Immigration

[crimson80]

I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the open borders camp.  I'm curious what the reasoning for this is.  Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens? 

[digitalfour]

How does a country gain that right?

[crimson80]

How does a country gain that right?

By establishing sovereignty. 

[atomiccat]

How does a country gain that right?

By establishing sovereignty. 

I'm sovereign so get the hell out of my country. and I will gladly let the Mexicans in.

[digitalfour]

How does a country gain that right?

By establishing sovereignty. 

And how is sovereignty established?

[Cognitive Dissident]

I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the open borders camp.  I'm curious what the reasoning for this is.  Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens?  

Only if you own the country.  I don't own the country.  Do you?

All rights are property rights.

[Ecolitan]

I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the leave jews alone camp.  I'm curious what the reasoning for this is.  Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens? 

[crimson80]

How does a country gain that right?

By establishing sovereignty.  

And how is sovereignty established?

1.  You occupy a land mass
2.  Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.  

This is how it works in general, but there can be exceptions where other countries do not recognize you or agree to your borders in which case your sovereignty might require the threat of force to establish.  

How about you just make your point instead of playing 20 questions?  Didn't mean to sound snarky, but please get to the point if you can.

[digitalfour]

And how is sovereignty established?

1.  You occupy a land mass
2.  Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.  

I had a feeling you'd say that.

The problem is that governments are not literal things, there are only people and their relationships with each other.

Whenever someone abstracts away the flesh-and-blood person to the government or country, they lose sight of the fact that the relationship of government is tantamount to slavery.

"You do as I say because 51% of the voting public put me in charge."

The only legitimate government is one with 100% public support 100% of the time. In other words, none in the history of mankind.

Private property, homesteaded by an individual, is on a much firmer philosophical and ethical basis than a government that claims it derives authority from the masses.

[BobRobertson]

1.  You occupy a land mass
2.  Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.  

So the fact that this gang of thugs systematically robbing people over here, agrees with that gang of thugs systematically robbing people over there, to divide the spoilles and not try to rob people in the other gang's territory.

...and that makes them "legitimate", how?

How about you just make your point instead of playing 20 questions?  Didn't mean to sound snarky, but please get to the point if you can.

The point is that an imaginary line on a map that someone else says is important does not make it important to me, or important to someone else. Only the fact that there are really big guns in the hands of the violent gangs makes it at all important to anyone.

So I guess I will go back to 20 questions, and ask you why you want to pretend that something is "right" just because the people with the biggest guns says so?

When did you decide that might makes right?

[Ecolitan]

I tune into the show from time to time, and I've noticed that the hosts seem to be in the open borders camp.  I'm curious what the reasoning for this is.

Why don't you turn that around.  Open borders are the natural state of man.  People can travel freely and interact with who they choose and buy, sell, trade good with whom they choose until government or some other criminal entity steps in to prevent them from being free.  What is the reasoning to prevent people that live south of an imaginary line from being free?

[crimson80]

And how is sovereignty established?

1.  You occupy a land mass
2.  Other countries (your neighbors primarily) agree to recognize you and establish a border.  

I had a feeling you'd say that.

The problem is that governments are not literal things, there are only people and their relationships with each other.

Whenever someone abstracts away the flesh-and-blood person to the government or country, they lose sight of the fact that the relationship of government is tantamount to slavery.

"You do as I say because 51% of the voting public put me in charge."

The only legitimate government is one with 100% public support 100% of the time. In other words, none in the history of mankind.

Private property, homesteaded by an individual, is on a much firmer philosophical and ethical basis than a government that claims it derives authority from the masses.

So your argument is basically that all government is illegitimate, therefore borders are illegitimate.  I think that's a pretty weak argument.  I'll have to elaborate on this at a later time though. 

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

[John Shaw]

[Ecolitan]

I am a little concerned about how it seems that the hosts of FTL seem to be totally anti-government/anarchist, define libertarianism as such, and berate those that aren't in full agreement.  Of course everyone is free to their opinions, but I think it's counterproductive to be so combative to people that are mostly on your side.

I used to think that too until I was lambasted by a few of them who think that me simply stating my reasons for following my own moral compass was an outrageous insult to them.  Fuck those minarchist assholes.  You hate brown people and you know it.  What's the point in not being combative with you.  You prevent human being from voluntarily interacting, you're an enemy of freedom, not MY freedom of course, brown people's, that only makes you look better to racist assholes.  I don't want to infringe on ANYONE's right to life and liberty no matter where they were born.  Why do you?

[Kolchak]

Why shouldn't we be able to make laws, democratically, that govern who we allow to come into our country, who we don't, and who we let become citizens? 

In his natural state man is not a "citizen." He's just man. This "citizen" concept is what we have to overcome.