Board 8 > Freedom, Liberty, Ron Paul - The biggest humanitarian disaster of all [dwmf]

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/78xkze/looks_like_donald_trump_wrote_to_new_york/

This is amazing

Funnier that he named his son after his (other) after ego
---

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/27/nj-cops-say-someone-might-distribute-mar
---

If it was DC it would actually be somewhat believable since people go out on the street with trays of cookies to sell. They charge $20 obviously but if it's Halloween they might feel a bit generous.
---

http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/26/are-libertarian-friends-the-key-to-fixin

if socially adept libertarians are the key to saving the world we are so fucked
---

Libertarians are already arguing for genocide and assault now apparently so we're definitely fucked
---

"if most people think it's good, it's probably good." - the libertarian position in 2017
---

https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/923913109517078528

I'd rather see them fight to the death with knives but this might be cool, too.
---

wait, who's arguing open borders and immigration are bad? pretty sure they both self-identify as libertarians so one of them is being a hypocrite.

it's southern right
---

You don't have to disagree 100% on things to debate

Also LS prob hates immigrants
---

sure but they have to disagree somewhat. can't imagine it being much of a debate if they're both going "according to libertarianism open borders and immigration are A-OK!"
---

No one agrees 100% with someone else and definitely no libertarian even agrees 75% with another
---

foolm0r0n posted...

no libertarian even agrees 75% with another

sure, but that's because a lot of "libertarians" are actually faux libertarians or hypocrites, like i said before. like lauren southern.
---

Not necessarily, it's just a very low bar to be libertarian (adhere to NAP) so there's a ton of details to argue over
---

It's like saying all gamers mostly agree with each other
---

it depends on what you mean. like yeah, they're not going to agree on what the best movie ever is or whatever. but in the case of the core principles of libertarianism, i don't see how libertarians can disgree while actually being libertarians in the first place. in this case, lauren southern thinks closed borders and an anti-immigraiton mentality are good, which is a clear and flagrant violation of the NAP. hence, she's a faux libertarian.
---

A really easy way to justify anti-immigration from a libertarian position is to think of a country's borders as its property, as in the taxpayers' shared property. State property is immoral for sure, but if you assume that it's a given since government is ubiquitous, you might as well respect its claim to property.

I think it's a pretty weak position but it's not invalid.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

A really easy way to justify anti-immigration from a libertarian position is to think of a country's borders as its property, as in the taxpayers' shared property. State property is immoral for sure, but if you assume that it's a given since government is ubiquitous, you might as well respect its claim to property.

I think it's a pretty weak position but it's not invalid.

I mean the only real alternative to this is to claim that nobody owns the property that is "public" within a nation's borders. Which seems pretty absurd.
---

i do think it's invalid.

when you say "we're doing away with one of the core principles of libertarianism but OH WELL" you're not to be taken seriously anymore.
---

when you say "we're doing away with one of the core principles of libertarianism but OH WELL" you're not to be taken seriously anymore.

What core principle of libertarianism suggests that nobody has a right to decide who can and cannot come onto their property?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

What core principle of libertarianism suggests that nobody has a right to decide who can and cannot come onto their property?

none.

one core principle is the NAP, though. if you accept that governments have a right to exist - which we clearly do in this debate - you're doing away with that principle.
---

one core principle is the NAP, though. if you accept that governments have a right to exist - which we clearly do in this debate - you're doing away with that principle.

They don't have a right to exist.

But they do exist, and they are the current property owner of public spaces.

They shouldn't be, but they are.
---

yeah, but the libertarian position is that the government shouldn't exist.

like, what the hell kind of logic is this? "something shouldn't exist, but it does, so we're just going to take that as a given in an argument"? how does that make sense?

the libertarian position on open borders is "there should be open borders because closed borders are created by the government and the government existing violates the NAP and is immoral" (i assume kokesh is going to argue this because he's, you know, an actual libertarian), not "the government shouldn't exist, but it does, so whoops."

being a libertarian is not cherry picking one core principle of libertarianism ("property owners have a right to decide who comes on their property") and completely ignoring another core principle ("we should adhere to the NAP"). that makes 0% sense. and if anything, the NAP is MORE important than the "property owner right" stuff. correct me if i'm wrong but i've always been under the impression that the NAP is the single most important principle to libertarians.

