This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Bernie, The Koch Brothers, & Open Borders
Submitted by Jeff Deist via The Mises Institute,
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders recently raised the ire of both progressives and libertarians with his remarks concerning immigration:
“Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal,” Sanders said. “That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States.”
“It would make everybody in America poorer — you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that,” Sanders said. “If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or (the United Kingdom) or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people.”
In just a few sentences, Sanders manages to demonstrate a hodgepodge of nativist, nationalist, protectionist, and socialist sentiments. But for anyone wondering why he wandered off the progressive narrative on immigration, it’s because protectionist labor unions pay him better than, say, La Raza.
If Bernie Sanders sounds like Donald Trump when it comes to “taking our jobs,” consider that both are statists who reflect the widely and deeply held belief that nations are defined by states. This may be an uncomfortable reality for libertarians, but it is reality nonetheless.
National borders by definition are political boundaries. They mark the edge of a particular territory over which a political entity — a state — claims exclusive jurisdiction.
Since political borders require states, “open borders” is an oxymoron. Nothing controlled by government is “open,” whether we’re talking about the New York City taxi market or federal ethanol subsidies or the Brownsville, Texas border bridge.
Open borders can exist only if states do not exist. States require borders because they are defined by borders.
So from the statist perspective, Sanders is right: you can’t have large centralized states and unregulated borders, because those borders are at the heart of the state’s identity and its raison d’etre: control. The political technocrats who run modern nation-states have zero incentive to cede control over the flow of humans entering (or in some cases leaving) their territories. If anything, the political impulse is ever and always to expand the state’s zone of control by pushing borders outward.
Immigration is a tricky issue for libertarians precisely because the very concepts of states, borders, and “public” land (the commons) are wholly inconsistent with a political and legal philosophy based on self-ownership and property rights. It’s hard to speak rationally about immigration under the present circumstances, because we’re so far from a free society that we risk piling one kind of illibertarian “solution” upon another.
While the understandable libertarian impulse is to comport our principles with the innately human desire for free migration, we too often forget that the Noble Immigrant archetype is rooted in a statist view of immigration: one controlled by the state, in which public space trumps private property and free association. The benefits and detriments of immigration are weighed only in terms of their impact on the state.
In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees, and trespassers — not legal and illegal immigrants.
Admittedly, it might be quite difficult to establish rightful (lawful) property owners under some sort of Lockean homesteading analysis — even in a nation as young as the US. While libertarians generally are absolutist regarding unfettered immigration, they will entertain “halfway” arguments about the most libertarian path available in a statist world on other topics (for example, see Sheldon Richman’s cogent argument analogizing access to public roads with access to publicly-issued marriage licenses). But if Hans-Hermann Hoppe offers an interim argument for dealing with the societal costs imposed by immigrants given our current system of “public goods” and entitlements, he is considered a wrongheaded statist. The same progressives and left-libertarians who champion tort liability for corporations when it comes to environmental damage fall strangely silent on the externalities caused by human migration.
Let’s be clear: the tendencies of a society based on property rights may well make progressives and left-libertarians quite unhappy. Such a society necessarily entails freedom of association and its corollary, the right to exclude. Free association might well result in regions that develop naturally based on (gasp) shared familial, economic, linguistic, social, and cultural interests. Contra the DNC, government is not “the only thing we all belong to.”
This is not to say that a libertarian concept of naturally arising “nations” entails a clannish retreat into suspicious enclaves. Surely a free society would have regions where market demand for the cosmopolitan benefits of life in a multicultural society prevails (imagine a stateless Singapore). But multicultural social democracies with vast welfare states, like Western Europe and the US, did not arise through the “market.” They are big-government constructs, and they are quickly becoming unsustainable. Multicultural welfare states are a recipe for disaster.
Unfortunately, it appears for now we are stuck with the likes of Mr. Sanders and his faulty concept of nation-states. But if we want to advocate for a freer society, we need to apply first principles rather than sentimentality. There is a deep-rooted and natural human preference for the familiar face over the stranger, and human migration in a free society is likely to reflect this reality.
- 29216 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Not the ire of this guy.
I agree with Bernie on this one.
well then --what are you doing to help poor people??
Just in from Hillary Clinton's doctor, a health report that is a tissue of lies. After a minor stroke and fall, the doctor just describes her concussion, not the underlying neurological disorder. Clinton's blood pressure is a low 100/65 but no mention of whether Clinton was on blood pressure medication when the test was made. No mention either of cholesterol levels, signs of Hodgkins Disease or even if Clinton had any surgeries for varicose veins. She is apparently in near perfect health yet she has to take a blood thinner, a good sign she still at risk for getting another stroke. Luckily for us, Clinton's integrity is unimpeachable outside of discussing Benghazi and e-mails.
(NYT)In the letter, dated Tuesday, Dr. Bardack describes Mrs. Clinton as a healthy 67-year-old woman who has only relatively minor maladies. But the letter notes that Mrs. Clinton was treated for “a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012.”
If the Clinton camp were smart, they would say she's practically a walking corpse who could drop any minute. That may cause fewer people to bother to come out and vote against her.
