[Leonard D Neubache]

@AS: Illegal immigrants DO in fact draw various forms of welfare depending on their state of residence, and in any case I didn't specify illegal immigrants.

@Puckerman: I would like to see your source on that immigration/expatriation claim, both to determine if that's based on illegal immigrants going home and/or cheapskate boomers taking their loot and living out their twilight years somewhere cheap while their home nation's economy circles the toilet bowl.

And congratulations for once again pointing out that the crooked political class in DC marches to the same tune regardless of who you vote for until recently. It still doesn't change the fact that some demographics are inclined to hoover up welfare while others are inclined to work for a living.

Beyond that I'm not hearing deafening calls from the libertarian movement to abolish welfare, am I? Do you honestly think a libertarian revolution is going to fill not only 50 million or so full time jobs missing from your job market but also fill the gap left by the millions of public servants you'd have to fire?

And if not, do you think those people are going to quietly starve to death?

[Australia Sucks]

I think Libertarians get lost in too much hypothetical utopia rather than taking concrete incremental action. The practical way to do things is to shrink government gradually over a period of time while opening up the economy. You need to focus on what is achievable rather than being idealistic. Good historical examples of this include the minister for economic affairs in post World War 2 Germany Ludwig Erhard and the 2 time former prime minister of Estonia Mart Laars. They were both hugely successful in implementing reforms to open up and grow the economy, while diminishing the role of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Erhard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Laar

Chilean dictator August Pinochet who came to power thanks to American support was no doubt "encouraged"/"persuaded" by the Americans to let the American Chicago school economists craft the economic policy of Chile. This was after a severe bout of extreme socialism under president Salvador Allende just prior to Pinochet. The result of this period of economic reform is that Chile today despite backsliding to some extent on the Pinochet reforms is still the wealthiest (per capita) country in Latin America.

However history suggests that these types of people have more chance of being elected and carrying out their plans after a prolonged period of extreme statism/socialism. After suffering the consequences of years of complete and utter state control the general population are far more likely to realize the true costs of the welfare warfare state and are more open to radical change. After all when friends or members of your family have been tortured, imprisoned or killed by big brother government socialists or the supermarket shelves are empty thanks to government, suddenly less government does not seem like such a bad thing.

I do not think such a situation can happen today in the Anglo-sphere because things are not desperate enough yet.

I actually think after the collapse of the current government, Venezuela could surprise everyone and suddenly elect politicians that will implement reforms to open up the economy and shrink government. After all Venezuelans have suffered the effects of big totalitarian government for long enough to be willing to try something else.

[puckerman]

Here are some sources on immigration from Mexico.

Here are two from Pew: "Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014; Family Reunification Top Reason for Return":

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/mo...o-the-u-s/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...om-mexico/

http://www.bushcenter.org/publications/a...ation.html

(08-07-2017 04:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

@AS: Illegal immigrants DO in fact draw various forms of welfare depending on their state of residence, and in any case I didn't specify illegal immigrants.

I suspect the biggest welfare is what they get from the public-school system. They don't turn anybody away.

Quote:

@Puckerman: I would like to see your source on that immigration/expatriation claim, both to determine if that's based on illegal immigrants going home and/or cheapskate boomers taking their loot and living out their twilight years somewhere cheap while their home nation's economy circles the toilet bowl.

And you remind me of why I am for open borders. Do you want to force these people to stay in America?

Quote:

Beyond that I'm not hearing deafening calls from the libertarian movement to abolish welfare, am I? Do you honestly think a libertarian revolution is going to fill not only 50 million or so full time jobs missing from your job market but also fill the gap left by the millions of public servants you'd have to fire?

The question of how we get from here to there is one many libertarians discuss, especially among academics and people working at think tanks. Reason magazine also publishes articles on this.

It took us a long time to get into the mess. It will take a long time to get out of the mess. But we still have to keep our eyes on what the final destination is. If we don't have destination, we will forget why we are on the journey in the first place.

Libertarians realize that there may be some pain in the short term. This is why feel-good "solutions" dominate politics. Most Americans don't look ahead. In the long term, the benefits of a free market will be tremendous.

(08-07-2017 04:51 AM)Australia Sucks Wrote:  

I think Libertarians get lost in too much hypothetical utopia rather than taking concrete incremental action. The practical way to do things is to shrink government gradually over a period of time while opening up the economy. You need to focus on what is achievable rather than being idealistic. Good historical examples of this include the minister for economic affairs in post World War 2 Germany Ludwig Erhard and the 2 time former prime minister of Estonia Mart Laars. They were both hugely successful in implementing reforms to open up and grow the economy, while diminishing the role of government.

I am not familiar with Erhard. Libertarians have a great deal of respect for Mart Laar. Some of them are also quite fond of Václav Klaus of the Czech Republic. Roger Douglas of New Zealand is also another hero:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Klaus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Douglas

Quote:

Chilean dictator August Pinochet who came to power thanks to American support was no doubt "encouraged"/"persuaded" by the Americans to let the American Chicago school economists craft the economic policy of Chile. This was after a severe bout of extreme socialism under president Salvador Allende just prior to Pinochet. The result of this period of economic reform is that Chile today despite backsliding to some extent on the Pinochet reforms is still the wealthiest (per capita) country in Latin America.

