2013 September 14 Saturday
The Key Chart To Show Libertarian Open Borders Advocates

Get the Libertarian flavor of Open Borders advocates to react to figure 4.2. The poll question "Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services or a bigger government providing more services?". Ask them why do they want to enslave us to the welfare state.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 September 14 09:13 PM 


Comments
Engineer-Poet said at September 16, 2013 6:17 AM:

Mexicans are Marxicans.

destructure said at September 16, 2013 3:41 PM:

I've used that argument with libertarians. They understand but have trouble accepting because it goes against their psychology. One should be pragmatic enough to realize that what you want doesn't always give you what you want.

no said at September 16, 2013 6:24 PM:

many 'Libertarians' can't see more than one step ahead, and as such are simply stupid.

Jehu said at September 17, 2013 9:31 AM:

Libertarians know in their hearts that if they think more than one step ahead, they'll be EVIL RACISTS. And that terrifies them. They fear being branded as such by polite society. In truth the only groups that can make libertarianism work are somewhat aspie white males with IQ > 115 or so. The proof is to look at any gathering of libertarians.

James Bowery said at September 17, 2013 12:08 PM:

The 1984 term for such thought control is "crimestop".

I wouldn't say "aspie" so much as herd animals that have been deprived of their main herd. For all their talk about "individualism" they're clearly herd animals looking around their little herd-in-exile for any possible violation that could get them thrown out to be truly isolated. Moreover, as a remnant of the nation of settlers, they are very important to control -- which explains the extraordinary efforts by the likes of Ayn Rand and The Austrian School to coral them.

Check it out said at September 17, 2013 4:57 PM:

At this point in time and history, a world of nations and borders makes no sense. Given the technology and knowledge we have today, borders seem as archaic as the internal combustion engine. I'm totally in favor of open borders, despite the dull elitist and dogmatic doctrine of fear to the foreigner, fear of invation and fear of human interaction.

Regardles of how long it takes, open borders is comming and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Thinking that one can fight it or stop it is naive.

There's really a world out there. Adapt or become extinct. Besides, just look around man, I mean, America is not such a hot country to live in and cherish so much anymore. There really is a world out there Americans would also be able to like and visit and live in.

radical blogger said at September 17, 2013 7:35 PM:

so the consensus wisdom among the paleocons is that mexicans are not really natural conservatives like the GOP has been saying and that if the GOP does not crack down on immigration, the GOP will be destroyed.

Look, the GOP politicians obey their Big Money Masters--the rich who give money. If they do not, they are out on their keisters. Big Money wants more immigrants. And if you go against immigration, you may be targeted by Big Money.

THe thing about the GOP saying that the mexicans are natural conservatives is just a rationalization, an excuse to try and avoid the wrath of the white lower middle class that wants to stop immigration.

The whole thing is just an excuse. Why even bother analysing what is just a rationalization. When the 'mexicans are natural conservatives" excuse loses whatever currency it ever had, the GOP politicians will just find another excuse.

The GOP politicians serve Big Money, just like the Dem politicians. If they do not, they will probably be out.

James Bowery said at September 17, 2013 8:28 PM:

So, radical blogger, what is your radical solution to the de facto loss of government by true consent of the governed?

Engineer-Poet said at September 18, 2013 6:09 AM:
There's really a world out there. Adapt or become extinct.

You're arguing that we should allow our own lands to be changed to our detriment.  Fight, or go extinct.

J. said at September 18, 2013 8:14 AM:

E-P: You're arguing that we should allow our own lands to be changed to our detriment.

You are taking Check it out too literally. In this thread he's saying that right now nations make no sense. In another, he said that governments should provide free higher education. Check it out's posts should be read like song lyrics.

radical blogger:

What you say about the GOP is true, but the subject is libertarians and their contradictions.

