National borders may be considered an extrapolation of private real estate. by Billy Roper
(libertarian)
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Have you ever accidentally turned the wrong way down a one-way street, or tried to push your way through a crowd who were all headed in the opposite direction?
Have you ever seen a child "pick up their toys and go home", because they couldn't get their way?
That child is not likely, through their absence, to stop the game from being played, just as my family deciding to boycott Wal-Mart is not likely to bring down the corporate behemoth.
Likewise, deciding in a sense of philosophical purity that the world would be a better place if there were no borders, no nations, and no laws might sound melodic as a John Lennon lyric. However, the only thing you get when you practice extreme individualism and other people don't, is overwhelmed and overrun.
There are some collective interests which sometimes trump the individual profit motive, and even individual freedom. Working and providing for my family means that I have less discretionary income to spend on myself. It's a voluntary social contract, to be sure, and my vows to my wife do limit my personal freedom to pick up girls, but I choose to accept that compromise.
In a world of limited resources, my family, who are defined by their biological kinship to me, take priority over other people's families, and even over my own personal self interest. My loyalty is to those with whom I am biologically related, and their interests are more important to me than the interests of other people's families. I will promote those interests even to the exclusion, and even to the detriment, of other people's families.
If another individual, or another family, attacks my family, I will put myself at risk to defend them. Since the original definition of "nation" was a group of biologically related individuals defined by a specific territory, and there are very real and sacrosanct personal and familial property borders between you and your neighbor, it's not difficult to see how national borders are in fact a natural extrapolation of personal property laws.
If another family came into my family's yard and pitched a tent, I wouldn't weigh whether I should be happy that I might have more friends to talk to now, or that I wouldn't have to mow the patch of grass they had smothered. My yard is only so big, and it is, after all, mine and my families. I would ask them to leave. If they refused, I would remove them. And, if they had had any children while they were there in my front yard, those kids would have to go home with them, too. Just because they were born in my yard, wouldn't make them a part of my family.
Once they were back in their own yard I might trade with them, and even be friendly neighbors, so long as they respected the fact that good fences made good neighbors.
Just as nations are an extension of families, what's good for personal property should also be considered good policy for nations.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Billy Roper only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Billy Roper is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
HUGE DIFFERENCE between your own yard and your Nation. Your own YARD belongs to YOU as an individual and you should do with your property as you please. The Nation belongs to EVERYONE who is part of that Nation including the black people, hispanics, asians, and jews that you despise so much and not everyone is going to feel the same way. Somebody put a tent in YOUR yard, you kick them and their kids out. It is YOUR property. But why would you want to interefere with MY property right within the same Nation to rent out my OWN yard to people in tents to whomever I want? ..or interefere with MY PROPERTY rights if I have a store to hire whomever I want to work for me? The only thing you can do agaisnt me is what you do with Walmart: boycott my store or my product. Thats it. That is where your property right ends and MY PROPERTY rights begins.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 13, 2010 12:51:14 PM
If you think of nations as being property owners, their citizens violating our property would be the same as if their dog kept coming over, eating out dogs' food, taking dumps in our yard, and making our property into just another trd-world cesspool, the way they have done with their own. We should hold those nations responsible for not keeping their dogs on a leash.
Hey, have you found out who and what the ADL is, yet?
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 13, 2010 01:13:19 PM
Utopian ideals of extreme individualism aside, the Founding Fathers such as John Adams felt that "government is instituted for the common good". It would be too easy to say that a position calling for open immigration without limitations cheapens the value of citizenship and the sacrifices of our forebearers who created this nation. It would be a cliche' to call such a moral abdication unpatriotic or UnAmerican. What I will say, instead, is that is treasonous. It certainly is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed our nation's Constitution, nor is it the will of the majority of the American people, today.
Well since you consider the people from other places as dogs, I will use the same analogy with your family: You the dog, your wife the ***** and your step-daughter the little *****. What if this the majority of this Nation decides to keep you the dog and your two *****es on a leach? I guess taht would be ok too right?
Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: May 13, 2010 06:09:20 PM
I'm puzzled as to how you get anywhere Billy, you keep missing the boat. You've painted a very false analogy of private and public property to be treated the same. That there is such a thing as public property and international borders is what gives birth to the problem. It is commonly referred to as the tragedy of the commons.
You simultaneously and most wholeheartedly believe the credo of the statist while badmouthing aspects of it that don't fit into your master plan. The state is collapsing from it's own sheer weight, incompetence, waste, arbitrary policies, and illogic. Let's replace it with nothing as every service provided by the public sector can be produced by private enterprise & be competitive. This has been proven over again. http://mises.org
People can have a choice and no force would be used to give the people what they want. Your nationalist solution has hardly a dimes worth of difference between it and that of the communist system where public ownership of industry, many and onerous laws, and even ownership of all human beings is the status quo. man is merely a milk cow, an animal to be sacrificed to the state at the whim of foul politicos with bad intentions.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A&feature=PlayList&p=6723B513747B85EA&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
I have a hard time differentiating between that and hell. I feel sorry for those who welcome such despotism. Perhaps they would have something to gain from such a setup, making a slave of their fellow man.
How utterly pathetic when the abuser poses as a savior. I suppose that's your next lesson, Mr. Roper to put you on a path to freedom.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 14, 2010 01:33:24 AM
The difference between Nationalism and Communism is that Communism seeks to create and enforce an artificial equality of outcome, rather than an equality of opportunity, as does Capitalism. Nationalism stipulates that foreign and domestic policy decisions are based on whether the action is good for the nation as a biological entity, or not. What's important to me isn't so much whether I drive a new car, as it is whether our children grow up in a nation which is more like Mexico, or more like Sweden. What's important to me isn't so much how much money I have in my bank account when I die, but whether a thousand years from now the species has continued to evolve through differentiation and specialization, as species do, or not. That's why I'm not an extreme individualist. You know how everyone says they want their kids to be smarter and better than they are? Unlike those who worry more about the pedigree of their pets than the pedigree of their grandchildren, I really mean it.
You state "Let's replace it with nothing as every service provided by the public sector can be produced by private enterprise & be competitive. This has been proven over again." I don't think Ludwig Von Mises, or anyone else in the Austrian school, for that matter, would hold that private citizens could stand up against a national army. I'm all in favor of privatizing things that can be privatized, and I certainly believe that there are certain things, such as education and health care, which can be done more efficiently and with more attention to freedom of choice than they can through the public sector, provided that the population is homogeneous enough. However, there are some things that are better done, or at least more quickly done, by subverting individual will to the greater good.
In any event, a power and leadership vacuum is unnatural, and impossible to sustain. When you say "let's replace it with nothing", you forget the many failures of anarchism, or perhaps even that anarchism is what you are proposing.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 14, 2010 01:49:54 AM
Idealistic fantasy aside, how many of this nation's Founding Fathers would have supported the idea of abolishing our international borders and giving anyone who came into our territory equal rights and privileges with our own citizens?
Further, how many American citizens, currently, would support such a proposal?
If you think of nations as being property owners, their citizens violating our property would be the same as if their dog kept coming over, eating out dogs' food, taking dumps in our yard, and making our property into just another trd-world cesspool, the way they have done with their own. We should hold those nations responsible for not keeping their dogs on a leash.
Idealistic fantasy aside, how many of this nation's Founding Fathers would have supported the idea of abolishing our international borders and giving anyone who came into our territory equal rights and privileges with our own citizens?
Further, how many American citizens, currently, would support such a proposal?
National entities are not property owners, and to the extent that they try to behave as property owners, they have a terrible track record going back many centuries. This is just one reason out of many why nationalism is such a bad idea. Nationalism is really just an excuse for justifying collectivism, no matter what other label one might want to give it.
