Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

61

General / Re: What do you think would happen if there was open ended immigration?

« on: July 13, 2009, 06:32:45 PM »

Its a confusion to identify open immigration with an increase in immigration. Immigrants already come in thousands and millions illegally.

As to why the state is against immigration, its not because its a "threat". The government would love to have more tax payers. Its simply a tedious facet of modern democracy, coupled with centuries of patriotic propaganda. Governments won't allow free immigration because they want to stay in power, and not be replaced by the opposition who would rely on scare mongering to pick up votes.

The same way the government could actually make more money off legalizing drugs, if they weren't stuck down the path whereby no politician can admit legalizing drugs is the moral and intelligent thing to do, without being voted out of office next term.

That's the state responding to market demand; the market demand for tyranny. People do not necessarily get the government that they as individuals want or deserve; they get the government that the market demands.

The only way to change market demand is by education. That may come through books and articles or by setting a successful example for people to follow. The second method is why unlimited immigration that's kept from participation in public health, education and welfare programs, could be the quick path to a stateless society.

The trick will be selling the idea. To do so will require putting the emphasis on cutting off aliens' ability to become parasites of the state or taking over the country by becoming citizens and how much more practical it is to do this than trying to enforce border restrictions.

62

General / Re: Illegal Immigration Service

« on: July 13, 2009, 06:00:51 AM »

The USA is becoming the USSA. It's no longer the land of liberty and its economy is in a deadly tailspin.

I wish the FSP luck, but so far its success is far from certain. Is it worth braving the immigration laws for this? Even if you had a green card, would it be worth coming?

Just asking.

Some serious questions. Reagan said: "This [the USA] is the last best hope on earth." Maybe he was wrong. Switzerland is nice. And it's not that far from me.

Since the days when Reagen said that, the communists have become the new capitalist and the USA has become the vanguard for socialism. Things change.

There's still hope for America, but the question of how bad will things get before we reach a turning point in our direction is unanswerable.

How difficult is immigration to Switzerland?

63

General / Re: What do you think would happen if there was open ended immigration?

« on: July 13, 2009, 05:48:32 AM »

I believe this is a danger to the state so therefore the reason it is not allowed.

With the provisos that aliens could not participate in any of the state's health, education or welfare schemes or apply for citizenship, an absolute right for all people to live, work and travel where they choose would bring only the best sort of liberty/opportunity seeking individuals to live among us.

They would have no choice but to create their own voluntary enterprises, dedicated to providing health, education and welfare to their communities, in the form of for profit and non-profit agencies, the cost of which, would, I hope, be 100% tax (not income) deductible. Better yet, they should be exempt from taxes on any programs from which they are excluded.

In time, they would be so much more prosperous than citizens that many would gladly give up their citizenship to join the ranks of aliens that enjoy the benefit of a large degree of voluntary government of their lives.

And so the state would shrink and, I hope, eventually die via privatization, because of the enlightening example of the immigrants' self reliance.

64

General / Re: Illegal Immigration Service

« on: July 13, 2009, 05:08:46 AM »

The USA is becoming the USSA. It's no longer the land of liberty and its economy is in a deadly tailspin.

I wish the FSP luck, but so far its success is far from certain. Is it worth braving the immigration laws for this? Even if you had a green card, would it be worth coming?

Just asking.

65

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 13, 2009, 04:56:53 AM »

My point wasn't to say that their histories parallel one another, but that they are both examples of a state and colony, instead of a two state situation.

66

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 13, 2009, 01:01:18 AM »

Actually, there is an example of a fairly successful two state solution.  Ireland was occupied by the British for hundreds of years.  The major argument against Irish independence was that the protestant settlers who were in the minority would be persecuted or murdered.   Another argument was if Southern Ireland was allowed to become a free country.  This would only encourage the IRA to attack Northern Ireland which remains under British control.
Now while there has been some fighting and terrorism which is usually perpetrated by zealots on both sides.  Over all Southern Ireland has prospered and the Protestants there are not nearly as oppressed as Catholics had been under British rule.  Once Britain decided to pull out they didn't blockade Southern Ireland or continue a program of colonization and occupation.  This made it possible for Ireland to become arguably the most prosperous countries in Europe. 