also, it's not like kokesh is arguing that property owners don't have a right to decide who comes on their property. he doesn't think that it's fine for random strangers to come into your house. his position isn't "the government has no right to decide who comes on their property so we should open the borders," it's "the government should be eradicated (which would also eradicate the existing borders, because they exist by virtue of the government existing) and when that's done property owners should have the right to decide who comes on their property." so kokesh and southern agree on the "property owner right" thing - kokesh is just arguing this position while not accepting the government as a given (libertarian) while southern does accept the government as a given (not libertarian).
---

The NAP does not imply open borders in any reasonable way. It implies taxation is theft.

Let's say that tonight, the US government simply hands over all "property" of the national border to mexico. What happens? The new "border" would be the property lines of the private property owners adjacent to the border. And guess what? The policy of those new owners would not be "anyone can come and go as they please."

"Open borders" as such are not a thing that actually exists anywhere, and never have. They wouldn't exist under libertarianism either. So to imply that libertarianism demands they exist now is absurd. Libertarianism says the state is illegitimate, but it does not say every action the state takes is illegitimate. There would still be police in AnCap. There would still be military. There would still be roads. And there would still be borders.
---

well yeah, that's more of a semantics argument. if southern would argue "open borders are against libertarianism in principle" i'd agree with her.

but i know her well enough to know that her argument is going to be "the government should close the borders because muslim immigrants are evil and threatening." which is also an argument you can make. just don't call yourself a libertarian when you argue this.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Which seems pretty absurd.

Why? Seems okay to me. All property "belonged to no one" at a time. Or it belonged to other people who were decided to not count as people cuz they didn't have guns or whatever. It's a pretty common concept and society wouldn't collapse or anything if it happened.

I think the notion of state, which is not even a person, owning property and shooting at people who try to enter it, is wayyyyy more absurd.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

one core principle is the NAP, though. if you accept that governments have a right to exist - which we clearly do in this debate - you're doing away with that principle.

This is the dullard's mindset which prevents all form of debate because it requires the theory to be 100% applicable to reality, which is impossible

Like haven't you heard of math before?
---

SmartMuffin posted...

"Open borders" as such are not a thing that actually exists anywhere, and never have. They wouldn't exist under libertarianism either. So to imply that libertarianism demands they exist now is absurd.

The idea is that the country's borders are open. Obviously private property will have "borders" but that's fine. And if all property is private then it might work the same way, but probably not cuz nothing can compare with government in this field.

The other idea is that given government exists and has these borders, we might as well try to make them open, because why not? It would be a massive improvement to liberty and a reduction in government. And the counter arguments are ALWAYS rooted in force and anti-libertarianism.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

This is the dullard's mindset which prevents all form of debate because it requires the theory to be 100% applicable to reality, which is impossible

i don't get what you're saying. elaborate? are you saying it's impossible for a society without government to exist?
---

The idea is that the country's borders are open. Obviously private property will have "borders" but that's fine.

Of course, in a private economy, there will be no "country" as such, so it's a pointless discussion. 99% of people who talk about "open borders" are intellectually lazy leftists who have never even considered the property rights implications, and they literally treat it as if it means "everyone can go wherever they want with no restrictions"

The other idea is that given government exists and has these borders, we might as well try to make them open, because why not?

Because the government prevents us from adequately protecting our private property. It forces us to associate with those we'd rather not. I'd be fine with "opening" the southern border provided that property owners down there were allowed to shoot trespassers, and that we abolished all anti-discrimination laws and restore the right to free association. You ready to take that deal?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't get what you're saying. elaborate? are you saying it's impossible for a society without government to exist?

My theory is anarchy is unsustainable for a long period of time (2ish generations maybe) so yeah kinda.

But also that doesn't matter. Just because reality has government doesn't mean we can't talk about a theoretical non-government society and learn applicable things from it. Just because we want a non-government society doesn't mean we're not allowed to talk about how to make government better.

SmartMuffin posted...

I'd be fine with "opening" the southern border provided that property owners down there were allowed to shoot trespassers, and that we abolished all anti-discrimination laws and restore the right to free association. You ready to take that deal?

Obviously (as long as proportionality of force is still a thing and you are punished for shooting at someone who made 1 step). But I am also not afraid of having a bunch of muslims and foreigners around me.

