyone you wish, on your own property.  Any libertarian who supports Trump's immigration agenda though, is asking the Federal Government to discriminate against immigrants, even if there are employers who would hire them, apartment landlords who would rent to them, or private charities who would assist them.  Therefore, the State would be interfering with private property owners who want to associate with a person who just doesn't happen to reside within the United States at this moment.

I just don't understand how this can be squared with libertarian theory and the non-aggression principle.

According to libertarian theory, rights are individual and don't belong to groups.  This is the reason we don't accept the identity politics of the Left.  We don't believe in gay rights, black rights, transgender rights, etc.  We believe in the right of self-ownership and the right to original appropriation of private property or contractual exchange of property.  These are the only rights we believe in, and they apply to all members of the human species.

Forget immigration for a minute and consider a black kid who lives in the United States at the moment.  If I look at him only as a member of his group, I'd make a lot of assumptions.  I might make the assumption that he is statistically more likely to be involved in gang activity and violent crime.  If I subscribe to the Bell Curve IQ argument, I could assume that he has a lower IQ level than, say, an Asian-American.  Personally, I think my conduct towards that person should depend on who he is as an individual.  I don't think I should stereotype based on an aggregate metric of the group to which he is a member.

Still, according to the argument for State-enforcement against immigration, I could impose all kinds of prior-restraint liberty violations on poor blacks simply because the averages state that they are more likely to commit a crime in the future.  This argument could be used to justify stop-and-frisk, it could justify restrictions on the movement of blacks who are citizens within the United States, and so many other acts of aggression against people who have not been convicted of a crime.

 

To be clear, I'm not in favor of unlimited "free" immigration.  I'm in favor of property-restricted immigration where each property owner has the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason.  I'm certainly not in favor of Trump's immigration policies, and I'm especially not in favor of building a wall on the southern border.

I understand that the debate about immigration, culture and demographics is an active debate that's hotly contested among libertarians.  I don't claim to have the final answer on these issues and I admit that Hans Hermann Hoppe has altered my thinking on the subject a bit.

In the abstract, I can respect the closed-borders libertarian argument.  But when libertarians actively support a person like Donald Trump, and I see stories about the conduct of ICE agents every week, I cannot support this position as anything resembling libertarianism.

[M.2]

4 hours ago, jrodefeld said:

1. There are a lot more values that one has to consider when choosing where one lives than simply how much they are taxed, or how onerous are government regulations.  People are tied down with connections to friends and family, job opportunities or a shared culture.  There is a point at which a State becomes oppressive enough that you'd have to flee, but for many people that would have to be a last resort because they'd have to give up so much in order to do so. Furthermore, if we want to live in a freer world, I think it is wrong for libertarians to collectively emigrate and congregate in some isolated territory where we can be ostensibly free while the rest of the world collapses into Statist chaos.  We can't save just ourselves.  It's better to associate with people who are not (yet) libertarians and try and move the needle towards liberty as much as possible.
2. Plus, for all the problems with the United States government, there is a liberal tradition in this country that we can appeal to.  There is more fertile soil here to spread these ideas than there are in many countries around the world.  Of course I support efforts to advance the ideas of Austrian economics and libertarian theory around the globe, but we have to start where we are.
3. To answer your question, where is the most liberty to be found?  Probably in countries like Switzerland, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Hong Kong or Singapore, to varying degrees.  

1. Thanks for the explanation. I still don't see any validity in it though. If we would want to build a free society, we would have to start from somewhere, probably somehwere small. The quickest way would be exactly to have a small group of freedom-loving people to congregate in the place where there is the biggest chance of accomplishing the utopia, namely in the place with the most freedom as of now.
2. I agree that the USA is a relatively free country, but the notion that it is a champion of freedom around the world is laughable. We all know that born again christian who is just WAY too eager to spread the word, even using some questionable methods. That is basically how we see the US.
3. If you want to vote on which country is the freest, I have already done some research to make it easier: 

 

[jrodefeld]

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Thanks for the explanation. I still don't see any validity in it though. If we would want to build a free society, we would have to start from somewhere, probably somehwere small. The quickest way would be exactly to have a small group of freedom-loving people to congregate in the place where there is the biggest chance of accomplishing the utopia, namely in the place with the most freedom as of now.
2. I agree that the USA is a relatively free country, but the notion that it is a champion of freedom around the world is laughable. We all know that born again christian who is just WAY too eager to spread the word, even using some questionable methods. That is basically how we see the US.
3. If you want to vote on which country is the freest, I have already done some research to make it easier: 

1.  Some libertarians feel that way.  This is the idea behind the "Free State Project" in New Hampshire and there have been similar efforts to carve out libertarian communities in other countries.  I don't think these efforts have gone that well, generally speaking.  I have a lot of metrics that I use to judge who I want as my friends and neighbors, and there are many non-libertarians who I'd prefer to live with over and above some self-professed libertarians.  Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but I don't think it's fair to criticize libertarians who don't move out of the country of their birth as being "all talk" or hypocrites.

There is a strong argument to make that it makes more sense to concentrate our efforts in areas of the world that are decidedly unfree.  If all libertarians move to Lichtenstein or Switzerland, how would that make the world a freer place?  Those countries are already fairly libertarian.  We need freedom activists in every country.

2.  I'm not saying that the United States is a free country now.  But we have a tradition in our past that is a shared heritage rooted in liberty.  Not every country has a Bill of Rights that they can cite.  