Wouldn't northern Ireland be analogous to Hong Kong, but without its free market economy and wouldn't southern Ireland be analogous to mainland china, but without the communism?

67

General / Re: Principled Minarchy

« on: July 12, 2009, 06:12:09 AM »

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....Smile

Except that then it wouldn't be minarchy anymore. That's the problem of panarchy in a nut shell.

I love the name "panarchy", and I support non-territorial voluntary civil government. Beyond that, it gets wacky.

as opposed to the current system?lol

In a way, it is the current system, but without the results predicted by the panarchists.
We live in a world with a multitude of different systems, but they behave according to their nature, not according to some unenforceable panarchist rules and so they divide up the earth into territories

A slave that can choose to be a slave or switch to some other system was never really a slave to begin with. The ideologues of the various slave systems will never settle for some role playing game.

68

General / Re: Principled Minarchy

« on: July 12, 2009, 03:36:53 AM »

Minarchy is fine if you can choose to leave.....Smile

Except that then it wouldn't be minarchy anymore. That's the problem of panarchy in a nut shell.

I love the name "panarchy", and I support non-territorial voluntary civil government. Beyond that, it gets wacky.

69

General / Re: Principled Minarchy

« on: July 12, 2009, 02:30:07 AM »

No... the principled minarchy is not the result of a utilitiarian approach. It is the final resting state of the current government, as it approaches principle. The point is that we should guide the way for the state to achieve this goal. The principled minarchy is this way.

For reasons already stated, the term "principled minarchy" doesn't make any sense. I think that what you are attempting to say is that a pragmatic minarchy lies along the path toward principled civil government.

While principled people may accept minarchy as a step in the right direction, this doesn't make minarchy itself principled. That would be like saying that since a welfare state is an improvement over fascism, on an earlier section of this road toward liberty, that you could have a "principled welfare state".

If we don't do this... if we don't provide a way for the state to morph into a voluntary organization, then we open the door to all the criticisisms that anarchy encompasses. We MUST show the way, and the principled minarchy is that way.

There is no way for the state to morph into some kind of monolithic voluntary organization. The state must divest itself of its governmental agencies, freeing them to either compete with other enterprises in the market place or fail and die, and, in this way, shrink from big to small to smaller to minarchy and, finally, non-existence as the last state civil governmental agency becomes a private civil governmental agency that competes for clients with others of its type.

This is the beginning of truly unlimited principled government and the end of the anarchy of the state.

70

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 11, 2009, 10:46:52 PM »

Once people come to live and make a life, you cannot simply throw them out.

Yeah, you have to kill them.

You could also learn how to live with them or if you find no way to get along with them, then you could always move.

71

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 11, 2009, 10:41:03 PM »

Why do you use "Israelis" and Jews interchangeably?

Israel has Judaism as its official state religion.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

At present, there is no specific law or official statement establishing the Jewish religion as the state's religion.

Not all Jews are Israelis, but the Israeli state represents, collectively, the Jews of Israel and gives automatic citizenship to any Jews in the world that wish to have it.

But not all "Israelis" are Jews. So it is incorrect to use "Israelis" and Jews interchangeably.

That seems to be more of a technicality having to do with how you define "Jew". In that sense, you may be correct, in which case you might say, "Israel has Jewish as its official state ethnicity.".

That Israel tolerates non-Jews, doesn't change the fact that its policies and actions are controlled by Israeli Jews.

72

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 11, 2009, 10:24:37 PM »

I'm late to this thread. My apologies in advance for bringing up anything already debated and disposed of.

From what I understand, the Zionists first came to palestine at a time when it was nearly empty wasteland, unwanted by anyone else, buying large tracts of land from Turkish land holders of the Ottoman Empire. The whole concept of it being a Palestinian homeland or that there is even a Palestinian people is a modern myth.