Your analogy falls apart because it assumes that when someone illegally enters the country, they have essentially violated the country's property rights. Yet, if nations are notoriously bad at protecting real property, then it's ludicrous to argue that nations are property owners. At best, if we're really generous, we must acknowledge that nations are incompetent property owners. More accurately, nations don't qualify for ownership at all.
Real liberty implies just the opposite of what you imply. Real liberty implies that governments are servants, and that the people are the masters, not the other way around. The idea of keeping people on leashes is not only wrong, it's also disgusting, because it implies that all people are nothing more than dogs to their governmental masters, and that they have no more rights than dogs have. So it's not a question of keeping people on leashes. It's a question of keeping people from violating the property rights of others, and it's especially about keeping governments from violating the rights of people.
When you re-frame your analogies properly, you'll find that the necessary conclusions will vary considerably from the ones you previously drew.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 14, 2010 01:09:24 PM
"National entities are not property owners, and to the extent that they try to behave as property owners, they have a terrible track record going back many centuries. This is just one reason out of many why nationalism is such a bad idea."
Oh, I see, so in other words, if my fence isn't good enough to keep a trespasser out, then I must not be a good enough property owner. So, all bets are off, and it's free reign for anyone who wishes to trespass on or occupy my property, and it's my fault.
..."if nations are notoriously bad at protecting real property, then it's ludicrous to argue that nations are property owners. At best, if we're really generous, we must acknowledge that nations are incompetent property owners. More accurately, nations don't qualify for ownership at all."
Theft is still theft, regardless of how sturdy the lock is. Trespassing is still trespassing, regardless of how effective the border control is. The hypocrisy of liberaltarians who on the one hand state that enforcing national borders is a violation of every featherless biped's natural right to have the same benefits and rights of citizenship as the people who built this country, while on the other hand stating that the lack of enforcing national borders disqualifies the right to maintain them, is astounding, except when taken into the same context in which they wish that the world was some pink and blue padded day care center where everyone was of equal ability and we could all hold hands and sit in a circle singing "Kumbaya"...oh, and also there are no national borders.
If you think nations should be disqualified as property owners due to their unsuccessful defense of their borders, just "imagine" how successful extreme individualists would be at defending their property rights against nations which, regardless of what Walt might think about them, are much better at defending their own interests, collectivist or otherwise, than the liberaltarians they would overwhelm without pause.
Oh, by the way, the most recent Pew research center poll found that 73% of Americans support illegal immigrants having to prove their legal status to police if questioned, and 67% said that they favored the detainment of any who were unable to provide evidence of citizenship. That's a landslide, by any measure.
Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: May 14, 2010 01:11:31 PM
Nationalism stipulates that foreign and domestic policy decisions are based on whether the action is good for the nation as a biological entity, or not
The "nation" is not a biological entity. There is no common good but instead only people with individual desires, wants, and lives. You talk out of both sides of your mouth which leads any thinking person to rightfully believe that you are a liar and have ulterior motives.
I'll be happy to explain myself on this:
You say that communism differs from your brand of nationalism because of, in your own words "Communism seeks to create and enforce an artificial equality of outcome, rather than an equality of opportunity". You favor half-baked totally unworkable, nazi solutions that do just that. You dismiss the need of the individual to be left alone to make his own decisions, in favor of your own one-size-fits-nobody schemes & scams.
Admit it, you've got nothing, Billy except for blaming Jews and all non-white people for problems gooberment creates. You are an enemy of freedom, Roper no matter what clever disguises you put on your vile blathering rants.
Your way was tried long ago and it only led to the death of millions of human beings in the name of national pride or some other rot. What you stand for is the imprisonment of man, not his liberation as you so mistakenly claim. If you want to bring your dog and pony show of evil to nolanchart.com then understand that you will eventually be sent home crying to your mommy for your inept efforts.