 

3 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

 

 

[M.2]

5 hours ago, jrodefeld said:

1.  Some libertarians feel that way.  This is the idea behind the "Free State Project" in New Hampshire and there have been similar efforts to carve out libertarian communities in other countries.  I don't think these efforts have gone that well, generally speaking.  I have a lot of metrics that I use to judge who I want as my friends and neighbors, and there are many non-libertarians who I'd prefer to live with over and above some self-professed libertarians.  Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but I don't think it's fair to criticize libertarians who don't move out of the country of their birth as being "all talk" or hypocrites.
There is a strong argument to make that it makes more sense to concentrate our efforts in areas of the world that are decidedly unfree.  If all libertarians move to Lichtenstein or Switzerland, how would that make the world a freer place?  Those countries are already fairly libertarian.  We need freedom activists in every country.
2.  I'm not saying that the United States is a free country now.  But we have a tradition in our past that is a shared heritage rooted in liberty.  Not every country has a Bill of Rights that they can cite.  

1. Well, so far communism has a longer track record than libertarianism or anarchism. So if we deem communism an unsustainable system, what of libertarianism?
Not being a dick, just an observation that so far the teenager anti-fascits anarchists have accomplished more than the AnCaps. I am genuinely interested in AnCap theory, and my many posts on it prove it, but I still only see talk and no action. 
Ok, I guess you don't have to move to Liechtenstein, though I think there would be plenty of room for all the dedicated libertarians. History has it that a powerful ideology bent on spreading, needs a seat of power, an HQ if you will. The Catholics have the Vatican, the Muslims have Mecca. So far, libertarians are so divided even amongst themselves that they have no chance of spreading into other territories. I can tell you right now that libertarianism has at least 5000 years before it can set foot in China, and that is a fifth of your target audience right there. And then good luck winning over Africa.
2. What are you talking about? Every democracy has a bill of rights. They copied it from you guys (more like you forced them to). And I wasn't talking about the freedom within the US. I was referring to all the stuff the US has done outside of its borders. There are something like 2 success stories, and 200 blunders in your quest of exporting freedom. Americans call terrorists "freedom fighters", so I assume by "freedom activists", you mean saboteurs.

Regarding immigration, just do us all a favour and vote Trump in 2020. I honestly don't care what he does in America, but illegal immigration to Europe has been rapidly declining since his election, and he is openly supporting the V4, so I'm content.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

14 minutes ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Well, so far communism has a longer track record than libertarianism or anarchism. So if we deem communism an unsustainable system, what of libertarianism?
Not being a dick, just an observation that so far the teenager anti-fascits anarchists have accomplished more than the AnCaps. I am genuinely interested in AnCap theory, and my many posts on it prove it, but I still only see talk and no action. 
Ok, I guess you don't have to move to Liechtenstein, though I think there would be plenty of room for all the dedicated libertarians. History has it that a powerful ideology bent on spreading, needs a seat of power, an HQ if you will. The Catholics have the Vatican, the Muslims have Mecca. So far, libertarians are so divided even amongst themselves that they have no chance of spreading into other territories. I can tell you right now that libertarianism has at least 5000 years before it can set foot in China, and that is a fifth of your target audience right there. And then good luck winning over Africa.
2. What are you talking about? Every democracy has a bill of rights. They copied it from you guys (more like you forced them to). And I wasn't talking about the freedom within the US. I was referring to all the stuff the US has done outside of its borders. There are something like 2 success stories, and 200 blunders in your quest of exporting freedom. Americans call terrorists "freedom fighters", so I assume by "freedom activists", you mean saboteurs.

Regarding immigration, just do us all a favour and vote Trump in 2020. I honestly don't care what he does in America, but illegal immigration to Europe has been rapidly declining since his election, and he is openly supporting the V4, so I'm content.

Practically speaking I think libertarianism requires a centralized authority and ideological framework from which all it's proclaimed adherents adhere to. We don't have that. Well, I don't even know if I'd call myself a libertarian because of how heavily bastardized it is. A monarchist, sure. A free marketer, definitely. A liberal? Depending on the definition. Classical Liberal=Yes. Modern pseudo-liberal=HELL NO. 

As someone with my beliefs, I fully intend to organize and write about them and eventually come up with an ideological book of sorts from which "Walheimism" (or whatever I call it) can find its concrete foundation and perhaps some people of actual importance will take it seriously enough to implement it. I'm far from doing what the ultra-pragmatic Temujin nor the ultra-idealistic Jesus of Nazareth are capable of. However I don't want to die without leaving an intellectual handprint on the world, and if history has proven anything just about anyone with a pen and lots of paper can create an ideology to last for all time. 

Because libertarianism/AnCap has no central authority, even among branches (except here on FDR), I have to personalize and individuate what I "think" a true libertarian ought to do versus what they're doing.

Stefanism's goal is AnCap via peaceful parenting and sound mating selection. Not difficult, but very slow. However I do believe that, like Christianity, what started as some bearded guy's ideas with a couple dozen strangers could result in a new world order and religion. And what made the Christ so successful in it's imprint on the world, is in part its focus on children and child education. Peaceful parenting + good mating selection is very educational to their children on what to look for, who to marry, and how to raise their own children. 

However Stefanism lacks anything to do outside of this, and that may be fine because fundamentally the individual without the grace of the collective is ultimately powerless. However still, it is up to the individual to win over the mob and therefore become powerful. I think in American politics, simply voting Republican (of the Trump variety) and calling out the establishment whenever they back-peddle or waver is pretty much the best most people can and will do. And that MAY be enough. Show the Leader our support and the Leader gains proportionally more power. Currently DJT is the Leader. Therefore if we want anything remotely rightist, we must back DJT and only criticize him when he is doing something harmful towards creating a suitable environment for peace, order, and prosperity. 