This diatribe is a hodge podge of ill defined language and meanings. Borders simply delineate what is mine from what is yours. To do away with borders is to do away with property lines and private ownership.
... and thus once again lbertarian thought undermines itself.
How so? Libertarian means that I'm free to do what I want with my things.
The difference between statism and libertarianism is that you are your own state, and therefore, you have all of the rights of a state as they apply to you. If you sign a contract, as a sovereign entity, you are bound to it, and the same applies for all others in a libertarian society. You also have the option to decline an agreement, and you have the right to understand the terms of any agreement that you do choose to enter (unlike in an external state, which can change laws in an instant, and put you in legal crosshairs through no fault of your own).
+1000 WOAR! So well put!
@lu886cky, Libertarianism is freedom with personal responsibility, and monetary accountabliity. Liberalism is freedom to do anything one wants with the taxpayers picking up the bill, and instead of monetary accountabliity, tax money is managed with scams, shell games, and ponzis.
Freedom is not absolute; it is in fact best enabled by meaningful bounds (like the dividing line on a road, which is a highly functional bound that enables freedom). One's freedom does not extend to encroaching on another's (Libertarians sort of get this, except with respect to aborting babiess to avoid responsibility for certain choices).
Libertarianism is a form of liberalism, in that it subscribes to "freedoms" that are purportedly constrained in the current system.
I find it fascinating to listen to the Libertarian crowd here cling to their personal responsibility yet focus so much attention on what others are doing.
Well, some of it is a tough slog uphill but borders (as we commonly refer to them) are jurisdictional boundaries, requiring (or depending on, as the case may be) "a state" to enforce, meaning, troops or police or crocodiles with freaking lasers attached to their skulls...lol.
So in that regard, there is no difference between Sanders & Trump, they both want the federal government to patrol/restrict/allow/check papers etc. who crosses from another jurisdiction.
Which is different from me or you saying no, fuck you, get off my property, no matter where you're from or under whoever's authority or pretense you assume you have a right to be on my property.
Depending on who they are and what their motive is for being here, I generally just shoot em ;-)
It is always easiest to simply do nothing.
Mass immigration is driven by the desire to improve ones economical outlook or to escape an oppressive government.
Satisfy those two desires and most people will stay where they are.
I agree with bernie on this. The chamber of commerce does not believe in open borders because they are broad minded multi-culturalists. They want immigrants to come to the US to increase the supply of cheap labor to keep those costs down for their constituency. I.E. get those cheap illiterate mexicans up here to do the job that those lazy muricans won't do. They leave out the part about lazy muricans won't do for minimum wage, or won't clean the hotel room for $3.75 per room on contract. Their biggest problem, other than the pacific ocean being a natural barrier to 100,000,000 east asian peasants, is getting mexicans to leave the North American rivieria to go work in a Nebraska cattle slaughter plant in February. Of course they solved this problem by waging a 40 year war on drugs that turned mexico into a corrupt, crime riddled, third world hell hole, which of course had the accompaning wave after wave of war refugees. Our immigration problem and stagnant wage problems would in large part be fixed by acknowledging the war on drugs to be the abysmmal failure that it is, declaring victory and going home.
Which of course is why that will never happen.
@fattail,
multicultural = social chaos = conflict = govt control
News you can use. Current events. How it is, from somebody who sees it in real time.
My buddy is a painting contractor. 7-8 years ago, swore he would never use illeagal labor. Had no choice,it was do or die. He hired some ElSalvadorans. They where contrite, polite, hard working and would work 7 days a week. Actually, they insisted. Explained they need the money. They would do anything asked, with wings on. Fast forward to today......
Buddy runs his ass ragged, lining jobs and collecting pay. These guys are all ( except one) illegall. He stops in the local burger joint, close to a job. They are having lunch. Table piled high with subs,fries, drinks. He had to by a hot dog with change scaped from the console, it is getting harder and harder to collect for the jobs. IT IS. He walked over, and asked if they could work Saturday, finish a residential job, the owner is waving a check at him, ready to pay when done. About $2500.00. They told him NO. He shorted them each $100, this pay period, had no choice. He explained, work please, I'll pay overtime, and use the money to square up. They said no, collecting money your problem, not ours. We play football Saturday, rest on Sunday. We have lives, Poppy. They are paid about 800 a week, under the table. No file taxes. He is beside himself.
The State is not letting him renew his vehicle tags, he owes state tax. A friend who works at the DMV told him..... " title your vans in the workers names. Take your name off the vans. They can drive with expired tags, no insurance. It will save you big dollars. The cops won't even mess with them. It is not worth the hour s of paperwork, they won't come to court, and the judge will throw it out. Judge will have hours of paper als, to no avail. They don't waste their time anymore.
One of his workers was pulled over two years ago. Piss ass drunk, in Annapolis Md. The cops called and said " come get your van". They just let the driver go. No ticket, no nothing. Not worth the trouble. Now you, Mr. American Citizen, get pulled over after a few cocktails. About two years of grief and $15,000.
It's not that we hate people who want to better themselves. But WE are getting shafted, big time, in the process. And if doesn't affect you directly, it will soon. Just in a way you did not expect. Your kid can't get a job. Or he/she gets killed by an illeagal drunk driver with no licence or insurance. Or you lose your nice office job to an H1b Indian, at half price.