Most of the libertarians I know would prefer to achieve these gains democratically. I am more and more skeptical about that possibility, especially since Chile is backsliding toward socialism again. A good meme about socialism is here:



That being said, one big problem is that socialism has always been extremely popular with college professors and other people who are in similar positions. I don't know if this will ever change. The most vocal socialists have always been intellectuals.

[Australia Sucks]

Puckerman your point about intellectuals being staunch socialists brings to mind the old saying "he who's bread I eat, his song I sing". Naturally when you are on the payroll of the state (e.g. most university professors) it is difficult to advance your career if you are anti-government.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-12-2017 12:34 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

Here are some sources on immigration from Mexico.

Here are two from Pew: "Net Loss of 140,000 from 2009 to 2014; Family Reunification Top Reason for Return":

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/mo...o-the-u-s/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/201...om-mexico/

http://www.bushcenter.org/publications/a...ation.html

(08-07-2017 04:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

@AS: Illegal immigrants DO in fact draw various forms of welfare depending on their state of residence, and in any case I didn't specify illegal immigrants.

I suspect the biggest welfare is what they get from the public-school system. They don't turn anybody away.

Quote:

@Puckerman: I would like to see your source on that immigration/expatriation claim, both to determine if that's based on illegal immigrants going home and/or cheapskate boomers taking their loot and living out their twilight years somewhere cheap while their home nation's economy circles the toilet bowl.

And you remind me of why I am for open borders. Do you want to force these people to stay in America?

Quote:

Beyond that I'm not hearing deafening calls from the libertarian movement to abolish welfare, am I? Do you honestly think a libertarian revolution is going to fill not only 50 million or so full time jobs missing from your job market but also fill the gap left by the millions of public servants you'd have to fire?

The question of how we get from here to there is one many libertarians discuss, especially among academics and people working at think tanks. Reason magazine also publishes articles on this.

It took us a long time to get into the mess. It will take a long time to get out of the mess. But we still have to keep our eyes on what the final destination is. If we don't have destination, we will forget why we are on the journey in the first place.

Libertarians realize that there may be some pain in the short term. This is why feel-good "solutions" dominate politics. Most Americans don't look ahead. In the long term, the benefits of a free market will be tremendous.
...

This may infuriate you, and I commend you in advance for doing the digital leg work, but I don't trust your sources. The first two draw from a random Mexican census that relies on family members self reporting other family members that illegally immigrate. The number that admit "legally coming back" is going to be much higher than the number that admit "criminally leaving".

The third source is from the GWBush Institute (immigration is an act of love, please clap for my brother) that claims right off the bat that in 2016 America needed immigration because it had full employment. Okay....

You claim that "...It took us a long time to get into the mess. It will take a long time to get out of the mess. But we still have to keep our eyes on what the final destination is."

Great, except the idea of allowing open border immigration into a welfare state like the US without first reforming welfare is the equivalent of focussing on that far away goal at the expense of noticing the bridge ten feet ahead of you has been completely demolished.

You cannot get to the welfare part after the immigration part, particularly because the immigrants will vote for more welfare as they have reliably chosen to do decade over decade. America is already many, many trillions of dollars in debt, and if you're once again honest with yourself you'll admit that the fedora kings of the libertarian movement have not the slightest intention of ever rallying to stop welfare.

There isn't a South American nation that doesn't sink into a socialist quagmire over time. I'm not sure why you think that bringing in more Southern Americans will strengthen libertarian interests. Frankly at this point even if aliens teleported every left wing socialist out of America to some other socialist utopia in another dimension, the American libertarians would still struggle to push Libertarianism, and with good cause.

As a good and righteous man you presume that most other people are good and righteous, but it simply isn't the case. People vote on how full their stomachs are, and the only reason Trump (again, not even a libertarian) was ever in with a chance was the people on the right are getting hungry.

To create a libertarian government you would literally have to rearrange democracy to provide electorates based not on population but on land area (the Trump country vs the Clinton archipelago) and even then you'd be fighting against a lot of dirt farmers who indeed love their government subsidies.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-05-2017 11:21 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The gun-grabbing/kill-the-feds debate is nothing but masturbatory chest beating.

They declare the guns illegal and from then on the only thing that keeping your guns does is makes you live in paranoia. No more parts. No more training. No more videos on the net. No more training sessions. No more range trips. Gun culture remains but "assault rifle" culture dies. And the cops aren't fucking retarded enough to assault hamburger hill ten million times. If you beat your chest and make noise about "mah cold dead hands" they'll just wait for you to go to the supermarket and then have a plain-clothed officer taze you in the back before ten more dogpile you.

"I'll just shoot the gun-grabbers" type tough men are lazy retards who will be outsmarted by people who enact these sorts of plans over decades, not weekends.

I know guys here that beat their chests in '96 before the vast majority of Australian gun owners took the cash for their pistols and rifles. The heroes that didn't 'sell out' were forced to concede that nobody was charging into the breach with them and they buried their guns. You know where those guys are now? In fucking retirement homes dying of cancer.

You engage your politicians from day one or they will simply wear you down over time.