I think trying to found a country in the Gobi is an ultimately suicidal plan since once it becomes anything worth a something, either the Chinese government or a neighboring one will seize it and overthrow it (and I doubt there are enough red-blooded AnCaps willing and able to fight millions upon millions of sophisticated, well armed, and ruthless Chinese). Likewise hiding out in a neutral country greatly weakens the effectiveness of an ideologically-based voting base. However it DOES provide safe haven to practice Stefanism and perhaps in the long run convert the neutral country and possibly even make the neutral country a contender for regional supremacy and perhaps over time become the next America, Germany, Russia, France, (insert historically big and important country here), etc. 

[lorry]

22 hours ago, jrodefeld said:

Yes, you have the perfect right to discriminate against anyone you wish, on your own property. 

The individual is sovereign over their property, the state is sovereign over the country. I don't see the issue.

 

p.s.

Individual rights in absence of a group upon whom is placed the obligation to fulfill said rights? I never understood why this is hard to understand. You have no rights in absence of the group because the group has to fulfill said rights. In what world should the group fulfill rights which are detrimental to the group as a whole?

Libertarian >> I want the right to do X

Group >> No, X will screw us over

Libertarian >> Muh Locke (or whatever)

[jrodefeld]

13 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

1. Well, so far communism has a longer track record than libertarianism or anarchism. So if we deem communism an unsustainable system, what of libertarianism?
Not being a dick, just an observation that so far the teenager anti-fascits anarchists have accomplished more than the AnCaps. I am genuinely interested in AnCap theory, and my many posts on it prove it, but I still only see talk and no action. 
Ok, I guess you don't have to move to Liechtenstein, though I think there would be plenty of room for all the dedicated libertarians. History has it that a powerful ideology bent on spreading, needs a seat of power, an HQ if you will. The Catholics have the Vatican, the Muslims have Mecca. So far, libertarians are so divided even amongst themselves that they have no chance of spreading into other territories. I can tell you right now that libertarianism has at least 5000 years before it can set foot in China, and that is a fifth of your target audience right there. And then good luck winning over Africa.
2. What are you talking about? Every democracy has a bill of rights. They copied it from you guys (more like you forced them to). And I wasn't talking about the freedom within the US. I was referring to all the stuff the US has done outside of its borders. There are something like 2 success stories, and 200 blunders in your quest of exporting freedom. Americans call terrorists "freedom fighters", so I assume by "freedom activists", you mean saboteurs.

Regarding immigration, just do us all a favour and vote Trump in 2020. I honestly don't care what he does in America, but illegal immigration to Europe has been rapidly declining since his election, and he is openly supporting the V4, so I'm content.

1.  The modern libertarian movement is very young.  It's roots can be traced back centuries, but Austrian economics and libertarian anarchist theory did not reach it's maturity or enter the public consciousness until the 1970s.  If you look at where the libertarian movement was in 1970 and where it is today, you'll see that there has been exponential growth in a relatively short period of time.  I appreciate that you are curious about AnCap theory, but I really think you should be focused on considering whether the theory is true first and foremost.  

Given the madness of contemporary times, ideas that are true and virtuous are not necessarily being embraced by the masses.  Revolutions take time to catch on.  The modern libertarian movement is only a few decades old and we're up against more than a century of deeply ingrained propaganda that we have to dislodge from the public consciousness.

2.  I completely agree that the US military empire has spread nothing but death and destruction across the globe.  Any notions of "spreading freedom" through government force are nothing but canards to bamboozle the public.  It's about military arms sales, mercantilism, and ambitions of global domination.  The humanitarian justification for war has always been a shallow and transparent pretext.

Yes, many democracies have a bill of rights, but I don't think you could argue that the voluminous writings of our founding generation weren't somewhat unique in that they were informed by Enlightenment-Era classical liberal thinking.  School children are still regaled with tales of the Revolutionary War, and how our patriotic forefathers fought for independence against the British because they wanted to be free.  There are many countries that have nothing similar to this as a shared heritage.  Some cultures have nothing but centuries of brutal warlords and socialist misery to look back on and the ideas of Natural Rights and the market economy are simply foreign to them.

I wish you all the best in dealing with your immigration problem in Europe, but I won't be voting for Trump in 2020.  I very well may not vote at all, barring an exceptional libertarian candidate who's a lot more impressive than Gary Johnson.

[jrodefeld]

11 hours ago, lorry said:

The individual is sovereign over their property, the state is sovereign over the country. I don't see the issue.

 

p.s.

Individual rights in absence of a group upon whom is placed the obligation to fulfill said rights? I never understood why this is hard to understand. You have no rights in absence of the group because the group has to fulfill said rights. In what world should the group fulfill rights which are detrimental to the group as a whole?

Libertarian >> I want the right to do X

Group >> No, X will screw us over

Libertarian >> Muh Locke (or whatever)

But libertarian theory considers the State to be illegitimate.  I also don't know what you mean by a group who has an "obligation to fulfill said rights".  The only obligation people have is to refrain from committing aggression against individuals or their property.  The only justified use of force is in self defense.

What this means is that I should have no right to pre-emptively initiate force against a person because he belongs to a group that is more likely to commit crimes in the future.

[Somewhere]

" I live in California and I can attest to the fact that there are a lot of manual labor jobs in agriculture, landscaping and construction, among others, that American-born whites simply don't want to do."

