Why Most Libertarians Stupidly Embrace Open Borders

A core principle of libertarianism is the free movement of labor. On paper, this principle sounds admirable, even workable. That damned paper! Libertarians would have to betray a lot of what they believe in to accept that restrictions on the free movement of labor are advantageous, economically and culturally, for a nation’s well-being. Thus, they don’t. Instead, they pull an ostrich and ignore the negative externalities that mass immigration has brought to the USA. Free movement of labor is such an entrenched free market concept that many libertarians have taken to arguing that open borders is a natural, and moral, extension of the principle.

But when does free movement of labor across national borders as a concept break down? Three heretofore largely unexamined premises should enlighten those who believe the concept is trustworthy.

1. As Milton Friedman said, open borders and the welfare state cannot coexist. If one country offers a generous welfare package to all and sundry that immigrants cannot get in their own countries, they will happily cross unguarded borders to take advantage of the manna from government heaven. Who pays for this manna? Why, you, the productive libertardian citizen. There’s a word for your kind. Sucker.

2. Population group differences in human capital are real. If country A is filled with highly productive and intelligent citizens on average, and countries B, C and D are filled with less productive and less intelligent citizens on average, what do you think will happen when the bulk of countries’ B, C and D least productive citizens emigrate to country A? A libertarian in good standing will argue that those B, C and D immigrants will do the crappy jobs that need doing, and the natives who are displaced from those jobs will be incentivized to educate themselves and get better paying and higher status jobs. Hey great! Except what happens if those displaced native citizens, due to innate limitations, CAN’T DO MORE CHALLENGING JOBS? What you’ll get is what we are seeing today: a structural increase in the chronic unemployment rate. Bootstrap philosophy has been thoroughly discredited by the advancing scientific knowledge in genetics.

3. Evidence suggests political ideology is genetically imbued and thus mostly immutable. Latin Americans — specifically those of Amerindian ethnicity — consistently vote 2/3rds for Democrats and more state intervention. What do libertardians think will happen to their precious policy proposals when a 2/3rds majority of 50 million illegal migrants, continuing in perpetuity with their children and children’s children, vote for politicians who believe in the exact opposite of what libertarians believe? Does this really need spelling out?

Why do I give libertarians so much shit? I share an affinity with their worldview, so when they fuck up it inspires me to level the hammer of Thor on their blockheads. It’s like how you give your brother way more shit for fucking up than you would a stranger. Being of your blood, he should know better.





Comments


  1. The problem with libertarians is that they deny human nature. They argue that the only thing that matters in controlling people’s behavior are incentives, and these incentives can be controlled via the government. This leaves out basic human nature from the consideration.

    The earliest, and best, critique of classic liberalism was from Rousseau, but it wasn’t in the Social Contract.

    At the very least, libertarians could support the ideas of temporary work-visa’s, or some other way to control the tide of unlimited illegal immigration, but they dogmatically stick to their limited government principles like the most boneheaded of philosophers.

    Like


    • I’ll take Classical Liberalism over Rousseau any day. It works pretty damned well with only a few minor modifications and it provides for the greatest freedom and opportunity to individual citizens. Rousseau, on the other hand, gets out of control pretty quickly. He serves as the justification for our system of government wih the idea of the Social Contract but also Socialism, Communism, and Fascism through his notion of the General Will. Its too open ended and ill defined. Rousseau was also heavily influenced by Catholicism.

      Like


      • The fundamental principle of all morality, that on which I have reasoned in all my writings, and which I explained in the last, with all the perspicuity I was master of, is this: that man is naturally good; that he loves justice and order; that there is no original perversity in the human heart, and that the first emotions of nature are always right. I have shown that the only passion which is born with man, to wit, self-love [amour de soi], is in itself indifferent either to good or evil; that it becomes good or evil only by accident, and according to the circumstances in which it is displayed.

        Rousseau, Letter to Christophe de Beaumont 1763 (emphasis added)

        Rousseau’s understanding “leaves out basic human nature from the consideration,” samseau. So what worth is his critique of classical liberalism if he shares the same denial of nature? If it’s not in the Social Contract, where do you find this critique?

        And, Tyrone, “man is naturally good” is contrary to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. So where is the “influence[] by Catholicism”? Rousseau was a famous adult convert to Calvinism.

        Libertarianism is an incoherent and incomplete attitude masquerading as a programmatic political philosophy. It applies its poorly-reasoned principles randomly. It’s not surprising that its practitioners famously contradict each other.

        Sharing “an affinity with their worldview” (at least in name) is a likely occurrence since every disciple of that “worldview” is simply offering an inventory of his personal preferences independent of any consistent unifying principle. They slap the name “libertarian” on their idiosyncratic laundry list of issues and are baffled when other self-identified comrades hold antithetical positions. Like open borders.

        Liked by 1 person


      • The fundamental principle of all morality, that on which I have reasoned in all my writings, and which I explained in the last, with all the perspicuity I was master of, is this: that man is naturally good; that he loves justice and order; that there is no original perversity in the human heart, and that the first emotions of nature are always right. I have shown that the only passion which is born with man, to wit, self-love [amour de soi], is in itself indifferent either to good or evil; that it becomes good or evil only by accident, and according to the circumstances in which it is displayed.

        — Rousseau, Letter to Christophe de Beaumont 1763 (emphasis added)

        Rousseau’s understanding “leaves out basic human nature from the consideration,” samseau. So what worth is his critique of classical liberalism if he shares the same denial of nature? If it’s not in the Social Contract, where do you find this critique?

        And, Tyrone, “man is naturally good” is contrary to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. So where is the “influence[] by Catholicism”? Rousseau was a famous adult convert to Calvinism.

        Like


      • “Rousseau’s understanding “leaves out basic human nature from the consideration,” samseau. So what worth is his critique of classical liberalism if he shares the same denial of nature? If it’s not in the Social Contract, where do you find this critique?”

        Rousseau understands human nature better than any other thinker I’ve read. And I refer to Emile.

        The part you bolded is just the premise; the important part is the conclusion:

        “I have shown that the only passion which is born with man, to wit, self-love [amour de soi], is in itself indifferent either to good or evil; that it becomes good or evil only by accident, and according to the circumstances in which it is displayed.”

        Like


      • on July 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm Frank Meyer Lives

        Samseau,

        The problem with Rousseau’s view of human nature is that he claims that it is not reliably observable in a modern society, because that society has hopeless corrupted it. If we could only get back to the mythical “state of nature”, then we would be able to see how good man is. But for now, we must accept the bad parts of human behavior are spawned by man’s interaction with his social environment.

        This is, of course, leads to Rousseau’s disastrous idea that man must be “forced to be free”.

        BTW, I would agree that Rousseau is a worthwhile guide to understanding of people see the world around them (as is Edmund Burke, for a different kind of belief system). But Rousseau’s contribution is mainly showing the rest of us traps that must be avoided, and not in prescriptions for social or political organization.

        Liked by 1 person


  2. I don’t see Ron Paul or many other libertarians showing any sympathy for the outright invasion from Mexico or talking much about immigration issues in general. They’re surely not OK with a government supplying its citizens with the kind of services that foreigners would want to come take advantage of, other than the service of as little government meddling as possible in their business and personal lives.

    Take Jeff Bezos of Amazon. He just dropped all of his California affiliates because leftist governor Jerry Brown signed a law that would consider Amazon as “doing business in California” because they had affiliates listing their addresses as being in the state. He basically said “Move to another state”.

    It’s this “move” concept that libertarians hold to: everyone should be able to move away from places where government meddles with people. This doesn’t say they need to be welcome in specific places where they will have no status. Just that they can move away from the bad government. Whether they will or will not move to socialist places to benefit from something like free medical care if they are sick is the fault of those who vote socialist in the target country.

    Meanwhile, they’re intended target countries shouldn’t be actively trying to keep highly intelligent or otherwise desirable people out while deliberately bringing the stupid undesirables in. Socialists want the latter effect to happen.

    Like


  3. Fantastic pickup tips but seriously, your political writings are amateurish and shit. Regardless of whether the point you are making is correct or not there are a million blogs out there who do it much better.

    Like


    • One could argue it’s all inter-related, in that what you need to understand picking up is exactly the same thing that you need in order to understand politics: a keen understanding of human nature.

      Understanding human nature isn’t *that* hard, but it does require you to unlearn a hell of a lot of ideological dogma that we have driven into our skulls during childhood.

      Like


    • it’s funny when commenters speak just to hear themselves speak.

      Like


    • He’s getting bored. He has said all he has to say about gaming chicks.

      All that remains is to expand the theory to new horizons. It’s like Martha Stewart being sick to death of all of that arts and craft stuff and I swear to GOD if I have to do one more segment on the perfect holiday place setting Imma hafta cut a bitch, so instead she devotes a magazine to getting the best performance out of your spark plugs and how to change your own transmission fluid.

      It’s interesting to hear his voice singing in a new genre — because you like the voice so much — but gangsta rappers just don’t have the pipes for opera (and vice versa).

      Welcome to Citizen Renegade Omnimedia.

      Like


    • On the contrary, his political writings are good. In fact, he needs to swing away more from the pickup tips to discuss more political issues. We need more people espousing these viewpoints, and in fact, this blog has a cross over appeal where he might reach some independent types who don’t normally read political blogs.

      It’s always funny to read some of the little kid posters who get irritated when he posts about anything other than poon.

      Liked by 1 person


  4. on July 1, 2011 at 11:26 am Sgt. Joe Friday

    I used to consider myself a libertarian until I realized what kind of conditions you have to have to make it work: a relatively homogenous population with above average intelligence and an above average work ethic, plus high levels of trust between the members of society. The conditions I’ve just described have not existed since the days of Calvin Coolidge or maybe Grover Cleveland, or if you really want to stretch it, the days of the Founding Fathers.

    There has been only one other recent example of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nation state whose basis was ideological rather than tribal: the USSR. How’d that work out?

    Like


    • I mostly agree. The fundamental problem for libertarianism is that not everybody wants to be a libertarian. It worked in Ayn Rand’s fantasy gulch where everybody was a goddamn genius, but even then it rather stretched credibility.

      Libertarians are full of fine ideas for what the laws should be in their anarcho-capitalist utopia, but short on other ideas. We’re never gonna completely get rid of the welfare state, because there’s a large fraction of the population that wants a welfare state to exist. (I’m cool with the idea that poor people should die when they get sick, but some people aren’t, and I don’t think I’ll ever be able to convince them otherwise.) The majority is never gonna vote for a Libertarian utopia, and we can’t (as a practical or ethical matter) impose it on them by force.

      So instead of going on about the need to abolish the welfare state, we should instead be focusing on questions like “How can we prevent the welfare state from strangling the country?”

      Libertarians are like the folks who preach abstinence-only sex education. You’re not gonna be able to get the kids (the lower classes) to go along with abstinence (libertarianism) so what’s the point in preaching it? Better to just accept that the kids are gonna do stupid shit, and try to teach them about condoms (individual retirement accounts) or else they’re just gonna wind up pregnant with herpes (social security).

      Like


    • Exactly. Libertarian views are tied to nostalgia for a United States of the past.

      Like


      • Lots of people like to call themselves libertarians these days, some of which may well have the views you describe.

        But if you look at the views intellectually serious libertarians eventually gravitate towards, as they spend more time thinking about and studying social science and philosophy, there is no nostalgia for the political institutions of bygone America at all. Why and how once half decent America degenerated into her current abysmal state, is very well understood, and entirely predictable.

        As are the kind of social arrangements that would have prevented this slide. And these are what ought to be referred to as “Libertarian Views.”

        Like


  5. America will just be a nation full of brown people, a bunch of oppressed stupid whites, and a handful of Jews ruling over all.

    That is the liberal agenda.

    Like


    • Editor asks: “[Is it plausible to think that majority vote will be overturned? Let’s try to keep the discussion firmly planted in reality.]”

      Democracy always dies, usually horribly, after the people start trying to vote themselves rich. Is it likely that this time will be different?

      Like


      • Human nature (heck, not just human; the nature of any possible species to arise from competitive evolution in a resource constrained environment) guarantees people will always try to vote themselves rich. Any “system” that makes any room for this, will fail. It’s not just likely, but inevitable.

        And exactly why the very people most vocal about professing their “belief” in evolution, are the ones most bent on proclaiming the means by which it works “horrible”, sure beats me.

        Like


  6. Number 1 is not an argument against open borders. It is an argument against the combination of open borders and welfare. Every libertarian is against the combination of open borders and welfare, because every libertarian is against welfare. And if you’re against A, then you are against combinations that include A.

    [Editor: Is it plausible to think that welfare will end? Or even be pared back?]

    Number 2 blames our current high unemployment rate on immigrants. Really? How about all the rest of government policy? There’s more going on in the US than immigration.

    [Strawman. Unemployment isn’t the only externality. GDP will likely decrease as a result of mass immigration from Mexico.]

    Number 3 is not an argument against open borders. It is ann argument against the combination of majority vote and open borders. Not every libertarian is against the combination of open borders and majority vote but really, they ought to be, because they ought to be against majority vote, and so they ought to be against the combination of majority vote and anything else.

    [Is it plausible to think that majority vote will be overturned? Let’s try to keep the discussion firmly planted in reality.]

    Like


    • “Welfare will end” is too vague a term for serious debate. “Welfare” in the sense of forced wealth transfers orchestrated at the US Federal level, will almost inevitably be severely scaled back once US Federal borrowing capacity is reached. Take away the Feds’ ability to use easy access to borrowed funds as a carrot; and states and localities will have less incentive to walk the line. Which will, not may, lead to more competition amongst states to maintain a relatively more productive environment vis a vis their peers. Unless current welfare policies are at a competitive optimum, or too small, this will lead to a reduction in “welfare.”

      Unemployment amongst the even the most marginally able bodied is a function of alternative options, prominent amongst them the availability of the above “welfare”; as well as other policies affecting the relative economic competitiveness of a locality. The mechanism above will lead to increased competitiveness as the Feds relative ease of obtaining funding decreases. As for GDP, it is by now such an incredibly poor way of measuring economic welfare as to be largely useless. In an environment of relative economic freedom, it’s not a bad approximation, but in today’s climate it’s largely easily gamed bunk.

      Again, “majority vote”, in the abstract, is too weak a term to be useful in serious debate. The share of total output allocated via majority vote certainly can, and over time inevitably will, decrease. Assuming majority vote does not allocate resources with close to maximal efficiency, that is. Otherwise, external pressures will simply render the majority vote resource allocating entity less and less relevant until it disappears.

      Like


  7. on July 1, 2011 at 11:37 am DiamondEyes

    I can’t decide if this is a straw man argument or not. I have never heard any serious libertarian suggest open borders. Sure, maybe it’s ideologically consistent with the platform, but that doesn’t mean anyone would suggest dissolving borders in the world we live in today. Ron Paul would certainly not have a following if he believed the border with Mexico should be more open.

    Libertarians are strongly against the socialist welfare state, and would dismantle all of the so-called social safety net. This act in itself would curb any desire for immigrants to come leach from the govt – there would be no benefits to apply for. Meanwhile, the most productive citizens from all over would flock to such an environment because it would allow them to succeed on their hard work, unfettered by punitive taxation.

    Additionally, I think a libertarian approach to crime would be the ‘castle doctrine’, as well as unlimited right to conceal carry. This is another element that would allow us to protect ourselves from the criminal peasants far more than we’re allowed to today. Those mexican gangbangers would last about a month if the white man were truly allowed to protect his home and neighborhoods.

    Overall, there are many ideological principles in all parties that are abandoned or ignored because of their impracticality. I believe that to be the case with libertarians regarding the border issues.

    However, an open border with Canada would be just fine with most people.

    Like


    • An open border policy was in the LP platform until 2002.

      Obviously pure open borders cannot work. But that is no reason to turn against the idea of a more free market in labor and the benefits it would bring.

      We need a robust guest worker program in the United States. It’s the only way to address the issue of illegal immigration rationally.

      We need low wage workers, we have the jobs for them, and we should establish a system by which they can come here legally.

      Dave

      Like


  8. The Libertarians have some good ideas. But if Democrats are the evil party and Republicans are the stupid party, the Libertarians have got to be the naive party. What I like about our local Tea Party is that they have a strong Libertarian bent but reject the really bone-headed Lib party planks (open borders, abolish all federal regulations, and so on). My guess is that our TP is drawing more or less equally from closet Libertarians who are tired of high-school-debate dynamics and Republicans who are frustrated by the abandonment of what once were that party’s core principles.

    Also, Tea Party girls average a bit thinner than Republican girls. Democrat girls are pigs.

    Like


    • I wish I could agree with you on the Tea Party. Unfortunately, the Tea Party is merely a repeat of what has befallen the Republicans. They started with great ideas, libertarian principles and small government ideals. But, just like the Republicans, it didn’t take long for the Religious Right to come storming in to take over the movement and start turning it into another anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage movement. I don’t fucking care if gays get married, just as long as they mind their own business. And abortion, although spouted as a feminist issue, is really the only card men have to escape 18 years of economic enslavement to a woman.

      Like


  9. Libertarianism is like any ideaology, it’s a theory that works on paper but requires real human beings with common sense to make that ideology fit in the real world.

    I consider myself a “nationalist libertarian,” which is to say I am a libertarian within the borders of the United States and within those borders only. I could give a flying fuck about the rest of the world. I want closed borders, I want tariffs against any nation that doesn’t want to trade by our rules, and I believe 100% in killing anyone anywhere that threatens our safety and sovereignty.

    You cannot have pure libertarianism anymore than you can have pure communism or capitalism. But in general the ideology of libertarianism provides the most freedom for individuals, and with just a small amount of common sense it could make this country a much better place.

    Like


  10. Absolutely fucking right. I occasionally make these points to the libertards at Cafe Hayek, and all they say in response is that I don’t understand “economics.” What they don’t understand is human anthropology and the fundamental prerequisities of an advanced western civilization. Hint: It starts with high average IQ and low average impulsivity. These traits are not equally distributed among the world’s different peoples. Yet libertards, like libtards, subscribe to an unthinking, reality-denying multicultural ideology. They’re fucking morons, but they think we’re “racist.” Idiots.

    Like


    • If you did understand economics, you would realize that the higher the average IQ and the lower the average impulsivity, the greater would be the comparative advantage to individuals who exhibited low IQ and high impulsivity. Neither attainment of high IQ nor low impulsivity are cost free nor without negative side effects. If they were, those exhibiting those traits would long since have been bred out of all populations.