"They" better fix this, or it's going to get real, real soon.
you've just described a lawless state
Fattail and NoPensions have it right.
Hillary is a sacraficial anode, she will never make it to the primary because of "Health Issues" and the left will breath a sigh of relief when it happens.
just keep peeling back the curtain-----+1
The Hilldahbeast is soooo hot in those X-Ray Glasses
http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=6+pair+XRAY+NOVELTY+GLASSES+novelt...
Really man, when is she NOT hot? I mean, those meaty thighs rubbing together all day in her Chairman Mao pantsuit, gettin' all hot and sweaty workin' hard on the Summer Campaign Trail. Mmmmm Mmmmmm!
Damn, you know your women! Now if we can just get adjusted to daMooch, we'll really be cookin'!
ole keg legs rides again.
Great, I hope her demonic head explodes. My 85 year old mother-in-law looks far healthier then she.
Infusions of dead baby part slurries can work only so long. Rot in Hell bitch.
Miffed
Hillary was never attractive, but she has become increasingly more haggard looking with every passing year. Her makeup might be professional grade and caked on in layers. Her hair is too long and stringy for someone of her advanced age. Just imagine her giving a lecture to the macho Russians, Chinese, the NORKs, Taliban, whatever. Metrosexuals they ain't. That works with the eastern establishment pansies but not with the toughs. They will treat her like the family shrew, let her yammer on, and then request a man to discuss the issue at hand.
@Junction,
It's not Hillary's health that's disqualifying. It's her.... her.... Well, it's just her.
Did the doctor find a heart or a brain?
Feeds them parts from the aborted children nobody else wants?
I'll answer that. I give a couple of times a year to the local rescue mission. It serves a good purpose, feeding and helping people who are genuinely down and out. You should consider it.
Far as Sanders, he's just the right combination to be a fixer. Tighten up the borders, make sure Soc Sec is really funded, make America great again by using a tax on Wall St to pay for kids college, make the multi-nationals pay their taxes, roll back our military excursions into foreign countries business, and instead rebuild our infrastructure. I think the only thing I'm at odds with him on is Israel. But I'll give him that one 'cause you can't have everything, and Bernie is spot-on with so many problems that need fixing.
We just need to spread the wealth around. MOAR
Yay! More kids with university degrees: liberal arts, women's studies, underwater basketweaving, you name it. That'll fix everything since we don't already have every Starbucks staffed by morons with degrees. /sarc
OK, your other points are all spot-on.
Bernie Sanders is more tired liberal ideas. More spending for education? Oh brother. We don't need more spending. We need more savings, and investing into real economic growth. Bernie Sanders just sounds like another populist guy who is convincing people he will fix everything by taxing the rich, and spend more money. Sorry to burst your bubble, for education to fully take into effect for employment in high wage jobs, first you need investments to create those jobs. Education is not a panacea, though important in it's own context, it doesn't fix bad economies.
Magic,
Bernie is up front in warning he will not be able to deliver his economic program: massive job creation to rebuild our infrastructure and build a green economy, changing the trade laws to bring 5 million jobs home, breaking up the largest banks, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and more - and making the "billionaire class" pay for all this. He warns that it will take a struggle of tens of millions of people confronting the billionaire class, making them "an offer they can't refuse", to win his program.
Then he asks us: "Are you ready for a fight?"
Does that sound like more tired liberal ideas to you?
It sounds like the proletariat will rise. Marx, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin come to mind. Smith and Wesson will sort everyone out. Sounds great! /sarc
I don't believe anymore that there is a painless way to fix our problems. It is going to be painful. Some people may actually have to go outside and work. Egads. The fucking horror. It most likely will be bloody, though.
First things first. Triage. Shut the border down tigher than a crab's ass (watertight) . I mean wartime like controls. Barb wire, minefield, kill zones. Make your hovl in ElSalvador look a little better. Maybe, instead of leave and come here, take your own country back from the assholes, and make it better.
That's the problem. It is a better option to leave and come here. That needs to change. Make staying home and fighting for change a better choice.
All else will flow from that.
"First things first. Triage. Shut the border down tigher than a crab's ass (watertight) . I mean wartime like controls. Barb wire, minefield, kill zones."
Wow you want to prevent people escaping the arbitrary boundries of the US?
I'm sure Sanders will be able to "fix" everything you mentioned, with a wave of his magic wand.
He'll be able to accomplish this, of course, even while using the fraudulent debt-money conjured out of thin air by the Federal Reserve, a topic upon which he has remained totally silent since he torpedoed Ron Paul's Audit the Fed bill in 2012, when he led the charge to pass a watered-down version of the bill more wimpy than a wet noodle.
"make sure Soc Sec is really funded"
Are you the new new MDB or do you just deny the reality of mathematics?
Not to burst your bubble but none of that stuff matters when you have a global economy teetering on deflationary collapse with interest rates at, for all intents and purposes, 700 year lows. The best laid plans will be cast aside when the FED raises rates and craters the global economy, and whoever is president will go into scramble mode and start immediately incrementally restricting your civil rights for the good of the chilldrun, because we can't let a crisis go to waste....