You may get a scant few mindless tea baggers to lap up your foul spittle, yet people here are much smarter than you think. They recognize your kind of hate and you can always do the smart thing and reject it. Be your own man and not their sick toady. No disrespect to your family is intended, but your kinfolk lied to you and continue to do so if they still hold to such evil teachings.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 14, 2010 02:42:34 PM
Dan,
Ya wanna look up the word "nation" in a dictionary, please?
The overwhelming majority of Americans of all races and ethnicities agree with me when it comes to illegal immigration and how it should be handled. Your stated worldview is also contrary to the design and intent of this nation's Founding Fathers, is it not? I mean, surely they didn't simply forget to omit national borders. In fact, they elected to replace the weaker Articles of Confederation with a much stronger, more federalized Constitution, didn't they? So, I presume that you believe that Jefferson, Adams, et.al. were incorrect about the most appropriate form of government.
Which of our worldviews do you think they would more quickly embrace?
Do the "scant few mindless tea baggers" comprise the 73% of the American public mentioned in the Pew report who support the Arizona law?
Are the smart people here whom you refer to the ones who keep giving my articles thumbs up; who number far more than do you and the guy who never heard of the ADL, and the guy who took his marbles and went home?
Quote: "Communism seeks to create and enforce an artificial equality of outcome, rather than an equality of opportunity".You favor half-baked totally unworkable, nazi solutions that do just that.
On the contrary, Dan, you of all people should know, if you were capable of intellectual honesty, that an enforced artificial equality of outcome is the LAST thing I would want.
It is true that your utopian ideal of extreme individualistic anarchism has NOT ever been tried extensively, because it never survives long enough against those who opt out of practicing it, to be recorded.
Tell me, Walt, what advice do you think the Native Americans would give us on how we should respond to immigration, based on on their own experience?
Just because 73% of the American public mentioned some poll support the Arizona law" doesn't mean they are right or that they support your RACIST views. You are just taking a small section of your views ans skewing them as if everyone is like you. Example, I support our 2nd amendment rights just like you do. But that does not make me support ALL of your other views like the RACIST ones that you hold dear. Or that people are like dogs that Nations have to put leaches on.
If you want to just look at polls, then 53% of the voters elected Obama for President. That doesn't mean that Obama is right. BTW, I am no fan of Obama for legitimate reasons but not for his color as you are. It must suck for RACISTS like you to have a BLACK President.
more than 95% of the voters wanted either Republican or Democrat. That doesn't mean that those two are the only good choices.
100% of US citizens must have a social security number. That doesn't make the requirement ok.
With regards to Native Americans, they were slaughtered in masses. The Native Americans were supposed to deffend themselves but they couldn't. Today, we Americans have a right to defend ourselves. I don't see any Mexicans blowing up people in masses or comming in with tanks to invade and confiscate land and kill every American in their way. The Mexicans in the South border have NOT done any threats or mass murders. There may have been some murder incidents here and there, but the poeple involved in those incidets failed to defend themselves and those incidents are no different than any other incident in any other city. But if they come to work for me and I hire them it is just a private contract between two adults. It's no different than buying a product made by some guy in China. If I had property in the AZ border and someone was threatening my family or myself, regardless if he was an illegal immigrant, an American citizen or a Racist scumbag like you, I will defend myself and that may include shooting you. But if they want to work for me, why would the government restrict my freedom to chose who do I hire to do a job? They illegals are also using some social services, that should not be there for FREE. The issue is that those services are available for free not that they are using them. If the services were for pay, they will be PAYING for them instead. And the other issue of drug traffic wouldn't be an issue if Americans weren't BUYING them.
The last thread was by people trying to blow up planes or flying them into buildings and we must defend against such people. But you Billy, you were actually full of joy when the 9/11 attacks happened. So you actually support such activities.