Markets clear. If the pay is high enough, "discouraged workers" and others will come back into the market, and automation will be encouraged. There are plenty of people in the US with IQs appropriate for manual work. New Zealand is a good example of what happens when you have a merit-based immigration system; it's extremely expensive to employ somebody to, say, mow your lawn, and the statutory minimum wage in NZ must be about the highest in the world relative to living costs. New Zealand has a large, thriving and subsidy-free agricultural sector.

[lorry]

On 1/20/2018 at 6:02 AM, jrodefeld said:

But libertarian theory considers the State to be illegitimate.  I also don't know what you mean by a group who has an "obligation to fulfill said rights".  The only obligation people have is to refrain from committing aggression against individuals or their property.  The only justified use of force is in self defense.

What this means is that I should have no right to pre-emptively initiate force against a person because he belongs to a group that is more likely to commit crimes in the future.

You said people have the right.... A right is a guarantee to you, and an obligation on everyone else in a collective.

 

General ex: 

You have right: X, everyone else has an obligation to uphold your right to X.

Specific ex:

You have the right to health care, everyone else has the obligation to uphold your right to health care.

 

If you are an individual bereft of a collective, then you exist in a state of war with everyone else. There is no one upon whom your rights are obligations. You have no rights.

If you are an individual in a collective, and you want the right to benefit at the expense of the collective, you are a selfish parasite.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 1/18/2018 at 12:40 AM, Mishi2 said:

Do the behaviours of libertarians coincide with their words at all?

If I were a libertarian or an anarchist, I would move to the place where there is the most amount of liberty. 

Wouldn't you want to go to the place where liberty is not? That's what Thomas Paine did. Now we have the US.

[M.2]

9 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Wouldn't you want to go to the place where liberty is not? That's what Thomas Paine did. Now we have the US.

There was no liberty in the new world in the 18th century? I think your math is wrong. And why are you americans so obsessed with america? Is it because you don't study other countries? America is awesome, I agree, but there are many other places that outdo them in certain areas, particularly in freedom.

Either way, no. The first thing I would try to do is establish my utopia. Because so far anarchism and libertarianism are both only theories, and rigorous experiments have not been conducted yet. In order to convince the world that my theory works, I would have to bring hard proof. This attitude is what the russians must be commended for: They coducted the largest experiment to test their theory of communism, and since the results did not match the hypothesis, they moved on. Liberty lovers should do the same.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

7 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

There was no liberty in the new world in the 18th century? I think your math is wrong.

You missed my point.

It should not be the goal of anarchists and libertarians to seek out places that already have liberty. It should be the goal to create it where they can. That's why I bring up Thomas Paine, because that's what he did in America, and he attempted to do in Britain and France afterward.

People calling themselves anarchists and libertarians who try to find the "place with the most liberty" so they can live out their lives mostly undisturbed are just escapists.

[jrodefeld]

On 1/19/2018 at 8:00 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Practically speaking I think libertarianism requires a centralized authority and ideological framework from which all it's proclaimed adherents adhere to. We don't have that. Well, I don't even know if I'd call myself a libertarian because of how heavily bastardized it is. A monarchist, sure. A free marketer, definitely. A liberal? Depending on the definition. Classical Liberal=Yes. Modern pseudo-liberal=HELL NO. 

As someone with my beliefs, I fully intend to organize and write about them and eventually come up with an ideological book of sorts from which "Walheimism" (or whatever I call it) can find its concrete foundation and perhaps some people of actual importance will take it seriously enough to implement it. I'm far from doing what the ultra-pragmatic Temujin nor the ultra-idealistic Jesus of Nazareth are capable of. However I don't want to die without leaving an intellectual handprint on the world, and if history has proven anything just about anyone with a pen and lots of paper can create an ideology to last for all time. 

Because libertarianism/AnCap has no central authority, even among branches (except here on FDR), I have to personalize and individuate what I "think" a true libertarian ought to do versus what they're doing.

Stefanism's goal is AnCap via peaceful parenting and sound mating selection. Not difficult, but very slow. However I do believe that, like Christianity, what started as some bearded guy's ideas with a couple dozen strangers could result in a new world order and religion. And what made the Christ so successful in it's imprint on the world, is in part its focus on children and child education. Peaceful parenting + good mating selection is very educational to their children on what to look for, who to marry, and how to raise their own children. 

However Stefanism lacks anything to do outside of this, and that may be fine because fundamentally the individual without the grace of the collective is ultimately powerless. However still, it is up to the individual to win over the mob and therefore become powerful. I think in American politics, simply voting Republican (of the Trump variety) and calling out the establishment whenever they back-peddle or waver is pretty much the best most people can and will do. And that MAY be enough. Show the Leader our support and the Leader gains proportionally more power. Currently DJT is the Leader. Therefore if we want anything remotely rightist, we must back DJT and only criticize him when he is doing something harmful towards creating a suitable environment for peace, order, and prosperity. 

I think trying to found a country in the Gobi is an ultimately suicidal plan since once it becomes anything worth a something, either the Chinese government or a neighboring one will seize it and overthrow it (and I doubt there are enough red-blooded AnCaps willing and able to fight millions upon millions of sophisticated, well armed, and ruthless Chinese). Likewise hiding out in a neutral country greatly weakens the effectiveness of an ideologically-based voting base. However it DOES provide safe haven to practice Stefanism and perhaps in the long run convert the neutral country and possibly even make the neutral country a contender for regional supremacy and perhaps over time become the next America, Germany, Russia, France, (insert historically big and important country here), etc. 