"well then --what are you doing to help poor people??"
Helping the poor has nothing to do with opposing a one-world, borderless cesspool. In fact, we'd all be poorer, so yeah...We have a constitutional duty to protect against invasion. If you want to get rid of the Constitution, that is a whole other conversation.
"But for anyone wondering why he wandered off the progressive narrative on immigration, it’s because protectionist labor unions pay him better than, say, La Raza."
Right, it couldn't be because Bernie actually cares about American workers.
I'm glad to hear Hillary is healthy to take her dirt nap. Bernie can fashion Hillarys prism eye-glasses and claim he doesn't know about Bengazi or State Department emails.
Dead Can Dance - "Cantara"http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BNxa0odpCJU
Another idiotic and self-contradictory post from the Mises Institute exposing itself as a tool of the oligarchs who want cheap labor and no middle class.
Go fuck yourself. We don't need baggage bringing down our US Republic.
You do realize that the Mises Institute doesn't believe in any Republic, right? They believe that nation states are bad because they require the existence of government. Put that in your go fuck yourself pipe and smoke it, and while you're at it why don't you consider for a moment that you don't even understand what you think you are for and against.
I know more than a care to share. Why do you think a get off my lazy ass and participate in the fight club for over 5+years? Focal groups change their minds. I stick with reality.
Seriously what's your hard on for Libertarians? Did one fuck your boyfriend?
Ps. I'm not a libertarian.
If you have ever read my posts, my issue is with absolutists. The interesting thing about the immigration debate is that it has exposed many who claim to be libertarian as anything but, yet these same people will tell me that I am a socialist if I say public roads and airports are a good thing. Many who self-identify as libertarian suffer from normalcy bias, and simply don't want to pay taxes. A true libertarian, such as the Mises Institute, wants literally everything controlled by private interests, no borders (except those created by private landowners), etc. The idea that this would work in the real world is so sophomoric as to be embarassing.
I think most Libertarians would agree the welfare state must be dismantled before immigration is considered.
I don't see the argument that a public entity would be far better by definition than a private one to provide public infrastructure. The bloated bureaucratic waste in many local public projects is astounding.
Miffed
"I don't see the argument that a public entity would be far better by definition than a private one to provide public infrastructure."
They do already. Private contractors mostly build roads, airports, etc. Of course they needed public funding to get built. Can you name one interstate built by private interests with private funds? Why not? They weren't always here, and private corporations existed long before the interstates came along.
early transporation infrastructure in the US was funded by private investors. there would never be a bridge to nowhere built back then and there would not have been DOT crews leaning on shovels.
Which interstate did they build again?
I read an awesome biography on Cornelius Vanderbilt, read it.
So he built an interstate with his own money?
The car was not invented back then Rand. Railways, canals, rail terminals, great monuments of human achievement all done privately.
So which industrialist built an interstate with private money? Ever?
Philadelphia and Lancaster turnpike. 10,000 miles of turnpikes built in the first 3 decades of the 19th century thoughout New England and the mid Atlantic states. Google private highways in the US
"The Pennsylvania Legislature establishes the Philadelphia
and Lancaster Turnpike Road Company.
The act specifies the termini and general route of
the road, sets minimum engineering standards and
confers the right of eminent domain for taking
necessary right-of-way and road materials."
Kudos for coming up with an example (albiet from the 1700's) of a road built by private interests that connected states, but it required the government and the power of eminent domain to do it.
The government had to charter all corporations back then like they still do. Starbucks is a private enterprise even though the government established their right to exist as a legal entity. I thought you were an attorney.
Does Starbucks have the power of eminent domain?
They must, they are on nearly every corner! That was fun, we should do it again sometime.
Your statist skirt is showing.
Yes, I believe in the benefit of organized government of the People for the People. I guess I'm a commie.
With organized government comes "traffic safety" checkpoints, which I guess you support.
I "guess" I'm moving from Libertarian to Anarchist.
You're better than that, nmewn. Believing in the right of people to organize and form government does not mean I am for authoritarianism. And believe it or not, Kings and Queens used to rule by force without consent long before the People had any say in the matter.
Well cool, I can form whatever government I want without your objection then.
Thanks ;-)
The thing that troubles me most about all of this stuff is will liberty land have ice cream?
LTER just wants a gun to use against his political enemies.
Rand,
The idea of benevolent government is just an idea. Our benevolent government has given us the fed, bankrupted the treasury, started some wars, assassinated Kennedy, blew up 911 buildings and on and on. It comes down to the question of why the hell are we feeding this beast? It does not evenprotect our borders anymore. Thats why you see the Libertarian element developing in the population. As long as our government runs roughshod - people who are aware are going to have a reaction - typically toward taking power from government. I hope this explains things.
Have you ever been on the Veterans Expressway?
It's genesis is Charles B. Costar, financed through bond issuance, paid back by tolls. Beats the living shit out of I-75 or "US"19 when I go down that way.
My only problem with it is it's not private, it's crawling with state troopers these days ;-)
Yes, the Veterans is great, though it gets very backed up too. As you mention, it's not private, so I'm not sure I get your point.