Actually the bigger deterrent against the gun-grab is the broad support that gun freedom has. As Leondard noted - they can always take away your guns if there are only few left who have your back. Worst case they will use light artillery from afar and then use your guns for scrap metal that they pull out of the rubble that was once your house.

The guns of a deterrent of old state-tyranny were frankly designed with 1700-1900 level kind of military tech where guerilla troops with guns could make a lasting difference. This is no longer the case. And yes - you can resist, but if they decide to simply kill all men, then there is zero you can do about it. Iraq would be peaceful as rural Switzerland if the US had decided to do it like the old days and kill all men and boys.

But you cannot topple modern globalist military by guns alone - you have no airforce, no tanks, no missiles, no future combat drones, no future combat-bots etc.

My guess is that the globalists won't even fully disarm the population in some areas. They will wait until their military weaponry even in infantry levels is so powerful that they can win any fight.

Be it as it may - I am for a fully armed population - everyone possible should have heavy machine guns and massive armaments at home. Because no matter how well-equipped those bastards are - I know that they prefer us to have zero weapons so that the old time commissars can pick us up one after another at 3 in the morning with zero resistance.

[Leonard D Neubache]

In modern times the tyrant's fear of an armed population will always revolve around two things. A bolt action rifle with a decent scope or a handgun.

The latter less than the former, frankly.

[puckerman]

(08-13-2017 06:45 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

This may infuriate you, and I commend you in advance for doing the digital leg work, but I don't trust your sources. The first two draw from a random Mexican census that relies on family members self reporting other family members that illegally immigrate. The number that admit "legally coming back" is going to be much higher than the number that admit "criminally leaving".

It does not infuriate me at all. These points are valid. Much like the US census, this does depend on self-reporting. You could say it's a lot like these bogus statistics about unreported rapes. It's entirely possible that we can't get any valid numbers on immigration.

Do you have any valid sources on this?

It is already very difficult to come to America legally from a lot of countries. It is becoming more difficult to leave America legally as well. We also need to stop giving immigrants driver's licenses and ID cards. If we stopped doing that, that would probably improve the situation.

If you don't want the pigeons shitting on your house and your car, don't give them bird seed. It's ridiculous to put out bird seed and then put up a wall to keep the pigeons out.

Quote:

As a good and righteous man you presume that most other people are good and righteous, but it simply isn't the case. People vote on how full their stomachs are, and the only reason Trump (again, not even a libertarian) was ever in with a chance was the people on the right are getting hungry.

You may very well be right about this. I think Trump won the election because he told people it's okay to be angry. A lot of people in American have been fucked over royally by the economy. They are pissed off, and Trump tapped into it. Hillary and Obama kept telling them that the economy is great, and they were having none of that.

Quote:

To create a libertarian government you would literally have to rearrange democracy to provide electorates based not on population but on land area (the Trump country vs the Clinton archipelago) and even then you'd be fighting against a lot of dirt farmers who indeed love their government subsidies.

Libertarians are not democrats, and we have certainly seen plenty of examples of democracy promoting socialism and other silliness. We would be better off if voting were restricted only to people who pay taxes. I also think we might be better off if we had one house of the legislature selected by lottery.

Leonard D Neubache, what is your vision? Obviously you have put a lot of thought and research into your positions. I know what your against. What are you for?

[Diogenesis]

(08-14-2017 09:49 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

I also think we might be better off if we had one house of the legislature selected by lottery.

Prior to 1913, it would've been legal for the states to choose their U.S. Senators by lottery. Even now, if a Senator leaves office before his term is up, the Governor can use the lottery system to pick a replacement.

[puckerman]

As someone who believes in free market, I wrestle with questions about immigrants a lot. A free market allows people to generate wealth and prosperity. A wealthy society attracts more and more people who want to join the market. The immigrants may or may not understand the cultural foundation that makes a successful free market possible. They may simply take fruit from the tree while unknowingly damaging the roots of the tree.

It's a challenging question for me. I wish I could know that each and every immigrant is going to be a productive citizen and understand what makes that productivity possible. Many of them are. Some of them are not.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-04-2017 03:17 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

As someone who believes in free market, I wrestle with questions about immigrants a lot. A free market allows people to generate wealth and prosperity. A wealthy society attracts more and more people who want to join the market. The immigrants may or may not understand the cultural foundation that makes a successful free market possible. They may simply take fruit from the tree while unknowingly damaging the roots of the tree.

It's a challenging question for me. I wish I could know that each and every immigrant is going to be a productive citizen and understand what makes that productivity possible. Many of them are. Some of them are not.

Libertarianism was a bullshit ideology similar to communism financed and created by the world's trillionaires. They know that a fully "ideal" libertarian model won't be implemented just as communism won't be - both models don't work.

Open borders is one such example of a "free exchange of goods and services including labor". Even and especially the free exchange of goods is bullshit and moronic. Allowing companies to produce goods in a 10$/day-pay country and then selling them back in the 200$/day country is one such idiotic idea.

"Compete slaves - compete with the country that pays their workers 10$/day!"

[therealpoder]

(09-04-2017 03:17 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

The immigrants may or may not understand the cultural foundation that makes a successful free market possible. They may simply take fruit from the tree while unknowingly damaging the roots of the tree.

