Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Immigration
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Immigration  (Read 16112 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ForumTroll

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2010, 10:23:14 PM »

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.

Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.

The Vatican.  

Technically it's all "private" property, though.
Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2010, 10:29:27 PM »

OMG Vatican City is a functioning anarchy!
Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2010, 10:32:54 PM »

Or, OMG Vatican City is a government with 100% consent of the governed!
Logged

ForumTroll

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2010, 10:51:21 PM »

Or, OMG Vatican City is a government with 100% consent of the governed!

So, could it be the only true free place on earth?
Logged

digitalfour

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2010, 10:52:01 PM »

My understanding is citizenship of Vatican City ends when you quit working in it.

Where else is like that?
Logged

Trillian

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2010, 10:59:59 PM »

My living room.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration
« Reply #36 on: May 25, 2010, 11:00:27 PM »

My understanding is citizenship of Vatican City ends when you quit working in it.

Where else is like that?
Every corporate entity.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

digitalfour

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #37 on: May 25, 2010, 11:43:20 PM »

So is that really governing?
Logged

crimson80

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2010, 12:25:16 AM »

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.

Weak argument? Show me a government that governs purely with the consent of the governed, then.

Thanks for bringing that up.  I meant to get back to it.

Quote
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.

Literal is not a good word to use here.  Governments are not tangible or physical objects, sure.  But they do exist; they are real.  They are a blend of people, ideas, and property.  The relationship between citizens and government is not necessarily slavery.  Slaves have no rights according to their masters.  Citizens usually do, but it is possible to have totalitarian dictatorships where this is not true.  Anyway, if you want to define legitimacy as requiring 100% support, then no government will have legitimacy for you.  Legitimacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Is Israel a legitimate country?  Some would say yes, others no.  What ultimately matters is not legitimacy, but enforceability.  What does it matter if someone denies their legitimacy if they have no power to do anything about it?  

Personally I think that legitimacy of governments must be viewed with their necessity in mind.  Anarchy might bring excellent personal freedoms, but I think that anarchy on a large scale is an invitation for aggressive organized groups to come in and take over, thereby destroying the freedom you had in the first place.  So I would say that a government may be legitimate IMO if the protections offered outweigh the cost in freedom (in addition to some other requirements).  I do not agree that 100% support from the governed is required because that is unrealistic.  

Logged

digitalfour

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #39 on: May 26, 2010, 01:05:19 AM »

Literal is not a good word to use here.  Governments are not tangible or physical objects, sure.  But they do exist; they are real.

Governments are real in the sense that the relationships and ideas people have in regards to government are real.

They are a blend of people, ideas, and property.

But fundamentally they are only ideas in people's heads. Government can't exist without people believing in it.

The relationship between citizens and government is not necessarily slavery.

Not necessarily, but every government that has a monopoly on violence is using force aggressively to stop competing agencies, and thus is enslaving the people from experiencing liberty.

Slaves have no rights according to their masters.

If the master claims the right to take a percentage of your wealth, then it is slavery, not chattel slavery, but an insidious slavery.

Anyway, if you want to define legitimacy as requiring 100% support, then no government will have legitimacy for you.

That's true, depending on how you define government. How about the term moral legitimacy? A government that steals is not moral.

Legitimacy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Only colloquially. Morally and philosophically it's not merely in the eye of the beholder.

What ultimately matters is not legitimacy, but enforceability.  What does it matter if someone denies their legitimacy if they have no power to do anything about it?

So was owning black people alright because it was enforceable?

Personally I think that legitimacy of governments must be viewed with their necessity in mind.

I think it's a mistake to believe that it is OK to justify an evil institution because you personally think it is necessary.

Anarchy might bring excellent personal freedoms, but I think that anarchy on a large scale is an invitation for aggressive organized groups to come in and take over, thereby destroying the freedom you had in the first place.

I don't want to get into the details of why anarchy is more difficult to take over.

I'd rather ask you: do you believe that the monopoly known as government can be more effective than private enterprise at protecting people?
Logged

Ecolitan

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2010, 01:07:52 AM »

Quote
but I think that anarchy on a large scale is an invitation for aggressive organized groups to come in and take over, thereby destroying the freedom you had in the first place.

It's true, they will demand money from everyone for the priviledge of existing, then they will use that money to force people to live how the gang thinks they should and much much more.  See, man's natural state is anarchy and those aggressive organized groups that take over are called governments.  I'm opposed to them.