The point which always seems to go over your head, is it was done with private money and built with private contractors. You sittin around thinkin a DOT employee is going to get off his sorry ass, use a bulldozer and have it come in on time and on budget?
Veterans was built by the Florida Department of Transportation, which issued bonds. Does that make it a private road in your mind?
The DOT subcontracts what, 99.9% of its work out? They can barely stay awake till 4:45 PM. It built fucking nothing, it shuffled paper.
In your mind shuffling paper around equals surveying elevations, removing and adding earth, limerock compaction, bridge building and laying asphalt?
That's the irony of our "debate." The Florida DOT raised the money and hired private contractors to build the road. Joe's Road Building, Inc. did not raise the funds. The paper shuffling government did. The road was built by private enterprise using funds raised and then administered by the government and you use it and apparently think it's great. Call me crazy but I think you're making my point.
Uhhh, no, in totality toll roads were ABSORBED by FLDOT when the DOT was created in 1969, Charles Costar had the funding locked up in 1953.
In other words, the fucking DOT wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of "the state" in 1953, neither was I-75 which I have very vivid memories of STOPPING at Tampa (cuz it was cypress heads...that is to say WOODS, beyond the barricades and flashing lights pointing you to the right) where we went to the coast in the Burg.
Bullshit called.
And they built it all on free land given to them by the public. In the case of railroads, literally a two mile swath for each company, unopposed, across the whole nation. That wasn't too private, Fred.
Yes, and if you were to talk to these private contractors, they would tell you the expense to be in compliance to receive a government contract is staggering. Minority owned companies getting preferential treatment in the bidding process. For one to make money in this business one must be adept at playing the game with multiple hands in the pot.
I am incredulous a local road straightening cost 22 million for just a few miles of work. Simple inflation cannot account for this. The same is true of my field.
Miffed
You didn't answer my question. At all. Pointing out that the current system is corrupt (it is) is not the same as offering a real world solution. The current system built the interstates. Private corporations did not build a single interstate with their own money, even though all businesses benefit from their existence. Do the math. Or just deflect tough questions because you prefer to be ideological. It seems to work for a lot of people.
"The current system built the interstates."
Not everyone is so deeply in love with interstates, I'm not.
"Private corporations did not build a single interstate with their own money, even though all businesses benefit from their existence."
Private corporations most certainly did build the interstates with expropriated tax dollars and the last I checked you whack-a-mole progs force businesses to pay taxes...ya know...for road building and such, which gets passed (the taxes they pay) to the consumer so their PROFIT MARGIN stays the same.
So, you're in favor of building interstates with money stolen from people who will not travel on them?
Yeah, interstates suck. Who uses them anyway? Good point.
That was a nice defection from answering a question. Bravo!
Miffed
How was I deflecting from this comment? "Not everyone is so deeply in love with interstates, I'm not."
Possibly everything I said before you ignored everything I said in your response?
Here is a libertarian solution to the problem of Interstates and their cost of buliding and maintenance:
Sell them all to Private industry and make them all toll roads.
I think this would solve a lot of problems.
I would vote for this in a second.
PS- At the same time, repeal taxes on all fuel and other road taxes associated with interstate highways.
This has merit because those who use them would be directly paying for them as opposed to a gasoline tax where the fund can be raided or misappropriated.
Locally we have a toll road you can take to bypass heavy traffic. It goes up depending on the severity of the blockage. I have stared at the 15 dollars at times but never have partaken but I do relish the choice.
Miffed
"but I do relish the choice."
This is what I don't understand with you. You already have the choice. You can take the public road, or private road. You apparently always choose public. Yet you want to take away the public option from everyone, including yourself.
Because, LTER, it is rare in many states to have that option to choose which path to take.
In my neck of the woods (South Central PA), I do have an occasional choice- If it is rush hour, I might pay to ride the toll road to save time and aggravation.
If it is not rush hour, I gladly take the back roads.
The toll road is always available- but it is only a reasonable choice when absolutely neccesary.
If this solution were implemented everywhere in the states, it would be a truly welcome change.
Seek_Truth you want to turn the USA into New Jersey or London or something. Talk about a police State. They have all kinds of speed detectors on those things and track your movements.
I don't want to live like New England or Massachusetts. Hell New Yorkers supported King George in the Revolution and also supported Gun Control.
Nonsense.
I have a Valentine One Radar Detector, and it costs a lot less than the fuel and road taxes I pay, TV88.
PS- And I get to my locations much faster than the average bear.
Ah, I'm low tech and don't get a lot done on the road.
Alright. The Randian/Libertarian mantra is "competition creates a better world". But really, how many interstates will be built? Of course, the existing ones will be sold off to the best friend bidder. But will there really be competition in the interstate highway business. If one owner does a shitty job of maintaining a highway, will another be built next to it? Is there any instance in corporate history where a corporation did not eventually act in a psychopathic manner? Utopian fantasies are invalid in both extreme paradigms.
Yes, much better that all interstate systems wind up being run by the governements largest favored crony bidders!
"You didn't build that!"...lmao!
So your point was what again?