It's a challenging question for me. I wish I could know that each and every immigrant is going to be a productive citizen and understand what makes that productivity possible. Many of them are. Some of them are not.

This is one of the issues I have with open borders. Third world immigrants typically come from cultures that do not understand the free market and in many cases, reject it. This is why the third world is the third world. If their cultures embraced free market ideas, their countries would be wealthier and they would not need to immigrate. Third world immigrants coming to the first world are not going to change their cultures. If an American adult who was born and raised in America their entire life went to another culture, they are still going to have the same American ideals. It is the same with third world immigrants. If they come to the first world from the third world, they are still going to maintain the same backwards cultures and negatively influence the first world. Libertarians seem to think the best way to help third world immigrants is by letting them in the first world. But why not help them develop their own economies and help them adopt free market ideas instead of bring them to the first world and have them bring the first world down? If they choose not to adopt the free market and prefer socialism (e.g. Venezuela) then they should be allow to do that too.

Take the welfare state for example. In the first world, we understand that it is reserved for people who fall on hard times and we have the expectation that once they get on their feet, they are expected to get back to work. Obviously not everyone follows that, but that is the expectation. For many third world immigrants, why work when the government is giving them free money? They welfare state pays way more than what they could make in their home country if they worked a full time job. Food is so cheap and plentiful that you could to a charity for all your meals and obesity, not starvation, is the biggest problem among the first world poor. So they don’t work nor integrate into the economy and live off the native citizen. (see: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/8204...ela-Merkel) This is unfair and it’s irrational. If you want to help third world immigrants, help them develop their own countries. But there is no moral requirement to let them in your country if they will make you worse off.

(09-04-2017 03:31 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Open borders is one such example of a "free exchange of goods and services including labor". Even and especially the free exchange of goods is bullshit and moronic. Allowing companies to produce goods in a 10$/day-pay country and then selling them back in the 200$/day country is one such idiotic idea.

"Compete slaves - compete with the country that pays their workers 10$/day!"

I don’t have a problem with free trade in goods and services. If an employer gives a job to a third world worker that pays more than what that worker would make from local industries and a first world consumer can buy a good or service for a lower price than what he could get if purchased it domestically, it seems like a win-win situation to me. All rich countries started with workers working for meager wages until there was enough capital accumulation where they can demand higher wagers.

That’s better than the alternative of a) preventing third world workers from working at foreign companies that pay higher, which causes third world worker to earn less or in some cases not work at all and resort to crime and prostitution to survive and b) preventing first world consumers to buy foreign goods and services which acts as a consumer subsidy to certain domestic industries and forces consumer to prop up inefficient industries.

[puckerman]

(09-04-2017 07:37 PM)therealpoder Wrote:  

This is one of the issues I have with open borders. Third world immigrants typically come from cultures that do not understand the free market and in many cases, reject it. This is why the third world is the third world. If their cultures embraced free market ideas, their countries would be wealthier and they would not need to immigrate. Third world immigrants coming to the first world are not going to change their cultures. If an American adult who was born and raised in America their entire life went to another culture, they are still going to have the same American ideals.

I have known quite a few welfare bums who were born and raised in America. While I hear plenty of people bitching about immigrants getting welfare, nobody says a word about these welfare bums who have been full-fledged American citizens since they were born.

Quote:

It is the same with third world immigrants. If they come to the first world from the third world, they are still going to maintain the same backwards cultures and negatively influence the first world.

In most of these countries, the people stay. Simply getting up and leaving your country and going somewhere else is a radical move. That is also what happened when people came here.

Quote:

Libertarians seem to think the best way to help third world immigrants is by letting them in the first world. But why not help them develop their own economies and help them adopt free market ideas instead of bring them to the first world and have them bring the first world down?

Many libertarian organizations are doing this. They are think tanks that teach to people from all over the world.

Quote:

Take the welfare state for example. In the first world, we understand that it is reserved for people who fall on hard times and we have the expectation that once they get on their feet, they are expected to get back to work. Obviously not everyone follows that, but that is the expectation.

Is it really that way?

Quote:

For many third world immigrants, why work when the government is giving them free money? They welfare state pays way more than what they could make in their home country if they worked a full time job. Food is so cheap and plentiful that you could to a charity for all your meals and obesity, not starvation, is the biggest problem among the first world poor. So they don’t work nor integrate into the economy and live off the native citizen. (see: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/8204...ela-Merkel) This is unfair and it’s irrational. If you want to help third world immigrants, help them develop their own countries. But there is no moral requirement to let them in your country if they will make you worse off.

So, you leave out the bird seed and then put up a wall to keep the pigeons from getting to the bird seed? How about simply not leaving out the bird seed in the first place? Or is that just too easy?

Conservatism means permanent welfare state and permanent wall. Libertarianism means no welfare state and no wall.

[puckerman]

(08-04-2017 03:26 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Libertarianism is correct only in certain viewpoints.
Libertarianism was very likely created by the globalists as capitalism on steroids. https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/201...economics/

Gary North wrote an excellent rebuttal to this freaky article which you have quoted.

A Greenbacker Invents a Nut-Case History of Libertarianism

Quote:

Volker created the Volker Fund in 1932 to finance hospitals and charities. Only late in his career did he use the Fund's money for ideological purposes: local civic government education. He lived in Missouri, and he was a long-time critic of boss Tom Pendergast and Pendergast's hand-picked local politician, Harry Truman. This did not make him a member of the Immuninati.