Quote
Slaves have no rights according to their masters.  Citizens usually do,

I have no inherent rights under the US government.  There is not a single one of my god-given inalienable rights that is protected by 51% of people or a document.  The only reason I have "rights" according to them is they haven't chosen to take them from me.  The constitution and bill of rights are dead long ago.

This IS like a slave and master.  A slave can be allowed to by and sell goods and own private property and marry etc. but he can only exercise his "rights" if the master chooses not to take them away.  Neither the state nor the slave master truly respect rights, neither do either of them take ALL rights away.  Pretty similar to me.
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #41 on: May 26, 2010, 01:34:13 AM »



Far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't care if it turned into a free-for-all tomorrow.  But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again.  That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain.  If cannibalism prevails in Utah Minor, so be it.  If the king of South Tampa wants a 100% tax, good for him, if he can hold the power. 

I really don't think most people have the stomach to deal with the truest form of humanity unchecked, as great as all the what-iffers think it would be, with happy little enclaves of bartering pipe-smoking debutantes, unwittingly soon to be rolled over by an iron ball of furious greed, and as unable to stop it as an umbrella would stop a five-mile wide meteor. 

To avoid that shit, you gotta be so far out in no-mans land they use airplanes with skids for wheels to land in fields.  Certainly not ninety minutes from Boston.  Completely ignored because the paltry pile of personal junk is not worth the effort of a days travel with ten guys in two Bradley's to smoke you out because a couple solar panels and a lifetime supply of .30-.30 doesn't fuckin' matter. 

Carlin said it best, in one of his last HBO things.  You know what separates us from the animals?  Electricity.  Take it away, it all just breaks right down.  Within one day, seventy-two hours at most, there'd be 30,000 mental patients on your front porch.  No cops, no law, nothin' like that.  They'd be protectin' their own ass.  It'd be just you and them.  I take it one step further, I think they're organized under the flag of Haliburton and carrying MP-5's, signing you up for protective services or X'n you off the list.  And you'd probably have electricity the whole time.  Maybe rolling brown-outs, but the system would be "up". 

So when I hear all this dreamy horseshit about a stateless society, thats what it conjures up for me.  And I'm not enough of a chucklehead that I'd think fifteen buddies with a good supply of Spam in a farmhouse, two miles from the local Blockbuster is gonna pull off some impossible coup where the Black Horde says "nevermind" and keeps on truckin. 

So, as Eco is saying in his own way, we have no rights now.  I know that.  And we'd have no rights then, either.  But at least, right now, we kinda have a shape to the whole mess.  Theres a process, albeit a completely shitty one - which definitely needs a major overhaul.  And personally, I think I'd rather apply the evasion tactics within the framework, than the society that would erupt without the checks-and-balances that prevent the fuckin' freak-bomb from going off.

But if it did, I don't particularly care.  I just don't subscribe to the illusion that everything would be hunky-dory in the vacuum. 
Logged

digitalfour

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #42 on: May 26, 2010, 02:03:18 AM »

But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again.  That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain.

Isn't this is the mental trap that structure can only exist in a certain way?

I don't think civilization is going to end, and I also don't think government is sustainable.
Logged

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: Immigration
« Reply #43 on: May 26, 2010, 02:19:08 AM »

I just thought of this so bear with me here...but what if in the Libertarian (etc) world, rights are whatever the bear minimum an individual is going to allow.

For example, if I claim I have a right to bear arms, I'll never go to a place where they do not allow guns.

If I feel as though I have the right to free speech, then I'll say what I want where I want. If I say it on private property then I'll say it till they kick me out.

Get what I'm saying? I havent thought this through yet so bear with me and dont bite my head off over it just yet.
Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Immigration
« Reply #44 on: May 26, 2010, 03:31:25 AM »

But I'd never want to hear the word "rights" again.  That shit gets left at the door, and only comes out where structure has been established to support whatever philosophy is deemed appropriate by the superior force in whatever territory it manages to sustain.

Isn't this is the mental trap that structure can only exist in a certain way?

I don't think civilization is going to end, and I also don't think government is sustainable.