The interstates (Bechtel, Rand....) were originally intended to only go between cities and around them. Not through them. The private compainies, smelling blood and great profit, paid off politicians to make the pans go through the cities. They made lots and lots more money, and in doing so, destroyed the fabric and beauty of just about every city they went through. This was a great part of white flight and suburbia really taking hold.
Ike, who was a proponent of interstates, was pretty pissed that they started to go through cities. This was another aspect of his "military industrial complex" speech that we here are all familiar with.
I heard this Law Requires Federal Govt to pay the Union Level Wages for our Road Work.
The Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 is a United States federal law that establishes the requirement for paying the local prevailing wages on public works projects for laborers and mechanics. It applies to "contractors and subcontractors performing on federally funded or assisted contracts in excess of $2,000 for the construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) of public buildings or public works".[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Bacon_Act
Must be why there are always 10-12 PENNDOT "workers" involved in changing a traffic light bulb at a given intersection, while ONE (1) actually does the work..
Just a guess... like the military or the government the other guys are waiting for the one person to finish his piece.
If you do a Gant Chart and Plan Out when things have to be done... small jobs would be like a ballet. On Big jobs next guy or the inspector can come out the next day and it doesn't seem like such a waste of labor hours... but the may still be wasting afternoons, mornings, days, weeks.
The problem we face is that everyone is wanting someone else to defend their interests, and that typically ends up being "government".
The answer is for us to act in our best interests while recognizing that our true long term interests lie in the stability and success of our entire society.
I believe in protectionism....not by our government but by ourselves, where we actually make the effort to understand what is and what isn't ultimately in our best interest.
We don't need walls or more laws to deal with immigration, we simply need to recognize that every person we welcome into our living room who chooses to stay will bring the brothers and cousins with them and soon we will be living on the street. Instead we seem to think that these "guests" will be satisfied with cleaning up and cooking around our house while not imposing any real costs on our quality of life. We are not stupid. We choose to be stupid because there are lots of people telling us that reality does not exist. That we can do all of the really stupid things we have done to destroy our country and society, all while knowing it is wrong, but we WANT to believe it isn't because it feeds our most immediate needs.
Simplify, Streamline, and Standardize. Old conventions to consider when reforming government and writing law.
What if we standardize Health Care Forms and cut out 3/4s of it. Hell now we have doctors that refuse insurance so they don't have to pay admin staff full time jobs.
Guidelines, Benchmarks, Precedents, Prior cases used as examples we could make all US Court Systems 90% more effective... of course I don't want to make the population into criminals or give them prison time for drug possession... and I would seek to limit the number of charges filed on people. (It is like we hate our own men and women, like Germany refusing debt forgiveness for Greece even though they are brothers in the Same union and Greeks are now Stealing and breaking into Houses).
Simplify Banking, and lo and behold Bankers know they can't get around the laws!!
Rand, if I remember from way back when, Libertarians were for open borders just no free shit for those who crossed them.
That's true. In Libertarian paradise we would be flooded with third world labor, crime, disease, etc. Great idea.
You're fuckan crazy if you think most Libertarians are for that kind of madness.
Sadly, look at the situation right now. that is exactly what we are seeing with millions of illegals here in the US. It is just what you described above.
Libertarianism is the belief that government is the problem and should not exist. You can have libertarian ideas about some things, just as I can have socialist ideas about some things, and yet neither one of us is a libertarian or socialist.
Bingo.
Putting people in boxes is a mental defect.
Everyone is an individual.
Even while some "individuals" want you to pay for their health insurance or tolls on the road or flood insurance?
Gotta hand it to you there, nmewn.
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."- 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I am appalled at the state of this country.
All going as foretold.
Jesus was undoubtedly a fan of Darwinian free market capitalism and Ayn Rand's teachings that only the productive members of society should survive.
Sarcasm noted.
That is an unusual statement from you considering you tend to label people with sweeping absolute subjective definitions. But most lawyers I know do the same. I suppose they find it provocative and effective to illicit argument. No wonder little is accomplished by our governing bodies being well represented by your trade.
Miffed
Is this where you attack me personally because you can't respond substantively or intelligently to any of my points? And I'm provocative and argumentative? You sign every post "miffed."
No, I think she was just calling you a hack wannabe lawyer who couldn't pass the bar ;-)
Ok, I did have to pop a Percocet from the resulting laugh. It was worth it. Frankly the only bar he needs it the one that serves alcohol. Chemical relaxation maybe the only answer for his wild unsubstantiated claims and strawman arguments. Perhaps it's the only thing preventing a synaptic blown gasket in a single cylinder mind.
Miffed;-)
I stand corrected by your well reasoned, substantive arguments.
But not my personal attacks! Oh dear I may swoon with the vapors! ;-)
Miffed;-)
THINK man! In libertarian paradise only the strongest would survive without massive government handouts. There would be no huddled masses or wretched refuse teeming our shore.
Define strong. Strong as in unfeeling, unsympathetic, psychopathic, gangster mentality. Because for a while, that would be the leading sect in an anarchial world. At this point in time, humans will be humans. But eventually enough people not in the psychopathic sect, would band together to form some means of controlling and administering justice to the "strong". Maybe some "prophet" will be recognized and followed. And voila, the cycle starts again.
Fwiw, I both agree with you and think this is very well put.