      I cant, and wont, speak for everyone at Cafe Hayek, but at least some who frequent the site don’t so much think you are a racist, as realize you are simply ignorant; not only of economics, but also of basic evolutionary theory.

      Like


  11. @DiamondEyes

    I can’t decide if this is a straw man argument or not. I have never heard any serious libertarian suggest open borders.

    Let me introduce you to Good Queen Nick and the Gang.

    Like


  12. Why Most Libertarians Stupidly Embrace Open Borders

    Um, may be… a FEW libertarians.

    I see no evidence of “most” embracing open borders.
    What ones I do hear speak of illegals want their asses deported.
    The vast majority.

    [Editor: I hope that’s true. But it’s not the impression I get from reading various libertarian outlets and their commenters.]

    Like


    • You really ought to make a distinction between what libertarians want, or even just know is inevitable, in the abstract or long run; and what they will, or are, supporting in the rough and tumble of instant politics.

      As libertarianism is a philosophy of freedom, arbitrarily drawn borders, enforced (or not 🙂 ) by equally arbitrarily appointed thug bands, are hardly consistent with it’s glowing principles.

      But at the same time, many self professed libertarians, particularly those of the now ascendant Ron Paul variety, recognize the immediate, short term, benefits to regulating human mobility across our current nation’s border. Even many of those amongst them who are fully cognizant of the ultimate importance for human welfare, of resisting and dismantling any “government” capable of unilaterally and asymmetrically exerting that much force against individuals.

      Any government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is by necessity also powerful enough to take away everything you’ve got, as the saying goes.

      Like


      • As libertarianism is a philosophy of freedom, arbitrarily drawn borders, enforced (or not 🙂 ) by equally arbitrarily appointed thug bands, are hardly consistent with it’s glowing principles.

        I always get a laugh when someone tries to discredit a position by calling it “arbitrary”. What human values aren’t arbitrary? It’s wrong to kill or steal? Why? Isn’t that also arbitrary? Even libertarian principles are arbitrary. I don’t know of any stone tablet that declares them the absolute truth.

        Like


      • For a word like arbitrary to have any meaning at all, there has to be at least some phenomena that classify as arbitrary and some that don’t. Given that, and recognizing that any phenomenon’s level of arbitrariness is continuous rather than binary, use of the word arbitrary in a binary context implies drawing an (arbitrarily chosen, no doubt 🙂 ) line in this continuum. All things equal or higher in arbitrariness are classified as arbitrary, all things lower non-arbitrary. One of the beauties of debating with people from a somewhat similar background as oneself, is that lines such as this then to be drawn at fairly similar points.

        Now, would you not say that the level of arbitrariness of some line drawn on a map, is at least a smidgen higher than a moral rule not to kill? Historically at least, thou shalt not kill imperatives have remained a much more constant fixture, than the exact placement and porosity of any geographic border between supposed us’ and thems.

        Economically, the problem with committing resources to enforcing arbitrarily chosen rules, is that one most likely ends up compromising efficiency in resource utilization. And in a resource constrained environment faced with external competition, loss of efficiency leads to inevitable extermination. Hence, as difficult as it may be to grasp for the average rah-rah aficionado; being a patriot, as in actually caring about America’s future, only allows for championing closing borders if one can plausibly argue doing so increases efficiency. Otherwise, one is simply arguing for a long, drawn out, feel good process of committing cultural suicide.

        Like


  13. Go Galt

    Absolutely fucking right. I occasionally make these points to the libertards at Cafe Hayek

    Great. So WHO will you vote for then, if you disavow repubs, democrats and liberts.

    No vote?

    Time to form your own party. Call it the “Aynian” party or the “Randianoids.”

    Then, answer what all that dissension accomplished.

    Like


  14. Firepower must be confusing libertarians with someone else. There is an entire libertarian establishment that absolutely rejects strict immigration controls, if not literally open borders (but it amounts to the same thing in practice). I’m referring to the Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, the various Randian organizations, Reason magazine, Cafe Hayek and the “free market” economists, etc. Here is the dogma, straight from the LP platform: “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” Firepower simply does not know what he’s talking about.

    Like


    • on July 1, 2011 at 1:26 pm DiamondEyes

      Like others have mentioned, if you replace “national borders” with “state borders within the US”, I’m on board. If mainstream Libs can’t get behind this then I guess we need yet another fucking party to look to.

      Like


  15. Just to play devil’s advocate against #2, Low IQ Third Worlders do become much more productive when they come to First World countries, so arguably if they didn’t consume government goodies etc. the benefit to them greatly outdoes the loss to us.

    The problem with that, as it see it, is that low IQ Third Worlders only become more productive in First World countries when they are directly supervised by High(er) IQ First Worlders. (Think about it. If you are a restaurant owner with an IQ of 110, you can probably get a decent amount of productivity out of people with IQs in the 80s and 90s, maybe even lower IQ for the dishwashers and bussers.) Import too many of those Third Worlders though and some of those Third Worlders will have to be supervised by other equally low IQ Third Worlders. (Imagine what things would be like if that restaurant owner had an IQ of 95 instead of 110.) The lesson is clear, import too many low IQ people and productivity will plummet back to Third World levels.

    [Editor: I’ve never understood the supposed argument-ending assertion by libertarians that, barring welfare, the benefit to immigrants outdoes the loss to natives, so we should swing open the doors. If true, I say, so what? Why would I care how well immigrants are doing if my personal lifestyle, cultural bonhomie and economic interests are hurt? I’m not in the business of making life pleasant for the world’s six billion poor, especially if I get nothing out of the bargain. Even if I get some personal benefit out of open borders, that doesn’t automatically dismiss the argument that mass immigration is bad for society as a whole.]

    Like


    • I’ve never understood the supposed argument-ending assertion by libertarians that, barring welfare, the benefit to immigrants outdoes the loss to natives, so we should swing open the doors.

      Well, the question of universal moral principles is at stake. You might say you don’t care about universal morality, but then its kind of hard to say why those who do benefit from immigration should give a shit about your preferences.

      [Editor: Right. And here we see the limitations of universal morality. Traditionally, sane nations interested in self-preservation have guns to keep out those who don’t give a shit about their citizens’ preferences. What’s the US’s excuse?]

      If they benefit and are successful at getting their way, I don’t see any reason why they should stop doing what they are doing. You might not like it, but then cry me a river.

      [That’s one of the primary reasons we have enforced borders and a government: to stop potential migrants from doing what they are doing. Complaining about the government abdicating it’s number one duty is legitimate if it’s true.]

      If one were being even more mischievious, one might even applaud their success at demonizing their opposition and getting their way.

      [May the best memeplex win.]

      Like


      • And here we see the limitations of universal morality. Traditionally, sane nations interested in self-preservation have guns to keep out those who don’t give a shit about their citizens’ preferences. What’s the US’s excuse?

        Sorry, try again. In the absence of some universal moral duty, those who control the government are doing the sane thing: lining their own pockets. Illegal immigrants make excellent pawns for such.

        [Editor: Then the checks and balances aren’t checking and balancing anymore. Time for the lampposts.]

        That’s one of the primary reasons we have enforced borders and a government: to stop potential migrants from doing what they are doing.

        I wasn’t primarily talking about the migrants.

        [Any universal morality that implores me to let in 6 billion 3rd worlders who would love to suckle at the teat of America is no morality I signed up for. May those with the best culture and the biggest guns win.]

        Like


      • on July 1, 2011 at 5:27 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        May those with the best culture and the biggest guns win.

        If you are a nihilist, then only winning matters. And they are winning.

        [Editor: Winning isn’t all that matters. I like to live in a country with a decent quality of life, too, and with people I feel some kinship with, some comfort around, and some altruistic impulse towards. But you’re right, they are winning. They wouldn’t be if treason hadn’t become a mark of liberal enlightenment.]

        Like


      • Traditionally, there were no nations, sane nor otherwise. Specifically because such aggregates are way too big and diverse for “their citizens” to have any coherent “preferences.” Extended primary loyalties have proven infinitely more resilient over millennia, as their members care enough to pick up a gun to defend the collective.

        The nation states of the past few hundred years gained prominence due to technology reaching a stage where

        1) asymmetrically powerful arms could be assembled by those with control over large geographic areas for resource extraction, and

        2) one to many communication media became relatively much cheaper than many to many, making room for the kind of indoctrination from the center that is needed to sustain loyalties as artificial as those to an arbitrarily bordered “nation.”

        Now, rapid evolution of IEDs, as seen in Iraq and other places are undermining 1)

        While cheap packet switched networks are undermining 2), as this site is a prime example of.

        With them will go the viability of the nation state. And good, bloody riddance.

        Like


      • In keeping with the zeitgeist of this site, I should probably point out that the mentioned IEDs, for their effectiveness, are highly dependent on being employed by people who produce sufficient offspring that losing a few of them on the field of battle is not an evolutionary dead end.

        Something no beneficiary classes of nation states, have thus far demonstrated an ability to do.

        Like


      • “Traditionally, sane nations interested in self-preservation have guns to keep out those who don’t give a shit about their citizens’ preferences. What’s the US’s excuse?]”

        In practice, closing borders in hard, and the government does not particularly want to do it, since stupid dumb voters are in the interest of government as an interest group. It is easier to bribe and bamboozle Mexicans into voting for more government.

        The problem, therefore, is not open borders, but democracy with universal franchise and the resulting welfare state. Even if the government wanted to close the borders it would not be particularly effective, and as long as we have democracy and welfare, it is never going to want to close the borders.

        Like


  16. [Editor: I hope that’s true. But it’s not the impression I get from reading various libertarian outlets and their commenters.]

    I get the honest impression that such outlets do not offer much truthful insight to accurate mass ideology.

    Imagine pua’s image, hinging solely on the words of the anonymous teen commentariat that treats Fight Club (not the book – never the book…) as a bible. Or Tucker Max.

    One would easier grasp the zeitgeist by reading Mystery and Style.

    Even here – the vast majority of commentators can give an uninformed public an incorrect impression of the chief influential.

    I find, that libertarians are best understood in the context of their leaders – those exerting the rational control.

    Like


  17. on July 1, 2011 at 1:05 pm The Real Vince

    These same arguments apply even in the absence of a welfare state. Supposing we implemented some kind of free market utopia, immigrants would still flow over the border. Instead of sending kids to school, they’d have them working out on farms. This would ironically create a more insular, less socialized sub-group, one more likely to lure kids into gang culture, view themselves as non-Americans living in America, and possibly consume even more taxpayer services via the criminal justice system.

    Like


  18. 1. As Milton Friedman said, open borders and the welfare state cannot coexist.

    this isnt an argument against open borders, its an argument against welfare states.

    [Editor: Let me know when the welfare state is dismantled. I won’t be holding my breath.]

    2. Population group differences in human capital are real. If country A is filled with highly productive and intelligent citizens on average, and countries B, C and D are filled with less productive and less intelligent citizens on average, what do you think will happen when the bulk of countries’ B, C and D least productive citizens emigrate to country A?

    People born in Country A will get higher standards of living. The average will go down. This is good.

    [Good for whom?]

    3. Evidence suggests political ideology is genetically imbued and thus mostly immutable. Latin Americans — specifically those of Amerindian ethnicity — consistently vote 2/3rds for Democrats and more state intervention. What do libertardians think will happen to their precious policy proposals when a 2/3rds majority of 50 million illegal migrants, continuing in perpetuity with their children and children’s children, vote for politicians who believe in the exact opposite of what libertarians believe?

    Libertarians do not think we should be allowed to vote on how much of other peoples money the state should take.

    [Nice evasion. And this is why libertarians are a silly bunch of fools.]

    I think you should watch this movie:

    You argue against things that exist today that libertarians are against and think that this is an argument against libertarians.

    [If the smear fits…]

    Like


  19. Hans Hoppe, a libertarian professor at UNLV, makes the case that if you’re going to have some free trade and the welfare state, restricted immigration is a good idea. He’s attempted to temper his ideological wishes in order to come up with a workable solution. It boils down to governments here (federal, state, and local) being more selective about who they let in. Only let in the more productive immigrants. Keep the riff-raff out.

    Seems reasonable, but the problem is democratic government and the tend to treat their territory as rental property – milk it for what its worth today for their own benefit. They don’t treat their territory as an owner (king) would – long term sustainability and growth.

    http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf

    Anyway, I guess my point was that there are at least 2 libertarians who are both for free trade and restricted immigration given the reality of the situation we live in – me and Hans Hoppe.

    Like


    • “It boils down to governments here (federal, state, and local) being more selective about who they let in. Only let in the more productive immigrants. Keep the riff-raff out. ”

      Does not work. Borders always either move or leak. Australia is surrounded by sea and has absolute sea and air superiority in its part of the world, and it still cannot keep the riff-raff out.

      Therefore, democracy and the welfare state have got to go.

      Democracy usually expires shortly after the people start trying to vote themselves rich.

      Like


  20. I got two brothers and a cousin in NY, all 3 highly successful in there professions, so I guess it cuts both ways, you get the wheat and the chaff.

    I think about the way the roman empire collapsed, they replaced the native farmer soldiers with slaves, and fed the resulting unemployed via the welfare state, earned off the back of higher earning available with slave labor.
    Once the shift started the need for more slaves became insatiable. America needs the cheap labour. My brother would not be able to run his business without illegal labor, American kids are lazy, expensive and unwilling to do the hard manual work (he owns a large bar with kitchen). To roll this back would mean a whole sale change in the american buisness model, and increased taxes. All those poor bastard slaving away are a massive cost saving for american business, thats why libertarians turn a blind eye

    Like


  21. on July 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm Sal Paradise

    I love these type of posts Roissy. Keep them up. America is finished.

    Like


  22. I’m really anarchist and do not even believe in rule by the mob, I mean democracy, so I can make some points:

    To point 1: You are right however, we should not be in a welfare state to begin with. Entitlements should not be wasted on the poor who do not have the mental fortitude to make a living for themselves. This money used to pay welfare comes from the citizens. If poor people from elsewhere come here to take advantage at the expense of the taxpayer, then of course hate will breed towards foreign minorities. Remove welfare, and hispanics won’t bother coming here.

    To point 2: Wealthier countries are smarter? I suppose then if you’re country gets less wealthy then that country gets dumber? Like the USA? Most of Europe? Japan? All countries are losing wealth so, they must all be getting dumber while Chile, Tanzania, China, India, and Russia are getting smarter. Another waste-of-taxpayer-money study done. Alan Greenspan supposedly had a 155 IQ. How did that turn out for the USA?

    The whole idea with immigrants crossing borders to improve the economy assumes a no minimum wage limit according to libertarians. Do some research. There would be a lot less unemployment if this was the case. Plus you assume that all americans are highly productive which definitely is not the case. There are so many on the dole that they are now becoming depending on it. Why would americans want to work when they are getting unemployment checks? If immigrants want to do any of the work americans do not want to do then great. It will only help businesses that need that work done and this displaces unproductive americans. Americans complain about this while doing nothing at all to help themselves. Remove unemployment benefits and people would be forced to find work no matter what the pay.

    The government promoting education in an economy that is going to return to manufacturing does not help either….

    And who says American citizens have to stay in america to work? In a few years once I make enough money I’m out of here.

    To point 3: I don’t know who did that study but, that has to be absolutely the most retarded thing I’ve even heard. It basically says that kids will vote the same party simply because their parents do. Is that really a function of genetics? Find me a democrat gene please? I’d say that is more a function of the kids not willing to think for themselves for fear of parental criticism. My parents are republican, I don’t believe in government. People are not inherently evil and can do good for themselves without anyone telling them what to do.

    And of course the hispanics will vote democrat. Who wouldn’t if money was freely given to them? What if republicans eventually do the same thing then what? Will scientists conduct new experiments to prove whatever is happening is correct? Involving science in the actions of humans cannot get rid of the inherent bias of researchers.

    You seem to share an affinity with libertarians but, your views look completely socialist and you might not even know it. Extreme protectionism is only going to make things worse as that will close off our economy and raise prices or everyone. It was immigration that made the US so successful. Jefferson and Washington were immigrants as well. The only difference between 1910 and now is that those immigrants in 1910 did not get welfare. They had to make their own living or perish. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

    Libertarians have problems of their own but, all of their views are construed under the idea of limited (if any) government. Of course their ideas will not work if government is regulating the economy and society up the ass.

    Stick to writing about game please and leave your typical scientists-know-everything-about-everyone hubris at the door. Thank you.

    Like


    • “Alan Greenspan supposedly had a 155 IQ. How did that turn out for the USA?”

      For the USA? Terribly. For International Jewry? Brilliantly.

      Like


    • http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

      http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm

      The above links cover the mathematics of 3rd world immigration — particularly from nations with IQs normed around 80 to 85.

      —–

      Having worked side by side with some of the dummies from Mexico — and elsewhere — they are a marvel.

      It is simply not possible for the typical American college graduate to comprehend just how stupid, stupid can get. They never witness it.

      —–

      ONE instance: newbie is tasked with nailing down plywood onto a stud-panel ( prior to its installation as an assembly ) with a nail-gun. He proceeds to pound clip after clip into the plywood — shredding it — so that both studs and plywood are ‘3-stooged.’ Concepts like ‘stop’ and ‘enough’ never entered his brain. It later came out that the poor fellow had an IQ below 70 and was pulled along by his brothers.

      Back in Mexico ‘never stopping’ was a positive good, like hoeing a row. Had he stayed in his village he could still be productive. In America, he’s a life-long dependent.

      Multiply this effect by millions.

      The flip side: we preferentially accept their best and brightest. This destroys Mexican society. ( c.f. the above links as to why )

      So open borders is destroying BOTH nations.

      Like


      • An article from a study done 10 years ago that has nothing to do with immigration is your answer…nice. If this is our next generation of so-called graduates we are in deep shit.

        So open borders is bad because mexico has some stupid people who we allow in and some smart people we allow in? That IQ 70 guy was near the bottom worldwide. There are only 2% supposedly dumber.

        And don’t tell me there aren’t any retards in the US either. Ever check out the people of walmart website?

        I wonder what the world would be like if africans were the first to develop guns? I would bet they would be the ones with the higher IQ’s…

        Like


      • I’ve seen the same thing. Many Mexican illegals are severely disadvantaged by US standards.