Quote:

Anyway, the author believes in Marx's dialectic. This indicates a certain lack of perception on his part. The Marxian dialectic had some tough times back in 1991. You may have read about this. The Communist Party did the unforgivable. It committed suicide. It handed over the infrastructure to the party's insiders and cashed out. Marx called this the "cash nexus." Boy, was he right!

Quote:

So, the Money Power invented Austrian economics (developed by Karl Menger in 1871) and libetarianism (a term coined by Leonard E. Read around 1946) in order to fight Communism (created in 1848 by an unemployed Ph.D. and his capitalist donor). The Money Power in 1871 was really smart. It spotted a couple of Gentiles to do the deed. Menger's disciple, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, another Gentile, did not write his first critique of Marx until 1884, a year after Marx died. He buried this critique in a long, detailed book, History and Critique of Interest Theories, which almost no has ever one read. Why didn't they come to him and say this? "Look, Eugen, publish your Marx critique as a pamphlet. You have just got to come up with a better title. This might work: Marx Was a Commie. That will sell a lot better." How they could have foreseen that Menger would launch the Austrian School remains a mystery to every other historian of Communism and libertarianism. I say this as the author of a 1968 book on Marx.

Quote:

Exactly what a man who sold lampshades and window blinds wholesale in the Midwest had to do with the University of Chicago is not clear. There is no reference to the University of Chicago in Mr. Anonymous. In Chapter XXIV, we do learn that Volker wanted to fund civil education in local government, beginning in 1940. This was eight years after the William Volker Fund began.

[therealpoder]

(09-04-2017 11:05 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

I have known quite a few welfare bums who were born and raised in America. While I hear plenty of people bitching about immigrants getting welfare, nobody says a word about these welfare bums who have been full-fledged American citizens since they were born.

I can't comment on what you have or haven't heard but quite a few political commentators and members of the public criticize the poor staying on welfare for too long and welfare being too generous. It's not a significant political issue as it was 20-30 years ago, but the sentiment is still there.

Quote:

In most of these countries, the people stay. Simply getting up and leaving your country and going somewhere else is a radical move. That is also what happened when people came here.

This really doesn't answer the point I was making. The point I was making is:

1. People tend to think their culture is the best or at the very least are used to doing things a certain way
2. When these individuals move to another country they are still going to think that their culture and way of doing things are the best.
3. Hence when they come to the first world they are going to negatively influence the country informally through cultural practices or formally by voting for far left candidates.

While some immigrants recognize that western, "liberal" capitalist values are superior. Most don't. Most want bigger government to give them free stuff.

As far as culture change, we can see this in certain western countries with increased Islaminization. What if I don't want my culture being radically and irrevocably changed? What if I value my culture more than economic growth?

Open border libertarians, at least the ones I have read, have no response other than to downplay the impact of culture change or make it seem like a big deal. But then again that may be giving them too much credit; many libertarians do not care about cultural preservation at all.

Quote:

Many libertarian organizations are doing this. They are think tanks that teach to people from all over the world.

Then I applaud them for doing this at least.

Quote:

Is it really that way?

It isn't. So why exacerbate the problem by bringing in low skilled immigrants, some who would prefer welfare to work and others who are unable to integrate woods into the economy and will ultimately end up on welfare?

Quote:

So, you leave out the bird seed and then put up a wall to keep the pigeons from getting to the bird seed? How about simply not leaving out the bird seed in the first place? Or is that just too easy?

Conservatism means permanent welfare state and permanent wall. Libertarianism means no welfare state and no wall.

Actually, it's not easy. Welfare (in some form) is here to stay and it would be political suicide to out right eliminate popular programs like Social Security and Medicaid.

Mass migration and total elimination of the welfare state are political non starters.

But as I stated earlier in the thread, open borders will ensure that the libertarian utopia will never happen. As anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell stated and understands:

Quote:

It is impossible to believe that the U.S. or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-...-property/

You would do well to read the entire article.

[therealpoder]

I think I should take a little more time to state my disagreements with libertarianism, at least with mainstream libertarianism. Obviously, not all libertarians hold the beliefs that I disagree with below, but there is a strong correlation:

Libertarians support abortion, I don't.

Libertarians support very liberal immigration, if not full open borders. I don't.

Libertarians don't care or care little about tradition. Although tradition is not infallible, it is a good moral guide that should be followed unless we have strong reasons why we shouldn't follow it. Traditional is typically based on the collected knowledge of society over long periods of time based on trial and error. I think that is more reliable than an individual's or group of individual’s reason.

Libertarians have a "if it's not hurting anyone else, why not allow it" attitude. I don't. This should not be taken to mean that I think the state should ban all behaviors I personally think are immoral however.

Libertarians care little about culture preservation. They see themselves as enlightened post nationalist, enlightened cosmopolitans whereas nationalism or love for birth country, in their view, is a relic of an age of backwardness. This view is exemplified in this quote:

Quote:

Our history is one of liberal tolerance, universalism, and cosmopolitanism, putting the freedom and harmony of all people ahead of the supposed interests of any parochial sub-group, and especially ones defined by the artificial boundaries of nation-states and their subsets.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/201...alt-right/

I care about culture preservation and think it's okay and natural to care more about "your group" than other groups.