ADL? I don't care about ADL or Anti-Defamation League or whatever they are called. I don't know who they are but some of those groups or similar groups that hide behind "civil-rights", at the same time promote a specific race like black, jewish or hispanic, etc. Like the Jesse Jackson's group. If that is what the ADL does, then they they are similar to your white revolution group. If they preach hate against white people, then they will be no different than your group and equally disgusting. I don't know if that ADL group is like that or not. But I don't really care to know about the ADL. I do care to have every human respect each other and the best way to respect each other is with free trade and individual freedoms.
Billy: Do you know or care to know about the following organizations: ASHRAE, SAE, ASME, IEEE. Those are the organizations that I belong to and neither of them deals with any race issues. Those are Engineering organizations which have nothing to do with race.
Stephen Cox, editor of Liberty, sets out a very good one, with which I’m mostly inclined to agree. Particularly this point:
Poor people, and ethnically self-identified recent immigrants vote overwhelmingly for modern-liberal candidates, and modern-liberal candidates, once elected, take as the whole duty of life the effort to raise taxes and expand government programs and entitlements. They seek to bless their constituency with affirmative action programs, ethnic quotas, foreign-language maintenance programs, socialist and race-conscious school curricula, and every other modern-liberal institution that has any potential for transforming the United States into the Canadian or Mexican version of a progressive country. The expectation of political support explains why modern-liberal politicians are such vigorous proponents of immigration, why they are, even now, trying to enlist illegal immigrants in the electoral process (see “The Election of 666,” Reflections, August 2006 – a commentary that prompted a nice little flurry of hate mail). The same goes for labor unions. They used to be the biggest opponents of immigration. No more. Now most of them are endorsing every open-borders proposal that comes along. Why? Because they too have identified their natural constituency: unskilled, politically unsophisticated workers, just waiting to be organized in support of higher minimum wage laws, universal social welfare, and whatever other political demands the unions want to make.
Is it possible that politicians and labor leaders know a few things that libertarian theorists don’t? Is it possible that they have correctly identified the current immigration from third-world countries as the ultimate weapon in the attack on limited government?
To a considerable extent, as much of Cox’s evidence elsewhere in his piece suggests, poor immigrants are a constituency for greater government services whether or not they can vote. They can still exert statist political pressures in a number of ways, relatively weak though they may be. Probably the most serious source of such pressure is the opportunity poor immigrants give liberal (and all too many conservative) do-gooders to show their generosity and compassion by taxing the rest of us. Even if immigrants don’t clamor for social services, their mere existence is enough to provoke bleeding hearts into demanding that government provide for them.
Plainly enough, the potential harm poor immigrants can do to our liberties is mightily exacerbated if they get the vote. But illegal immigrants aren’t queuing up for naturalization and citizenship, right? Perhaps not; but any children of theirs born here are automatically American citizens, thanks to the prevailing jus soli interpretation of the 14th Amendment. If I could have just one immigration reform, this would be it: I’d restict citizenship to the children of citizens and to naturalized immigrants.
It’s true, of course, that by no means do all poor immigrants who get the franchise use it to vote for greater government. Can you exclude the libertarian few in order to keep out the socialist many? Absolutely. To do otherwise would be to sacrifice liberty to democracy. Some libertarians will object here that, hey, maybe tomorrow the odds will change and poor immigrants will be more likely to support less government. My reply is: the probabilities matter. Until we have good reason to believe that such a change has come about, we shouldn’t be gambling on enfranchising hundreds of thousands of unskilled, low-wage workers.
A more challenging objection might be to ask whether the outcome Cox outlines is really so bad relative to the alternative: higher taxes and greater support for affirmative action are certainly bad things, but they have to be weighed against the militarism and corporate cronyism that the other major party supports. (Though in fact both parties are in favor of militarism, affirmative action, and corporate cronyism, and whatever advantage Republicans appear to accrue from being for nominally lower taxes they lose by supporting deficit spending, which has to be paid by taxes or devaluation of the currency sooner or later.)