        Like


      • If Africans had higher IQs, then maybe they would have been the first to develop guns. Or maybe they would have at least discovered the wheel or written language at some point…

        Like


  23. You can have any two of: Liberal immigration, Democracy or Welfare state according to the Sanandaji Principle. http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/open-borders-and-welfare-state.html

    The point he makes is that once immigrants turn into a majority, they will vote back the welfare state, even if it had miraculously been abolished to make way for immigration.

    Like


  24. These are weak arguments. I thought you’d bring out this … = war equation again. But really, #2 is rigorously researched by now and turns out to not be a problem. Genetics are acknowledged by libertarians like Bryan Chaplan (see his last book …) but you don’t need citizenship to work somewhere. Point #1 is self-defeating; Milton Friedman _was_ a libertarian.

    I fail to understand how Americans can be so blind as to what made America great. Hint: It’s not immigration restrictions by the natives.

    (And even if you don’t want Arabs/Muslims/Africans, how about making it easier for non-leftist Europeans to work in your country? What America does right now is the exact opposite.)

    [Editor: The USA needs an immigration moratorium for about 20 years so we can reset. We’ve had one before and it kicked off our hyperpower dominance. However, if we’re going to have immigration, it would make the most sense to favor immigrants from, in descending order of favoritism:
    NW europe, canada, australia, new zealand and scandinavia
    east europe
    south europe
    Russia
    NE Asia
    Middle East (these guys would be higher except for that little jihad problem)
    everyone else.]

    Like


    • The USA needs an immigration moratorium for about 20 years so we can reset. We’ve had one before and it kicked off our hyperpower dominance.

      Non-immigration made the USA stronger? The first 150 years weren’t so bad either. Riddle me that.

      And the few Jews that were allowed in before/during WWII were a good deal for the US as well. Albert Einstein, Emil Artin, Felix Bernstein, Richard Courant, Kurt Gödel, Richard von Mises, Emmy Noether, Hermann Weyl, … this is just a list from the top of my head of math/physics people that left Germany for the US during that time. Many more tried, weren’t allowed and got murdered. Letting them in would have been a better deal for either side.

      Like


      • You forgot about Boas and the Frankfurt School. Yeah, a great deal for the US and its Anglo-Saxon population.

        Like


      • On average, the US has been so much better off due to immigration, denying it is absurd. A few lunatics don’t change that.

        Really, all the US is, is immigration. Without which, it’d just be fallow ground.

        Like


      • Q: “Really, all the US is, is immigration.”

        you speak of immigration as if all humans were magically equal and interchangeable. European immigrants made america, not mexicans. The first immigration law in 1790 restricted immigration to free white men.

        you enjoy being a kool-aid drinking libertardian?

        Like


  25. OK, so we all agree:
    Republicrats SUCK
    Dumbocrats Suck SUCK
    Libtards Suck SUCK SUCK.

    What then?

    [Editor: Poolside.

    you knew it was coming.]

    Like


  26. I favor a society with relatively-open immigration that operates under one condition: you only get to stay in the country if you’re a net taxpayer. If you start consuming more in welfare than you put into society, start packing. Zero welfare and nearly-totally-open borders would be fine. Move to any society that strikes your fancy, but you’d better be contributing to that society.

    Like


    • on July 5, 2011 at 8:54 pm Man With No Name

      Good thought. Personally, I favor a society full of unicorns and perpetual motion machines.

      Like


  27. on July 1, 2011 at 2:34 pm Corporate Villain

    “GDP will likely decrease as a result of mass immigration from Mexico.”

    Really? So these immigrants aren’t going to eat, go to the movies, spend money on rent, etc? This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics that borders on leftist propaganda. Libertarians and corporations are right to open the borders. Its how we feed our country’s addiction to cheap goods. Unless you don’t mind paying up for union-made goods. Back to pussy for a moment, this influx of immigrants is also good competition for the sexual marketplace. Female migrants are skinnier and more traditional in their approach to life than today’s entitled landwhales. Competition is good, monopoly is bad. When it comes to the economics of pussy, this blog is spot on, but on the economics of everything else, not so much. Save the closed borders talk for N Korea, E Germany, and USSR.

    [Editor: The answer you seek:

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm

    “Using values for f1 and f2 of 0.283 and 0.419, respectively, in (4), we expect that:

    1) By 2050 the US per capita GDP will have declined, because of third-world immigration, to 86.8% of its 2004 value.

    2) Correspondingly, from the Second Law, during this time the US mean IQ will have dropped by about 2 IQ points.”]

    Like


    • “So these immigrants aren’t going to eat, go to the movies, spend money on rent, etc?”

      You’re on to something here, brown meat chaser.

      Not to mention all the property damage they’ll cause, requiring more maids, carpenters, electricians etc. Or the illegitimate manimals they’ll squeeze out, requiring more nurses and doctors. Or the assaults and rapes they’ll cause, again requiring more doctors and nurses. Or the prisons they’ll be sent to, requiring more guards, lawyers, etc. Hell, you’ll need more police to arrest them in the first place.

      A great plan…except there’s one problem: it’s treasonous poison. Ok, two problems since the economics of it are stupid as well.

      Corporate Villain is a perfect name for you. You espouse the bankster political line on immigration flawlessly. Go back to reading the Wall Street Journal or the Atlantic Monthly.

      I am Dinky Wang

      Like


    • If we were all made of dollar bills that would be great. But one thing missing from this equation is the most important of all in my opinion. Culture. Or does the total dilution (or destruction if you want to get really serious) of the traditional European American culture mean nothing. A culture which by the way spawned the wealth of America. I have to be honest here, I would rather be a lower middle class guy in an traditional European American culture then a rich man living in a gated community in some Blade Runner universe.

      Like


      • I should also add that no one ever talks about how many immigrants is enough? We are already at around 315 million. Whats enough? Half a billion? Three quarters of a billion? Or just a plain old billion to round it off? The one thing all these economic weenies don’t take into account is that all these people need to eat, drink water, shit, piss and have shelter. It is environmentally unsustainable. Or would you rather see cities larger then NYC popping up all over the the Plain States? Which also happens to be Americas meat and breadbasket. Numbers USA is a great site that spells out in real numbers what mass immigration means to America. Check them out.

        Like


  28. I tend to believe anti-immigration sentiment is only making the problem worse. If we had a “fair” immigration policy, as some libertarians propose, immigration would be proportional to the population of the world. Thus we would have a lot more immigration from, for instance, Eastern Europe. But our current policies makes it much harder for Eastern Europeans to come to America than Mexicans.

    Perhaps ideally we would ONLY allow immigration from European countries and North Asian countries — or perhaps ideally we wouldn’t allow any immigration — but my point is that a pro-immigration policy with the right conditions would be much better than the system we have now which de facto lets in too many Mexicans and too few Ukranians. Politically this de facto situation isn’t likely to change soon if the pubic debate is simply a closed borders vs. open borders argument. Many libertarians are more pragmatic than you grant them and believe in geographically conditional immigration not Yglesias-style US-citizenship-for-anyone-who-wants-it. (Yglesias is a brainwashed liberal, not a libertarian, of course.)

    [Editor: Any immigration policy that favors Ukrainian women over Mexican peasants is onto something noble, true and awesome.]

    Like


  29. Libertarianism, like all ideologies, works and works best with a high IQ, homogeneous population that does not expand beyond the available resources.

    Like


  30. Bryan Caplan puts fourth the best arguments in favor of open borders of anyone I’ve ever heard or read. He brings up points 1 & 2 @ 12:45. He brings up point 3 @ 15:00. He then addresses them during the next 15, 20 mins or so. He then addresses them completely between 20:00 and 50:00.

    In between those he addresses the other big argument, that they threaten our culture.

    In summary, his responses to points 1,2 and 3 above.

    1. They’ll come and live on welfare: Most money we give out goes to the old, not to the poor. Currently, the average immigrant is a net taxpayer. Illegals are a great deal because they can never collect social security or medicare. But even if it’s true that immigrants are net tax collectors, why not just deny them welfare benefits? Or say they have to pay in more during their life than they take out? These aren’t pleasant options, but aren’t they more humane than letting them starve and die of terrible poverty in the third world?

    2. They’ll not live on welfare, they’ll come and work for cheap:
    *Low skilled* wages are likely to fall, but most Americans aren’t low skilled workers. Remember, most of the people living on <1$ a day around the world haven't even flipped a light switch. How many Americans are these people competing with? However Mexicans are about as skilled as American high-school dropouts. The most well respected critic of immigration in the entire Ivy League, George Borhas, claims that all the immigration of all low-skilled immigrants over decades and millions of people has reduced the wages of native-born high-school dropouts by… 4.8%. Yes, 4.8%, aggregate (not average) over the past few decades)… the most pessimistic estimate by the most anti-immigration guy. His estimates of those in the middle-range of education is that they've increased their wages. And actually, he thinks the negative effect of immigration has mostly affected high-skilled labor – like Ph.D academics. Harvard now finds the best professors from around the world, not just the US, giving US professors lots of competition. All of this is offset by benefits to investors, real-estate owners, etc.

    And if you worry about them, why not just tax the immigrants and cut the high-school dropouts a check? Isn't that more humane?

    3. Immigrants are a bunch of statists, they'll turn us left:
    Natives have low turnout, non-natives have *really* low turnout (despite what the pundits have us think). The status-quo bias tends to push people to vote more like natives than like their old brethren. Immigrants however tend to *reduce native-born support for the welfare state*. We see the largest welfare states in ethnically homogeneous countries, such as Denmark. We like to support people like us, and don't like when our money goes to support people who don't look like us. Thus more immigration from people who don't look like us cause less support for redistribution.

    But even if this argument is true, isn't the more humane option to just not let them vote?

    Anyway, these are Bryan's arguments. He's awesome. If anyone wants to seriously engage with these ideas please go to him directly (and watch his video on this that I'm linking to), I'm just summarizing them here and leaving out other parts of his responses to these points.

    Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4

    Like


    • 1.

      why not just deny them welfare benefits? Or say they have to pay in more during their life than they take out?

      Back in the real world.

      [Editor: Will Wilkinson: Eh, the real world’s no fun. More dorm room blogshitting please!]

      2.

      You can’t have a First World country with Third World human capital.
      See also above.

      [And this:

      http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm%5D

      And if you worry about them, why not just tax the immigrants and cut the high-school dropouts a check?

      Back in the real world.

      3.

      The status-quo bias tends to push people to vote more like natives than like their old brethren.

      There are a huge number of white Americans who vote for statists. There are huge numbers of minorities already here, often of the same immigrant group, who vote for statists. So, there aren’t any social pressures/influences against new immigrants voting for statist politicians, especially if statism is in their short term interest. Try again.

      [In immigration policy, only two things matter: the quality and the numbers of immigrants. A huge bloc of voters who break on average 2/3rds for statist pols are making their own status quo.
      Ya really gotta love these liberals and libertarians who believe in the magical fairy status quo nose goblin to rectify all problems of assimilation. Where do they think this all-powerful, all-good, all-American status quo comes from? Mexico?]

      Like


      • I think Bryan’s arguments stand up pretty well, I haven’t seen anything here that would call them into doubt. Though I wonder…

        Are you really arguing “on principle” that people:

        1. Who are going to collect welfare shouldn’t be here.
        2. Who tend to be less productive or less than the average IQ shouldn’t be here.
        3. Who vote (or think?) left-wing shouldn’t be here.

        No, no you’re not arguing for these to be “general principles”.

        [Editor: I’m not? My nation should definitely be screening immigrants for their likelihood to wind up on welfare and to vote for statist policies. To do anything less would be… uncivilized.]

        So to be clear, you’re arguing for a double standard. *Your* tribe gets a pass on the above, brown people don’t.

        [Anytime one of you open borders libtards starts throwing around the “brown people” gibe, one which I presume you think is cleverer and more telling than it really is, I know I’m dealing with a mental midget.]

        Though you’d probably say it’s because they weren’t born within an arbitrary political boundary, as that’s much more PC.

        [Nope. A nation is a culture, which is a manifestation of its people’s genetic inheritance. America would cease to be anything resembling the America of her first 200+ years if her people were replaced with Latin Americans, Africans or Chinese. And no doubt the peoples of those lands would feel the same should 100 million Americans descend uninvited on their shores. Quite simply, changing the demographic character of a nation is changing the nation itself into something else, usually much worse, given the GDPs and living standards of most of the world’s competing nations. In less bloodless contexts, that would be called genocide.]

        So just how may of the “out tribe” are you willing to let die of starvation, disease, and war in the third world to not *run the risk* that they might hurt you and your tribes’ living standards?

        [Billions. Or do you think it’s sensible to disallow nature from culling the weak?]

        Like


      • on July 1, 2011 at 5:24 pm The Man Who Was . . .

        Are you really arguing “on principle” that people:

        1. Who are going to collect welfare shouldn’t be here.
        2. Who tend to be less productive or less than the average IQ shouldn’t be here.
        3. Who vote (or think?) left-wing shouldn’t be here.

        I think a lot of us here are hard hearted enough to say that they shouldn’t be here in some abstract sense, but we’re not retarded enough to think that kicking them out of the country is at all practical and neither are we psychopathic enough to think that we should kill them all, if that is what you think we should be advocating in order to meet your fucked up standards of abstract reasoning. Having some sense of what is practical for dealing with the screw-ups we already have does not however suddenly makes it a good idea to import a bunch more welfare collectors, low IQ workers, and left-wing voters.

        Is that logical enough for you?

        Like


      • “how many of the out tribe are wiling to die of starvation…”

        why would that be the inevitable result of our keeping the out? if instead of fleeing poor conditions created by their own elites, these potential migrants should resist and improve their own societies. they have a duty to do so. why is the usa enabling those greedy elites?

        maybe we could even help out by nullifying nafta, which has resulted in impoverishing mexican farmers when subsidized american corn is dumped into that country. keep them on the farm and out of the usa.

        Like


  31. [Editor: The USA needs an immigration moratorium for about 20 years so we can reset. We’ve had one before and it kicked off our hyperpower dominance. However, if we’re going to have immigration, it would make the most sense to favor immigrants from, in descending order of favoritism:
    NW europe, canada, australia, new zealand and scandinavia
    east europe
    south europe
    Russia
    NE Asia
    Middle East (these guys would be higher except for that little jihad problem)
    everyone else.]

    You can’t be serious. You mean you’d prefer the above to the dynamism we’d have were we to import those high IQ geniuses from the Congo, Burundi and Guatemala? Surely, you jest.

    Like


  32. Don’t need to be a socioeconomic genius to know that the more European your country is, the better quality of life you will have.

    But its academic now, America is for all intents and purposes a dead country. At this point we’re just kicking around the corpse.

    Like


    • At this point I am wondering if the United States breaking up into smaller countries might be a good thing.

      [Editor: If the USA breaks up into smaller countries chances are it won’t be by choice.
      (at least not in the sense of choice as libertarians understand it. heh.)]

      Like


  33. on July 1, 2011 at 4:48 pm Marco Antonio Costa

    “The problem with libertarians is that they deny human nature. They argue that the only thing that matters in controlling people’s behavior are incentives, and these incentives can be controlled via the government.”

    Except that that is not a libertarian, but Art Laffer.

    Libertarians don’t think the government can control anything, let alone incentives or human nature.

    To be honest, the only worldview out there that DOES NOT deny human nature, is libertarianism.

    Like


    • Libertarians deny that most people won’t go along with their political plans, such as no welfare, etc.

      Like


  34. @ Max M
    Bryan Caplan is a whack job

    Regarding your points
    1. Are you sure the average immigrant is a net taxpayer? Are you including illegal immigrants? Do you have a source?

    http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-fiscal-cost-of-low-skill-immigrants-to-state-and-local-taxpayers
    In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. The average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).”

    But lets not quibble about about data, because actually it doesn’t matter. Any empirical data on whether immigrants, legal or illegal, are net US taxpayers has been collected under conditions of heavy immigration restriction. Sure a lot of immigration has occurred from the Latin America, but immigrants from Africa, India, Indonesia, China, etc.. have been very effectively excluded. Mexico is a middle class country, there are billions of people living in country’s that are poorer to Mexico. The performance of the limited number of legal and illegal immigrants in the past is in NO way predictive of what would happen with true open boarders.If you drop the true open boarders, then you loose all your moral presumption BS.

    2. Most Americans are low skill workers. Many are just overpayed for their skills, hence the outsourcing of anything outsource-able. This will change soon enough, because the US is broke.

    3. Its not that immigrants are statist, its that there isn’t (and won’t be) enough pie to go around and immigrants will vote along ethnic lines.

    Like


    • Hate being a spelling nazi, but it’s BORDERS, not BOARDERS. That this misspelling is very common and being seen often used by commenters is in no way an indication of alternate spelling.

      Definition of BOARDER
      1: one that boards; especially : one that is provided with regular meals or regular meals and lodging
      2: a person who rides a snowboard : snowboarder

      Like


  35. “2. Population group differences in human capital are real. ”

    I’ve spent lots of time in immigration processing waiting rooms, first for myself and then with my wife. We’re both Eastern European. In the course of all my countless visits to immigration office waiting rooms, filled wall to wall with people of every age, from infant to very old, I observed one thing with some chagrin:

    Of all the thousands of strangers I’ve seen there, only one — yes, ONE — woman was even remotely fuckable. She was a thirtyish-looking Russian.

    Let’s not forget this when discussing human capital.

    [Editor: While a 20 year immigration time-out would undoubtedly be good for America, I confess that the loss of fresh slavic pussy on these shores is a high price to pay. On a related note, a Russian chick I used to date tried to get a green card first through the lottery, and then through a work visa. There were so many hurdles she would break down crying once a week. (Sorry, wasn’t about to marry her.) The whole episode was a reminder how royally fucked our immigration system is, when a hot Russian babe is brought to tears trying to become an American while mamacitas with 12 brood in tow stroll into the country like it’s their backyard.]

    Like


    • on July 1, 2011 at 6:12 pm DiamondEyes

      And this is exactly the reason that women luuuuurv multi-culti and illegal immigration. It floods the country with single men, while not providing any good fresh poon. Instant SMV boost for the fat american broads. 10 Juans for every Jane.

      Imagine how women would froth at the mouth if we proposed that we kick out 15 million illegal mexicans, and replace them with 15 million former soviet union women. Their SMV would plummet and they would feverishly enact laws to counter the invasion. Why aren’t men doing the same, since the reverse has played out?

      The above scenario would turn me into the most pro-immigration son of a bitch in town.