I think the world kinda works like this:

You have no rights.  In an anarchy where you actually have No Rights, its all up to whoever rules the territory.  You can get as philosophical as you want, but it all comes down to power.  If you managed to find a nice orderly village in, say, Vermont...  maybe the prevailing atmosphere would be conducive to a polite society, with a benevolent loose-knit voluntary structure of Libertarian-esque law.  You'd probly be happy there, and all the people are open minded, and think whatever they want.  Right?  There, you would have rights because the society wills it.  Or you could opt-out, and live on the fringe, and just sort of co-exist with parts of it. 

But maybe you get snagged in Arizona.  Economical reasons, you can't pay the toll out of Arizona.  There, they hate Catholicism, and you're Catholic.  Kinda like the nazi's hated Jews.  So you really  have absolutely no rights to practice Catholicism.  In fact, they'll kill you for it. 

Only when the climate is suitable for certain things do you have the "right" to do it.  You could whisper it under the covers, I guess.  But thats not rights.  Rights come from power.  They are granted to you. 

In our present society, we actually live on the fringe of rights.  They can be taken away, but people raise a stink over it when it hits the mainstream.  We watch each others backs, and even among the statists, most judges are basically - kinda- watching out for you.  They're careful, at least, to not shit all over your rights completely - like the Guantanimo situation.  They'd catch major hell for trying that - at least, right now, maybe in the future they won't. 

Rights are very fluid and dynamic.  They're arguable, and supposed to be inarguable.  Thats the thing that fucks 'em up the most.  Philosophical hucksters play word games - which is why I fucking HATE playing semantics debates with people who make me want to rip their fucking eyeballs out.  Eventually it becomes so droning and boring that people get lost in the goddamn words, and it all becomes meaningless. 

Watch...  Guns.  I can own them.

Unless blabbedy blah bla bla blah... forever.  That right is now officially up for all sorts of interpretation, which means its useless, fucked, and pretty much a privilege   which is NOT a right.

So, you're right, civilization will not come to an end.  But it may be different in ways you definitely do not like.  I would suggest you BT the Ross Kemp Gangs documentaries, and check out how disorderly some places are.  Brazil, for example.  In Rio, the tourist area is nice, all touristy.  Up in the hills, its a fuckin' murder spree.  The government has black-ops running 24/7 killing the street gangs, and they're killing them back.  Their prisons are stacked like 100 per cell, which are supposed to hold maybe four prisoners.  Its just crazy.  And Brazil has a constitution, and society exists, and all that shit.  If the government just threw its hands up and said "fuckit" who knows what would happen.  But I think its very likely, Brazil would fall apart, nobody would visit on vacation, their economy would fall to pieces, their banks would be looted, their economy would turn to shambles.  It would collapse.  People would leave in droves, and the gangs would organize, fill the vacuum, and become the government. 

And you have to ask yourself, in that situation, don't you kinda feel sorry for the millions of average dopes who would get crushed in the wave of insanity as everyone chopped up turf, looted everything, and the ensuing civil war between the two most prominent factions that would arise?  I know I would feel some pity for that old fart that lives across the street from me, getting his house burned down, or his car jacked.  He's just a fuckin old dork who worked all his life for a two-bedroom chunk of house, raised his kids, and mows the lawn. 

Not everybody is like you, you know.  And that sorta what this flag is supposed to represent, people in varying stages of their lives, with a "good guy" watching their back, silently preserving a normalcy, and preventing a weird craziness that children, young moms, and old folks aren't supposed to concern themselves with.

I'm not saying I'm all gung-ho for this incarnation, because its very broken.  But the concept is legitimate and sound, even if its actual practice is terribly mismanaged.  Our purpose as dissenters is to raise awareness and try to prevent it from becoming more fucked up.  Pull it back from the brink, and re-capture rights and privileges that are becoming more bureaucratically obscured, before they slide into oblivion.  My argument with the pure anarchists is they think the oblivion is the path, from which will spring a healthier society.  And I completely disagree with that.  It would take decades, and millions of lives, if it were pushed over the brink tomorrow.  We would never live to see the new "better" society that would theoretically grow from god-knows how many civil wars, and an incalculable amount of chaos that would arise in all the major cities, generations of hostile MadMax civilization.  It'd be fuckin' awful, man.  For all we know, our own govt would apply surgical nuke strikes to certain zones, to restore control and then just re-invent itself in a propaganda blitz, blame it on the NK's or something.  Government's hardcore, dude. 



Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Immigration

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 27 queries.