The new Jewish landlords had ambitious goals, but few Jews to help them carry out those goals and so they hired Arabs from the surrounding lands to work their farms. The so called Palestinians are actually Arab immigrants who were paid to immigrate by the Jews.

If the Zionists wanted an undisputed Jewish homeland, then this was a serious mistake. Whether or not the Arabs who moved to Palestine have a so called "cultural claim" to this land is irrelevant. They came for peaceful purposes and have as much right to the homes and businesses that they built as any Jewish settler.

There is a history of injustices on both sides that have been motivated by ethnic and theological irrationality, hatreds and fear. At first it was Arab riots against Jewish immigration that started the cycle of violence and both justified as well as unjustified retaliation.

Today the situation is not much different. Theologically motivated terrorists intentionally provoke Jewish fears and collectivist retaliation in order to divide palestine into the two waring camps of the Israelis and the "Palestinians".

If the Israelis are to have any hope of peace, they need to put an end to collectivist punishment and to respect the property rights of "Palestinians". This would allow the healing effects of the free market and voluntary cooperation to help bring them toward greater mutual respect and empathy. I don't know if it's too late for this, considering pain each group has suffered at the hands of the other, as well as the intense level of theological and ethnic fanaticism of that region and the interference of many foreign nation states and their evil machinations.

I agree with basically everything you said, up until this part:

An intelligent Israeli should probably just leave and let the Arabs fight among themselves. It's not worth the trouble.

Why should Israelis want to tuck their tail between their legs and leave their homeland that has also been their cultural legacy for thousands of years? On the contrary, Jews immigrate to Israel constantly, there was a huge wave of Jewish immigration to Israel in the 90s following the collapse of the USSR.

And even if an Israeli wants to leave? Where would he/she leave to?

If you value dogmatic beliefs above you and your loved one's lives and happiness, then stay and fight to the bitter end.

Many Israelis have found ways to leave.

If Zionists were looking for a sanctuary for persecuted Jews, then Palestine, while it may have been the correct choice theologically, was one of the worst choices, from a practical standpoint. Also: Populating Palestine with immigrant Arabs to work their lands was shortsighted, to say the least. Once people come to live and make a life, you cannot simply throw them out.

73

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 11, 2009, 09:58:18 PM »

Why do you use "Israelis" and Jews interchangeably?

Israel has Judaism as its official state religion. Not all Jews are Israelis, but the Israeli state represents, collectively, the Jews of Israel and gives automatic citizenship to any Jews in the world that wish to have it.

74

General / Re: Israeli settlers are terrorists?

« on: July 11, 2009, 09:56:35 AM »

Of course it takes two to have cooperation, but since the Israelis would be in control of the government, they will need to take the first steps, unilaterally, before they could expect cooperation.

Why would the "Israelis" be in control in a one state solution?
And I assume by "Israelis" you mean Jews.

Sure. They could always surrender and be slaughtered or negotiate a safe exodus.

I would favor the latter.

Those are the only possibilities of a non-Israeli one state solution. Good luck!

75

The Show / Re: Wal Mart & Healthcare

« on: July 11, 2009, 09:16:43 AM »

Once a business sells its soul to the state, it becomes subject to a whole new set of laws, regulations, fees and corporate taxes.

Very much this! Having incorporated once was such a traumatizing and demoralizing experience that it completely changed my way of looking at running a business and interacting with government. Before running a business I was a "libertarian" in something like the Larry Elder model. After closing that business I became more serious state-hater.

Incorporating can cause a huge amount of pain in the neck region.  There are many benefits to remaining a sole proprietor instead of incorporating your business.  Often a sole proprietorship that has a small enough number of employees is able to skirt a number of regulatory requirements that are layed on corporations.

That's what I do. People tell me I'm foolish, but I would rather risk personal liability and take responsibility for my own life than have to jump through bureaucratic hoops. Fortunately, what I do isn't licenced.....yet.