      Like


      • Last summer, went to a supermarket and at the entrance was this young woman I’ve noticed looking at her back. Long tizian wavy hair, slender built, about 5’6″, hourglass with that nice wide-hipped ass with a cute spread resulting in a nice gap–she wore tight pants, and I were close to having a boner.

        After going through my shopping, she approached me, peddling some card, visa I think. The 24yo front was as great as the back, her makeup free face was solid 8, and her shapely, firm C cups were a highlight underlining that bundle of goodies.

        Upon hearing her accent, pegged her Czech or Slovak, indeed, she was Slovak. Unfortunately, her work visa was expiring the next day and she was packing that evening, else I’d do my mightiest to tap her for some fuck marathon.

        EE girls, they rule, hands down. Sometimes I’m toying with the idea of becoming a pol just so I’d influence the Canadian immigration policy to open floodgates for EE poon, in addition to a reasonably good LTR material.

        Like


      • She was like a bright beacon standing in that store.

        Like


      • There are at least seven million more illegal men than illegal women in the USA right now, and the disparity is rapidly increasing. Needless to see the liberal-controlled media has not the slightest problem with this fact.

        Like


  36. Roissey,

    You really are a know-nothing idiot.

    In your objection #2 the reality would not be that immigrants would”displace” jobs of native citizens. This is such fucking ignorance it makes me look upon you the way you look upon Beta males – as a fucking ignorant loser.

    Under laissez-faire – what principled libertarians and Randians argue for and not what the fucking idiot Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Partiers argue for – what happens in the case of immigrants accepting work in this country for lower wages is that while nominal wage rates decrease, REAL WAGE RATES INCREASE. Real prices are actually LOWERED as the PURCHASING POWER of the monetary unit INCREASES. The native citizens would be richer in terms of purchasing power and the economy would have more money with which to invest in productive enterprises and thus job creation.

    You are a typical moron Conservative, Bio or Paleo – it doesn’t matter. You idiot Conservatives don’t understand jack shit about poly-sci or economics. Genetics does NOT INVALIDATE free market principles. In fact the most important part of human genetics, volition and the subjective theory of value, is built right into the base of laissez-faire economics.

    There are reasons to oppose “open borders”, a term by the way that most libertarians and Randians do not use as they prefer the terms “non-protectionist immigration”. Those reasons have to do with national security and they are real; ie banning Muslim immigration, etc.. But the economic argument against free markets in labor are BULLSHIT. All they do is make a country poorer. They do not increase the net wealth of the native citizenry. IN THE CONTEXT OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE, NOT THE MIXED ECONOMY THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IMMIGRATION LOWERS NOMINAL WAGE RATES WILE INCREASING REAL WAGE RATES AND THUS INCREASING THE PURCHASING POWER OF THE DOLLAR. IT SERVES TO LOWER PRODUCTION COSTS THUS MAKING THE ECONOMY MORE PRODUCTIVE. IT MAKES US RICHER YOU FUCKING MORON!!!! THE INTELLECTUAL LABOR THAT DIRECTS AND MANAGES LABOR IS HIGH IQ, HIGH PRODUCTIVITY LABOR. IT HAS TO BE OR THE COMPANY WILL FAIL. SO THE SMARTEST PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS RUN THE COMPANIES NO MATTER WHAT RACE THEY ARE. YOUR RACIALIST THEORIES ARE PURE FUCKING GARBAGE.

    Really Roissey, you are such an idiot its painful to read your blog most times. For every one piece of useful information you give, you give dozens of pieces of pure bullshit.

    And I’m still willing to bet that you are nothing but a keyboard jockey when it comes to Game. I would bet the ranch on it.

    [Editor: Yet another true believer who’s never heard of externalities.]

    Like


    • Then…liberals convince the brown horde that it is the caucasians’ fault, and through strength of numbers vote back in the welfare state.

      Dysgenia reigns supreme once more.

      You worshippers of capital sow the seeds of your own destruction. A nation is an ethnos. Anything more is an empire.

      Like


    • “SO THE SMARTEST PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS RUN THE COMPANIES NO MATTER WHAT RACE THEY ARE.”

      And you are most definitely not in that category

      Like


    • In the construction trades the displacement of natives ( all races ) by Mexicans is WHOLESALE.

      The ENTIRE crew is swapped out.

      That’s displacement.

      Same thing happened in factory work. Tyson lays off the ENTIRE blue collar work-force — opens up six weeks later with 100% Mexican crew — that they, themselves, went to Mexico to round up!

      The local welfare rolls exploded. All of the locals lost their jobs – and the Mexicans were so underpaid that they needed food stamps.

      Eventually, even the management was canned — and bilingual fellows brought on board.

      All of the gains went to Tyson — the loses to the American workforce and taxpayer. The local County budget imploded under the strain.

      Residential real estate absolutely cratered. No one could cover their mortgage.

      Rocketing real wage increases occurred when the monied class had to pay up: Ford’s $5.00 / day wage was a scandal — to his competition.

      THAT’S the source for America’s middle class.

      Until wide open immigration stopped, wage negotiation went no where. Labor — ALL of it — white, blue, professional — had no clout in a world with endless new under-bidders.

      The only clowns that can’t see it are those who don’t face such competition in their lives. They then project their experiences to all.

      Rubbish.

      Like


    • @ Holden,

      So the lower our wages, the better off we’ll all be?

      Like


  37. Open borders are one of the optional parts of libertarianism. It’s ultimately about limited government – that you cannot be told what to do by others and have your property taken by others w/o a damn good a specific reason. That government, however, is under no obligation to make others citizens, though many libertarians think that it is a good idea.

    Ron Paul, while maybe not as anti-immigration as this site, definitely does not come across as enthusiastically pro immigration.

    Like


  38. Let me add that all restriction immigrant labor does is to make prices higher than they would be. If you want to place blame on high US unemployment why don’t you chose from the following:

    1) The Minimum Wage Law

    2) Labor Unions

    3) The Federal Reserve Bank and its fiat currency

    4) Inflationist policies of Keynsian central bankers

    5) the Regulatory burden on business – imposed by the Regulatory state

    6) Wealth confiscation in the form of the countless welfare state programs

    That’s just for starters you fucking moron.

    [Editor: The causes of structurally high unemployment are multivariate, of which mass immigration of 3rd worlders contributes. But on a more important point, this post really got under your skin, eh?]

    Like


    • J Holden, you’re an idiot. The totally free market does produce the lowest prices, but the quality of life is measured by more than the ability to get cheap goods and services.

      Like


      • Actually J Holden has just listed several highly relevant causes of the current unemployment situation. The doubters would be wise to listen and consider.

        Please know the following about any Libertarian open border position (which is NOT a core position anyway):
        1) prerequisite 1 = dismantling of welfare state (no true libertarian is dumb enough to keep the current handouts and then open the doors to the world)
        2) prerequisite 2 = full private property society (instead of merely showing up at the nation’s door, an immigrant must work within this restrictive system to enter, i.e. nowhere to live without possessing a 2-way voluntary sale/rental contract with a property owner), this is quite an impediment to keeping out the hordes. Think about it.

        Also, the idiots at Reason, Cato, etc are ‘Beltway Libertarians’ who are more than happy to sell out on fundamental principles in exchange for a tiny bit of acceptance and recognition in DC circles. These people are mostly wannabes and losers….for an authentic libertarian viewpoint, stick to the Mises branch and ignore these other posers.

        The free market is always about free choices (that don’t harm others or their property), not lowest prices.

        You guys need to know and understand the real libertarian position (not the fake ones) before you try to rip it up. Just because a person, group, magazine calls itself ‘libertarian’ does not make it really that.

        Like


      • What’s the point of having these political theories when they will never, ever, be implemented?

        Like


  39. I was so involved with the libertarian movement that I spoke at a convention that shall not be named. I left the libertarian farm because of completely retarded positions like open borders. Their foreign policy, while more sensible than the neocons, reaches absurd Utopian levels – they cling more fiercely to their own theories than fact. Their laser-like focus on legalizing drugs destroys them in elections (like Ron Paul talking about legalizing heroin in the last GOP debate – idiotic move). The wiser libertarians always smarten up and become more conservative – like Robert Nozick, one of the most prolific libertarian intellectuals of the 70’s. I’ve come to the conclusion that a libertarian could be worse for the nation than a neocon or a liberal in some ways, because of what he can do with borders and the crazy things he’d do with the military as commander in chief.

    Like


  40. J Holden –

    Stop bitching.

    Like


  41. I don’t think people from B, C, and D that are unproductive move into an A with no welfare state. They do to come here, but the point is to attract productive people form around the world.

    Like


    • It’s certainly not the point of the US immigration policy. Shit, we have a fucking immigration lottery. How are you attracting productive people when you are selecting them at random? Then there’s chain migration. How does it help to import a random idiot and then everyone from 3rd cousin.

      Like


  42. Lost is almost all Libertarian commentary is its primal reason for being: the dis-establishment of ALL the worlds militaries.

    Utopianism run riot.

    The Randian schtick was slapped on top. It’s not the core faith of the party’s founders.

    Not surprisingly, the First Directorate of the KGB / SVR is wildly in favor of the LP.

    It’s a false truth, worse than wrong.

    Like


  43. And we haven’t even gotten into the issue of the illegal immigrants’ children who will usually become gang members with a hatred for the local populace.

    Like


  44. Not all illegal immigrants’ children become gang members: remember, they are given special affirmative action preferences over straight, white, non-trans guys for jobs and school. They get to have mediocre grades, and do a mediocre job, and not have to worry about getting fired for it.

    So, lets say you grew up with a mother who was widowed because your father was killed in the raid on Normandy Beach, or maybe he was just one of just-about-only-white-guys who passed all the civil rights laws and legislation. You get to watch your son be thrown in line behind almost 80%* of the population (remember, chicks go first, too) with roughly equivalent credentials.

    In other words, illegal immigrants have options. Not that being a gang member seems all that bad, anyway – the hostility is no doubt largely part of the game-face. If you work an hour a day hanging out and committing violence and thievery against people, what is there to be so angry about? The local populace are your customers, uh, er, victims.

    Anyway, more important than focusing on America’s problems, I’m looking for exit strategies, like a cheap place with hot chicks where I can be part of the immigration problem through driving up the cost of pussy to the locals. Ideas welcome. I know of the places that have the quality pussy at a reasonable cost; what I need is a way to support myself once I get there.

    * The majority of children under the age of two in the United States are non-white.

    Like


  45. libertarianism should be studied as a neurosis and not a political philosophy. it’s an attempt to cope with the realities of the world by denying them.

    Like


  46. Roissy, among the problems with this post let me point to one in particular, one that I think is especially telling of how you try to use evidence and logic to make your arguments.

    You make this claim:

    “Evidence suggests political ideology is genetically imbued and thus mostly immutable” and then proceed to argue that because the majority of Latin Americans vote for a particular party today, their descendants will maintain this orientation.”

    Here’s the funny thing: the MSNBC article you cited only stated that there *may be* a correlation between genes and political orientation. It did not say anything about race–that was simply your own invention. And in fact if you had anything beyond a surface level understanding of this subject you would know that there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups. Your claim that “Latin Americans” as a group are genetically programmed to like a particular political party is entirely baseless.

    You link to articles to give a veneer of credibility to your claims but almost always mischaracterize their content–whether intentionally or not I do not know. It might be that you have acquired such fervent political beliefs at this point (about women, feminists, immigrants, etc) that it impairs your analysis. Or else you are simply lazy and only do a few cursory Google searches looking for confirmatory evidence when you want to make a point.

    In any case, I hope this helps, because I get the sense that there is a big gap between your writing quality–which is generally quite good–and your critical thinking and analytic abilities. Not everyone has an opportunity to go to college but you shouldn’t let that hinder your aspirations to appear to possess some degree of intellectual ability to your loyal followers, who cling to your every word.

    Like


    • on July 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm Cornell Red

      Very well said.

      Like


    • “there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups”

      This is simply not true. Which is the reason why it is called a Lewontin Fallacy.

      Like


      • Peter, if that is what you think you clearly do not have a good grasp of the Edwards’ article from which the concept of the “Lewontin Fallacy” is based on.

        I’m guessing the following sums up your understanding: “well, its about race and genetics and has the word ‘fallacy’ in it so it must prove my point!”

        Like


  47. That political ideologies are genetically imbued is confusing. Do North Koreans differ much genetically from South Koreans? So Colombians differ much from Venezuelans? How did Czechs and Slovaks go from a generation of communists to a generation of capitalists? Chile has a relatively free market while Argentina is a backward socialist hell-hole.

    One’s genetically imbued personality clearly influences political affiliation, yet an ideology which seems progressive today might seem conservative tomorrow. E.g., weren’t the Czechs that broke the back of their communist government the equivalent of the SWPL of their day and place, while the communists trying to hold power were more or less the conservative rednecks?

    I agree, however, that it seems more likely that the descendants of Latinos in the US are more likely to pursue the policies of a Chavez than a Uribe.

    Like


    • E.g., weren’t the Czechs that broke the back of their communist government the equivalent of the SWPL of their day and place, while the communists trying to hold power were more or less the conservative rednecks?

      That’s a fucked up analogy. The politburo members and higher party cadres were “preservatives”.The lower party members,together making up 10% of the nation were in it for the goodies.The rest of the nation were anti-commies. Any normal thinking individual becomes one under that type of regime, despite the indoctrination.

      Like


  48. For all you against immigration,if it helps, the number of real americans leaving the US is rising because of the policies of our genius politicans. I guess that will even out the numbers so don’t worry….

    Like


    • I agree with that. The lobbying power of OLD PEOPLE have bankrupted the country. Soon emigration not immigration will be the issue. Brain drain ain’t just for Europe anymore. Young ambitious men these days should probably head for the Far East. Due to both liberals and conservatives, the U.S. is in decline.

      Like


  49. The frontiers were lost in the 70’s. America is full. The thought of more congestion makes me sick to my stomach. Real estate is too expensive as it is.

    Like


  50. NEWS FLASH – The border is already open folks.

    Anyone who wants to move here has already crossed the border.

    The question for the future is – would you rather have people walking in through the regular ports of entry?

    Or would you rather have organized criminal gangs smuggling people and drugs?

    Your choice – legal, regulated, open and above board or illegal, unregulated, and under the table.

    Democrat and Republican politicians like the status quo because it creates an underclass that both sides use for their own purposes.

    Like


  51. There’s nothing wrong with civil rights.

    Where libertarianism fails is when it fails to take into account basic human nature(s). Racial differences are real.

    That said, so long as you have clearly demarcated borders, libertarianism loses almost all of its worst effects.

    The problem is when one side in any trade has massive advantages: ie, Asia and labor. In that scenario, there’s almost no way for the side with more expensive labor to maintain jobs.

    Libertarianism, like any ideology, needs to be constrained by pragmatism.

    But demanding that cops treat you fairly and not beat the crap out of you or jail you without proper due process- a huge libertarian crusade – is hardly delusional.

    Libertarianism can be seen as a reaction against arbitrarianism. As such, I can see its value.

    Unfortunately, in the real world, any ideology needs to adapt to prevailing local conditions. Millions of Hispanic migrants require a re-evaluation of some values in some applications.

    Like


  52. On your number 1:
    Milton Friedman is right of course. It is crazy to advocate free immigration
    unless you FIRST dismantle the welfare state. Some people, including
    Friedman fils (David), argue that you could let in some people on the
    condition that they be ineligible for welfare etc. for twenty years.
    Nice try, but it does not work, the political pressure to “help the
    poor homeless” etc. quickly overcomes this restriction.

    2) Would not be a real objection, there is an essentially limitless demand
    for domestic servants etc. if the price is right. But pressure according to the
    above will kill that.

    3) Democracy in its current form WILL COLLAPSE UNDER ITS OWN
    WEIGHT. See Greece. We need a constitutional amendment,
    no representation without taxation. Net tax eaters should not vote.
    It won’t happen until and unless we have a major collaps and a reset.

    Yes I am a LIbertarian, but reforms must be done in the right order.
    Open borders must come LAST.

    Thor

    Like


  53. Seriously, stick to game theory which you master, in politics you’re embarrassing yourself.

    1. Libertarians favor cutting border and welfare state both at once. If the state opens borders and keeps the welfare state, don’t blame libertarians – we’re not in power.

    2. Fallacy : “country A is filled with highly productive and intelligent citizens on average”, “displaced native citizens, due to innate limitations, CAN’T DO MORE CHALLENGING JOBS?”

    If whites are smarter than latin-americans, they will get better jobs and better wages. If they’re not, why would they deserve better wages and better jobs?

    3. Argument against easy citizenship and voting rights for immigrants, not against immigration.

    You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the US does not have an open borders policy. It has a closed borders policy that is huge FAIL – like all state programs.

    You haven’t maid a single valid point against immigration per se, yet call “stupid” libertarians who have given the issue way more thought than you.

    Like


    • “Seriously, stick to game theory which you master, in politics you’re embarrassing yourself.”

      Your post embarasses you more than his embarasses him.

      “1. Libertarians favor cutting border and welfare state both at once. If the state opens borders and keeps the welfare state, don’t blame libertarians – we’re not in power.”

      So the result of libertarian’s votes is more welfare, but they’re not to blame.

      “If whites are smarter than latin-americans, they will get better jobs and better wages. If they’re not, why would they deserve better wages and better jobs?”

      I’d also note that illegal immigrants willing to work in harsh conditions and illegally low wages helps their job prospects.

      By your own reckoning, other americans will be displaced, but they deserve to be displaced.

      So, libertarianism leads to more welfare and less libertarianism in the future, and less jobs for americans. But

      “You haven’t maid a single valid point against immigration per se, yet call “stupid” libertarians who have given the issue way more thought than you.”

      You yourself have thought about the issues and came to the same conclusion as him. You just think the americans don’t deserve to have jobs, and that it’s not libertarian’s fault if their support of open borders leads to bigger government.

      Like


  54. on July 2, 2011 at 12:00 am James Strictland

    Very good article.

    To answer your welfare state question, its only a matter of time before thats done for. The Right will kill it or the money will not going to be there much longer. Not too long after that,I suspect much of the Federal edifice will fall apart. My guesstimate is it will be a currency crisis of some kind combined with a general notion that there is lack of legitimacy.

    Once that happens, well all bets are off. I suspect this will be a race war with black people coming out the losers. Now this will be more street level and waged mostly Hispanic vs Black. Its already on now after a fashion, c.f the Azusa 13

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/06/08/california-latino-gang-is-latest-accused-of-targeting-blacks/

    Whites will probably be fine, the level of hate between them and the Latinos is pretty low, intermarriage common enough and despite the loss of majority status and a crepulant society, Whites are not doing that badly.