Mainstream libertarians like to suck up to the left too much. Such with nonsense like this: https://twitter.com/libertarianism/statu...7059834881

Either they are totally ignorant of the teaching and history of Islam or it's just another pathetic attempt to suck up to the Left.

Basically, libertarians want to create a world similar to the one described in the John Lennon song "Imagine", which is ironic; I view that song as a communist anthem but it is shocking how much libertarian values align with it.

I suppose there are anti abortion, pro restricted immigration, pro tradition, pro cultural values, anti unrestricted personal liberty libertarians that don't suck up to the Left (paleolibertarians?), but they are rare from what I've seen.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-14-2017 09:49 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

...
Leonard D Neubache, what is your vision? Obviously you have put a lot of thought and research into your positions. I know what your against. What are you for?

I appreciate your patience during this dark time for me of minimal internet access.

For one, let me be clear about the following things I believe.

1) No serious political change is going to happen absent a massive collapse of the current regime. The current order cannot weaken without being consumed by chaos. To do otherwise would be like trying to renovate an enormous house of cards.

2) Giving certain groups a vote is easy. Taking it away is impossible politically. There will be no bloodless re-ordering of the franchise. See#1.

3) In the event of a massive collapse or revolution the most dominant players left on the field will decide the next form of government, and it will likely be fascist in nature, if not plainly tribally tyrannical.

4)No nation in the West is still united under a Christian God, which was the fertile ground for the belief in the inherent rights of all men (as bestowed by said God).

5) Only a small handful of academics actually respect individual rights outside of the framework of a Christian God, and they are obviously incapable of establishing a new order from the chaos of the old order's collapse/destruction.

6) None of this pleases me, but to the best of my ability to perceive and predict, all of these are facts. Plain and simple.

With all this in mind, I'm a firm believer that there is no perfect system and that there isn't even a near-perfect system. Even the founding fathers of the American system stated plainly that eventually it would have to be torn down forcefully by those who cherished freedom. Their own carefully crafted system which was far from a universal franchise and furthermore was united under a single God in a homogeneous culture still gave them cause to regret that the tree of liberty would inevitably have to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

No matter the system, its degradation and destruction are inevitable, and we can take some solace in that simple truth.

So what could we hope for next that might provide a somewhat longer buffer between bloodshed? We could either try for a 2.0 version of the universal democratic franchise depending on what the electorates look like on the other side of the Hell bearing down on us, but to me it rings a bit hollow. If democracy is the least worst option we've conceived so far then I would lean toward a system not unlike that described in Heinlein's Starship Troopers where the vote must be earned in some manner.

I have railed against socialism for years but ultimately in a world where robots are fated to step into just about every menial job ever required of the human race, the idea that the jobs market will simply adapt is ridiculous.

That leaves either welfare or massive depopulation, and no modern libertarian has ever plotted a course forward that doesn't take these realities into account. Much like open borders we're all supposed to take it on faith that "everything will work out fine, just you wait and see..."

But the six points listed above make the whole matter moot for me. Modern libertarians are not a meaningful political force much less a military one, and I expect the younger survivors of what's coming will usher in the turn of the next century with libertarianism being relegated to merely another footnote in the evolution of human sociology.

As a final note, in answer to your specific question of "what am I for?" I am for my family and my people. This is what sets me apart from a lot of people on the forum and makes me realise how degraded as a society we have become. If a disaster occurs and collectivist government collapses then does it really matter "what I'm for"? If the local clans band together and create a fascist regime to repel outsiders (and in doing so protect me and my family) am I to fight them to the death because I "am not for fascism"?

It's foolish to place your political beliefs above your people, but the sad reality is that most people don't have a people to identify with any more. All that's left to them is a vague code, shared by a distant few who in any case wont be there to watch your 6 when it really matters.

[mensch]

There are three types of libertarians

1. The academic libertarians. People who have read Robert Nozick and agree that being associated with other libertarians is the damnest thing, but the force of the argument of the moral constraints and the state is too strong. They understand that their position is a neo-Kantian political philosophy. They know who Kant is. Books: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, A Theory of Justice, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Second Treatise on Government. 0.5% of the libertarian population.

2. The capitalists. For them libertarianism is just Capitalism-PLUS!® where not just the distribution of monies is decided according supply and demand, but where the market solves for everything. They might or might not believe that libertarianism leads to greater wealth for everybody. Maybe they have a business and are irritated by the government, by taxes, etc. They want a small, clean government with business-like politicians. Some of them are true-believers in the good of L, some are egoists that think it would be the best for them and some are delusional egoists who don't realise they wouldn't stand a chance in the libertarian world. Plus you get to smoke pot! Books: Rich dad, poor dad, Zero to one, Capitalism and Freedom, Wealth of Nations. 20% of the libertarian population.