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but have a problem w/ absolutists
or as I think of them - Idealists (versus pragmatists).
Now, I'd like to see libertarian ideas gain more respect and traction, but that would mean compromise and a consideration of the practical effects.
Hence, I support massive improvements to public education not to impose my morality but imo an educated populace is vital for a dynamic economy and
meaningful democracy.
Of course, those of us who are Independents do nothing better than
fighting amongst ourselves over trivia rather than focusing
on principles. Having seen more senseless death and destruction and
the callous indifference to human life of the state, and having considered that nothing is more wasteful than war and the way contract bids work - to me foreign policy is the major issue.
I think Sanders is far and away the best candidate in THAT regard and he'll get my vote. If you have another primary concern, maybe Trump looks good.
Sanders statism is not something I subscribe to. But I am not at all affected by the cries of "socialist" from stupid fucks who think the other candidates are better for the country or them because, well, 'better dead than red'.
I could drone on but Ill wrap it by saying the 2 party system and entrenched power is a major, major cause of our problems.
And if you want less govt, as a practical matter, electing a consistent, no apologies socialist INDEPENDENT which Congress will have to constantly wredtle with is the least worst option you have.
And if you'll accept nothing less than revolution, you say, but havent done a thing in support of your ideals, I have news for you - you are a faggot, and you bring nothing to the table other than "No True Scotsman" arguments as tptb kill more of us, rob more of us, and march us toward Gehenna.
I'm not libertarian. Conservative Republican. My mom was a house wife. People flooded to our house under a coffee klatch. This was before the birth of Internet.
Edit: I was too young to understand the Republican movement back then. My mom passed away in my early 20's do to breast cancer. She was a fucking pistol when it came to politics. Guess my DNA follows. My Dad is well schooled.
Dinner time sitting at the table became geopolitics. It made my brain melt, overall... I learned.
The real enemy of the common man is the state, not so much the government.
There is a difference - Albert Nock's publication circa 1945:
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
On the contrary, America was built by immigrants. Read US history. Europeans came in droves.... Did even know that? Thing about socialist is their inate fear of everything from immigrants, to rich people. Socialist don't want foreign capital, nor they want foreign labor, nor they want the rich. Another words they want a poor society with very little freedoms.
What's wrong with giving foreigners opportunity? Are they not human? Such comments represent shows how people can be anti-humanity and this is coming from bleeding heart socialist.
Libertarians from the Mises Institute do not assign worthless labels and values to people simply because of their nationality. If anything they are expressing true argument of economics, not out of nationalism and feel-good patriotism which sends people to die in pointless wars. There is freedom of capital, and freedom of movement of labor in free market theory. Capital chases cheap labor, labor chases higher wages. Simple and absolute theory. In Austrian circles it's real wages that contribute to wealth. That is if cheap labor is necessary to make canned tuna as cheap as possible, then it's necessary to increase supply and lower prices. If cheap labor can't be employed, than producers have to find innovations and use technology to boost productivity with less inpute of manual labor. Pretty simple. Caesar Chavez was against illegal immigration, because he wanted his union to monopolize wages, so a syndicalist has to exclude opportunity for other people, to boost their own wages, then consumers don't get the benefit of cheaper prices. Mises for the most part discusses economics.
You on other hand come from the same vein of fascism, similar to Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
I have no issues with immigration. Follow the same rules. I'm fourth generation starting from Scotland to Nova Scotia to Cleveland OH.
If you cannot pass the test, deport the motherfuckers. No illegals can vote. Period.
My ancestors had to pass the test before becoming a citizen. No Obama common core math test level skills
Colonists -- my people -- came to build something from nothing.
Immigrants come for jobs and money the colonists already built.
Take your money-grubbing, something-for-nothing immigration and relocated it to a hot place.
Know how to build Wealth?
- Have slave Labor
- Have a bunch of kids and few child labor laws
- Have free land like in the USA when people moved West
- Or get Land Granted by a King, even better if he gives you the native people to work the land, this is called a Hacienda System
- Have a restricted Supply of Labor, where you can work for the highest bidder
- Monopoly Granted by the Government
- Federal Contracts, tax Waivers, Direct Subsidies for things like Testing Drugs, Creating Military Policy, Geopolitical Think Tank
Lacking Slave Labor, you could trap people into become Debt Slaves or indentured Servants, or use power of a Ship or Military to impress serfs into service, USSR Impressed serfs to build their infrastructure as they worked them to death that might be the most modern or the oldest way.
No one ever addresses why we have an immigration problem. We have to go to the root of the matter>>
https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/why-we-have-an-immig...
Too bad 6 people didn't read the link you posted.
Very well written.
Truth.
Keep up the good work.
No war. No too big to fail. No open borders.
You gotta wonder if all the money pissed away on garbage by the usual red/blue suspects was thrown at Sanders' socialist programs could he even spend it all? Fuck, I'm starting to think you'd probably get a tax cut.
Anyway cue the down votes.
when did things get so complex? Bring back the rotary phone, three TV stations, Leaded gas, marriage, Legal processed migration along with language assimilation. Heterosexuality, monogamy, decency, civility, God, accountability, etc.
and vinyl records
hairy vaginas
Either way
The only thing more amazing than Trump's climb is this 80 year old communist fuck, bozo sanders as a contender to be dem leader/US prez.