    The birth rate is near replacement and the most fertile ones tend to be fairly ferocious country types, Mormons the religious and the others who are a lot more like old America than the various weak livered douche bags that inhabit the urban upper crust.

    Of course there are lots of .alt scenarios out there and really its all guess work.

    Like


  55. This is such a great thread. For those of you that have children and want them out of the house asap, move away from immigration machines. All youth employment, especially along the border, has basically been obliterated.

    Like


  56. There already exists an interesting case study of relatively open immigration combined with minimal welfare – it’s my very own country of Singapore.

    The lack of welfare for non-citizens doesn’t seem to be impeding the flow of immigrants in any way. They still come in and undercut wages of the native citizens, enjoying the positive externalities of a well-governed and high infrastructure environment while not paying any more taxes than the natives.

    So that’s a serious strike against the traditional understanding that if you just avoid welfare, immigration would naturally be restricted. My country is proof enough that this assumption is plain wrong.

    Then immigration brings another set of problems. Trust amongst people is lowered, social cohesion decreases. Ethnic enclaves are formed. Despair and resentment amongst different groups increases because of unequal treatment. The overall quality of life suffers.

    I’m sympathetic to the libertarian cause, but they cannot neglect the strides being made in the sciences, such as social psychology and behavioral genetics.

    Like


  57. Closed borders never work. Like prohibition, always leak.

    If open borders and democracy, we lose ground.

    So it is democracy that has to go.

    The least drastic reform would be to limit the franchise to property owners with sound credit rating. Since the transition is likely to be somewhat chaotic, perhaps limit the franchise to property owners with sound credit rating and gun permits.

    On the other hand, a chaotic transition is more likely to lead to warlordism, which I would hope would transition to feudalism, or dictatorship, which I would hope would transition to monarchy, or anarcho-piratism, which I would hope would transition to anarcho capitalism.

    Like


  58. on July 2, 2011 at 4:47 am Mu'Min Seeks FAAAAT WuMin

    I read that Mexicans in California and the rest of the American SouthWest are genetically 45% white (the other 55% being Native American).

    Now 45% white might almost seem borderline acceptable. It at least is something to work with.

    So then WHY are they a) economic failures, and b) having ugly women?

    WHY?????

    45% genetically white should at least cause their economic performance and female beauty to be better than what it is. And their white part is Spanish, which should indicate much prettier women than England/Ireland.

    How can a population that is 45% white be so useless?

    Like


  59. on July 2, 2011 at 4:50 am Mu'Min Seeks FAAAAT WuMin

    PA,

    Of all the thousands of strangers I’ve seen there, only one — yes, ONE — woman was even remotely fuckable. She was a thirtyish-looking Russian.

    You would see the same low ratio in US citizens at any DMV in middle America. Fat black women, fat white women, and other sordid beasts would be there. Very few fuckable women from the same sample size.

    Now Hispanic women are ugly (even if they are 45% white), but the immigration office and DMV for US citizens in Iowa or Wisconsin or Arkansas would not be any better.

    Like


    • at any DMV in middle America.

      If you’re at the DMV, you’re limiting yourself to people who drive cars, and as I love to mention when these kinds of threads come up, people without cars are almost invariably fitter that those who are addicted to their automobiles.

      Move out of the exurbs. Even walking the quarter of a mile to the subway station works wonders for your fitness. Even cycling five minutes to the supermarket keeps you thin. I don’t think I know a single fat person who doesn’t have a car.

      Like


  60. Yes, libertarians are idiots. But this post is blind hatred, posing as eugenic racist shit. Pretend that it’s science as much as you like, but there is no science in this pile of steaming crap.

    Like


    • “Racist”? An agitprop term coined by Trotsky (Bronstein) in the 1920s to be used against whites ever since.

      People can be bred, just like horses or dogs. Deal with it, you SWPL faggot.

      Like


  61. If you had open borders and no welfare state you would still get high levels of poor immigrants because being a beggar in the U.S. would still be better than working in many poor countries

    Like


  62. Rousseau was an idiot. Sitting behind a desk in Paris,
    he would pontificate about “noble savages” and
    other nonsense. Why he became famous eludes
    me; everything he wrote was crap.

    Thor

    Like


  63. [Editor: Let me know when the welfare state is dismantled. I won’t be holding my breath.]

    me neither, but people are voting with their feet and moving to places with less welfare state. see california->texas north->south korea, germany->switzerland etc. maybe seasteading will be the solution.

    [Good for whom?]

    for everyone. if you could make a wall around china and stop their cheap labour from competing with american, would americans live richer lives? you dont understand trade and comparative advantages. read this page:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

    I understand that economics often is uintuitive, but please stop saying that people who disagree with you are idiots.

    [Nice evasion. And this is why libertarians are a silly bunch of fools.]
    non sequitur, this is why you are a fool.

    libertarians are against democracy(mob rule). most people are against democracy they just dont make the connection and havnt thought through their positions. ie why is gang rape wrong? why is maffia extortion wrong? understand the answear* and ask why democracy is right.

    *SPOILER initiation of force is wrong

    Like


  64. The Rebirth of Nations

    By Roger Scruton | The True Finn Party in Finland has broken through the left-liberal consensus to take second place in the polls, reminding voters that Finland is not just a geographical area but a country defined by language, culture, and history, a country that has been defended at great cost against the Soviet desire to absorb it and which is now, thanks to the European Union, being robbed of its savings in order to replenish the pockets of Mediterranean kleptocrats. Finns have revealed that they don’t like being manipulated by political elites outside the country. They want to show the world that Finland is not just a quaint survival, defined by a weird language and a romantic folklore, but a real and self-governing nation-state, whose resources belong to its citizens, and whose citizens wish to claim their ancestral territory as their own.

    A comparable feeling has made itself manifest in France, with growing support for the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen, and for Le Pen’s dynamic daughter, who is now likely to lead the party to positions of power and influence across the country. The Dutch have rallied to the cause of Geert Wilders, whose outspoken attacks on Islam and calls to restrict immigration have brought a new spirit of national defiance to the politics of the Netherlands. Belgium is unable to form a government, on account of the nationalist aspirations of its Flemish majority, while in Italy the Lega Nord is pressing for a redefinition of the Italian settlement, one that will acknowledge the distinction between the law-abiding north and the Mafia-ridden south of the country.

    All across Europe the nations are beginning to boil with frustration, at a political straitjacket that prevents them from asserting their ancient rights. The causes of this are many, but two in particular stand out: immigration and the European Union. The two are connected, since it is the EU’s non-negotiable insistence on the free movement of labor that has prevented the nation-states from exerting meaningful control over their borders. At a time when unemployment in Britain stands at more than 2 million, more than a million immigrants from Eastern Europe have come to take what jobs there are. It is impossible that such a situation should endure without strong sentiments of national entitlement among the indigenous people, and our governing elites are struggling hard to prevent those sentiments from emerging into the light of day.

    Like


  65. Somebody wrote that the US back when it was founded had a
    homogenous population. Huh?

    No it did not. The population was at least as diverse as it is now.

    HOWEVER, nobody had a “welfare state” mindset, the whole
    notion had not been invented, or at least was not part of the
    general ethos, as it were.

    Thor

    Like


  66. I will note that a number of years ago, Liberty magazine held a debate on the issue of libertarian policy re illegal immigration. The editor of the magazine and the less ideological opinion seemed to come out against open borders. They pointed out that whatever the libertarian theory, the reality of open borders in the long run would have negative consequences on a free society.

    Indeed. The USA has had de facto open borders for some time now, and we are becoming a less free society. Just look at the TSA kafka-esque idiocy at the airports, among too many dreary examples. If mass illegal immigration were good for a free society, then why the growing police state?

    One answer is that when you make citizenship meaningless, when you displace the solid middle class with a mass of quasi-serfs, when you make patriotism obsolete, you will end up with a society based on hierarchy, and which will require police state measures to keep the peace. If nothing else, the explosion of third world migrants into the USA is paralleled with a growing repressive machinery based around the war on crime and in political correctness in order to keep the peace.

    As for abolishing welfare, assuming that would ever happen, what evidence is there that this would end mass migration?

    … people are voting with their feet and moving to places with less welfare state. see california->texas north->south korea, germany->switzerland etc. maybe seasteading will be the solution.

    Effectively, old guard Americans are being ethnically cleansed from their own homes. Thus, Californians move to other states under pressure from crime, overcrowding, collapse of the schools and hospitals, crumbling infrastructure, and the general discrimination against the citizenry via multicultism.

    The question is, of course, is what to do when there is no place left to run? Where does one make one’s stand? If not at the Rio Grande, or in Compton, then where?

    Like


  67. Heltok,

    Naviagate over to vox popoli for some good discussion of Ricardian issues. You might learn something.

    Like


  68. on July 2, 2011 at 3:00 pm Abelard Lindsey

    Even though I’m libertarian, I agree with Roissy’s arguments against open borders. A productive society requires good human capital. I think the reason why so many libertarians are open borders and reject HBD is because they are fundamentally optimistic and they like to believe that all people can improve themselves. They see all others as being like themselves.

    The implications of HBD are profoundly negative and depressing. They can be unpleasant to consider. It took me a long time to accept the reality of HBD for this reason. However, HBD seems to be real and reality has a nasty habit of asserting itself regardless of what people choose to think or feel.

    As to the more generalized argument about libertarians ignoring human nature, I have a counter argument to this. It is human nature to form bureaucracies and it is the nature of bureaucracy to be dysfunctional and counter productive to any kind of productive accomplishment. Libertarians recognize this reality and are, thus, libertarians. It is both the left and the social conservative worldviews that are based on the efficacy of bureaucracy and, thus, are unrealistic.

    As far as good and evil and original sin goes, Murray Rothbard said that such considerations have no relevance to governance. If men are by nature good, then everything is peachy keen. But if men are by nature bad, there is little point in putting one man or group of men in charge of all others. Whether people are good or bad, decentralization is always better than centralization.

    Like


  69. on July 2, 2011 at 4:39 pm Frank Meyer Lives

    As this thread shows, “libertarianism” as used in 21st century American political debates doesn’t represent a fundamental political philosophy.

    One group of people who call themselves “libertarians” (pointed out early on in the comments) are really romantics in the tradition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who possess an (unprovable) belief that somewhere in the distant past, society went off track, and created rules and institutions which force men to try to dominate others, more than they otherwise would in the “state of nature”; and who believe that if we could remove all of confusing rules that society forces upon us, then the world would be a much better place for everyone. The main thing that separates these libertarians from liberals/progressives is that the progs believe that the rules that remain should be divined by a strong government carrying out the “general will” of society, while libertarians believe the few rules that remain should be based on free-market economics.

    The other group of libertarians can trace their beliefs to the traditional conservatism represented by Edmund Burke. They believe that any kind of functioning libertarian system must be built upon the foundation of culture that teaches everyone in society a basic respect for the rights of others to live and pursue happiness, which can be passed from generation to generation through the institutions of society. These folks do not believe that the fundamental human respect needed for a working libertarianism can be derived from rules of self-interest or the pursuit of economic advantage, but they do believe that with a generally-accepted sphere of individual rights and private property to build upon, libertarian ideas are best for settling the issues that remain.

    The first group of libertarians has less in common with the second group, than with liberals or progressives. The second group of libertarians has less in common with the first group than with conservatives. However, since the libertarian label for some reason attracts scores of people from all over the political spectrum who feel they are too cool to associate with more widely-used labels (I know a few hard-core socialists who consider themselves to be the “true libertarians”), the derivative nature of libertarian beliefs is glossed over in most public debates on the subject.

    For a specific example relevant to the subject matter of this particular board, consider how well libertarianism might or might not work in a society where the alpha males do not believe that they shouldn’t kill another male in order to take his attractive girlfriend. Romantic libertarians say it is self-evident that laws against this behavior will eventually evolve, because everyone will realize it’s in their interest not to be murdered by someone else. Conservative libertarians say peaceful civilization depends on raising alphas in a system of institutions that teaches them to really believe that there are limits that should be respected on how far they can go in taking what they want.

    You guys who have thought in detail about the relation of alphas to the rest of society can speculate on which system matches reality. But if you don’t have the time, the answer in the second one.

    Like


    • Good post.

      In other words, socialism is a needed counterbalance to capitalism. Either alone is a disease.

      On the one hand you have the tyrany of the masses, on the other the over exploitation of the commons.

      Trade unions and capitalists are two sides of the same functioning machine.

      And – there is no interest that is not some persons or some groups self interest. The “public” good is always the good of some faction.

      Like


      • I wouldn’t define it as socialism rather simply commonly accepted and understood rules of behavior. In the absence of other factors, religion and strong family ties used to provide these guiding principles. The king couldn’t be everywhere and he was a busy man. As a minimum it is a legal code. Now we have socialism which is much more comprehensive and not easily controlled. Most people would be cool with a simple and fair legal code, if that’s still possible.

        Like


      • The contrast is between the social and the individual good. Social”ism” can mean just about anything you want it to. i like to use it to mean a system of concern where the group is more important than the individual.

        Like


    • Consider a third point of view, the Darwinist libertarian, who would argue that a man who cannot prevent the alpha from killing him for his girlfriend did not deserve to have his genes pass on, and thus deserved to die.

      Like


      • on July 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm Frank Meyer Lives

        Anon,

        Until our society starts to allow “I was enitiled to take his girlfriend” as a legal defense for murder or, phrased another way, a substantial chunk of libertarians come out in favor of a place like Somalia or the Congo as being closer to an ideal libertarian society than the United States, it is difficult to see how your postulated category is relevant.

        Like


  70. Okay, so expecting the state to cease giving incentives to Mexicans to come here through their various policies (minimum wage, welfare, corporatism, etc) is foolish. Yet expecting this same inefficient state (possibly with the help of a small group of rag-tag pissed off “Minutemen”) to stem the huge tide of immigrants they created is totally within the realm of plausibility? Nope, not buying it.

    Like


  71. re. nos. 2 & 3 — exactly right.

    if you fill a country with mexicans, you’re gonna wind up living in a mexico-like country.

    Like


  72. Roissy may not be the best political blogger out there, but he has one clear advantage over most specialist political bloggers – his blog is popular and his message will actually reach people, while thousands of more obscure blogs will never be read.

    Like


  73. ” ‘The implications of HBD are profoundly negative and depressing. ‘ Why?

    Because it means that some people are fundamentally limited in what they can become or accomplish.”

    Is this some dark surprise. I am fundamentally limited in that it would
    be impossible for me to become a great composer or a great
    painter.

    Depressing? Not really, just reality.

    Thor

    Like


  74. As to the more generalized argument about libertarians ignoring human nature, I have a counter argument to this. It is human nature to form bureaucracies and it is the nature of bureaucracy to be dysfunctional and counter productive to any kind of productive accomplishment. Libertarians recognize this reality and are, thus, libertarians. It is both the left and the social conservative worldviews that are based on the efficacy of bureaucracy and, thus, are unrealistic.

    The other way to view it is that private or public human endeavors are always endeavors of factions.

    It’s not that one is socialist, the other capitalist. It’s that one is a group of capitalists, and the other is a bunch of capitalists.

    Like


  75. So it is democracy that has to go.

    The least drastic reform would be to limit the franchise to property owners with sound credit rating. Since the transition is likely to be somewhat chaotic, perhaps limit the franchise to property owners with sound credit rating and gun permits.

    As we can’t vote in an enlightened dictator, nor wish one to win favor with the military and stage a successful coup, the pragmatic form of group governance is meritocracy. Of course you are left with the dilema that those who are deemed to have merit are a faction, and so don’t represent the public good.

    But at least you’ll have some sort of test to prove you understand what you are voting for, and some sort of test to show you are worthy of being voted for.

    This free for all is a Madison Avenue plus special interests farce.

    Like


    • I liked Heinlein’s idea in Starship Troopers- to limit the franchise to those who have served in the military for a minimum period of time- 2-4 years. The military generally teaches people to think responsibly and pragmatically.

      Like


  76. Davis

    Here’s the funny thing: the MSNBC article you cited only stated that there *may be* a correlation between genes and political orientation. It did not say anything about race–that was simply your own invention. And in fact if you had anything beyond a surface level understanding of this subject you would know that there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups

    As you are well aware, the “may be” line is a politically correct legalize for “hey PC fucktards, don’t shit on me for saying this, but…”

    And as for genes=race, is that complicated to you? Oh yeah, it is. You say “there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups”

    But this is obfuscation of the facts that group differences are genetic differences. You want to dance around around it, but the body blows and left and right jabs have made you too punch drunk too realize you have lost the fight.

    Like


    • Xsplat,

      It’s not clear to me which “body blows” you believe you landed, as your entire post is either irrelevant or misses the point of my comments.

      Replace “group” with “race” and the point is still the same: on average there is more genetic variation between individuals within the same race than, on average, populations from different races.

      We could have an intelligent conversation about this subject and there is room for debate, but based on your comment, “genes=race, is that complicated to you?” it is clear that you are not familiar enough with the relevant literature for it to be productive. You may be more comfortable regurgitating old complaints about PC than actually saying anything relevant.

      Like


  77. on July 3, 2011 at 9:18 am Will To Power

    Libertarianism is another fundamentalist ideology that ignores real world considerations, no one should really be surprised that it doesn’t make sense.

    Like


    • In real life, the “libertarian” in this video would make sure the “Tea Party” girl isn’t one of those feminists in disguise like Sarah Palin who coopted the Tea Party movement. Many of these people, including Ann Coulter, want to hate on the idea of individual liberty because, besides wanting to keep muslim immigration in check, she also supports raising the age of consent and criminalizing johns and, like Peyser of the NY Post today, she wants to hint at how great sexual harassment laws are by calling DSK a pig and a misogynist despite being released from jail.

      Whoever made the video might want to add a section where the female character completely agrees with the idea of heterosexual freedom for men and then, only after that, proceeds to condemn the libertarian purist male on the open borders issue.

      By not adding that part, it looks like the video was made by a WN who doesn’t give a fuck about the men’s rights issues and for whom it doesn’t register that the libertarians are the only ones even barely close to being in synch with the male vote on those (Bob Barr coopted the LP in 2008 by slamming the woman he beat for wanting to lower the age of consent).