3. The crazies. Maybe they really like weed. Maybe they read Ayn Rand and decided there is an ideology for them. They believe in outdated or pseudo-economic theories like the Austrian theory of economics, or whatever bonkers one is trending. They tend to sport neck-beards and see libertarianism as a salvation for the world, while it is more of a salvation for them as it allows them to do something with their lives. Like a religion of sorts. Books: Atlas Shrugged, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Wikipedia.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^4. Hick Libertarians who aren't rich and have no intention of becoming so but who simply want to be left alone out in the woods. Having little to no understanding of what it takes to manage an overcrowded metropolitan hive (and being literally unable to care less) they frame libertarian theory as a justification for ignoring inconvenient laws where feasible but maintain no delusions about the possibility of their ideals becoming mainstream. Books: F150 owners manual, Blue book of gun values 32nd edition, Hydroponics for beginners, The complete home lathe operator.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-06-2017 12:09 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Quote:

So, the Money Power invented Austrian economics (developed by Karl Menger in 1871) and libetarianism (a term coined by Leonard E. Read around 1946) in order to fight Communism (created in 1848 by an unemployed Ph.D. and his capitalist donor). The Money Power in 1871 was really smart. It spotted a couple of Gentiles to do the deed. Menger's disciple, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, another Gentile, did not write his first critique of Marx until 1884, a year after Marx died. He buried this critique in a long, detailed book, History and Critique of Interest Theories, which almost no has ever one read. Why didn't they come to him and say this? "Look, Eugen, publish your Marx critique as a pamphlet. You have just got to come up with a better title. This might work: Marx Was a Commie. That will sell a lot better." How they could have foreseen that Menger would launch the Austrian School remains a mystery to every other historian of Communism and libertarianism. I say this as the author of a 1968 book on Marx.

The money power rarely has to invent things - just pick an ideology or movement and transform/exacerbate or change it. Libertarianism was an easy target.

Most debates with knowledgable folk from the interest-free community completely obliterated the libertarian sites. I remember a few years ago that they even closed the comment section after it became too difficult to argue for interest rates for the 0,001% while the counter-system had zero interest rates, less taxes and closed borders with tariffs.

And it gets worse with each passing year:



Libertarians are now becoming pro North Korea, pro Islam and pro Bernie Sanders.

[Kid Twist]

(09-07-2017 08:40 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(08-14-2017 09:49 PM)puckerman Wrote:  

...
Leonard D Neubache, what is your vision? Obviously you have put a lot of thought and research into your positions. I know what your against. What are you for?

I appreciate your patience during this dark time for me of minimal internet access.

For one, let me be clear about the following things I believe.

1) No serious political change is going to happen absent a massive collapse of the current regime. The current order cannot weaken without being consumed by chaos. To do otherwise would be like trying to renovate an enormous house of cards.

2) Giving certain groups a vote is easy. Taking it away is impossible politically. There will be no bloodless re-ordering of the franchise. See#1.

3) In the event of a massive collapse or revolution the most dominant players left on the field will decide the next form of government, and it will likely be fascist in nature, if not plainly tribally tyrannical.

4)No nation in the West is still united under a Christian God, which was the fertile ground for the belief in the inherent rights of all men (as bestowed by said God).

5) Only a small handful of academics actually respect individual rights outside of the framework of a Christian God, and they are obviously incapable of establishing a new order from the chaos of the old order's collapse/destruction.

6) None of this pleases me, but to the best of my ability to perceive and predict, all of these are facts. Plain and simple.

With all this in mind, I'm a firm believer that there is no perfect system and that there isn't even a near-perfect system. Even the founding fathers of the American system stated plainly that eventually it would have to be torn down forcefully by those who cherished freedom. Their own carefully crafted system which was far from a universal franchise and furthermore was united under a single God in a homogeneous culture still gave them cause to regret that the tree of liberty would inevitably have to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

No matter the system, its degradation and destruction are inevitable, and we can take some solace in that simple truth.

So what could we hope for next that might provide a somewhat longer buffer between bloodshed? We could either try for a 2.0 version of the universal democratic franchise depending on what the electorates look like on the other side of the Hell bearing down on us, but to me it rings a bit hollow. If democracy is the least worst option we've conceived so far then I would lean toward a system not unlike that described in Heinlein's Starship Troopers where the vote must be earned in some manner.

I have railed against socialism for years but ultimately in a world where robots are fated to step into just about every menial job ever required of the human race, the idea that the jobs market will simply adapt is ridiculous.

That leaves either welfare or massive depopulation, and no modern libertarian has ever plotted a course forward that doesn't take these realities into account. Much like open borders we're all supposed to take it on faith that "everything will work out fine, just you wait and see..."

But the six points listed above make the whole matter moot for me. Modern libertarians are not a meaningful political force much less a military one, and I expect the younger survivors of what's coming will usher in the turn of the next century with libertarianism being relegated to merely another footnote in the evolution of human sociology.

As a final note, in answer to your specific question of "what am I for?" I am for my family and my people. This is what sets me apart from a lot of people on the forum and makes me realise how degraded as a society we have become. If a disaster occurs and collectivist government collapses then does it really matter "what I'm for"? If the local clans band together and create a fascist regime to repel outsiders (and in doing so protect me and my family) am I to fight them to the death because I "am not for fascism"?

It's foolish to place your political beliefs above your people, but the sad reality is that most people don't have a people to identify with any more. All that's left to them is a vague code, shared by a distant few who in any case wont be there to watch your 6 when it really matters.