Bring your oxygen tank to the debates sanders - you dim witted shitbag.
self serving dim witted shitbag-----fixed it for ya----
He may be an 80 year old communist fuck, but he ain't Hillary Rodham Clinton, so that's why he's a contender to be the leader of the Dems and the prez.
I'm simply flabbergasted at the level of tripe that's running for President for both the Blues and the Reds. It shows what a mockery the entire system has become.
Create a wall of drones, flying along the border.
Then when the illegal immigrants shoot them down, arrest them for shooting drones.
That seems to be the only crime enforced anymore.
bullion direct files bankruptcy,supposed to have 22 million in storage for clients, only have 620,000.
As the economy was collapsing in 1987, many investors then who had stored gold holdings found the gold vaults bare, just cobwebs and dust inside. This bankruptcy case is just the first of many where customers will find their assets to have been looted by so-called "reputable" dealers.
--
On July 20, 2015, BullionDirect, Inc. filed a bankruptcy petition, Chapter 11 No. 15-10940 in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division
Least it's in Texas where they been known to hang people for small stuff like stealing a horse.
I wanna watch. Come on, lemme see them hang. Focuses the mind, dammit! Good for the children.
OMG! A "gold" scam with other people's money?!?!?!?!?!
What's this world coming to?
I predict no one involved does any time, but go stick a steak down your trousers at Wal-Mart and see what happens...
The govt will nail these guys to the wall because AG & AU is direct competition to the fiat dead presidents.
bernie's ok. he may be a socialist but his heart is in the right place as he genuinely cares about the little guy and in my opinion would fight to curb corporate influence in government. its a big compromise but id choose him over Trump. Trump's ego is scary.
how can you be a socialist and have your heart in the right place---it an oxymoron
Your sheer ignorance is scary. Sanders is nothing more than fodder to deflect attention away from the problems the Obungler administration has buried itself in.
No candidate is perfect, but at least Trump doesn't need to ride the coat tails of of his parties corrupt, deceitful, nation wrecking, history.
Call Trump what you want, but at least he's willing to ride the bull, when this country is rattling itself apart. Maybe some pride and EGO are exactly what this country needs right now.
We certainly don't need pandering little bitchez like Obungler sucking every cock on the planet, and then passing treaties and laws that not even congress can read until post facto.
I have to disagree with you here. Trump and Bernie are both part of the machine. Both are much better options than any of the other candidates currently in the field, but neither are worth voting for. The sole reason to debate about them is to vent.
Voting just panders to the broken system LTER. The reason I give Trump, the time of day is because he's got a fork in the fire.
Trump is financing most of his campaign, and also has much more at stake to lose if policy changes aren't made, or he really slips up and falls on his face.
Hope you're doing well. :-)
I'm doing well, man. Hope you are too.
Trump says a lot of stuff I agree with, and I get why a lot of people here like him. But I'm a cynic when it comes to anyone running for national office, especially a guy who quite clearly is just fine with the Federal Reserve. I like Bernie a lot better on that issue. In any event, I think this is all academic. Trump and Bernie will be footnotes to the 2016 election long before it occurs.
LTER, plus someone posted that Trump inherited like $200 M indicating he had a silver spoon in his mouth for sure. As I remember you don't like inherited wealth.
Personally I say let everyone inherit $2 M with no taxes, and don't mess with guys over 65 inheritance, and let kids from up to 25 Inherit without tax since no one knows what kind of bills they will have to pay in the USA.
I'm still not sure how to cap inheritance or where, plus Shouldn't we cap Private Executive Pay and overhead for suites, offices, airplanes, limo fleets, company apartments & houses... at some point isn't it looting the Corporate Assets and Investor Assets.
At some point Compensation is a Racket or Racketeering... just plain greed and control... just like Lifers in Congress taking Lobby Money, Gifts, and unlimited campaign dollars.
But then I would limit the number of lawyers and give them term limits since they have screwed up the court systems and the laws & regulations till we lost the US Constitution and States became dependent on the Federal Funding (lost Democracy).
Templates. I need Templates to explain and lay stuff out. But I haven't gotten there yet.
I'm a big believer in an inheritance tax, but I would go way higher than $2M. Maybe $100M or some other arbitrary very high number that would prevent dynastic wealth. As far as micromanaging things like executive compensation, I'm against that. For publicly owned corporation executive compensation, it would be solved with actual shareholder rights. For private corporatations, make as much as you want. It's not that I'm against wealth. Quite the opposite. I am against wealth acquired by doing nothing but being born, and then having the power (like the Waltons) to exert power and influence for generations, aka royalty. And I'm against wealth created by cronyism and theft, like the MIC and banks.
You might have hit on one of my weaknesses.
I guess I expect cartels to take over Corporate Boards and we need rules to prevent insiders from granting big compensation to each other... setting up networks of corporate boards to agree to differ wages into a Trust off Shore and avoid Tax. The rules are wrong now. I would love to have great compensation and a great career.
I just don't know which rules to overturn and how to manage corporations.
Hm... Should be a Niche here for a book.