      Where it might get controversial is if the female character in the video was cornered by the male in the video regarding polygamy and then she tried to say he was deranged for supporting a man’s right to have 4 wives. I’d agree with him on that and most men would agree that he was the more convincing in the video if that happened.

      The hell guys here are going to let the Open Borders issue be used as a foot in the door for crushing men’s civil liberties.

      This whole thread is boring to me because, with the GOP nominations coming up, none of us has the luxury of wanting a candidate who will have both the perfect policy on the Mexican onslaught as well as a great men’s rights policy.

      One will have to pick one of those issues to be higher on the priority scale. Sadly, in American all or nothing minority vote wins politics, we don’t get the luxury of getting enough candidates to find one that fits all our individual specs.

      Like


  78. on July 3, 2011 at 10:08 am The Real Vince

    One of the problems with doctrinaire libertarians is the false assumption of an atomized state of nature; the view that capitalism is somehow “natural.” In reality humans are tribal, and lived tribally for hundreds of thousands of years, constantly wary of outsiders, engaged in genocidal battles. One could argue that we’re capable of transcending a predisposed xenophobia but it’s never easy. Humans are inherently clannish.

    MaxM above makes a good point with his observation that immigration erodes the welfare state, contrary to the tight-fisted perceptions of posters above. But the perception becomes the reality. The reason we probably lack robust social safety net in the first place is probably due to slavery, as people are reluctant to contribute to a system of welfare for recipients who “do not look like us.”

    Like


  79. Just as a conservative is just an ex-liberal who has been mugged, a libertarian is simply one who has not yet been mugged by reality. Or, as Bill Buckley once said on Firing Line when a libertarian guest said that many college students were libertarian, “But then they grow up.” (said with a wicked smile).

    Hi, I’m Bernard, and I’m a recovering libertarian (Hi, Bernard!). I was a Randroid at 15, a member of the Libertarian Party at 18, and a rational anarchist at 22. But then, being something of a late-bloomer, I grew up, too.

    Now, I still love liberty. I think I can say that I have done more than any 100 commenters here to protect the First Amendment. But after much study (and none of it helped by my so-called education at high school or college), I came to the conclusion that the only effective protector of civil and individual liberties in the last 3000 years has been a constitutional republic with limited powers. We have only seen such in history three times: Republican Rome, Great Britain from the 13th to the 19th centuries, and the United States until fairly recently.

    On the other hand, simple democracy has only given us the deaths of Socrates, Jesus, and the victims of every other lynch mob.

    My point is, though, that a republic can exist for as long as it is able to convince its citizens that a life under republican law is better than a tribal life. It fails when outsiders come in to take the benefits without assuming the duties of a civilized life. This can happen either through war or through unchecked immigration

    Of course, if California (among other states) actually wished to stop being submerged, its people would do what President Eisenhower did in the 1950s: 1) station the army along the U.S./Mexican border to prevent further illegal immigrants; 2) authorize its police to ask for citizenship ID for any routine traffic stop or arrest; 3) deport those without such ID.

    It only takes resolve, and not permitting the inmates to run the asylum.

    Like


    • It fails when outsiders come in to take the benefits without assuming the duties of a civilized life.

      This is a very interesting comment. Could you please elaborate on it and provide some supporting authority? Thank you.

      Like


      • Dear FGF:

        The classic work on the transition from Roman Republic to Empire, and its decline, is of course Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. If you have not read it yet, by all means do so.

        As regards the choking of the British Empire in ‘red tape’ (an expression invented in England, by the way), I recommend Edmund Spencer’s Man vs. the State

        And perhaps the best American historian reporting on the present rot is Victor David Hanson.

        The first two sources you can find online, as they are public domain. Dr. Hanson quite kindly provides many of his writings online at http://www.victorhanson.com.

        Common elements in all three republics are: i) an original intent of the people to limit the powers of tyrants (The Roman Republic and the Twelve Tablets, The British Empire and Magna Carta, and the United States and the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights); ii) an incremental and gradual tendency of government leaders and rulers to circumvent the limits on their power and to consolidate that power; and iii) an inability of the natives to limit government or to stop the encroachment of outsiders who are unwilling or unable to learn the language or culture of their hosts.

        Results so far are: i) the fall of the Western Roman Empire to German invaders in 476 A.D.; ii) the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turks in 1453; iii) the present state of “Londonistan” after the collapse of the British Empire after 1945; and iv) indications of the current U.S. rot in Victor David Hanson’s “Two Californias”.

        Hope this helps.

        -BB

        Like


  80. Man are you ignorant about politics and economics. Thanks for the advise on getting laid, though.

    Like


  81. Hey guys I want some help here on responses and comments on my situation.

    A little background: I’ve been hanging out with this older korean girl for a few months now. I’ve been blowing off communication with her for the past couple weeks because she was shit-testing me hard last time I saw her about how I’m too young for her, act too young, am too different, want different things, blah blah blah (I’m 26 she is 32).

    I finally returned her calls yesterday and met up with her last night for some drinks. when it was time for me to catch the last trolley home, she came with me and was making out with me at the crowded trolley stop. I deftly undid her bra when we were making out and I guess she decided to get mad about it after I left.

    Here are the series of texts. Keep in mind english is not her first language, she is not retarded, except for her being a female handicap. I am putting her side of the conversation first so you can think about what you would have texted or not texted back. then I will put my part of the conversation so you can comment on it, let me know where i went wrong and right. thanks guys:

    Her:
    (Q):I hate you
    q:you made me emberrassed, it was really childish you release my bra,
    q: I cannot see u anymore it is really embarrassing situation
    q: i am not joking, (J), I feel really bad
    q:fine, you never apoligize, fine
    q: you don’t know how i feel bad and embarrassed, thats okay because you dont care about me. bye
    q:It is over. Good bye
    q: no I dont want to fight, just I dont understand why you did this to me. no one did before, so I just give up to meet u any more. we are different i cannot handle
    q: I cooked for you I tried to make you feel better always, but I don’t feel you are considerate to me. this attitude I cannot understand at all because no one did this to me. so i would give up to meet you. i am not saying i need your appology at this point, just lets forget about everything
    q:take care and good luck
    q:but i liked you, take care (J)

    Me:
    j: Who is this
    j:haha you wouldnt let me hook it back
    yeah me too. what matters the most to me is what other people think
    j:i thought you were different from every other girl
    j:there is a world of difference from being playful and being childish. If you are going to send ridiculous texts trying to start childish drama acusations and fighting keep it to yourself next time. If you want an adult conversation about your hangups try calling next time
    j: youre right i dont have time nor roomd in my life for someone who cant enjoy it because of their hangups. especially about complete strangers that dont notice or care
    j: yup if you can tease but you are too thin skinned to handle me teasing back you are not the right type of girl for me.

    so her last three texts were the last ones sent. what should/could I send back? I don’t care if I can’t fuck her and let her take me out to dinner/drinks anymore but i would like to keep it going longer if possible. what do you guys think?

    Like


    • cringe-worthy. up there with “your pussy rocks”

      Like


    • I guess you did fine. Her many texts show she still has emotion invested, which means there is still interest. You need to translate that into a meet. In your bedroom. Then quickly get her naked and show her whose boss.

      I don’t know how you’ll translate her interest into a meet. Seems you’ve done enough text fighting – I wouldn’t draw that out. The less the better. You might want to give a brief “ya ya, sorry – whatever – i don’t know it was such a big deal to you” apology at some point, but my intuition says that you’ll want to give that in person. Maybe simply say “I don’t apologize by sms. If you still want to talk about this, meet me tonight.”

      Like


    • Agree with Rosenberg, this is bad.

      Like


  82. “I hate you”

    If she said that she likes you a lot.

    Like


  83. Jay,
    This woman obviously likes you. Don’t argue with her so much. Brush aside all her concerns with cocky/funny responses.

    Like


  84. Most Libertarians adhere to open borders because they also adhere to free trade.

    The problem with open borders and free trade is that the nation must sacrifice its sovereignty, ergo forfeiting its nationhood. The USA means nothing as a nation when open borders and free trade are implemented. Its like a house with unlocked doors. Anyone can come inside.

    Like


    • Free trade is an odd ideology. And it is an ideology more than a fiscal policy.

      It should be clear to anyone that a trade agreement can be one sided, and benefit country more than another. We all know that even free trade agreements can be (and are) this way.

      Any nation with self interest will want to pursue self interest, and thus craft self interested trade agreements.

      Whether these are free trade agreements or others will be on a case by case, industry by industry basis, and need updating regularly.

      Ideology alone won’t serve that interest.

      Like


      • Unless of course the trade agreements are not in the interest of nations states, but are in the interest of trans-national corporations.

        If such corporations have political power and can influence trade agreements, then you’d expect them to wield it and ignore any interest of any nation.

        Voters who have no control over this should know that their democracy is in name only.

        Like


      • yes. that is correct. only trans-national companies will benefit. that is why free trade is detrimental to a nation.

        as for open borders, only immigrants will benefit from them. and as what we can see happening in several european countries, immigrants, particularly the muslims, are not getting converted to european culture. they are converting the nation instead to islamic culture.

        Like


      • I know of a guy who has a restaurant. The relative porosity of America’s southern border has enabled him to lower his labor cost. And (it’s a Mexican restaurant) increased his customer base.

        This guy is a native, not an immigrant. He has one restaurant, hence is hardly a trans-national company.

        Yet he, a non immigrant, non trans national, has obviously befitted from our relatively “open” border.

        An integral part of European culture, as of today and practiced in most European countries, is birth rates way below replacement levels. How on earth can importing and assimilating cultural traits less absolutely suicidal than that, possibly be construed as a negative? Don’t you feel the old continent deserve to host at least some women competent at performing the primary function all their complicated plumbing were designed for in the first place?

        Like


      • Oh look at the demographic collapse in europe….lets make it worse and increase it’s speed with lots of ugly immigrants!! At this point immigration is no solution, only south and east asians are fit to “replace” whites in the conomical sense.

        However rare or shy to reproduce white europeans may be, mexicans or blacks are not capable of replacing them in any meaninful way.

        Please explain for instance, how these lower costs are helping immigrant workers afford healthcare or an education? Please explain also how it helps local working class “natives” can also afford these things, given that they either take a pay cut or find themselves unemployed.

        You see….Some people might measure the success of an economy or economic policy by the price of a crappy meal or how much the restuarant owner can make, but others have more sensible measures of standard of living. Aside from the owner of the restuarant who benefits? maybe the immigrants, it depends how bad they had it before. MAYBE the customer, maybe. Simply put however, a ready cooked meal is a luxury for its function. The labour itself will ensure that the meal comes out priced above the costs of it’s ingredients or self produced. in your example, they haven’t even lowered the price of sustencance, simply the cost of that meal.

        If Mcdonald’s took 50 cents off the price of their meals would the economy boom? well either the employees or the shareholders would probably suffer….

        but ultimately No, people would just be able to get fat for slightly cheaper. Smart and healthy people would still be able to produce or find their own healthier meal and for less money. Mcdonald’s is parasitic on industrialized and civilized society, not the driver of it. When Mcdonald’s starts selling meals with good nutritional value, better taste and a price no higher than the 1.5 dollar mark(still way above their current cost per meal) then we can call them innovators or economic drivers.

        A restuarant and it’s costs above and beyond nutrition and sustenance is actually just part of bread and circus. Technological Innovation and increased efficiency is what improves standard of living. Advance or collapse. If the immigrants can’t support the expansion and efficiency of services and infrastructure everyone requires like education, healthcare, transport+communications technology, their very presence is a strain on the system.

        Like


      • Also as wages go down, and immigration reaches a critical mass it’s very likely the restuarant owner will have to think seriously about lowering prices considerably because everyone is earning less and saving more for things that mexicans can’t bring down in price……

        Like


      • Remember that only sentient beings have “self-interest.” Individual people do. Manhole covers, professions and nations don’t. Whenever the term national self-interest is employed, it is a sleight of hand by definition, since it is impossible to precisely define. It’s simply the term’s employer attempting to uprate the importance of his own particular self-interest by a rhetorical device.

        Before you try dismissing this as mere quarrelsomeness from some academic too out of touch with the “real world”, make a serious attempt to develop a procedure for discerning a “nation’s self-interest” given individual citizens as input. You’ll quickly, assuming you’re a reasonably quick study, realize any multi person aggregate like “nation”, is composed of individual self-interested entities whose interests are often at odds with each other; and that there exists not one way of mapping all these individual self-interests onto one specific national self-interest, that is inevitably, or even just agreeably, superior to any other. Hence, any such project is doomed to failure from the get go.

        As far as trade goes, as long as it is freely entered into by both trading parties, you can be pretty sure it serves each of their individual self-interests. Leaving them both better off. Including the one included in the “our nation” aggregate. “Free trade” as a policy proposal, is, or at least portends to be, about awarding every single person that comprises our nation, the ability to enter into these kinds of self-interest improving arrangements; if and only if it serves his own self-interest. It in no way forces him to enter into trades that don’t. Hence, for each individual, a policy of free trade is, for everyone in the free trading nation, at worst irrelevant (assuming he doesn’t trade across a border in either case), and otherwise a positive. Any kind of supposed “national self-interest” calculation, where that which either benefits or is a neutral to every single one of the nation’s members, yet is somehow deemed a negative for the nation as a whole….., is pretty suspect, to say the least.

        Like


      • Hypothetical situation: if a private entrepreneur wanted to sell biological and nuclear weapons to North Korea, what libertarian reason could be offered to prevent it? Obviously, the weapons are the entrepreneur’s property, the sale would benefit the US economy, and, of course, the transaction would be voluntary on the part of all parties. Given that libertarianism doesn’t recognize the right of sovereign nations to protect themselves by restricting individual rights, it offers no recourse in such a situation.

        The benefits accrue only to the individual entrepreneur, and the risks accrue to everyone else in the nation. Is that not sufficient reason to interfere with the free market?

        Like


      • Stuki, that level of dissimulation just seems weird coming from a man.

        Nations have economic interests that are quantified in GDP and trade balances.

        Like


      • Ever looked into how GDP is calculated, as in what it really measures? Done the same for “trade balances”? Didn’t think so. It’s probably a rather beta behavior in the first place.

        Just as an example, particularly relevant to this site; you can always increase GDP by moving labor out of uncounted activities, like at home child rearing, and into counted ones, like paper pushing for some government agency. Keep at it long and hard enough, and you’ll have higher GDP, but no kids. Kind of our current Western dystopias. But hey, I guess GDP is up, hence ethno cultural suicide is in our “national interest”….

        In my, admittedly rarefied, world; men debate by first defining terms, and then deducing conclusions from them. As in, don’t introduce a word unless you can define it, grounds up, from incontroveribles. While women, on the other hand, most often seem almost physiologically incapable of not throwing around feelgood popsci terminology that “everyone should just know” is right.

        I can only deduce our host’s maxim that alpha males think like women, extends to more areas than seduction.

        Like


      • Your right – it is impossible to have any meaningful discussion about economic health of a nation, and trade can’t possibly be legislated to positively or negatively affect it on the whole.

        That agrees with your dissimulations, and yet I’m sure you’ll come back disagreeing, and yet dissimulating some more, to obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.

        Like


  85. Of all the thousands of strangers I’ve seen there, only one — yes, ONE — woman was even remotely fuckable. She was a thirtyish-looking Russian

    That’s precisely the point. There is no reason at all for a country to import ugly women and men unable to produce beautiful daughters

    The standard PC-liberal-SWPL may cry in anger and refute the harsh truths of HBD through emotional arguments (“you are bad/racist”, “that’s an awful thing to say”, “there are no meaningful racial differences” bla bla bla)

    But none can deny the truth of differences in female beauty. Once I wrote here answering some Indian-American guy that individual Brazilian cities like Porto Alegre and Goiânia (1,5mm people each) had more beautiful girls than the whole of the Indian Subcontinent.

    Unmixed cities of the same size in Eastern Europes will have even more hot chicks.

    Hard, but true.

    Like


  86. Happy Independence Day!

    Reading the Declaration of Independence 235 years after it was written, it’s kidney-punchingly obvious that the United States government has become precisely the sort of bloodsucking tyrant against which the Founding Fathers revolted.

    These days our primary financial and political mechanisms, as well as every jot and tittle of rhetoric that dribbles from our politicians’ mouths, all lurch toward centralized global codependency, whereas the Declaration of Independence encourages “separation,” “liberty,” and “dissolving political bands.”

    The Declaration bemoans the fact that the King of England had blocked many of the colonies’ laws, whereas today the feds’ judicial henchmen routinely overrule the American electorate’s will in matters such as immigration, gay marriage, and anything else that obstructs its agenda’s steamrollering path.

    The Declaration protests the fact that the King had created a “multitude of New Offices…to harass our people, and eat out our substance.” Today, America employs more people in government than in manufacturing. It lost a full third of its manufacturing jobs in the last decade alone while adding nearly two million government jobs.

    Like


  87. @toby

    “yes. that is correct. only trans-national companies will benefit. that is why free trade is detrimental to a nation. ”

    This can certainly be the case. As can the reverse, a strong local
    pressure group (corporate or union) using their influence to BLOCK
    trade.

    But free trade is not the same as free migration.

    Imported goods doesn’t riot in the street, and doesn’t suddenly
    sign up for welfare. And imported goods does not vote (except
    some times by proxy, as per above).

    Thor

    Like


    • Equating Free Trade to just importing goods is such a terrible oversimplification. Free Trade means the abolition of tariff imposed on imported goods so that local goods has the competitive advantage.

      Free trade removes the privileges of the citizen entrepreneur in favor of the foreign entrepreneur.

      Like


  88. Blaming Libertarians for our current immigration problems is a red herring. If we truly had such a policy due to Libertarian influence, we would have free transfer of labor between the US and Canada as well, at a minimum. Such a policy would also extend to the EU conceivably. We have no such thing. Instead, we have no relevant modern policy at all, and dither as our nation is flooded with the social detritus of the Southern neighbor states who are unable to expand their economies commensurate to their population growth. We have become their safety valve and removed their incentives to reform their governments, thereby becoming the unwitting accomplices of their elites. We allow this for two reasons, the general perception, at least in much of the country, that their unskilled labor is better than ours, and the desire of the Democrats to create the utopia described above of a brown underclass, an exploited white middle class, and a small elite ruling (the ruling political class AKA Democrats) over it all as heredetary nobility in all but name. We are in the unfortunate position of creating a growing class of unskilled homegrown labor through our attrocious K-12 education system and simultaneously importing a huge underclass and then brainwashing a critical mass of our own people into thinking its racist to even point this folly out. This is the result of interest groups voting themselves favors from the public trough for decades. It has absolutely nothing to do with free markets or Libertarian ideas.