I think you also have to consider that supporting someone like Donald Trump, given his polarizing style, may cause a violent pendulum swing in the opposite direction towards a more overt socialist regime.  I don't think the average Trump voter is being educated one iota about libertarian ideas this entire time.  If the average voter sees libertarianism as a part of Trumpism, they'll be less likely to embrace our movement because they'll be fundamentally confused about what our ideas are.

I'm happy to make strategic alliances with groups ranging from the alt-right to the socialist left on issues that move us in a libertarian direction.  Yet, we need to be very clear what issues are libertarian and be very selective on what or who we support and why.  

Trump is doing so many anti-libertarian things that it boggles the mind how any self-proclaimed libertarian or ancap could still support him.  Of course, you could narrowly support a particular action he takes, but on balance we ought to be distancing ourselves from him and relentlessly criticizing him for his anti-liberty policies.

Yes, peaceful parenting is a very long road towards a libertarian future.  I don't think it is sufficient and in the meantime I do think we should have a spokesman in political life.  But our representative in the political arena should be much more like Ron Paul and far less like Donald Trump.  We should be having representatives who are educated, well-spoken and able to rally a populist movement based on non-interventionism, sound money, and personal liberty.  Not nationalism, protectionism, infrastructure spending, and knee-jerk police/military worship that Trumpism represents.

 

[M.2]

On ‎2018‎-‎01‎-‎22 at 5:41 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

You missed my point. It should not be the goal of anarchists and libertarians to seek out places that already have liberty. It should be the goal to create it where they can. That's why I bring up Thomas Paine, because that's what he did in America, and he attempted to do in Britain and France afterward.

People calling themselves anarchists and libertarians who try to find the "place with the most liberty" so they can live out their lives mostly undisturbed are just escapists.

I didn't miss your point. Wouldn't you agree that you can only create it where there is already a lot of liberty? That is why he went to America first, is it not?

Are the first american pioneers just escapists? Are north korean refugees just escapists? Are zionists just escapists?

[Fashus Maximus]

 

On 1/17/2018 at 12:31 AM, jrodefeld said:

Why wouldn't we think that a border wall and immigration restrictions that Stefan supports won't be used against us?

To do that we'd have to be in power. Why would we use immigration and the border against ourselves?

On 1/17/2018 at 12:31 AM, jrodefeld said:

But the trouble with generalizations like this is that you have to then figure out whether a particular immigrant is a net parasite or a net producer.

If your intention is to allow people in regardless, and the only question is who, then sure you'd have to pick the exceptions. But why would you let anyone in aside from our kin?

On 1/17/2018 at 10:44 PM, jrodefeld said:

You can cite statistics all you like that compare the use of welfare services by different ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean that a person who happens to belong to a particular ethnic group should have their liberty abridged because we think they are likely to benefit from government programs that we disapprove of in the future.

Rejecting people on our land abridges no liberties. No one has the right of access but ourselves. We bled for the land, our women, and our children; no one else paid this price.

Also, it is not simply a question of welfare use. It is a question of ethnic integrity. We're not willing to let foreign men in to compete with us for our own women and create abominations. You think we're going to stare at our mongrel babies and thank god we have low taxes, open borders, and freedom? Are you willing to give your daughter to an African in the name of liberty?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

17 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

I didn't miss your point. Wouldn't you agree that you can only create it where there is already a lot of liberty? That is why he went to America first, is it not?

Are the first american pioneers just escapists? Are north korean refugees just escapists? Are zionists just escapists?

They definitely are. They never claimed to be libertarians or anarchists, either.

America is the place with the greatest liberty mindset. The language of liberty was written in English, and put into practice in America. Even if we're going through a major liberty crisis right now, the language is built into the culture. All we have to do is turn around and look at what we're already built on. The rest of the West is close enough in their cultures that it wouldn't take too much adjustment. The rest of the world, ehh....

After the American Revolution, Thomas Paine went to Britain to attempt another one. He narrowly escaped with his life to go to France, where he joined the French Revolution. He was welcomed with open arms by the French revolutionaries, as they all knew who he was. However, he nearly met the guillotine for sticking to his principles. The French weren't ready to get it...

That's why I'm saying libertarians and anarchists who want to get out of the US to find the "most-libertarian" place available is escapism. They're taking their talents and knowledge and removing it from where it's needed: the US. Just like the first time around, once we figure it out here, it can start being exported. Hopefully it works this time.

[M.2]

10 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

1. They definitely are. They never claimed to be libertarians or anarchists, either.

2. America is the place with the greatest liberty mindset. The language of liberty was written in English, and put into practice in America. Even if we're going through a major liberty crisis right now, the language is built into the culture. All we have to do is turn around and look at what we're already built on. The rest of the West is close enough in their cultures that it wouldn't take too much adjustment. The rest of the world, ehh....

3. After the American Revolution, Thomas Paine went to Britain to attempt another one. He narrowly escaped with his life to go to France, where he joined the French Revolution. He was welcomed with open arms by the French revolutionaries, as they all knew who he was. However, he nearly met the guillotine for sticking to his principles. The French weren't ready to get it...

4. That's why I'm saying libertarians and anarchists who want to get out of the US to find the "most-libertarian" place available is escapism. They're taking their talents and knowledge and removing it from where it's needed: the US. Just like the first time around, once we figure it out here, it can start being exported. Hopefully it works this time.