"National entities are not property owners, and to the extent that they try to behave as property owners, they have a terrible track record going back many centuries. This is just one reason out of many why nationalism is such a bad idea."
Oh, I see, so in other words, if my fence isn't good enough to keep a trespasser out, then I must not be a good enough property owner. So, all bets are off, and it's free reign for anyone who wishes to trespass on or occupy my property, and it's my fault.
No, once again you're confusing national interests with personal interests. What I said was that nations do not make good property owners. I did not say that individuals do not make good property owners. You apparently have an inability to distinguish between your own property and so-called "national property". You seem to believe that any property within a nation's borders belongs to you!
Theft is still theft, regardless of how sturdy the lock is. Trespassing is still trespassing, regardless of how effective the border control is. The hypocrisy of liberaltarians who on the one hand state that enforcing national borders is a violation of every featherless biped's natural right to have the same benefits and rights of citizenship as the people who built this country, while on the other hand stating that the lack of enforcing national borders disqualifies the right to maintain them, is astounding, except when taken into the same context in which they wish that the world was some pink and blue padded day care center where everyone was of equal ability and we could all hold hands and sit in a circle singing "Kumbaya"...oh, and also there are no national borders.
Now you're just plain raving and babbling. You apparently have great difficulty distinguishing between a personal boundary line and a national boundary line. They are nowhere near the same thing, yet you treat them as if they are identical. In reality, the two have almost nothing in common at all, except that they are kinds of boundaries.
Of course theft is theft...on an individual level. It's the government that is the #1 thief on the national level, not immigrants. Some immigrants merely benefit from that thievery in the same way that some American citizens do, yet I notice that you don't publicly display any contempt for American citizens who benefit in the same way. Nor do all immigrants take advantage of that kind of wealth redistribution. Seems to me your priorities in the matter are way out of whack.
If you think nations should be disqualified as property owners due to their unsuccessful defense of their borders, just "imagine" how successful extreme individualists would be at defending their property rights against nations which, regardless of what Walt might think about them, are much better at defending their own interests, collectivist or otherwise, than the liberaltarians they would overwhelm without pause.
I didn't say that nations should be disqualified as property owners due to their unsuccessful defense of their borders. That's your own peculiar take on the matter. What I said is that nations do not take care of their own property very well.
1. The #1 polluter in the United States is the federal government.
2. The U.S. government is responsible for protecting the Gulf of Mexico waters, which it claims as its own, yet when BP dumps millions of gallons of oil into it, all the government talks about is making them pay for the cleanup, with no insistence on paying for the harm they caused.
3. National Parks are largely very poorly managed.
4. State and local governments routinely involve themselves in actually stealing private land in order to promote corporate interests.
5. Governments are also the #1 category of thieves. No other entity steals as much property as the government.
6. Governments do a horrible job of protecting individuals from theft in all its forms, even though that's the government's #1 job. Closing borders will not change this fact.
These are some of the things I had in mind when I said that the government is a terrible property owner. Your personal mania about borders precludes you from even considering these things, even though they are far more important.
The bottom line where immigration is concerned is that what you really want is for everyone to have to show their papers on demand, just like the German Nazis did. You like the idea of a police state dedicated to the eradication of any people other than pure whites (whatever the heck that means...there's really no such thing as racial purity, as genetic mapping has clearly shown). You're probably in love with the idea of Real ID, a national ID card, for the same reason. And as others have pointed out, the real problem is with the immigrants' use of government handout programs. To you, however, the problem is that they exist at all as human beings. To most of us, these other threats I've outlined are much greater threats than whether or not these same immigrants slipped past the border. All this doesn't make us "liberaltarians" to use your condescending and inaccurate phrase. Rather, it makes us decent human beings, rather than monsters.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 15, 2010 01:49:48 PM
Ah, like the kind of decent human beings who post other folks' home addresses on public websites and suggest that others visit them? Or who refer to their family members in derogatory terms?