    Like


  89. @Tyrone

    “[Heinlein’s idea of limiting franchise to veterans]”

    That’s one way. What provably leads to disaster, sooner or later,
    is UNLIMITED franchise – in the end enough people try to vote themselves
    rich.

    Franchise needs to be limited, to prevent this. Locking out net tax
    eaters is another way, which I advocate. But limiting to veterans
    would likely work too.

    Thor

    Like


  90. @stuki
    “Hence, for each individual, a policy of free trade is, for everyone in the free trading nation, at worst irrelevant (

    Unfortunately, no. If you are a manufacturer of naugachucks, you
    may want to limit import of naugachucks to be able to get
    a better price for your own product. Thus started the US Civil War.

    Thor

    Like


  91. […] Roissy complains that Libertarians are in favor of open borders and that open borders are having dis…. […]

    Like


  92. About selling to North Korea:

    It is NOT a voluntary transaction on the North Korean end.
    North Korea does not have a legitimate title to ANYTHING,
    including the money they use to pay private parties in
    other countries.

    There are other reasons to forget about LIbertarian principles
    in extreme situations, but you can start with the one above.

    Thor

    Like


  93. “As Milton Friedman said, open borders and the welfare state cannot coexist.”

    That’s the point. Many libertarians hate the welfare state and see open borders as a way to decrease national solidarity and support for the welfare state. IMO, this is a strong argument for immigration.

    The best anti-immigration argument is related to genetics. A lot of desirable and undesirable behaviors are genetically linked and unselective immigration may reduce the dilute the quality of our population and invite more social problems.

    Also, first-generation immigrants, even unskilled low IQ immigrants, are generally desirable in that they work hard, are law abiding, and are grateful for the chance to join US society which is perceived as a step up. However, low IQ unskilled descendents of immigrants who are born in the US, often aren’t grateful at all, don’t have the hard work ethic of the first-generation, and take on the dysfunctional behaviors and culture of America’s underclass.

    Like


  94. This will warm your heart.

    As “God Bless America” played and the fireworks burst over Baltimore, a man was stabbed to death and a child was shot:

    http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/07/05/child-shot-man-dead-after-fireworks-celebration/

    Last one out, turn the lights off please.

    Like


  95. @Thor

    “If you are a manufacturer of naugachucks, you may want to limit import of naugachucks to be able to get a better price for your own product.”

    Which is analogous to saying “if you are a person interested in making money, you may want to limit the ability of others to defend themselves when you take their money away from them.” In other words, in practice, a simple tautology.

    Obviously, anyone will benefit, at least economically and in the immediate term, from being able to force others to fork over more money. But doing so will equally obviously impose a corresponding cost on those forced to make the additional payment. Rendering the whole project a wash at best. And that sets aside side effects, such as people’s greater incentive to focus on theft versus production.

    The beauty of a free trade policy, is that it does not involve forcing anyone to do anything. All those not party to a transaction are entirely unaffected by it, in fact need not even be aware of it, while those who do partake, both benefit. Definitionally, as they otherwise would not partake in the first place. Ergo, as clear a win-win as you’ll find anywhere.

    The only way to arrive at a different conclusion, is to postulate some mechanism for assigning different values to wealth, depending on who owns it. As in, claiming 100 extra dollars earned by a native born gardener, is worth more than 100 dollars saved by a native born homeowner. But, doing so immediately destroys any possible claim to universal applicability. And simply accepts that all there is, is a simple all against all struggle for survival, where absolutely anything goes, since anyone will obviously feel and claim that it is they in particular who needs the available wealth the most.

    Which is fine too, and in the truly long run probably the only accurate way of describing the world. But it does render any possible higher order notions such as “national interest” entirely nonsensical.

    Like


  96. The Declaration protests the fact that the King had created a “multitude of New Offices…to harass our people, and eat out our substance.” Today, America employs more people in government than in manufacturing. It lost a full third of its manufacturing jobs in the last decade alone while adding nearly two million government jobs.

    Indeed.

    We might also note the destruction of the Bill of Rights by the wars on drugs and terrorism. Yet Americans seem to not notice. Or do they? How much of the current apathy is owing to the replacement of American citizens with non-citizens who have no stake in the country’s history? This is not simply due to illegal immigration, but also to multicultist agitprop along PC lines. You denigrate “dead white males” and with them goes the entire Constitution.

    And how much of the collapse of the frontiers in the face of mass illegal immigration is due to the kind of yeoman-citizen-soldier who once defended them being rendered obsolete by big government policies? And to toss in the Roissy angle, have feminized laws, such as the family court tyranny, made it pointless for “beta” men to defend hearth and home? Add to this the fall off in the birth rates of the citizen demographic, and population pressures cause mass movements of third worlders into the first world (Heinlein had a few choice words on this topic in “Starship Troopers” which never made it into the movie).

    All this indicates a much bigger struggle is going on…

    Like


  97. The ultimate culprit is unfettered capitalism. Capitalism unrestrained by physical limitations, religion or nationalism creates a mass race to the bottom in every way. And yes, big government is a feature of big capitalism: capital and power concentrate, with political and corporate leaders often being the same people.

    Like


  98. Starship Troopers will end up being the remedy for this hampoop of a situation. We need to make it easy for folks from civilized countries to immigrate and hard for peasants from the 3d world to immigrate. To make things fair to the tax payer, we make federal transfers into block grants to the states. Then the problem becomes local and the local citizens will solve it to their liking. No welfare, no illegals methinks. Only the most obtuse of lefties like in California will tolerate it then.

    That’s why the commies fight this so fiercely.

    Like


  99. Democracy is based on the believe that people are fundamentally equal and therefore should have equal rights. Limiting voting or immigration goes against the fundamental assumption required for democracy. By even having a fairly limited form of democracy one acknowledges the fundamental assumptions since not all the voters are equal in virtue/wealth/whatever but their votes are equal. So aslong as people believe in the fundamental assumptions a democratic government will tend to drift to its ultimate archetype which is based on utilitarianism so in practice it will involve free immigration/universal suffrage/(animal)welfarism/. The modern trend of greenism is simply the start. Most green parties don’t argue against the chopping of the Amazon forest based on the fact that there are many undocumented plants and animals that could provide cures for various diseases but based on sentiment. Because within developed human democratic societies there basically is a state of survival of the sympathetic it was only a matter of time before it would be projected on things outside of human society.

    Hell over here in Holland we already have a party for the animals in the parlement with several seats because “animals need a voice too!”. It may not come as a great surprise that the majority of the voters are young females that live in urban areas and probably have never seen a cow in their lives. Immigration has become uncontrollable since if Belgium or any other EU country for that matter has loose immigration laws immigrants can simply get citizenship there and move to whatever EU country they please later on. And once immigrants can vote there is no stopping immigration. The 50+ party seems to be getting momentum aswell so its only a matter of time before the old will canabilize the young.

    Its best to strike the root and to denounce utilitarianism and egalitarianism and so denounce democracy. Many libertarians try dealing with the problem of democracy by continously moving further towards anarchism. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that private defense agencies will either A make a bid for power and become a state or B lose against an organisation that is willing to exploit it’s customors/citizens.

    Like


  100. Israel wants to deport its African immigrants to Australia.

    http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

    Like


  101. I’m guessing you get most of your libertarian exposure from Reason Magazine.
    Lewrockwell.com does a much better job on libertarian philosophy for sure.

    Like


  102. on July 7, 2011 at 12:29 am Sturm und Drang

    1. You’re MISREPRESENTING Friedman here–by taking him out of context with a cherry-picked quote.

    Fact: Friedman FAVORED “illegal” immigration ,

    His argument was that today’s “illegal” immigration (i.e., moving without a government permission slip) most closely resembles America’s pre-1914 immigration policy when anyone could just basically show up. The ACTUAL POINT Friedman was trying to make with the cherry-picked reference you cited was that LEGAL immigration is precisely what you DON’T want under a welfare state.

    And , no , “illegals” are not a drain on the welfare state, whereas quite the opposite is true: so -called illegals are net tax contributors as Illegals are paying out more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The bottom line is illegals are subsidizing the welfare of lazy natives.

    2. Illegals do work that lazy, spoiled natives simply are refusing to do resulting in the sending of jobs to other countries. For example, in the absence of “illegals”, tomato growers in New Jersey aren’t able to find workers to harvest their crops, so they’re simply shutting down shop. Consumers aren’t consuming any less tomatoes, and increased imports are making up the difference. The RESULT being a NET LOSS of jobs for natives, when employment ancillary to the now- dismantled industry (e.g., trucking industry, sales and manufacturing of agricultural supplies, etc) are no longer needed.

    3. This is a pretty silly objection. Americans did this all on their own by continually voting Demo-publicans into office and their socialistic welfare/warfare policies. As pointed out, immigrants have a better work ethic than natives– they are doing work natives refuse to do and are subsiding their welfare. And you want to blame immigrants and libertarians for the sins of lazy, socialistic native-born citizens? How convoluted.

    Like


  103. @stuki and @Burke101

    I agree. That was my point. See above.

    @PA

    “The ultimate culprit is unfettered capitalism. Capitalism unrestrained by physical limitations, religion or nationalism creates a mass race to the bottom in every way. And yes, big government is a feature of big capitalism: capital and power concentrate, with political and corporate leaders often being the same people.”

    Race to WHAT bottom? This is nonsense.

    But I agree that a marriage
    of big capitalism and big government is bad (few would disagree).
    This is corporatism, aka fascism, aka crony capitalism.

    Thor

    Like


  104. This is why the talk about open borders means little compared to the struggle with feminists and their gamma blogger orbiters within:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/05/richard-dawkins-and-male-privilege/

    This blogger should be up for the Mangina of the Year Award.

    Like


  105. @xsplat

    It’s not that you cannot have a meaningful discussion about a nation’s economic health, but the currently popular fixation on poorly understood half measures like GDP and “trade balances” do much more to obfuscate than to enlighten.

    Back when much less activity was decided for or against by government, and accounts were kept in a stable currency, GDP much more accurately reflected what most people intuitively think of as economic well being. Ditto for trade balance calculations back when goods traded were easier to count and value.

    Now, your measurement result says more about how you choose to measure, than the actual underlyings you purport to take measure of. Which is made doubly worse by the presence of people whose job performance metrics is tied to these metrics at all the highest levels of an ever growing government.

    Recipe for gaming, in other words; and not of the chicks variety.

    Like


    • Choose any metric you want. Don’t just hand wave away any metric mentioned.

      The discussion is about free trade not being the only way to improve a nations economic well being. The language I described that in was accurate enough, but you chose to nit-pick, without putting forth any alternate viewpoint.

      Like


      • IN that case, we’re definitely talking past each other. What I responded to what the assertion that a nation’s economic interests can be quantified by GDP and trade balances. I have no problem agreeing that there are other ways to improve a nation’s economic well being than implementing free trade. Free trade is simply one way to do so.

        Like


  106. About Dawkins:

    He is right of course. And the opposition is talking about “potential” assault.

    “Potential” is a meaningless bugaboo.

    I stand next to somebody at a bus stop. “Potentially” he could have a small
    axe under his clothes. “Potentially” he could hack into my head.
    But it did not happen. He did not even show the axe. So NOTHING
    happened. End of story.

    Thor

    Like


  107. I posted this for Maggie (The Honest Courtesan) on her website.

    @Maggie,

    This is long, but I respect your commentary and insight, so I thought I’d show you some respect by giving your libertarian position on immigration some serious consideration.

    It stands to reason that an open-border policy would be self-regulating as long as people are required to support themselves.

    This is a standard libertarian viewpoint. I see the logic. However, like all libertarian social logic, it’s far too rational and straightforward to apply directly to something as complex as human states/ethnic relations. Humans aren’t rational most of the time – and this is why economists have such trouble. it’s not that economics can’t be a “science” – it’s that humans as a group aren’t mutually interchangeable logic units. In fact, it’s the human factor that muddles analysis. We’re profoundly illogical even when we’re following logical patterns. We’re intellectually hard to fathom.

    If there’s no welfare state – including free education, that’s also key, you need to eliminate all free services of any kind – then there’s no welfare state for anyone. It means we can’t help “our own” in a tight situation. I may not be opposed to this, but humans are all for helping out “their own” – we’re naturally as socialist as we are individualist/capitalist. We help out our family and view outsiders as obstacles and objects. This is our natural state. And beyond language and cultural barriers, it’s almost impossible for humans to see others as “us”. Language and culture seem to be the litmus test for ultimate “inclusiveness”. Even race can be papered over; but language and culture are the hard lines.

    “Diversity” isn’t always a strength. In fact, societies that manage diversity are usually successful in spite of their “diversity” – not because of it.

    This libertarian view, while reductionist and logical from an economic standpoint, disregards the effect of ethnicity, language and race. Imagine if hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of Iranians, Pakistanis and Philippinos converged on Japan. What effect would it have on Japanese society? How about 100 million Africans in China?

    You can argue that Japanese racism would cause problems, or that minority-immigrant inflexibility would be a problem – either side – but it’s irrelevant to the very real social issue.

    A formerly homogenous society would become fractured and ethnically/racially/culturally divided. American society actively excluded non-“type” humans; it functioned very well, unless you were non-standard, in which case it was awful. In many ways, the benefits accrued to this society because it was somewhat monolithic, and benefits were handed out within that monolith. To truly participate, even my ancestors had to suck it up (Irish catholic); only when they surrendered their differences were they allowed in. They did so, … resentfully. That resentment lingers even now. Some could never quite fit – blacks who looked or acted different, and those who refused to surrender their languages. And those who ideologically couldn’t be let in, like Indians, whose land we’d stolen in the first place, and who represented an ongoing embarrassment to us.

    Eventually, we generously let the outsiders in – those who had been among us all along and frankly deserved it long ago – but we went too far, and threw out the baby with the bathwater. Now, it’s forbidden to have any border at all.

    Masses of immigrants are coming who share none of the cultural, linguistic or social backgrounds of those who are already here; the numbers are what matter. It’s essentially population replacement. It’s what happened to the Celts in England. That should be a manifest lesson for us. We – as members of a post-colonial Anglo-American state – will lose control of our state/territory and eventually our culture, swarmed by immigrants, unless we control border admissions. This process is well under way in many countries and is more common than invasion and warfare in the elimination or transformation of societies.

    Contrary to popular belief, migration is the main way cultures are supplanted, forcibly changed or relegated to the dustbin of history. Most “invasions” are non-military. Or they happen after a minor military conquest. There are examples of savage and nearly complete military conquests that had virtually no historical demographic impact (Hyskos ruling Egypt for 200 years; on other areas of the Med the “peoples of the Sea” had profound demographic impacts, as in the creation of “Palestine” – The Phillistines were migrants looking for a home. The Mongols’ culture was like water – it absorbed everyone else’s culture and then the Mongol hordes just washed away).

    “Alternate America” (Canada) wasn’t conquered by force of arms after the war against the French Canadians: immigrants just flooded in after treaties were signed. Canadians I know are proud of their non-violent past this way, but look at it: they didn’t slaughter Indians, at all, they just swamped them with millions of people. The Indians were rendered irrelevant, pushed aside through a thousand indignities and overwhelming numbers. Which is better.

    This is the fate of societies that let strangers come in without controls.

    Analogy:

    Say you own a huge estate, a nice profitable one. You divide it up between your sons and daughters, etc. Then migrants come and start picking off pieces of it. They submit to your authority – for now – as patriarch of your family’s interests. But eventually, they’ll form a sizeable population, and then, … your concern for your family will conflict with their concern for themselves.

    It’s about our ability to look after “our own”. The elders in the plantation want to spread the benefits around to their own – and the newcomers are naturally going to resist that.

    This is the definition of group identity: Those who look after each other more than they look after outsiders. It’s the whole reason for collective structures like states. If you oppose the existence of states or this natural human impulse, then it behooves honesty to say this directly. Bear in mind that if others don’t drop this human instinct at the same time, you’ve just surrendered to self-extermination. A lot of left-wing Americans do in fact think that their culture deserves extermination. That’s sad and unfortunate. But it’s not some greater truth.

    With no borders, there’s no state, with no state, there’s no collective action possible – and cultures in action are defined by their ability to take actions for mutual benefit.

    Lies

    What’s more, it’s become a standard liberal shibboleth that any discussion of immigration is verboten.

    This guy dissects this well:

    http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson070311.html

    As a country that has borders and a distinct population, it’s entirely within our purview to allow those we want in to come or to keep out those we don’t want. Outsiders don’t get to vote on this issue. Any nation or cultural group that gives up this control effectively engineers its own demise – or at least the surrender of its control over its own polity and land.

    It’s essentially like inviting the Germans to move into Italy. What you get is “Italy” in name, but not in its traditional or meaningful sense. It becomes nothign but an extension of “Germany”. We decry forced “ethnic cleansing” when armies of Serbs do it or Muslims do it in Sudan. But mass immigration is nothing less than ethnic cleansing by another name – peaceful.

    In a German-populated Italy, the name “Italy” might hang around for a while.After all, the region of Austria called Bohemia is named after the Boii; Reims after the Remi; Schwabia after the Suebi of ancient name; … and some are more definitely gone (Dacia is now Romania, rather dramatically re-named and repopulated).

    Matters of language and identity are not negligible or irrelevant. They’re not footballs to be tossed around and casually dismissed.

    Wars are fought over names and identities and languages. It’s interesting that some wars are seen as “acceptable and some “unacceptable” by various political factions. If language and cultural borders are irrelevant, then why do groups that decry Amerca’s borders also support the nationalistic aspirations of, say, Vietnamese and their right to keep out the “ethnic Chinese”? Why support Islamic supremacy in Indonesia, with cries of freedom from foreign influence, when ethnic Javanese use the convenience of post-colonial Indonesia to crush and exterminate whole cultures in Irian Jaya? Why not support the right to self-determination for all groups? Is it just for particular groups that have ideological favor at the moment?

    Being Anti-American is popular among the American Left. But logically, traditional America has exactly as much right to national self-determination as the Kosovar Albanians or the Kurds or anyone else in the world. If Albanian Kosovars can prevent millions of Serbs from moving to Kosovo, then we have the same right to prevent millions of outsiders from moving here.