1. I can live disagreeing with you on this.

2. I think you are a smart guy, and I don't mean to insult you, but that is a very weak argument. What does it mean that the language of liberty was written in english? The word "liberty" itself is Latin imported from French. And maybe you should check out the old Swiss Constitution; it already includes all of the values that the americans claim to have discovered 500 years afterwards. It was written in Latin by the way.

3. Thomas Paine was English, not American, and he went to America as an adult. If he held the attitude that you propagate, he would have begun his quest in England. Instead, he took my advice, and started his project where there was the most possibility of success.

4. We are all free-marketers here. If America is not worthy of the greatest minds anymore, like it used to be, then it deserves to lose them. America does not agree with you - Every invention worth mentioning that came from America was created by escapists; either by Germans, by Jews, or by German Jews.

Who is the passive-aggressive asshole downvoting my posts? It's not an argument.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

Who is the passive-aggressive asshole downvoting my posts? It's not an argument.

Ditto. I care a lot about my reputation and would care to know why someone, seemingly, just scrolled down to downvote people he doesn't like. If there's a good reason let's talk about it... I have abided by the forum rules and standards and have avoided ad hominems and the like, but if reputation is just going to be treated like a childish game then I might as well throw in the towel and stop coming to debate here.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/19/2018 at 11:00 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Practically speaking I think libertarianism requires a centralized authority and ideological framework from which all it's proclaimed adherents adhere to. We don't have that. Well, I don't even know if I'd call myself a libertarian because of how heavily bastardized it is. A monarchist, sure. A free marketer, definitely. A liberal? Depending on the definition. Classical Liberal=Yes. Modern pseudo-liberal=HELL NO. 

As someone with my beliefs, I fully intend to organize and write about them and eventually come up with an ideological book of sorts from which "Walheimism" (or whatever I call it) can find its concrete foundation and perhaps some people of actual importance will take it seriously enough to implement it. I'm far from doing what the ultra-pragmatic Temujin nor the ultra-idealistic Jesus of Nazareth are capable of. However I don't want to die without leaving an intellectual handprint on the world, and if history has proven anything just about anyone with a pen and lots of paper can create an ideology to last for all time. 

Because libertarianism/AnCap has no central authority, even among branches (except here on FDR), I have to personalize and individuate what I "think" a true libertarian ought to do versus what they're doing.

Stefanism's goal is AnCap via peaceful parenting and sound mating selection. Not difficult, but very slow. However I do believe that, like Christianity, what started as some bearded guy's ideas with a couple dozen strangers could result in a new world order and religion. And what made the Christ so successful in it's imprint on the world, is in part its focus on children and child education. Peaceful parenting + good mating selection is very educational to their children on what to look for, who to marry, and how to raise their own children. 

However Stefanism lacks anything to do outside of this, and that may be fine because fundamentally the individual without the grace of the collective is ultimately powerless. However still, it is up to the individual to win over the mob and therefore become powerful. I think in American politics, simply voting Republican (of the Trump variety) and calling out the establishment whenever they back-peddle or waver is pretty much the best most people can and will do. And that MAY be enough. Show the Leader our support and the Leader gains proportionally more power. Currently DJT is the Leader. Therefore if we want anything remotely rightist, we must back DJT and only criticize him when he is doing something harmful towards creating a suitable environment for peace, order, and prosperity. 

I think trying to found a country in the Gobi is an ultimately suicidal plan since once it becomes anything worth a something, either the Chinese government or a neighboring one will seize it and overthrow it (and I doubt there are enough red-blooded AnCaps willing and able to fight millions upon millions of sophisticated, well armed, and ruthless Chinese). Likewise hiding out in a neutral country greatly weakens the effectiveness of an ideologically-based voting base. However it DOES provide safe haven to practice Stefanism and perhaps in the long run convert the neutral country and possibly even make the neutral country a contender for regional supremacy and perhaps over time become the next America, Germany, Russia, France, (insert historically big and important country here), etc. 

What part of this warrants a downvote??? I wait a week to see my posts appear and often go unreplied to. I'd get it if I had to glaring mistake or rule-break in the post but after re-reading it and no one paying it any mind, I have to assume whoever downvoted me is just some asshole without integrity enough to tell me why my reputation deserves a hit for such an apparently terrible argument.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

2. I think you are a smart guy, and I don't mean to insult you, but that is a very weak argument. What does it mean that the language of liberty was written in english? The word "liberty" itself is Latin imported from French. And maybe you should check out the old Swiss Constitution; it already includes all of the values that the americans claim to have discovered 500 years afterwards. It was written in Latin by the way.

Why are English-speaking countries (until recently) the most free countries in the world? I'm not saying the concepts weren't imported from other languages (English is really just a hodge podge of other languages, anyway), I'm saying the discussion fully flourished in English, and continues to do so now. Please provide me any sources if you have them, but when I spent my time in Austria learning German, I for the damn life of me couldn't find any philosophic content in German that I actually wanted to read. It was all rationalistic/romantic bullshit. It's like the native German speakers have an obey-the-rules circuit built into them, and it really comes out in the bureaucratic vocabulary of their language. I found myself in a lot of frustrating conversations because of it, as well. After much discussion, an Austrian girlfriend I had woke up to it one day and realized "alles in Österreich ist verboten!" (everything in Austria isn't allowed). Where are the French and Spanish sources and ideas that have really pushed the concepts of freedom? The Scandinavian? Obviously some exist, but why aren't they as prolific as the ones in English?

Japanese, for example, isn't even built with the capability of independent thought. I've heard from many Japanese people that they need to speak in English in order to express their opinions. Japanese is more concerned about whose ass to kiss.