No, I don't support the REAL ID program, and believe me, the U.S. government is a lot more my enemy, than it is yours. Not because of its size, or its efficiency, so much, but because of its actions and its stated and apparent goals.
Posted By: Dan Steward
Date: May 15, 2010 02:49:10 PM
Nobody here is sure if the gooberment is actually your enemy at all. Since many of you nazis & klan types are undercover informants or even agents of Big Bother himself, nobody can really be 100% sure about it.
You think like a cop, Billy as most of your rabid, drooling rants are pro-state no matter how you try to spin them. If you discussed any of your plans with your goose-stepping pals, you'd better hope for your sake that you didn't get sloshed and brag about how big and bad you (think you are) were going to be and stupidly conspire to do physical harm to those you don't like. Some of them might just be the same federales you claim to despise.
You know, like your friends when they kicked it old school & went around in a drunken rampage, searching out dark skinned people and murdered them. Remember that? Lemme guess, this is where you attempt to disassociate yourself with those kind of guys, right?
Here I've been advising you to drop your hate and embrace true liberty for all. Since you reject logic and reality then what I should instead advise you to do is not to pick up the soap when it's dropped in your prison shower. :)
You can always tell them that you oppose homosexuality as that should stop them in their tracks before they attempt to deflower you. You look so fragile Billy, you and your cop mustache.
So if I call you or your family as dogs is derrogatory but if you call the Mexicans dogs that their contry were not able to put on a leash that is not? Interesting. I was merely using your own terms with your own family. I didn't know you would find them derrogatory since I was using your OWN words.
On the other hand, I now do realize that posting your home address was wrong on my part. The webmaster removed it for your own safety. But if it was easy for me to search for you in your County's public records, then any one of your REAL enemies can do so to and cause REAL harm to you. So I suggest for your own safety that you somehow put the title of your property under a trust to keep you and your family from possible harm. Your address will not be posted again from me.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 15, 2010 11:58:08 PM
From your liberaltarian point of view, what do you think will happen to your limited government ideal when those whom you wish to allow in freely, who disproportionately benefit from and support government benefits and then, once they are eligible to vote, disproportionately vote to expand the role of government?
Billy: the answer is simple: they are not allowed to vote because they are not US Citizens. You see, 30 years ago, illegal immigration from Mexico was not a huge problem. Mexican men would cross the border illegaly, get some temporary jobs in agriculture and then go back to their families. They would do this several times a year but never had the intention of STAYING. Since immigration laws are now tougher, once they risk crossing the border illegaly, they don't want to risk going back and then it gets even more complicated when our Government decides to do amnesty. The tougher the immigration law, the worst unintended consecuenses and the longer they stay including possibility of amnesty. The more laws you pass against something, the more issues you will have from that. Example: How many anti-drug laws have been passed? Has it stopped the consumptions and trafficking of illegal drugs?
The REAL immigration problem will be when both illegal and legal immigrants start returning to their countries in masses willingly. Why is that a problem? It is a problem because the moment they start doing that is because the economy here in the USA is so screwed up that they have to look for better opportunities elsewhere. Heck, even we Americans may even have to leave for better opportuniries. THAT WOULD BE A REAL IMMIGRATION PROBLEM. Some of that is currently happening because of our current economy.
Posted By: Billy Roper
Date: May 17, 2010 12:37:56 PM
The majority of illegal immigrants want amnesty, and there are a surprising number of politicians who want to give it to them. When they get it, if they get it, then they are almost certainly going to practice the same voting pattern demonstrated by naturalized and legal immigrants from the same part of the trd world they are from: they will vote for expanded government programs and not only a continuance, but a growth of the welfare state. So, regardless of whether you support America being a relatively homogeneous nation as our Founding Fathers intended, or whether you just prefer governmental powers to be curtailed and limited, and individual rights championed, immigration is not a good thing.