I feel like you might have a bit more trouble with that deal in that case...
---

How in the world can you justify the gross, enormous, ludicrous use of force and erosion of liberty the government requires to protect borders.... just because you don't want to sell a cake to a gay couple

It is the ideological equivalent to shooting someone dead for making 1 step on your property
---

So are we doing that thing again where we treat Libertarian and Anarchist as synonyms?
---

consistency?

yeah, we're doing that
---

http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/24/us-withdrawal-from-unesco-is-a-good-star
---

So the guy the topic is named after isn't even Libertarian. Ok.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Just because reality has government doesn't mean we can't talk about a theoretical non-government society and learn applicable things from it. Just because we want a non-government society doesn't mean we're not allowed to talk about how to make government better.

sure. i don't recall saying liberatarians aren't allowed to talk about how to make the government better.
---

SmartMuffin posted...

It forces us to associate with those we'd rather not.

are you doing that thing again where you're calling driving past a muslim on the street "association"?
---

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/10/29/mlbs-bruce-maxwell-who-knelt-during-anthem-is-arrested-on-gun-charge.html

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22867/san-francisco-49ers-now-supporting-common-sense-james-barrett#exit-modal

lulz
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

sure. i don't recall saying liberatarians aren't allowed to talk about how to make the government better.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i do think it's invalid.

---

what i called "invalid" was the stance "theoretically speaking, from a libertarian perspective, the ideal situation is a country with closed borders enforced by the government."

"practically speaking (i.e. accepting that the government exists), from a libertarian perspective, the preferred situation is a country with closed borders enforced by the government because this adheres to the libertarian principle of property owners having the right to decide who is allowed on their property" could be a valid stance, i guess. i think that's pretty damn weak too, though, because then you're arguing that your "libertarian stance" is "super big, forceful government." all other things being equal, a country with open borders would require less big and forceful government, yet somehow that's "less libertarian"...?
---

from a libertarian perspective, the ideal situation is a country with closed borders enforced by the government.

And literally no one, anywhere, ever, has argued this
---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/19/veteran-died-as-a-nurses-aide-played-video-games/

who wants to bet it was candy crush or some other cheap/free bullshit?

(on a more serious note, remember that the left constantly holds up the VA as this great thing we could all have under socialized medicine)
---

SmartMuffin posted...

And literally no one, anywhere, ever, has argued this

oh, cool. i guess kokesh and southern have argued about nothing, then.
---

They didn't argue about "ideal state"

They argued about "what's best to do right now given the existence of this giant oppressive state that isn't going anywhere anytime soon"
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what i called "invalid" was the stance "theoretically speaking, from a libertarian perspective, the ideal situation is a country with closed borders enforced by the government."

wtf are you talking about
---

i thought southern had that stance.

if she doesn't have that stance that's cool, but she's argued tons of pro-big government stuff before, so... not sure why you're all "WTF NOBODY HAS THAT STANCE."
---

I have no idea what her stance is but muffin could prob tell you, along with her panty size
---

Interesting work thing - just had a meeting with a group that represents a team of like 15 people whose full time job is to constantly screen new/existing customers to ensure that they aren't either from a country that we have sanctions on, or have a shareholder/owner greater than 10% that has individual sanctions on the person.

Probably a good $1.5M per year this company is spending on making sure we don't sell to anyone the government has declared is "bad." And this is just one company.
---

https://hbr.org/2017/10/a-study-used-sensors-to-show-that-men-and-women-are-treated-differently-at-work

This is hilarious. They did a study to track male and female behaviors in an office. Study reveals that they behave in virtually the same way. Therefore, they simply conclude that if the behaviors are the same, the lack of female management must be a result of bias. The notion that different preferences might come into play is never even mentioned.

This is also great:

This isnt intrinsically gendered, but many social pressures push women around this age to simultaneously balance work, family, and a disproportionate amount of housework. Companies may consider how to modify expectations and better support working parents so that they dont force women to make a family or work decision.

So basically, their recommendation is that you reduce the workload and lower the expectations of women relative to men. Surely that will put them on the fast-track to becoming CEO!
---

It probably overlaps pretty well with their anti-minority anti-gay etc discrimination task force so it's prob not that much of a cost increase
---