1 hour ago, Mishi2 said:

3. Thomas Paine was English, not American, and he went to America as an adult. If he held the attitude that you propagate, he would have begun his quest in England. Instead, he took my advice, and started his project where there was the most possibility of success.

I'm aware of the biography of Thomas Paine. I'm guessing his life was more complicated than what you've described. He was from pretty low birth (son of a corset maker) and probably didn't realize what was possible until he came to America and saw what was going on. In his book Common Sense, he spent a large amount of the text describing why the timing was perfect for the American Revolution, due to economics, militaristic, and geographic advantages that the colonies held at that moment. 

Indeed, he started his project where there was the most possibility of success. I'm saying that's still the US. We live in a age of superpowers now. Before superpowers, countries existed when they could a.) control their borders and b.) police inside their borders. After superpowers (i.e. US and USSR post-WWII), a country was simply whatever the superpower said it was. The US and USSR could simply support whichever side they wanted to be in control.

I think the situation is a little more complicated now, as China probably can be considered to have "superpower" status and the EU kinda-sorta-maybe does. Whatever the case, making a libertarian paradise in Panama, it could just be rolled over by a bigger country. The revolution will have to occur IN a superpower, and the US is the only near that.

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

4. We are all free-marketers here. If America is not worthy of the greatest minds anymore, like it used to be, then it deserves to lose them. 

Sadly, this is an argument hard to defend against. I'm adding my part, and I think others are as well, to turn this around and be deserving of them again.
 

2 hours ago, Mishi2 said:

Who is the passive-aggressive asshole downvoting my posts? It's not an argument.

I upvoted you to undo them. Your points are valid and worth discussing.

[M.2]

3 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

1. Why are English-speaking countries (until recently) the most free countries in the world? I'm not saying the concepts weren't imported from other languages (English is really just a hodge podge of other languages, anyway), I'm saying the discussion fully flourished in English, and continues to do so now. Please provide me any sources if you have them, but when I spent my time in Austria learning German, I for the damn life of me couldn't find any philosophic content in German that I actually wanted to read. It was all rationalistic/romantic bullshit. It's like the native German speakers have an obey-the-rules circuit built into them, and it really comes out in the bureaucratic vocabulary of their language. I found myself in a lot of frustrating conversations because of it, as well. After much discussion, an Austrian girlfriend I had woke up to it one day and realized "alles in Österreich ist verboten!" (everything in Austria isn't allowed). Where are the French and Spanish sources and ideas that have really pushed the concepts of freedom? The Scandinavian? Obviously some exist, but why aren't they as prolific as the ones in English? Japanese, for example, isn't even built with the capability of independent thought. I've heard from many Japanese people that they need to speak in English in order to express their opinions. Japanese is more concerned about whose ass to kiss.

2. I'm aware of the biography of Thomas Paine. I'm guessing his life was more complicated than what you've described. He was from pretty low birth (son of a corset maker) and probably didn't realize what was possible until he came to America and saw what was going on. In his book Common Sense, he spent a large amount of the text describing why the timing was perfect for the American Revolution, due to economics, militaristic, and geographic advantages that the colonies held at that moment. 

3. Indeed, he started his project where there was the most possibility of success. I'm saying that's still the US. We live in a age of superpowers now. Before superpowers, countries existed when they could a.) control their borders and b.) police inside their borders. After superpowers (i.e. US and USSR post-WWII), a country was simply whatever the superpower said it was. The US and USSR could simply support whichever side they wanted to be in control. I think the situation is a little more complicated now, as China probably can be considered to have "superpower" status and the EU kinda-sorta-maybe does. Whatever the case, making a libertarian paradise in Panama, it could just be rolled over by a bigger country. The revolution will have to occur IN a superpower, and the US is the only near that.

4. Sadly, this is an argument hard to defend against. I'm adding my part, and I think others are as well, to turn this around and be deserving of them again.

5. I upvoted you to undo them. Your points are valid and worth discussing.

1. I don't think the math is clear on which country is freer than the other, which is why it is worthy of discussion. According to my estimation, it's either Switzerland or New Zealand that is the freest. I would say the Vatican is the freest, but I understand why one would object.
The obsession with liberty is definitely an american thing, I grant you that. The German value system does not emphasise liberty that much. It is also true that the obsession with free will is uniquely a christian thing, and therefore it's quite clear why the japanese don't even have a word for liberty. But it is unfair to say that the discussion has not flourished in other languages. As I said, the French have a thing for liberty, though they may mean something different by it, and the Swiss too, who fought a civil war over liberty just like you did (I already directed you to the swiss constitution). I only speak French and German, so I cannot comment on other cultures. 
It is also worth noting that even anglophones do not agree on what liberty really is. You can ask any two people from two anglophone countries to define liberty, and they will give you radically different answers. There is an argument to be made that the current popular interpretation of liberty by the americans is not quite healthy, leaning more towards freedom worship than the respect for free will. I am open to having this argument.
Alles in Österreich ist verboten = Everything is Austria is vorbidden (hyperbole, but true)

2. Your example still makes my point, not yours, I think.

3. This is what I was talking about a while ago. Libertarianism is very appealing to me, but unfortunately it hasn't been implemented yet, not even on a small scale. If we were to implement it in a large superpower like the USA, it can very well end ugly, just like Russia did with their experiment, and it will not only be the americans who will suffer, but literally everyone else too. There is reason to believe that libertarianism is even more incompatible with human nature than communism is.