Jehu said at September 18, 2013 11:10 AM:

James,
Big money and entrenched interests are EXTREMELY strong in methods of program. But they are weak to the methods of pogrom. Develop the solidarity necessary to implement the methods of pogrom. The first step is to accept that you are a member of a group that has interests. Don't worry too much about whether your group is 'organic' or 'authentic'. Your adversaries will determine the boundaries of your group even if you don't. The second step is to unite in solidarity at the jury room level. Members of your group should reflexively, if plausibly deniably, support other members of your group in all interactions with the legal system. Groups strong in program can be made to lose in all criminal and civil suits that they enter. This only takes 10% of the population, tops. They'll never win a civil suit or a criminal one regardless of the circumstances. Given that most people try to get out of jury service, a little effort offers a force multiplier. Just train people on taqiyya and how to defeat the information that they leak in voir dire. How to look like the kind of juror that the prosecution or defense is looking for.... How to give correct information that is nevertheless misleading...How to play games with the standard of proof required #raise reasonable doubt to, say, one in a billion for a false positive and you can justify 'reasonable doubt' on just about any case you like#. Once you do this and you have the capability to defeat trial by jury, your hotheads and loose cannons will do the rest.

James Bowery said at September 18, 2013 4:24 PM:

Well I have been successfully convincing guys with an audience who have been openly calling for revolution to, instead, simply say that if they were on a jury they would vote to acquit -- understanding full well that they'll never be allowed to be a juror in a relevant case in one of the corrupt system's courts. The point, of course, is to get their audience thinking about the power of sitting on a jury.

However, what you are talking about goes beyond that to a program within a "pogrom" as you call it: A program of revolutionary education.

The practicalities of such an educational program are obviously not being met by the jury nullification movement. In part, that is because ordinary people find all that rhetoric boring.

You're proposing a clandestine program of education that would, in former times, have been accomplished by clandestine cells. Maybe that would work today. Off the top of my head, such cells could recruit with the simple question: "Is the government's first duty to defend the territory from invasion or infiltration, whether organized or disorganized?" If the answer is "Yes" you have a potential recruit. If the answer is "No" then the person is either already part of another cell or is, prima facie not to be recruited.

radical blogger said at September 18, 2013 6:59 PM:

James Bowery said at September 17, 2013 8:28 PM:

So, radical blogger, what is your radical solution to the de facto loss of government by true consent of the governed?
=========================

my reply:

spreading my understanding of how democracy works.

destructure said at September 18, 2013 8:29 PM:

Liberal psychology is all about equality which they equate with fairness. They want wealth redistribution because they see wealth inequality as inherently unfair regardless of whether wealth was earned fairly or not. Because they see it as unfair they imagine the rich cheated when very few actually did. That gives them an excuse to redistribute the wealth which their psychology craves. The irony, of course, is those who cheat frequently use big government to do it which liberals actually wants more of. This is another example of what I said earlier that "One should be pragmatic enough to realize that what you want doesn't always give you what you want."

In terms of nations, borders and immigration liberals see restrictions as unfair because it treats others as different. It treats people outside one's borders differently to those inside one's borders and outside one's group differently to those inside one's group. Yeah, well, when I play football and basketball I treat those on other teams differently, too. If you don't then you lose. A liberal would argue there's no teams which isn't surprising because their psychology rates low on group loyalty. In fact, studies show liberals value members of outgroups even more than members of their own. Studies show some liberals actually value strangers higher than their own family.

It would be one thing if everyone shared this psychology. But they don't and they won't because it's maladaptive. Most people are programmed by evolution to be the opposite. This isn't so obvious when you have a large, prosperous majority. But it becomes more important as the groups become more equal in number and prosperity wanes. Then group psychology comes into play and groups compete more aggressively. You don't have to be an expert in 'game theory' to realize one doesn't have a choice but to practice group loyalty because those who do 'win' and those who don't 'lose'. It doesn't matter whether one likes it or not. It's not a matter of liking it. It's a matter of statistical analysis. You can't fight it any more than you can fight math. One can deny the math if they like but that won't keep the bridge from collapsing because if the math is bad.

Psychologically, libertarians are halfway between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives want economic freedom but social regulation. Liberals want social freedom but economic regulation. And libertarians want BOTH economic AND social freedom. So libertarians tend to want the open borders due to social freedom and oppose wealth redistribution due to economic freedom. So in terms of immigration, liberals basically want to tear down borders and pay an unlimited number of poor people to immigrate via wealth redistribution. Whereas libertarians would tear down borders but oppose the wealth redistribution. And conservatives would build borders and oppose wealth redistribution.