Couldn't agree more. It is amazing how even fairly thoughtful, educated people can't see beyond just a couple of generations and think that a place like America can last at this point (or that it might "turn around").

Your last paragraph is tops here. It's super ironic that identity politics has dealt with acute identity in this modern period, or moving forward under recent assumptions, but the most critical identity of all is the historical biological one --- as well as the underpinning culture (christianity) that created the currently great nations, or at least those that the whole world wants to go to. These idiots have no clue of what Jordan Peterson states about them having nothing as a backbone if Christianity goes away, and no argument to stop any other random power driven human with his passions.

[puckerman]

(09-07-2017 08:40 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

For one, let me be clear about the following things I believe.

1) No serious political change is going to happen absent a massive collapse of the current regime. The current order cannot weaken without being consumed by chaos. To do otherwise would be like trying to renovate an enormous house of cards.

I am afraid this is true.

Quote:

2) Giving certain groups a vote is easy. Taking it away is impossible politically. There will be no bloodless re-ordering of the franchise.

This depends on the size of the group. If it's 1% or 2%, it might not be a big deal. If it's larger, it's more difficult.

Quote:

3) In the event of a massive collapse or revolution the most dominant players left on the field will decide the next form of government, and it will likely be fascist in nature, if not plainly tribally tyrannical.

That is usually how it works out. I have no idea what it will be like though.

Quote:

4)No nation in the West is still united under a Christian God, which was the fertile ground for the belief in the inherent rights of all men (as bestowed by said God).

Many of America's Founders acknowledge the role of Christianity. Christianity had been around for a long before that, however. It also influenced many of the dictatorships that existed, as well as the Inquisition.

Others believe that it was the influence of Aristotelian philosophy and a rejection of Platonism. The influence of Saint Augustine gave us the Dark Ages. The influence of Saint Thomas Aquinas gave us the Renaissance. Luther's Reformation was also a rejection of Aristotle in favor of Plato. I think we are still paying for that today.

Quote:

5) Only a small handful of academics actually respect individual rights outside of the framework of a Christian God, and they are obviously incapable of establishing a new order from the chaos of the old order's collapse/destruction.

It has never been accomplished without Christianity so far. But libertarianism is totally neutral on Christianity. Some are atheists, and some are very religious.

Quote:

With all this in mind, I'm a firm believer that there is no perfect system and that there isn't even a near-perfect system. Even the founding fathers of the American system stated plainly that eventually it would have to be torn down forcefully by those who cherished freedom. Their own carefully crafted system which was far from a universal franchise and furthermore was united under a single God in a homogeneous culture still gave them cause to regret that the tree of liberty would inevitably have to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

I am well aware of what Jefferson wrote about the "tree of liberty" and having a rebellion every 20 years. The other huge mistake was establishing a system of government schools. I don't think we would have any of these problems if America never had public schools.

Quote:

So what could we hope for next that might provide a somewhat longer buffer between bloodshed? We could either try for a 2.0 version of the universal democratic franchise depending on what the electorates look like on the other side of the Hell bearing down on us, but to me it rings a bit hollow. If democracy is the least worst option we've conceived so far then I would lean toward a system not unlike that described in Heinlein's Starship Troopers where the vote must be earned in some manner.

I have long favored having legislators chosen by lottery in one branch. I don't know how one would decide who earns a vote. Poll taxes were the last bulwark against this. They should be brought back, and I will be called a racist by socialists for advocating this.

Murray Rothbard advocated that all votes should have to be write-in votes. You would have to know your candidates. The informed would vote. The ignorant would stay away.

Quote:

I have railed against socialism for years but ultimately in a world where robots are fated to step into just about every menial job ever required of the human race, the idea that the jobs market will simply adapt is ridiculous.

I am not that optimistic about technology. I am not that cynical about markets. Markets find solutions all the time.

Quote:

But the six points listed above make the whole matter moot for me. Modern libertarians are not a meaningful political force much less a military one, and I expect the younger survivors of what's coming will usher in the turn of the next century with libertarianism being relegated to merely another footnote in the evolution of human sociology.

I am not sure what to say about this. I am coming to the conclusion that Marxism may never die. It is just as alive as it was in 1988.

Will college professors always be charlatans, hucksters, and frauds? That is the question I wonder about. I hope it isn't the case. There is no reason to believe things will change though. Then again, the Ivy League schools in America were once religious.

Quote:

As a final note, in answer to your specific question of "what am I for?" I am for my family and my people. This is what sets me apart from a lot of people on the forum and makes me realise how degraded as a society we have become. If a disaster occurs and collectivist government collapses then does it really matter "what I'm for"? If the local clans band together and create a fascist regime to repel outsiders (and in doing so protect me and my family) am I to fight them to the death because I "am not for fascism"?

It's foolish to place your political beliefs above your people, but the sad reality is that most people don't have a people to identify with any more. All that's left to them is a vague code, shared by a distant few who in any case wont be there to watch your 6 when it really matters.

In the absence of having people, that is all we have. Many of us don't have a community. I think we were meant to have one, but a lot of people don't have one.

People is not a static thing. I will die. Others will die. Children are born, grow up, and take over. In the end, principles are the only things that are eternal.