4. I am hard at work currently studying the policies of Luxembourg, Switzerland and Ireland on how they keep stealing all the best minds from the world. No matter what you say about the USA, it is no longer near the top freest countries in the world, and the evidence is there.

5. Thanks. I love learning on FDR, but the occasional hostility of members is a repellant to many, including me by now.

[Spiritual-Autarky]

Someone Earlier Erroneously termed communism A Russian ideology. (perhaps you come from somewhere in Europe) This is the most incorrect and russophobic statement ever here

communism is a result of intrigue of je.....Jealous monarchies against Russia, which supposdely lacked liberty. They backed marxist actagaisnst which was supposedly 'oppressing" (interventionism common with modern elites) non-russian dominions. Mised meembers o f evcert sociyiews and spiie in with marxist shiysouls /October against Czar.serves as THE WORLD's VERY FIRST COLOUR REVOLUTION, as it was by the greedy of agaisnt Russia, which they seked into t

 

marxism was a product of th falling west.....do not insult Russians by calling

[Spiritual-Autarky]

Suprisingingly doctrinaire opinions here....

 

If somone seeks to ....... welll... ehile cowardly...i his

On 1/17/2018 at 7:44 PM, jrodefeld said:

Yo

I just don't see how we achieve a libertarian society just by keeping out a couple hundred thousand, or even a couple million, immigrants from the third world.  Especially when our government's other policies, specifically the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, are primarily responsible for the immigration problems we are facing.  And especially when the obsession on IQ and demographics drive some of us to support right-wing authoritarians who are disastrous for liberty and who support the same horrendous policies that drive the immigration problem in the first place.

Perhaps you are not familiar.  or with

 

 

[Like Mexico had in the 1930s (under Senor Calles)]--- ahve no bloody recolleciton  of what I was trying to say with that line...... Was triyng to go of on and the of how are not really

 

A bunch of these coutnrie need to literally cease to exist as seoveign authprites and be either be absorbed into poltical taht can keep more control of peopleor sold to companies 

In a JUST world, maybe Euorpean powers could interven and either force them to straigthen up or get annexed to civilized country.. (probably Spain)

The Latin liberals of 1820s over estimated their poeple abiltiy to live mpra;;oves, anda s a result...

We today....

For thes people, Authrotiainsm is need becasue they lack the discpline NECCESARY (and not eI say neccsay... freedom shouldn't be free ...ortherwise their is adharmis as all the are allowed to "do what they want" leading to .....

[Siegfried von Walheim]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:40 PM, jrodefeld said:

I think you also have to consider that supporting someone like Donald Trump, given his polarizing style, may cause a violent pendulum swing in the opposite direction towards a more overt socialist regime.  I don't think the average Trump voter is being educated one iota about libertarian ideas this entire time.  If the average voter sees libertarianism as a part of Trumpism, they'll be less likely to embrace our movement because they'll be fundamentally confused about what our ideas are.

I'm happy to make strategic alliances with groups ranging from the alt-right to the socialist left on issues that move us in a libertarian direction.  Yet, we need to be very clear what issues are libertarian and be very selective on what or who we support and why.  

Trump is doing so many anti-libertarian things that it boggles the mind how any self-proclaimed libertarian or ancap could still support him.  Of course, you could narrowly support a particular action he takes, but on balance we ought to be distancing ourselves from him and relentlessly criticizing him for his anti-liberty policies.

Yes, peaceful parenting is a very long road towards a libertarian future.  I don't think it is sufficient and in the meantime I do think we should have a spokesman in political life.  But our representative in the political arena should be much more like Ron Paul and far less like Donald Trump.  We should be having representatives who are educated, well-spoken and able to rally a populist movement based on non-interventionism, sound money, and personal liberty.  Not nationalism, protectionism, infrastructure spending, and knee-jerk police/military worship that Trumpism represents.

 

I don't like the push towards government interference in infrastructure or the continuation of the endless-war either, however there can be no country without in group preference (nationalism) and since protectionism is the default position it's not something that can be easily receded (though I am no policy expert, I think it makes sense to lessen protectionism in regards to friendly countries willing to do the same). 

The Left can never be an ally of the Right (the libertarian Right especially). They crave power and their useful idiots bark on command. I'd sooner support a neocon bent on world domination then a Socialist. At least the "colonial empires" fall bloodlessly and largely at no cost to the ruling population; the "Reichs" however stop at nothing in their own self-destruction and the Left, if allowed to succeed in even the tiniest spots, will happily have our necks choked up by a noose. 

Practically speaking there is no alternative to the Trump-Republican Party, as only the Trump way can lead to a prosperous, stable, and orderly nation. And only a prosperous, stable, and orderly nation can lead to a free society. Without strong borders and the expulsion of aliens and parasites, the welfare-warfare state will be the death of us all (or at least a Soviet Union-style half-century prison that its inhabitants will have to outlive if they want to see the brighter post-2000-Russia-style nation-state again). '

Again, I have a lot of criticisms against Trump but the good he brings (and may bring) strongly outweighs that of the alternatives. And also, I would never ally myself with a snake no matter how desperate. The Left is the enemy of humanity and must never be seen as anything other than such, otherwise we see what we're currently seeing in modern America and Chile; a reversal of all the free market policies from the now-distant past and the return of the rope that we once cut ourselves free from.

[ofd]

Quote

We're not facing the prospect of mass immigration from Somalia. 

Ask Midwestern people about that


 

Quote

If we eliminated the welfare State, then immigrants from any country would come here if they either have a sponsor or the prospect of employment.

That'a big if. Furthermore, drug gangs don't care that much about employments or sponsorship.