Of course, political psychology is analog not digital. It's not that each group is all or nothing. It's more a case of each group being slightly more one way than the others. It's only the fringes who are extreme.

Check it out said at September 19, 2013 5:06 PM:

J. said at September 18, 2013 8:14 AM: "You are taking Check it out too literally. In this thread he's saying that right now nations make no sense. In another, he said that governments should provide free higher education. Check it out's posts should be read like song lyrics."

Hmmm, maybe, but at least I say something. Do you have anything to say? Produce a thought we can all consider, reject or accept? Any ideas that might be new? Any ideals in you? Any dreams of yours we can all share? Any lyrics we can also make fun of? Or just fear?

That's what I thought.

Just to take the time and make it clear to you J, since you -like most women- don't seem to be able to separate different ideas and have a tendency to mix unrelated or unimplicit concepts: I do believe that a world of nations makes no sense nowadays and to me it feels very archaic. I also believe that as long as there are still nations with governments, those governments should provide free higher education as many do.

I also believe that the Rain Forest in Brazil should be protected by international laws because it provides a substancial ecological wealth for the whole world, but as long as the world treats me as a Brazilian and not a citizen of the world I will fight to make sure it remains Brazil's only, so that Brazilians and only Brazilians have the right to decide to chop all its trees if that's what they want.

Given how today no nation can act completely independent from the other nations in the world, and given how much one nation can affect the rest of the world, at this point in time and history, a world of nations and borders makes no sense. By the way any world government should also provide free higher education for all its citizens.

Do you have anything to say? Produce a thought we can all consider, reject or accept? Any ideas that might be new? Any ideals in you? Any dreams of yours we can all share? Any lyrics we can also make fun of? Or just fear?
That's what I thought.

You're right! This last paragraph sounds like song lyrics. Maybe I'll put some music to it and turn it into a song for you.

destructure said at September 20, 2013 12:43 AM:

check it out

You want to be a "citizen of the world" to escape the mess you've made of Brazil. Fix your own country. Then you won't need to immigrate.

J. said at September 20, 2013 9:16 AM:

Check it out,

I'm pleased that you acknowledge the validity of my comparison of your posts with song lyrics, but you appear to think that the purpose of my comment to Engineer-Poet was to dispute you. In fact, I was trying to clear up his misunderstanding, just as I was trying to clear up a different one of radical blogger's. (This post too, while addressed to you, is written for the benefit of third parties.) Randall sets the tone on his blog, and his practice is to gather empirical evidence about the world and reason from it, using clear and careful language, uninfluenced by conventional pieties. Context matters, and Engineer-Poet may fail to notice the difference in kind between Randall's contributions and your verbal rhapsodies. Once this category error is understood, then responses like his to you will be seen to be not only unnecessary, but misguided. I can't imagine that you would object to this, since I don't believe that you want to be misunderstood.

In the same way, for example, a newbie reading your posts on this page might jump in and ask you how it could be that a powerful national government, using every method available to it, can never secure its borders, but a world government can secure internal borders (e.g. those around a rain forest). But doing so would be making the same mistake that Engineer-Poet made.

At the level of ordinary grammatical sentences, we are bound to disagree, but we can agree on where the disagreements are. To name three examples, you believe that it is right to pass off random guesses about posters here as assertions of fact, and I believe the opposite, that one should consider only what they have written; you believe that it is right to water down or blur the meanings of words after you have written them, and I believe the opposite, that one should stand by the literal meaning of what one writes; you believe that the sheer act of making any statement justifies that statement, and I believe the opposite, that only its truth content can do that. Anyone is free to take one side or another of these choices, but having done so, there can be complete agreement about what the different choices are, and at that point there is no need for dispute. So it is here.

On the question of being unable to separate different ideas, I will defer to your experience in this area.

Randall Parker said at September 20, 2013 7:48 PM:

Check it out,

Brazil? Are you trying to imply you are Brazilian? Did you move?

Randall Parker said at September 21, 2013 1:07 PM:

I am going on record in agreement with J.:

At the level of ordinary grammatical sentences, we are bound to disagree, but we can agree on where the disagreements are. To name three examples, you believe that it is right to pass off random guesses about posters here as assertions of fact, and I believe the opposite, that one should consider only what they have written; you believe that it is right to water down or blur the meanings of words after you have written them, and I believe the opposite, that one should stand by the literal meaning of what one writes; you believe that the sheer act of making any statement justifies that statement, and I believe the opposite, that only its truth content can do that. Anyone is free to take one side or another of these choices, but having done so, there can be complete agreement about what the different choices are, and at that point there is no need for dispute. So it is here.