    Either sovereignty exists – or it doesn’t. Americans are exactly as deserving of this right as anyone else.

    Cultures exist in conflict with each other, by the mere fact of their existence: I am not You. Languages are the ultimate barriers. The Left obsesses over cultural identity and hierarchies of rights. But the majority certainly has rights, as well: the right to self-determination in their own self-interest.

    A country like Canada can stumble along, but nobody outside Canada is convinced the English and French can live together – and the Canadians I know are equally unconvinced. It’s a convenient fiction that they can, and this fiction keeps them going. As long as they believe it, they can paper over the significant differences even I can see – but not forever.

    Note that England is called “England” – “Angle-Land”; it was a bad day when the Roman-Celts invited itinerant families from a spit of land to the coasts of Britain to help defend it. The legend of Arthur came from real leaders who attempted to defend the Celtic lands from the later depredations and expansions of the Angles and Germanic peoples they’d originally invited in. Otherwise, we’d just be using the old term, “Pryttani” – “Britain”. And we’d be speaking something much more similar to Welsh and Pictish (or possibly old Irish – they would likely have still invaded northern Britain; maybe Danish?).

    We all know who won that cultural conflict. I’m not speaking Welsh.

    That there are Celts left at all who aren’t absolutely assimilated is a testament to the tenacity of those cultures and those identities, even in the face of near-total extermination.

    Ask the Mexican Indians what they think of Hispanic “arrivals”. They had no trouble building some of the most impressive civilizations on Earth until the Spaniards arrived. The invasions were one thing. You might have expected a future decolonization a la Africa. But there was a difference. There was a massive depopulation of Indian Mexico through disease, mostly, but also abuse and interbreeding – to the point where the Maya and their neighbors, once some of the most accomplished and successful people on Earth, are beggars in the ruins of their own cities, managed by Mestizo and largely White/Spanish-Speakers who have turned the relics of Mayan culture and modern Mayan society into museum pieces for study. Not that I dislike museum pieces – but instead of an active, aggressive, expanding and healthy culture, recycling its own history and interpreting it for itself and adapting to reality on its own terms, Mexican Indians are tenants in their own lands. They don’t even own their own cultural relics. Their past has become the property of the descendants of their “immigrants.” Imagine a future where Hispanic immigrants look on statues of dead Anglo heroes and wonder – who the hell were these people? That’s not far from possibility. It’s happened in countless societies in the past. Mexico is a prime example of this process itself. So is America. Any visitor to Cahokia can see this for themselves.

    So while libertarian ideology is logical, ethnic affiliation and cultural identity is not. It’s not a minor part of human life. Add in racial identity, too. Ask blacks to give up their own racial identity for a universal American one. More blacks are resistant to this than whites. They hold on to that massive chip on their shoulder like a life-raft in a sea of cultural uniformity. Even if the culture is dysfunctional, many black Americans are loathe to give it up – for fear of abandoning “the tribe”, their identity. They can’t be attacked for this, because no-one can. It’s a very natural and completely understandable human instinct.

    It’s not rational. Humans are, by and large, not rational actors when it comes to this. It’s never been true. And despising this instinct, as a libertarian, and wanting to change it makes you a wishful thinker – it’s commendable, but the larger question is–

    Is it reasonable?

    In a very real sense, good fences make good neighbors. Only when neighbors are comfortable with each other can they mix freely without anxiety. All cultures and groups have this anxiety. We can interbreed and intermix when there’s comfort with good fences. Being swamped with outsiders is not the same thing: You guarantee cultural conflict and “racism”. Ethnic chauvinism is virtually guaranteed. And you see it on both sides: Anglo Americans suspicious and bitter at Hispanics; Hispanics contemptuous and dismissive of anglo culture, actively assaulting its symbols and repudiating it in public – as if they were still in Mexico and they weren’t the foreigners.

    Both responses make perfect sense. You can’t fault either. Mexicans here in large enough numbers will remain Mexicans. Why should they transfer their cultural and personal loyalties? The only result is social chaos.

    Mexico is brutal to other Hispanic migrants who arrive at its borders – its policies are much more savage to “immigrants” than ours. It’s rank hypocrisy for Mexico to promote an open border for Mexicans with the United States but to slam shut their own borders with other Hispanic countries. Nobody ever addresses this.

    The Issue

    What it says is that the drive to open the border is purely an issue of white / anglo self-hatred (well evidenced by the left here) and Mexican self-interest.

    Libertarians are (unconsciously?) abetting this through a very logical and rational argument that unfortunately has little to do with human reality.

    Enlightened self-interest is the norm in all human societies. For us to abandon it while even Mexico doesn’t is for us to culturally surrender our identity – out of guilt, shame, economic logic or whatever – without requiring that others do the same.

    In short, it’s cultural self-annihilation in favor of foreign views.

    This is fine. Perhaps our culture should self-immolate and destroy itself.

    But it needs to be seen for what it is. The proponents of this bizarre self-destructive ideology need to admit that this is what they desire, or that even if this happens it’s irrelevant. They need to advertise their real opinions. They need to allow others to see them and evaluate them based on reality, not on propaganda or deliberate obfuscation.

    Remember one thing, one rule that absolutely dominates all aspects of human society everywhere and everywhere:

    Demographics are everything. And even when they don’t seem to be, they’re still everything.

    No economy in history has grown when its population was contracting. No culture has thrived when outsiders had more babies and took control of the means of production or land or institutions. Demographics are absolutely everything.

    By not having babies, Greeks guaranteed conquest eventually by someone – the Romans, say. It’s really that simple. 300 guys can hold off millions of barbarians at a mountain pass for a while, but unless you’re mobilizing 50,000 supporters to come out next year and fight, those 300 lives will be lost in time.

    These are not minor points: they’re the stuff of history. This “immigration” issue is literally a wave of history happening as we watch. It’s the same as the English expansion in America, when a series of countries were stripped from their inhabitants through deceit, trickery, disease and conquest.

    The issue now isn’t “justice”. Almost all fortunes and all states were founded through the commission of grotesque social crimes. We’re in a position analogous to the Celts of Britain. if we invite the Angles in, sure, we might get some help in the short-term, in our case with cheap labor and some support for our collapsing social state.

    But history only teaches this one lesson: Long-term, the prognosis isn’t good. At some point, the US will become more and more like Mexico, possibly resembling a slightly more nostalgic Brazil; a tiny white minority will wield all wealth, all higher positions of education and power based on raw merit, and the people they rule will be largely Mestizo. Blacks will be further marginalized by an even more profoundly racist Hispanic population; and the direct competition for the jobs they want will cause intense cultural and social competition with the newcomers, who operate now and likely for some time at the same social level. We’re creating new frontiers for social injustice, class warfare and guaranteed fratricidal chaos.

    We’re doing a grotesque disservice to our own (black and white) lower classes by allowing foreigners in. There is a left/socialist wing in a similar nation that recognizes this, but it’s not in America.

    It’s a recipe for cultural decay and social disaster. There’s no place this has worked out well for the original inhabitants. Ask the Cherokee or the Tinasi or the Alabami or the Natchez or the Pueblo or the Six Nations or even the Cajuns. Thanks, Napoleon, for selling out your people, by the way. You French elites seem to be incredibly good at that.

    It’s also unlikely that we’ll be able to dismantle free education, which means that, like in California, school boards have little to look forward to but poorer students, overall bankruptcy and overcrowding, with English relegated to some sort of “canon language” spoken by a rarefied elite, while the masses remain properly uneducated in either English or Spanish. If we educate them in Spanish, as the left would have, then we’re signing the death-warrant for Anglo America. Once we have a self-educated Hispanic minor majority, our country ceases to be America in any meaningful sense. it becomes a northern extension of Mexico.

    We can have the most powerful army in the world, but ultimately, the only thing that matters are demographics.

    In California, the principal problem appears to be with the student body and the outrageous expense of teaching students who, quite simply, shouldn’t be there. It’s been shown by many studies that the problem isn’t in the schools. It’s one of the “non discussables” in education. Virtually no teachers or public-system accountants will deny that this is one of California’s major problems. They’re the least privately politically correct people in the country. They have to deal with reality. The old california is simply gone:

    And the Hispanic population has started to do what all democracy bashers throughout history have said the rabble would do: They discovered that they can vote themselves goodies. As soon as this happens, and the rabble appears to be “foreign” and the people who the goodies are taken from are “native”, you can bet there’s going to be vicious resentment on the part of the tax-payers.

    We all love democracy, but as soon as you can vote yourself goodies that you didn’t build yourself, the game is up. It’s the end of functioning democracy. That’s a trick that “oppressed” minorities learn, whether outsiders or insiders. They then go on to hobble themselves with a sense of general entitlement, sapping their own people of the desperate need and hence the desire to achieve on their own steam. They become a class of half-indigents, or in some cases near-total indigents. Every group has its underclass, but usually that underclass are members of the general culture. When they’re not – the natural response of the native culture will be rejection of the newcomers. This is the only sane reaction they can have.

    White Americans are reacting like any besieged population should. It’s both unsurprising and isn’t going to stop – it’s only going to get worse. And there’s nothing wrong with this. It’s exactly what all societies should do in these circumstances. The bitterness in England as they see Muslim immigrants advocating for Islamic laws and publicly assaulting the very idea of British culture, while also very publicly screaming for the destruction of the West – has to make people bitter. This is even more true when they realize that the majority of these immigrants are, at one point or another, living off the generosity of the British state. Instead of being grateful, the immigrants are angry and bitter at being the recipients of welfare and anyway, despise and hate the host culture.

    Who would be enthusiastic about immigration in these circumstances? In the US, when you take a look at southern California what native-born American would be enthusiastic?

    Our cities begin to resemble Cancun (Mexican side) and San Cristobal.

    The Alternative: Immigration and Self-Interest

    None of this is to belittle Mexicans or their entrepreneurial spirit: only to shift the focus to our own self-interest.

    As a counter to this model, may I again point to “alternate America”?

    Canada has a “points” system for immigration and absurdly tight requirements, by American standards, and yet many Canadians call for them to be tightened further still. We could never implement this here. Their system amounts to:”

    – Eugenic selection. Only those with success/education/connections are allowed in. Their minority populations are cut from the a better foreign cloth than ours. Don’t have what it takes to get by, and do well? Get out. Canadians won’t admit it to me in these terms, but they have what amounts in practice to a highly Eugenic philosophy – in fact, it’s absolutely Eugenic in nature. No Social Hygienist in the 1920’s could oppose such a system. Many Nazis would be proud of it. Though it’s based solely on national self-interest, it’s surprising their left-wing hasn’t dismantled the system. Hitler couldn’t have invented something more clever and easy to sell while achieving a population-improvement goal. You’ve got to believe that there’s a genetic component to this, as well.

    – Enlightened self-interest. The point of immigration is propping up their vastly overinflated welfare state and they need top quality to do it. I checked into what you need to live there. They favor young, smart, educated immigrants with money and if you have kids, all the better. That’s smart. The kids go to public schools and get educated with the rest. The adults are given help to integrate, but generally left on their own. Enclaves form, then dissipate. I was in Toronto, among Jews in their media elite. The standard complaint: Jews in Canada have the highest rate of intermarriage anywhere on Earth. I effect, there’s a population holocaust gong on with the Jews. They’re disappearing. Muslims are intermarrying with others. Asian-white couples seem everywhere there. Even blacks seem better-off, and better-heeled: they tend to be educated. Why? They started from a different population base. They had almost no blacks; those they admitted were educated and smart. The net effect was, again, eugenic. It means everyone starts on a more level playing field, and intermarriage and mixing is more likely.

    – Numbers. The numbers aren’t overwhelming like they are in the US. Communities integrate because they have to. They can’t simply overwhelm areas like South Florida and Southern California. They’re forced to interact with native Canadians in all aspects of life. This is crucial.

    – Family reunification: I wasn’t convinced this was a good idea, until it was pointed out that elders often provide things like free baby care. I read one study that showed that the support among immigrants for universal daycare was the lowest in the country – because they have grandparents to look after the kids while both parents work. Very clever; it undercut socialist calls for more (literal) State nannyism . Also promotes solid families.

    – Taxes. By inviting in elites the average immigrant remains more economically and socially conservative. Asians tend to vote for the Canadian version of Republicans because they dislike taxes and like private initiative. This drives up the competition with native Canadians. I noted that most Canadians seem to be far better educated than anyone I know at home. They don’t pander to the lowest common denominator as much. One of the reasons must be that their immigrants and ethnic minorities are largely successful and educated. The elite there seem to be disproportionately Immigrant: I don’t know if that’s a good idea, but if you’re going to have immigration at all, this is the kind you want. The immigrants don’t leech. I’d note that most of their immigrants are Asian.

    – No forced assimilation. The result: on a recent trip through Canada on my way back from Chicago, I saw hordes of mixed couples/groups there I’d never see in Boston. They were all speaking English with a native Canadian accent. In essence, they let people settle, and then culturally steal the children. There’s a lot to be said for this.

    It’s still a form of population replacement, but they’re selecting from the top of the gene and culture pool. In effect, they’re draining the upper middle and middle classes of other countries. If I were a Haitian, I’d be pissed off – my elite, the only people capable of running Haiti properly, get to go and live in subarctic Utopia and Haiti or its equivalent are left in squalor, corruption and filth.

    But if you’re going to have immigration at all, *THAT* is the the only kind you want.

    Self-interested immigration. Either add to the nation and give us things we need – or get out. We owe foreigners nothing.

    Canada is a deeply socialist place, and yet no anti-racist Pro-Raza groups are fulminating and angry over immigration policy. Everyone sees that it’s Canadian self-interest alone that justifies immigration. There’s no right to immigrate. Both the right and left have no problem with this.

    In fact, the left there attacks any immigration because it devalues the labor of the native-born. Why export jobs? More to the point, why bring in more cheap labor to lower and depress wages?

    The debate there seems entirely different, and on both sides, far more intelligent and connected to reality.

    Also, their immigration is from all over the world. Ours is almost exclusively from Latin America, and almost all of that is Mexican.

    Numbers matter. Scale and scope matters. Canada can take in a few immigrants and tolerate some social issues, because it has a policy of active self-interest that it controls tightly. it controls the numbers.

    We have no ability to articulate self-interest, because debate is stifled by cries of “racism” (which means cultural chauvinism, not racism). Being pro-“American” is no longer fashionable. Wanting to live in America and not Amexica, even while being friendly with Mexico, is now seen as Nazi-like on one side or “irrational” because immigration is irrelevant to economic logic.

    Like their banking system, Canadians have lots of institutions that could teach us a lot. It’s like Alternate America, where the weather is shit but the elite are far smarter when it comes to doing things in their own interests.

    The more polarized diversity we allow, the more fractious we let our society become, the less rational any debate on this subject will be.

    The best thing we could do would be to shut the border to further migration, force consumers to pay higher prices for onions, or better, outsource the growing of onions where Mexicans can pick them – in Mexico. That way we benefit on both scores, and Mexicans still have jobs. It might be the most equitable solution. I’m sure most Mexicans would rather stay at home and have opportunity and jobs rather than come up here and slip into the urban gutters of our increasingly dysfunctional cities.

    We’re not in government to look after the interests of Mexico. That’s what the Mexican government is for, and they’re doing a fantastic job of it on this issue.

    We need to stop being ashamed of our own self-interested and stop being blindly ideological – whether on the anti-“racist” left or the anti-immigrant right or the wing of libertarian wishful thinking.

    Humans are animals. We need to take into account our natural propensities, in all things.

    In this issue, above all else.

    Tens of millions of illegal immigrants can go home. Maybe we can allow a buy-in: those who have made themselves successful can pay a fee for an amnesty, not for revenue but to prove they’re successful. Any associated with crime go to jail and are then deported (to get drug dealers). The rest are gracefully deported. If migrant workers want work, they can apply for special worker visas that allow them to stay for 6 months and then also allow the state to track and control where they work and go. All states have such programs. Why can’t we?

    If they’re just here to work on a farm and send the money back, why must we assume they have any right to stay? Again, the best of all worlds: We get to keep our country; they get to make money and go home. We have no obligation to become Mexico North. I have no right to move to Mexico and live there permanently unless the Mexican people, through their government, allow me to do so. There’s no reason we can’t work exactly the same way.

    The Mexican people operates under the assumption of self-interest. Why can the American government?

    On that issue it might be smart of us to take back control of our own government. Our elites have multiple motivations, all of them short-term, to promote mass immigration. The right loves cheap labor; the left hates America passionately.

    Shut down that border, until we’re comfortable opening it.

    To those that say it’s not practical

    We can spend billions more on policing and schools or spend half that on good border protection.

    We can field high-tech armies in Iraq but not Texas? Hell, Mexico polices its southern borders better than we do on a fraction of the budget.

    We need will power and positive self-identity. This isn’t racial: It’s cultural. Black and white and already-integrated Hispanic America: this is *OUR* country. Nobody has an inherent right to be here. We decide who get to be here.

    We need to decide that it’s our house.

    We need to say this with actions. Or we’ll have no country at all. Another historical anecdote.

    And if having no country at all is the goal – then pro-open-immigration activists should just say this, so we know where they really stand.

    Like


    • Boy, Gorby, you’re a wordy one!

      Can you go to a book store and get Succinct Writing 101? You do need it, I hope you realize that.

      Like


  108. on July 9, 2011 at 12:51 pm Frank Meyer Lives

    Anon,

    Until our society starts to allow “I was enitiled to take his girlfriend” as a legal defense for murder or, phrased another way, a substantial chunk of libertarians come out in favor of a place like Somalia or the Congo as being closer to an ideal libertarian society than the United States, it is difficult to see how your postulated category is relevant.

    Like


  109. I’m in total agreement with the blogger about Mexico invading the USA like it has been doing, but there’s a more serious issue in American politics and that is the deep stupidity and misandry inside the hijacked Tea Party.

    Not paying attention to this while hanging onto the borders meme all the time, is the same as agreeing with the hijacking of the Tea Party.

    Here’s the latest about Michele Bachmann signing a pledge to stop pornography and promiscuity if she becomes President, and it’s embarrassing that the news is coming from a feminist blog that, like a stopped clock, is actually right on target this time:

    Michele Bachmann: For people who find Sarah Palin too intellectual:

    http://suicidegirlsblog.com/blog/republican-presidential-candidate-michele-bachmann-signs-pledge-supporting-ban-on-porn-abortion-and-suggests-black-families-were-more-functional-during-slavery/

    Like