But Humpty Dumpty's view is surprisingly popular:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'

destructure,

I think some groups are quite a bit more than slightly more one way or another.

Check it out,

What to reveal the country where you are living? (it is very easy for me to know btw)

Sam said at September 22, 2013 7:40 AM:

Check it out said... open borders is comming and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Thinking that one can fight it or stop it is naive...

Cluster bombs, drones (I jest, a little). We already have the trappings of a police state. Why not use it for something useful?

Check it out said... Besides, just look around man, I mean, America is not such a hot country to live in and cherish so much anymore...

Gee, I wonder how that happened?

Check it out said at September 24, 2013 4:39 PM:

destructure said at September 20, 2013 12:43 AM:
"You want to be a "citizen of the world" to escape the mess you've made of Brazil. Fix your own country. Then you won't need to immigrate."

Didn't you bite your tongue there kid? Great things you've made of the U.S. I can see!

By the way, who the hell wants to immigrate into the U.S.? I've never said such a thing, so don't put words in my mouth or assume intentions I don't really have. In fact, to idiots like you I've suggested to leave the country before it is too late. The U.S. is rapidly turning into a dictatorship and becoming a really frightening place to live in, just like a big prison. But don't worry, you just relax. Go ahead and have another coke.

Check it out said at September 24, 2013 4:59 PM:

Ok, ok, J. I get it.

To J:

Can you then make yourself clear. I mean it would be a good idea if you told us where you stand on "The Key Chart To Show Libertarian Open Borders Advocates"

What do you think about immigration and open borders? What are your beliefs? Is immigration a threat to you also, or no?

Post your ideas, who knows maybe we'll even agree on some of them, but I need to hear you -so to speak- You and everybody here at least know what I stand for: At this point in time and history, a world of nations and borders makes no sense, and it seems outdated and archaic to me. That's all.

I can accept and aknowledge that I may be wrong, but it has to be through argumentative discussion, not just the idiocies posted by many, for example by "destructure" who assumes I am a Brazilian, or something about the supposed mess I've made of Brazil, and his other absurd assumption that I need or want to immigrate to the U.S.

He's got so much faith in what he imagines to be real. What do you stand for, J?

Check it out said at September 24, 2013 5:02 PM:

Engineer-Poet said at September 16, 2013 6:17 AM: "Mexicans are Marxicans."

Yeeeehaw! I can almost hear E.P. yell.

How's that for overgeneralizing?

Check it out said at September 24, 2013 5:19 PM:

Randall Parker said at September 20, 2013 7:48 PM: "Brazil? Are you trying to imply you are Brazilian? Did you move?"

No Randall, I am not Brazilian, nor did I move there, and I've said it many times that I wish to consider myself a citizen of the world. I was just trying to set an example of how any Brazilian would feel about his rain forest being fingered by the U.S. against a national sovereignty.

I'll give you another example PRETENDING and only pretending to be a Chinese. Ok? Here we go:

I believe that the Chinese Wall in China should be protected by international laws because it provides a substancial cultural and historical herritage for world, but as long as the world treats me as a Chinese and not a citizen of the world I will fight to make sure it remains China's only, so that Chinese and only Chinese have the right to tear it down if the like, without any U.S. outcry or any U.N. intervention.

It's tiring dealing with comments like that Randall. So what if I'm a Brazilian and feel like one or what if I'm a Chinese and feel like one. What of it? What the hell of it?
I posted an idea however sloplily written it may be. But you start typing what is an irrelevant waste of your and my time. What if you and I are only humans and feel like humans and what if our problems are really human problems only?

What do you think about a Brazilian feeling like that about the rain forest? Do you agree, empathize or not?
What do you think about a Chinese feeling like that about the Great Wall? Do you agree, empathize or not? And please say why. Convey an idea, will you please?


Check it out said at October 1, 2013 4:48 PM:

No?

No ideas, just as I thought.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright