ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 06, 2017

The end of libertarianism

Is clueless liberal multiculturalism, as the Z-man observes:
The reader who still cling to libertarianism have given me hell over my screed against their faith. I’m not without some sympathy for them. The core libertarian impulse to leave people alone in order to be left alone is admirable. If you are a libertarian, trying hard to live the non-aggression principle, it probably seems unfair that a hate thinker from the extreme Right is mocking your thing. I get that and I respect it to a point. That point is when I see something like this from the Pope of Modern Libertarianism.

France is becoming a Third World country because of economic policies instituted by the graduates of its finest schools, not Arabs.
- Nick Gillespie

It should be impossible to be this stupid. I suspect for most of human existence, idiots who said moronic things like this tried to hand feed bears or cuddle with large reptiles, thus eliminating themselves from the the system. There’s no other way to read this than Nick Gillespie believes some minor alterations to the French tax code will ameliorate this.

Now, does Nick Gillespie really think altering tax policy will magically transform low-IQ, inbred Muslims from the Maghreb into patriotic French republicans who work at Parisian software shops? It’s tempting to say it is just another pose, but the evidence is piling up in favor of the argument that Nick Gillespie is a stupid person. Anyone who truly believes altering tax policy will reverse a thousand generations of evolution is an idiot.

That’s the fundamental problem with modern libertarians. They believe this or they simply are incapable of mastering ground floor level biology. The reason the country of Niger is a basket case is that’s the way the people of Niger want it. It is full of Hausa. The reason Paris was Paris was that, up until recently, it was full of Parisians! Now that Paris is filling up with North Africans and Arabs, it is looking like Algeria with better plumbing.
Apparently Mr. Gillespie hasn't actually been to Paris recently to see what those graduates of its finest schools have made of it. We see this ridiculous line from civic nationalists and even the Alt-Lite from time to time. Detroit isn't Detroit because of its predominantly black population, but because of those damned Democratic policies! Which, of course, explains why very liberal Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are similarly crime-ridden hellholes.

Why, given the conservativism of Somali Muslims, we can expect no end of improvement in Minneapolis in no time!

This really isn't that hard. Different people have different standards of behavior that they a) prefer and b) are willing to tolerate. Keep the apart and everyone will be fine. Force them together and you ensure conflict.

Look, I understand the appeal of libertarian ideals. I still hold them in much the same way a Marxian economist still holds to his communist ideals even though he knows the Labor Theory of Value is false and that the Workers' Paradise will never arrive. But I understand the difference between an unattainable, utopian ideal and a functional, coherent, basis for real world policy. And only the latter is relevant to serious policy discussions.

Civic nationalism barely worked in the best of all possible circumstances and it is entirely dead in the USA now. Libertarianism was a complete non-starter. Conservatism was always designed to go down to noble defeat. It's time to accept these things and grow up intellectually; the fate of Western civilization depends upon you doing just that.

Labels: ,

194 Comments:

Anonymous Eduardo May 06, 2017 12:07 PM  

Actually, multiculturalism is basically the result of "all humans are equal" and "Social Liberalism".

Nothing new there, but it is hard to believe someone sincerely thinks that economy changes culture o____o' you serious bro?!?

Anonymous patrick kelly May 06, 2017 12:10 PM  

"It should be impossible to be this stupid. I suspect for most of human existence, idiots who said moronic things like this tried to hand feed bears or cuddle with large reptiles, thus eliminating themselves from the the system. "

Golden.

Anonymous DJF May 06, 2017 12:11 PM  

The problem with libertarianism is that its based on ideology not reality. So when reality shows up most of the libertarians don’t adjust their ideology to match reality they just keep spouting the party line.

This is not a problem for all libertarians since they adjust their thinking, but for the true dialogs they just double down.

Mass immigration when most are left wingers who will vote for more government

Import refugees when they get welfare from day one

Pretend that China is part of the Free Market and Free Trade system when the Chinese Communist Party is the largest owner of corporations in China.

Etc etc

Blogger Dirk Manly May 06, 2017 12:12 PM  

"All humans are equal, EXCEPT the white population in majority white countries -- they're scum!" would be a more accurate statement for multiculturalism.

Blogger Hauen Holzwanderer May 06, 2017 12:12 PM  

Can I get an amen?

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 12:14 PM  

The fundamental failing of libertarianism is that they've abandoned the necessary second precept:

"Live and let live."

"Remove those who won't."

There's a reason for the Old West sheriff and posse.

Anonymous Bobby Farr May 06, 2017 12:19 PM  

Well, bad economic policy does deserve a big part of the blame. Libertarians can get on board with many policies needed to keep out invaders. If governments stopped providing cash and other free goodies to invaders and ended the drug war, which creates an artificially lucrative industry for them, that would go a long way towards slowing the invasion. Where libertarianism ultimately fails is in providing no basis for keeping out what civic nationalists would call a "good" foreigner - one that is similar to a nineteenth century immigrant and would come even in the absence of government handouts because of perceived better opportunities.

Anonymous NAP4Ever May 06, 2017 12:21 PM  

Lol, Theo you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a debate with Jeffrey Tucker.

Tucker would destroy your dumb fascist ideas. He Been destroying your mind for over 25 years.

https://youtu.be/6gSj1G4Vf0w

Blogger totenhenchen May 06, 2017 12:22 PM  

I can't remember where I saw it, but somebody I follow on social media once wrote that libertarianism only works if everybody is a 120+ IQ white dude.

Blogger Sevron May 06, 2017 12:26 PM  

Even if there was such a society, it's still observably false. There are plenty of 120+ IQ extreme Leftists, and there are plenty if 120+ IQ extreme Rightists who would never consent to live a Libertarian ideal.

The version I always use is Libertarianism could only work in a society of high IQ white autistic man-babies.

Anonymous Eduardo May 06, 2017 12:30 PM  

Stefan does not approve of comment #10's view! Maybe XD!

Btw... Did Vox is still showing on Stefan's show? Always felt like Vox's saying that Evil must be destroyed was too much aggression for a Guest in an Anarco-Capitalist show.

Blogger Charles Martel May 06, 2017 12:32 PM  

Libertarians: All about "rights" and nothing about "duties" that go along with those rights, IMO. No duties = no stable society.
They are utopians who, when challenged regarding their libertarian tenets, show themselves to be closed to any rational debate. It doesn't take long for them to begin ranting at you if you question their belief system. That's my experience, anywayt.

Blogger David Power May 06, 2017 12:34 PM  

The Left is conducting a four pronged assault on White Western Culture...

- Multiculturalism.
- Feminism.
- Mass Immigration.
- Abortion.


And each prong is tipped with a poisonous Lie:

- Diversity is our strength
- Women don't need Men
- Islam is a religion of peace
- Unborn children are sub-human

Anonymous kfg May 06, 2017 12:34 PM  

" . . . with better plumbing."

For the time being.

Blogger wreckage May 06, 2017 12:34 PM  

@6; exactly. There's a big movement in Libertarianism right now that supports totally open borders and trans-nationalism; as far as I can tell those two ideas are completely incompatible with small government and personal freedom at a practical level.

I kinda identify as Nationalist Libertarian, do we need another sub-label? "Libertarian Except for Plainly Stupid Ideas that would Destroy Liberty, Obviously, Because that would be Counter Productive.... tarianism."

Anonymous Eduardo May 06, 2017 12:37 PM  

It rolls of the tongue, eh?

Anonymous Looking Glass May 06, 2017 12:42 PM  

@9 totenhenchen

It's still a Game Theory failure. Best understood as in the feminine "can't we all just get along?" plea. If all Actors have to play along, there is massive advantage given to the 1 that chooses not to, most especially when everyone else convinces themselves not to respond.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Si_Vis_Pacem_Para_Bellum

The Greeks & Romans understood the great value in de-escalation, but the necessity for War. The Anvil of Reality breaks the fools upon each hammer strike.

Blogger wreckage May 06, 2017 12:43 PM  

@16 It really does, but I guess these days the caveat "but I don't believe in trying to implement ideals that not only can't succeed, but will undermine the most important aspects of all the rest" really doesn't go without saying anymore.

Every political philosophy has been undermined and infiltrated by insanity, to the extent that broad policy directions can't be discussed without first spending long ritual hours arguing over ideas that no rational person would entertain for a moment and yet, for reasons that are opaque to me, have become flagships of the respective philosophies.

Anonymous kfg May 06, 2017 12:47 PM  

“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

Libertarians like this quote, but ignore the obvious deductive corollary. There is also some considerable question as to whether, remaining within the bounds of natural law, we can ever be prepared for it and retain an organizational level above that of rabbits.

Blogger Shamgar May 06, 2017 12:50 PM  

Getting rid of the welfare state would be a good first step though, no?

Blogger Salt May 06, 2017 12:52 PM  

kfg wrote:" . . . with better plumbing."

For the time being.


How effective are the signs showing those people how to use a latrine doing?

Anonymous Eduardo May 06, 2017 12:55 PM  

@18 wreckage

I guess there really need to be a new label for White-Nationalist/Local Economy Libertarian/ National Economy protectionist/ Traditionalist people.

Alt-Conomy? Sane-Conomy? Nothing cool comes to mind...

What about: "Hi, I am not Insane!" Tarian...

Blogger bosscauser May 06, 2017 1:00 PM  

The siren song of Utopia. If only 99% of people would agree to be Libertarian everything would work out!

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

Blogger David Power May 06, 2017 1:01 PM  

France is becoming a Third World country because of economic policies instituted by the graduates of its finest schools, not Arabs.

Geez, and there was me thinking London's current knife crime epidemic was down to the police being instructed (by leftist local authorities) to cease stopping and searching 'the youths' when all the time it was down to those damned Oxford graduates and their pesky economic policies.

Blogger John Morris May 06, 2017 1:11 PM  

wreckage wrote:I kinda identify as Nationalist Libertarian, do we need another sub-label? "Libertarian Except for Plainly Stupid Ideas that would Destroy Liberty, Obviously, Because that would be Counter Productive.... tarianism."

Look up ESR's Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto, you sound like a candidate to at least be sorta in that camp.

Blogger Michael Maier May 06, 2017 1:12 PM  

totenhenchen wrote:I can't remember where I saw it, but somebody I follow on social media once wrote that libertarianism only works if everybody is a 120+ IQ white dude.

Not only that, but ones that think the same. There is no end of smart people that think they have the duty to run others' lives the "right" way.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 06, 2017 1:14 PM  

"Which, of course, explains why very liberal Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are similarly crime-ridden hellholes."

When was the last time you were in Portland, honestly?

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 1:14 PM  

Lol, Theo you wouldn't last 10 seconds in a debate with Jeffrey Tucker.

That seems likely. It's funny how fanboys always talk like this, and then, when their heroes duck-and-run, they switch immediately to justifying their cowardice.

Blogger Johnny May 06, 2017 1:16 PM  

>>Libertarians: All about "rights" and nothing about "duties"

Close but not spot on. The thing about "rights" is that a workable arrangement requires that people be held responsible for their own conduct in those areas where they are allowed free will. That is the core problem with the nanny state. It makes people immune to the outcomes of their own behavior and thus promotes irresponsible behavior. Being held responsible for your own outcomes is what has to go with rights. Duty may otherwise be necessary in any society, but a high degree of freedom requires a high degree of holding people responsible for their own outcomes.

Blogger OGRE May 06, 2017 1:17 PM  

Reason is hardly a libertarian outlet anymore. Cosmotarian might be a more appropriate label. Even the commentators there have turned on the writers for their virtue signaling and leftist leanings.

The ideological devotion to open borders and markets isn't even consistent with stated libertarian principles. The freedom to associate and do business with others contains within itself the right to not associate or do businesses with others; the cosmotarians seem to ignore this aspect. If a group of people can form a collective and exclude others from their property, why then can a nation not do the same?

A libertarian would support the right to self-defense on a personal level, so why not on a national level? A family, a city, a nation, a civilization...all have the right to defend themselves against threats internal and external.

Is it wrong to cut out a cancerous tumor from an otherwise healthy body? The cancer desires to be there, but the rest of the body wants it gone.

I can't abandon the proposition that all men have fundamental rights to life and liberty by virtue of being created in God's image. So in a general sense I would still label myself a Christian Libertarian. God gave us free will, and its not my place to impose upon the free will of others absent justification. Our ultimate purpose on this earth--short of giving pleasure and joy to God through existing and enjoying our given lives--is to witness and bring others to God, but this cannot be done through force, only through one freely coming to God. But this is by no means a suicide pact on a personal, familial, or national level.

Blogger Kevin Blackwell May 06, 2017 1:18 PM  

I'll say, it isn't just Seattle that is having problems with crazies, druggies, and homeless. It's spreading all across eastern Washington (the half that likes to vote democrat). I live about 24 miles north of Seattle in Everett and people have been complaining for years about homeless people in libraries and other public places sleeping. And from my boss who used to work for Boeing they gave some of the best beach front property to make a homeless tent city. But don't walk bare foot on the beach unless you want to get stuck by a needle.

Blogger frigger611 May 06, 2017 1:19 PM  

"France is becoming a Third World country because of economic policies instituted by the graduates of its finest schools, not Arabs."

Change the word "economic" to "immigration" in the above sentence and he gets it right.

Moldbug and Nick Land are right about one thing - Massachusetts conquered the world.

Blogger John Morris May 06, 2017 1:21 PM  

Democrat / Progressive politics are indeed the root of Detroit's sad state. The vibrant diversity was the weapon. Who encouraged the diversity to settle there? Who adopted policies, long before said diversity had the numbers to run the place, that caused the civilized (read non-progressive white) citizens to flee to refugee camps along the edge of the city so that the vibrant diversity could gain the numerical advantage to truly drive it into bankruptcy?

Who will import the same vibrant diversity into Seattle and Portland as soon as they can manage it and bring the exact same result?

Being drawn into fights with the diversity is a losing move, they are what they are and can't change. No level of fighting short of open warfare will drive them away from their gimmedats which the Progressives give them in exchange for their vote and chaos. Conflict with them is thus a distraction and unproductive.

End the Progressives, end the Democratic Party, end the similar parties infesting the West, and the problems are solvable. Do not end them and they will forbid any solution to 'problems' they create and feed upon.

Blogger ZhukovG May 06, 2017 1:24 PM  

I am a Nationalist Libertarian. I believe in maximizing individual liberty while constraining it based on a question:

Is it good for my people(nation)?

Blogger Otto May 06, 2017 1:25 PM  

Scratch these libertarians and you get a social progressive, hence the stupidity

Blogger Charles Martel May 06, 2017 1:35 PM  

@29 Johnny wrote: 'The thing about "rights" is that a workable arrangement requires that people be held responsible for their own conduct in those areas where they are allowed free will.'

Are there some areas where people are not allowed free will? Even when I'm ordered to follow at the point of a gun I can still exercise my free will and refuse to follow. I can't think of single area where my free will cannot be exercised.
If I have a right to eat then I have a duty to avoid over-eating. If I have a right to kill someone in self-defense then I have a duty to be certain that my life is indeed threatened--and so on for any other right. Can you offer an exception here?

Anonymous Bob May 06, 2017 1:37 PM  

To be fair, the diversity came for the gibs. The gibs came from the "graduates" ...

Anonymous karsten May 06, 2017 1:39 PM  

"Moldbug and Nick Land are right about one thing - Massachusetts conquered the world."

My sides. I didn't know that there were still any NRx bitter clingers who were trying to keep alive Moldberg's transparent exculpate-the-Jews misdirects.

(((They))) conquered the world.

Everyone else was and is just their Shabbas Goys, their Golem, or their puppets.

Blogger Quilp May 06, 2017 1:39 PM  

I got over tipping my hat to the sincerity of Libertarians some time ago. Willfully ignorant are the two words I'd use to describe them. Toss in delusional if you are going for three. They are some weird, hybrid SJW* ( self justice warrior) who, if they see trash blow by worry that the common rabble, who don't understand the finer points of their theory, might raise taxes, ( impinging on his/her liberty) to clean up the litter. Also, Libertarians make BAD NEIGHBORS

Anonymous Eduardo May 06, 2017 1:44 PM  

A Libertarian comes to your street:

" There goes the Neighbourhood, Jenny! Damn Libertarians just moved down the road and he already erected a statue to that Rand woman in his lawn!"

- Suburbia Tales vol. 2 (not real I hope)

Blogger Phat Repat May 06, 2017 1:47 PM  

Having grown up in Europe, it's shocking to see the effects of this 3rd world invasion. And all the while Mutti Merkel and her freak show compatriots cheer it on. How she hasn't met with real social justice is beyond me. All things in time I suppose.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 06, 2017 1:53 PM  

Libertarianism biggest problem is that there is no moral backbone to it. It takes what it wants from the Left and leaves what it doesn't want behind.

That's not a philosophy thats a salad bar.

And I am speaking as a Libertarian in Recovery.


The only thing I was never on board with was the militant atheism.

At the time it didn't bother me because of two things. One; I was certain in my heart that there was a God who lived and loved me. And two; I didn't think about it all that much. I figured that the atheism was just one more thing that I could take or leave in the all you can eat buffet of Libertarian philosophy.

I was completely wrong. Atheism is the bedrock of Libertarianism.

The iron clad belief that there is only the self and that there is no one to stand in judgement over your life but the self that you created. This is the foundation for that entire school of thought. Atheism is not an optional extra if you are a true capital "L" Libertarian, it's required.

Thus we hit the fundamental flaw; if there is only the self...then why have children?

The future belongs to those who show up and Libertarians breed like progressives. One child per couple leads to extinction in four generations.

Blogger Dave Narby May 06, 2017 1:54 PM  

Let's try Z-man's logic out here...

Richard Spencer is by some people's opinion (and his own admission TTBOMK) Alt-Right, and has apparently gone all commietard http://libertyhangout.org/2017/05/richard-spencer-goes-communist-says-marx-was-kinda-right-about-capitalism/

So because Z-Man's Alt-Right (and anyone else who identifies as such), you're now all commietards.

Feels bad man, doesn't it?!

I'm a managed-border Libertarian, and Nick Gillespie doesn't speak for me. The LP is under convergence like every other non-globalist organization. I would normally use some creative profanity here directed at all engaged in this nonsense, but I understand Vox has recently called to observe decorum.

Blogger Sheila4g May 06, 2017 1:55 PM  

Chateau Heartiste had an excellent post re this recently. Although he was referring to traditional Christians/Churchians balking at accepting the reality of HBD, it can be applied more broadly:

"The cultures that arise from the gene source pools aren’t random configurations; cultures affirm, coalesce, and amplify the genetic traits of the people who populate them. So there’s no way to draw a red line between race and culture; the latter would be a phantasm without the former. The Alt-Right is right about this.

In short, change the genes, change the culture. This process is immediate on an evolutionary timescale. But change the culture from the top-down, say by mass migration and perniciously anti-realist indoctrination, and the genes of the native population remain the same for a long while, until enough selection pressure, stress, miscegenation, (and misery, as is the wont of the God of Biomechanics) culls those who are ill-suited to the changed culture."

Anonymous Loki7 May 06, 2017 1:57 PM  

When I let my membership in the LP lapse, I told a fellow member why. ~~Let`s say you guys take the country back. But that means an open border with the turd world. After 50 million come in and make the rest of us unemployable, we will use our 2nd Admt rights to overthrow your goverment. He, a `60s Hippie just took a hit from his bong and replied,``It`s all good man.``

Blogger John Morris May 06, 2017 1:58 PM  

Otto wrote:Scratch these libertarians and you get a social progressive, hence the stupidity

Yup, they nominated Gary Johnson and he went full SJW retard; all the way to "Bake the f*cking cake or else" retard. There goes all pretense to free association or the non-aggression principle. Kinda hard to take LP types seriously after seeing them get to 2008 Obama's left. Idiotarian Libertarians all.

Blogger Phelps May 06, 2017 1:59 PM  

As a former libertarian, Gillespie isn't getting enough credit because he spoke in too short a libertarian shorthand. When he talks about economic policies, he's not talking about the tax code, he's talking about welfare.

Arabs and Africans are not going to pay for their own invasion of Europe. The map of where they are invading makes it perfectly clear that there is a direct correlation between how luxurious the welfare state is, and where they are going. That is why they are bypassing Greece and Italy to invade Germany, France and Sweden.

If there wasn't welfare waiting on them, they would still be raping their cousins in the sandy hellholes that bred them. If France cut off the money, they would all be fleeing in a week (just like the Somalis fleeing Minnesota for the Greener Welfare Pastures of Canada.)

Anonymous Eduardo May 06, 2017 2:02 PM  

Conspiracy time:

But what if the Alt-Right was all along the creation of socially autistic leftist whites that, by not having anything good about them, clinged to their whiteness as the only socially acceptable feature of themselves and the one reason why they are naturally better then everybody else.

O_O I mean... Can you imagine that!?!

But hopefully this idea of mine is totally wrong.

OpenID doktorjeep May 06, 2017 2:07 PM  

Around 2011 there started a real intentional effort to "invade" libertarianism with leftism.
The result has been the takeover of what was once a valid set if economics theories turning into a movement of "gay sex and taking drugs".

Look no further than what's left of the Free State Project in New Hampshire and the basket cases still pushing it.

So of course egalitarianism (which is merely a kind of "scientific communism") would be rife with post-modern libertarians.

Rothbard warned about this. He spent some time with leftists. Libertarianism was never so "liberal".

Now it looks like libertarianism causes autism. It's getting more difficult to discern between a leftist SJW and a libertarian. But the former's think tanks decided to take over the latter.

All the better. The libertarians of the Lew Rockwell - Ron Paul era (roughly 1993 to 2011) were merely conservatives who saw that both political parties were just theater. Now the leftists are driving those same people rightward. But alas they already eschewed conservatism Inc for the sham that was was (apparently going back as far as 1996 with the Dole campaign).

Where ever will they go?

(we know)

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 2:16 PM  

@20
Getting rid of the welfare state would be a good first step though, no?

Sure, and taming unicorns to ride up the rainbow would be EVEN BETAR and just as likely.

@43
I'm a managed-border Libertarian, and Nick Gillespie doesn't speak for me.

We don't care.

@47
When he talks about economic policies, he's not talking about the tax code, he's talking about welfare.

Like there's a difference.

Arabs and Africans are not going to pay for their own invasion of Europe. T

They don't have to, white guilt is taking care of it for them.
The welfare system of France is pretty much the same now as it was 20 years ago. What changed? The colonists.

Open. Borders. Are. Killing. France.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 2:20 PM  

As a former libertarian, Gillespie isn't getting enough credit because he spoke in too short a libertarian shorthand. When he talks about economic policies, he's not talking about the tax code, he's talking about welfare.

Irrelevant. With or without welfare, it's a better place to be. More to steal, for one thing. Libertarianism is dead. Open borders killed it.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 2:30 PM  


"Irrelevant. With or without welfare, it's a better place to be. More to steal, for one thing. Libertarianism is dead. Open borders killed it."

You think "Libertarian Nationalist" is a workable position, or still not far enough?

Blogger Cail Corishev May 06, 2017 2:30 PM  

If there wasn't welfare waiting on them, they would still be raping their cousins in the sandy hellholes that bred them.

That's incredibly naive. Take away the welfare, and France is still a nicer place to squat than some Arab desert or African jungle. We get the same nonsense argument about welfare in the US; but take it all away, and living in a cardboard box in California and begging for food from wealthy Americans will still appeal to people who currently live in shanties next to manure-clogged rivers in other countries. Good grief, welfare isn't the only thing appealing about living in civilization.

Besides, if the French want to have a welfare safety net for the French, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Why should they have to adopt what they might consider cruel, harsh, libertarian policies that leave other French people to starve, just to convince foreigners to leave?

If you invite someone into your house, and then he doesn't leave for days, but sits around eating your food and eyeing your wife, do you turn off the heat and throw out the food and set fire to the carpet to try to make your house so unpleasant that he leaves? Or do you just kick him out?

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 2:33 PM  

"That's incredibly naive. Take away the welfare, and France is still a nicer place to squat than some Arab desert or African jungle. We get the same nonsense argument about welfare in the US; but take it all away, and living in a cardboard box in California and begging for food from wealthy Americans will still appeal to people who currently live in shanties next to manure-clogged rivers in other countries. Good grief, welfare isn't the only thing appealing about living in civilization."

Yeah, but gentry liberals don't want to actually *see* immigrants unless they're employed in the service underclass. Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents May 06, 2017 2:35 PM  

Since January there have been no changes in the US tax code, no changes in the US welfare system, but attempted border crossings are down, way down, lower than at any time in the last 10 years.

Question for liberteenians: what changed in January?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 06, 2017 2:37 PM  

Anyone who still believes in the Blank Slate Theory is an idiot, perhaps some day I'll ask that of Gillespie.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 06, 2017 2:38 PM  

Libertarianism rejects both Big Biology (i.e., HBD) but also Little Biology (human nature, specifically that humans of all levels of intelligence are rationalizing beings who herd under compulsion of the primitive structures of our brains.)

I now see my earlier libertarianism as an egotistical fantasy that I am more rational and less subject to impulsive behavior than others. The past two years of facing the hard truth about my own mind forced me to think anew about my place, my limitations and their determination that a market-ordered society is just as Utopian as is a market-free society (AKA socialism.)

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 2:41 PM  

Yeah, but gentry liberals don't want to actually *see* immigrants unless they're employed in the service underclass. Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

Your guarantee is worthless. Also, you're wrong. Do you still not yet understand that they are bringing them here to replace you? Do you not understand that this is intentional?

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents May 06, 2017 2:42 PM  

@54 SIAL
Yeah, but gentry liberals don't want to actually *see* immigrants unless they're employed in the service underclass.

There are favelas all around the San Francisco bay area in formerly rural streambeds, valleys and gulleys. Liberals in San Francisco, Marin County, etc. never "see" them except with a leaf blower, bussing tables, etc.

Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

LOL! "Jobs Americans Won't Do" has been libtard and libertoony mantra for how long? What was the welfare state like back in 1958 when Eisenhower put Operation Wetback in effect?

Blogger Dave Narby May 06, 2017 2:46 PM  

Z-man's argument is a logical fallacy.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Association_fallacy

That it's repeated here is ironic, and sad.

OpenID hornofthemark May 06, 2017 2:46 PM  

I remember during my libertarian phase, "muh roads" was followed closely by "then why isn't lawless Somalia a libertarian paradise?" from the leftist critics of libertarianism.

Turns out they were right after all, if not for the reasons they intended.

Blogger frigger611 May 06, 2017 2:53 PM  

@38 karsten

hah, actually I largely agree with you. Note I said right about ONE thing.

Moldberg. That's a good one.

The Frankfurt school transplanted itself to America via Columbia in 1934, and the infection has spread globally since. Cultural Marxism is the dominant religion of the Western world

Blogger Nick S May 06, 2017 2:53 PM  

Is there anything that hasn't been tried before? I don't think so. The reality that all ideologies eventually come up against is the fact that you can't please all the people all the time. I'm dubious if there is even an achievable equilibrium for pleasing a sufficiently maximum number of people for a sufficiently maximum amount of time for any extended period of success in the information age. The pendulum...she swings. The best we can hope to do is dampen the effects at the extremes. There will always be a growing segment of the population who insist "this [whatever it is] isn't working for us"...because humans.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 2:54 PM  

@60

Does evolution stop at the neck?

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 2:54 PM  

That it's repeated here is ironic, and sad.

That's pathetic. The qualities of a doctrinaire libertarian are inherently qualities of doctrinaire libertarianism; the association between Nick Gillespie and libertarianism are not irrelevant.

Almost every time someone claims logical fallacy, they clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy is.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 06, 2017 2:54 PM  

Question: isn't the the right of voluntary association along with the right of exclusion an application of libertarian ideas?

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 2:58 PM  

"There are favelas all around the San Francisco bay area in formerly rural streambeds, valleys and gulleys. Liberals in San Francisco, Marin County, etc. never "see" them except with a leaf blower, bussing tables, etc."

Right, now what happens when those people don't have healthcare, education, police, etc, etc, etc? You think the problems stay contained to the favelas? Without the welfare state, Californians would be screeching to be rid of them.

This isn't to say that the solution is elimination of the welfare state... But the welfare state *is* a necessary element of the current situation.

---

"Your guarantee is worthless. Also, you're wrong. Do you still not yet understand that they are bringing them here to replace you? Do you not understand that this is intentional?"

Doesn't matter what the specific elites want without the support of the core white liberals. You know the history - revolutions that start from the top require the support of another class.

Now, granted, one they're a large-enough portion of the population, immigrants will simply replace the gentry liberals in the calculation. Just not yet.

Blogger ZhukovG May 06, 2017 2:59 PM  

@S1AL: Nationalist Libertarian not Libertarian Nationalist. Nationalism first. Nationalism provides the environment to maximize the Liberty of the Nation(People).

You can have Nationalism without Liberty. But you will not have Liberty without Nationalism.

Blogger Dave Narby May 06, 2017 3:04 PM  

@VD

Nick Gillespie is a libertarian and for open borders. Therefore, all libertarians are for open borders.

That's a fallacy. Here is the proof:

Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Dave Narby are libertarians and for managed borders.

...Who's pathetic, again?

Blogger papabear May 06, 2017 3:04 PM  

Anyone know the story of how Tucker went from "right" libertarianism to "left" libertarianism? Is he still Catholic? Did he try to merge a version of Catholic universalism with libertarianism?

Blogger Phelps May 06, 2017 3:04 PM  

S1AL wrote:

You think "Libertarian Nationalist" is a workable position, or still not far enough?


Not far enough. Part of the libertarian suicide pact is that you keep open borders. You can't be a nationalist state with open borders.

VD wrote:With or without welfare, it's a better place to be. More to steal, for one thing. Libertarianism is dead. Open borders killed it.

Agree on libertarianism being dead (hence former libertarian), but I don't think the welfare issue is irrelevant. The invaders aren't picking states without lush welfare for a very good reason. The "leadership" (chief goat fuckers) have an invasion in mind, but the foot soldiers are just chasing gibs. It's a brilliant system, too -- the hardest part of an invasion is logistics, and the stupid leftists have handed the jihadists their entire logistics train. Just invade, and the invaded will give you a house, food, and turn a blind eye while you rape all you want.

Without welfare, there would be no logistics train to support the invasion. You can have the occasional beggar living in a cardboard box, but you can't support tens of millions that way, even in Europe.

No welfare, no invasion.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 3:04 PM  

Question: isn't the the right of voluntary association along with the right of exclusion an application of libertarian ideas?

No, because the right historically precedes the ideology.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 3:07 PM  

No welfare, no invasion.

The entire history of human migration disproves that very, very silly idea.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Do you pay ANY attention to history or the real world at all?

It's true, the ADDITIONAL incentive of welfare doesn't help. But that is not the reason for the migration nor will removing that incentive prove sufficient. Furthermore, some of the most dangerous problems come from the immigrant populations that require no welfare.

See: India, Persia, China.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 3:08 PM  

@67
Right, now what happens when those people don't have healthcare, education, police, etc, etc, etc?

So it's more like Central America, but with a better climate and more rich people beg, borrow and steal from?

You think the problems stay contained to the favelas?

They aren't contained now.

Dude, border crossings are down, way down, since January.
The tax code didn't change. Welfare didn't change.

What changed?

Your libertoony open borders policy has failed. Deal with it.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:13 PM  

@ZhukovG/Phelps - You're getting caught up in a peculiarity of the English language. A "libertarian nationalist" is a nationalist first, libertarian second.

Now, I'm not a libertarian for entirely different reasons (people suck and make bad decisions), but I think a lot of "libertarians" could be convinced of the position. I'm more curious if it's far enough *for most people* to get them to where they'll laugh in the right direction.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 3:16 PM  

...Who's pathetic, again?

You are, as I said. First, because Nick Gillespie's position is more properly representative of libertarian doctrine than the positions of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Dave Narby. You three are opposing the libertarian doctrine, he is upholding it.

First, libertarian doctrine traditionally declared itself, with no qualifications or reservations, in favour of the principle of complete freedom of emigration and immigration. This position is based on the recognition of political frontiers as a flagrant act of interventionism and institutional coercion on the part of the state, which often tends to hinder or even prevent the free movement of human beings
- Jesús Huerta de Soto,

You are now proving yourself to be dishonest as well. If you ever were a libertarian, then you must have known what libertarian doctrine concerning the free movement of peoples and the immorality of restricting them on the basis of "lines on a map".

Second, because you tried to claim a logical fallacy that you quite clearly did not understand. Even if Nick Gillespie's position was not as perfectly in line with libertarian doctrine as it observably is, it quite clearly was not an irrelevant association. The Association Fallacy did not apply to the Zman's argument.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:16 PM  

@Paradigm - I'm not a libertarian and I don't support open borders. Take your parrot spam to someone who cares. The welfare state was a necessary enabler of the current situation. That's something that needs to be hammered because we keep getting idiots who think that you can keep a deep welfare state and a strong society... and they're wrong. The welfare state both breeds and attracts parasites.

Blogger kurt9 May 06, 2017 3:17 PM  

Having lived in various Asian countries, most notably Malaysia, and having seen first hand the differences in behavior and ability between different races (and cultures), I'm one libertarian that is not about to argue against this critique of libertarianism. People from different races and cultures really are different from each other, and no tweaking of tax codes and the like is going to change this fundamental reality.

Blogger kurt9 May 06, 2017 3:19 PM  

I also agree with you guys that a lot of self-described libertarians are really leftists, particularly among the millennials. Leftism is like a disease that seems to spread and infest everything that it comes in contact with.

Blogger Basil Makedon May 06, 2017 3:23 PM  

Not being Gillespie (thank God, I like having more than one jacket to wear), I can't really speak to what he intended to convey with his statement.

When I read his statement, I took him to mean that the "economic policies instituted by the graduates of its finest schools" were the original but-for cause of France's transmogrification into a third world failed state.

In other words, I took him to mean that Arabs did not put France on the road to third-world status, the French ultimately did that to themselves.

In short, the Frogs made it possible for the Scorpions to sting them. More sensible Frogs; no Scorpions nearby.

That being said, VD's interpretation is also reasonable and very much in line with doctrinaire libertarian thought circa 2000. I probably would have agreed with a weaker version of that premise myself in 2000.

I see that libertarian thought is a hopeless cause, but, like many I suspect, I still look at the philosophy fondly.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 3:25 PM  

@77 S1AL
@Paradigm - I'm not a libertarian and I don't support open borders.

Good for you, if true.

The welfare state was a necessary enabler of the current situation.

No. Not even close.

What did the welfare state look like before 1965? If your babble is correct, Eisenhower didn't need to put Operation Wetback into effect because "no welfare, no illegal colonization". In other words, you're displaying your ignorance again.

India has built a fence along hundreds of miles of border with Bangladesh. What sort of "welfare state" exists in India?

The Dominican Republic has an ongoing problem with Haitians sneaking into the country. What kind of "welfare state" does the DR have?

Mexico has fortified its border with Guatamala, there really is a wall down there. Why did they do that?

Are you too short for this ride?

Blogger Johnny May 06, 2017 3:25 PM  

Charles Martel wrote:@29 Johnny wrote: 'The thing about "rights" is that a workable arrangement requires that people be held responsible for their own conduct in those areas where they are allowed free will.'

Are there some areas where people are not allowed free will? Even when I'm ordered to follow at the point of a gun I can still exercise my free will and refuse to follow. I can't think of single area where my free will cannot be exercised.

If I have a right to eat then I have a duty to avoid over-eating. If I have a right to kill someone in self-defense then I have a duty to be certain that my life is indeed threatened--and so on for any other right. Can you offer an exception here?


Every last person brought in by cops using force is an exception. If you want to prove on a personal level my assertion, go rob a bank and see how your "free will" holds up. (Allowing that you are apprehended of course.) Or go beat up a neighbor or run over a pedestrian or whatever turns you on.

Blogger seeingsights May 06, 2017 3:27 PM  

There is an implicit premise --held not just by libertarians --that people are fungible. That an immigrant group would be more or less like the native population . That premise is false. It was a libertarian economist Thomas Sowell who pointed out differences among ethic groups in terms of income , intelligence , rates of criminality, education, even in specific aptitudes. Although for Sowell, much of the differences are due to culture. Although I'm closer to Sowell on this than the Alt-Right, I do grant that there is a biological component. Islam tolerates cousin marriage. For example, the offspring of cousin marriage have higher rates of schizophrenia and lower IQ (reduction of 10 to 15 points). It is no accident that Sowell has not been dogmatic on the immigration issue like his political allies.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 06, 2017 3:29 PM  

The entire history of human migration disproves that very, very silly idea.

Apparently your history books didn't mention the lush welfare system of the American Indian tribes which attracted the Europeans, or the cradle-to-grave welfare of the Gauls which drew in the Helvetii despite the threat of Rome.

Welfare might explain why migrants, upon arriving in the First World, choose to settle in California rather than Alabama or Sweden rather than Italy. It doesn't have that much to do with why they migrate in the first place -- at least not enough to always suggest it as a tactic for stopping the migration.

It's just a bait-and-switch. "We've been trying to get people to vote against welfare for years, with no luck. They grouse a bit about welfare abuse, but we can't get through to them on welfare in general. They really don't like this wave of invaders, though. Maybe we can convince them the welfare is causing the invasion, and finally get them to kill welfare." It's dishonest.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 3:31 PM  

The welfare state was a necessary enabler of the current situation.

That is not true. The Turks in Germany were Gasterbeitern. The Algerians in France were the supporters of Algeria Francais. Those are much bigger factors than the social welfare state in Europe.

This is obvious, because European nations had welfare states for decades without any immigration problem.

Drop the doctrine when it flies in the face of observable reality.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:31 PM  

"What did the welfare state look like before 1965? If your babble is correct, Eisenhower didn't need to put Operation Wetback into effect because "no welfare, no illegal colonization". In other words, you're displaying your ignorance again."

A) Answer your own damn question. This is not a binary.

B) Learn to distinguish between "the current situation" and "a hypothetical situation that only exists in my head". People have *always* moved across borders illegally. Always. The type and number of people vary dramatically based on circumstance. Many of the extreme circumstances of the present situation (most notably, the white-liberal support) are only possible because of the welfare state.

This is not complicated.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:34 PM  

"This is obvious, because European nations had welfare states for decades without any immigration problem.

Drop the doctrine when it flies in the face of observable reality."

That's simply not true. The ethnic background of the immigrants has changed, but they've always existed.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents May 06, 2017 3:44 PM  

@86 S1AL
"What did the welfare state look like before 1965? If your babble is correct, Eisenhower didn't need to put Operation Wetback into effect because "no welfare, no illegal colonization". In other words, you're displaying your ignorance again."

A) Answer your own damn question. This is not a binary.

No, dude, you answer the question, unless it's too hard for you.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Operation_Wetback

B) Learn to distinguish between "the current situation" and "a hypothetical situation that only exists in my head".

LOL, that's your problem right there.

People have *always* moved across borders illegally.

This directly contradicts your whole "muh WELfare!" babble in this thread.

Every libertoony I've ever known has taken the exact same line: "if we just end welfare, then we can have open borders". Welfare is not the draw. Even you admit it now.

So what's your point?

Anonymous A Texan May 06, 2017 3:44 PM  

I'm for very limited government but the libertarians have had it wrong for sometime now. The open borders stupidity is just the latest issue I have with them in addition to poorly thought out presidential candidate selections. Most libertarians are way too pozzed to admit that IQ and culture matters.

Look at India. British institutions from top to bottom more or less, but horribly corrupt and they screw each other over every chance they get.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:48 PM  

Besides, at one point we had *net emigration* to *Soviet Russia*. Merely the existence of a welfare state doesn't guarantee much of anything, *especially* early in its lifetime. That doesn't mean communism is ever a good idea, or that it doesn't lead to issues over time. Likewise the welfare state.

Anonymous Gen. Kong May 06, 2017 3:50 PM  

S1AL:
The welfare state was a necessary enabler of the current situation.

I think "adds gasoline to the fire" would be more accurate than "necessary enabler". Look at blacks in the USA as an example of this. The "gasoline" effect is not even consistent from ethnic-goup to ethnic-group. As someone above noted, humans - whether individuals or nations - are not fungible economic units, which seems to be the position of libertarianism (a position is shares with some varieties of Marxism).

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 3:50 PM  

@87 S1AL
That's simply not true. The ethnic background of the immigrants has changed, but they've always existed.



LOL, no. "Always" doesn't mean "for the last 10 years".
You seriously arguing that Franco let any Africans into Spain? Immigration into western Europe was strictly regulated for the entire Cold War.

Blogger YIH May 06, 2017 3:51 PM  

The main EPIC FAIL of ''libertarianism'' is https://infogalactic.com/info/Tragedy_of_commons where a resource either by custom or for physical reasons can't be sectioned off into ''private property'' or even where such sectioning is done, property owner X could care less about the spillover effects from what they do on their own property.
An example of the former was WWII era Pittsburgh (the time on that clock is 8:39 AM, cars had to run their headlights in daylight) LA in the 60's or of course, China today. Which is caused not by ''communism'' or ''capitalism'' but by corrupt and incompetent government that had abdicated it's responsibilities.
''Open borders'' is another example of ''the tragedy of the commons'' in action where (((certain))) concerns are bringing in third-world refusegees with no concern as to where (and on to who) they dump these problems.
Which goes to the 'spillover' effect. I've said this to ''libertarians'' before, ''if you were my next-door neighbor and were growing pot in your backyard I could care less, but if you're making meth in your backyard, I'm probably going to the one calling the cops on you'' because that neighbor probably won't control the poisonous wastes from meth making nor the effects from the very real potential of explosions.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:52 PM  

Paradigm, you're arguing against a position I never took. The original statement was that the push (from gentry liberals) for mass immigration only exists because of the welfare state. If you want to argue with my statement, argue with what I said.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 3:54 PM  

"You seriously arguing that Franco let any Africans into Spain? Immigration into western Europe was strictly regulated for the entire Cold War."

Are you really this bad at English? What in the hell do you think "the ethic background... has changed" means?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 3:56 PM  

The original statement was that the push (from gentry liberals) for mass immigration only exists because of the welfare state.

That's wrong. One more time, what did the welfare state look like in 1954? Why was Operation Wetback carried out, if "muh WELfare state" is the magnet that draws colonists?

Why is there a fence between India and Bangladesh if welfare is the magnet? How many times do we have to point out that you are wrong before you can admit it?

Blogger Lance E May 06, 2017 3:57 PM  

The "libertarian" movement in the U.S. is mostly a bunch of pot-smoking "left-libertarians" who haven't actually read any of the literature and don't understand anything about economics. Their "leaders" like Gary Johnson are really just modern-day hippies, with all of the virtue-signaling traits of the left and the same corporatist ideas as neocons/neolibs.

The actual thought leaders of the movement since the 1990s, like Rothbard and Hoppe, have mostly adopted closed-borders, anti-egalitarian positions. They view these things as an assault on private property, and admit that their positions necessarily lead to ethnic segregation. It's not "we'd all be fine if everyone would just agree to be libertarian". It's "we want to build an exclusive club for libertarians, and the second anyone starts agitating for redistribution or desegregation, they can either leave peacefully or take a helicopter tour".

The physical removal aspect does probably require more government than libertarians would like to admit, but I'm personally fine with the idea of a government that sticks to defense, law enforcement, AND excommunication.

I don't ask anyone else to agree. But I'd also prefer not to be lumped in with the likes of Nick Gillespie. And the invasion of leftards into the libertarian movement should be a cautionary tale for the alt-right regarding national socialists.

Anonymous grey enlightenment May 06, 2017 4:00 PM  


France is becoming a Third World country because of economic policies instituted by the graduates of its finest schools, not Arabs.
- Nick Gillespie

It should be impossible to be this stupid. I suspect for most of human existence, idiots who said moronic things like this tried to hand feed bears or cuddle with large reptiles, thus eliminating themselves from the the system. There’s no other way to read this than Nick Gillespie believes some minor alterations to the French tax code will ameliorate this.


But it's the academics who create policy that abets immigration. Arab immigration is due to left-wing policy that enables it.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer May 06, 2017 4:01 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dave Narby May 06, 2017 4:01 PM  

>>...Who's pathetic, again?

>You are, as I said. First, because Nick Gillespie's position is more properly representative of libertarian doctrine than the positions of Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, and Dave Narby. You three are opposing the libertarian doctrine, he is upholding it.

That is ridiculous. Without Ron Paul there would not be a Libertarian movement. Even Murray Rothbard changed from open borders https://openborders.info/rothbard-immigration-about-face/ Hans-Hermann Hoppe is also against open borders: https://openborders.info/hans-hermann-hoppe/

You are repeating the original fallacy. That's advertising, not an argument.

Also: Stefan Molyneaux!

Pathetic.

>First, libertarian doctrine traditionally declared itself, with no qualifications or reservations, in favour of the principle of complete freedom of emigration and immigration. This position is based on the recognition of political frontiers as a flagrant act of interventionism and institutional coercion on the part of the state, which often tends to hinder or even prevent the free movement of human beings
- Jesús Huerta de Soto,

Never heard of de Soto, so I looked him up. He's a European libertarian, which makes him functionally, ideologically, and dogmatically different from American libertarianism. That's an Appeal to Tradition and a Fallacy of Association. Well done, a twofer!

>You are now proving yourself to be dishonest as well. If you ever were a libertarian, then you must have known what libertarian doctrine concerning the free movement of peoples and the immorality of restricting them on the basis of "lines on a map".

You are advertising again. Or you forgot to capitalize Libertarian (Libertarian party vs. libertarian philosophy).

>Second, because you tried to claim a logical fallacy that you quite clearly did not understand. Even if Nick Gillespie's position was not as perfectly in line with libertarian doctrine as it observably is, it quite clearly was not an irrelevant association. The Association Fallacy did not apply to the Zman's argument.

You're weaseling. Nobody has done a survey to establish if all small 'l' libertarians are "open border". My personal observation is that it's maybe 50/50. But you and Z-Man are still clearly committing the Association Fallacy.

Pathetic.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer May 06, 2017 4:02 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 4:03 PM  

@Paradigm - How can you quote me and then argue about something that's not in the quote? Either address the quote or go away.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 4:04 PM  

What did the welfare state look like in 1910? There wasn't one. Since there wasn't one, for sure there must not have been any immigration.

Then why was this law passed?
https://infogalactic.com/info/Immigration_Act_of_1924

And why did Cellar spend the next 40 years working to replace it?

Why does India fence out Bangladesh?

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 4:07 PM  

That is ridiculous. Without Ron Paul there would not be a Libertarian movement.

As I said, you're pathetic. You don't even understand the very political ideology you espouse.

In any event, it is dead now. There will never be a successful "closed borders libertarianism" because it contradicts the core libertarian concept of individual sovereignty.

It is a utopian ideal, nothing more.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 4:07 PM  

S1AL
That's simply not true. The ethnic background of the immigrants has changed, but they've always existed.


Prove it. Tell us all what levels of immigration into Europe from anywhere were during the Cold War. Then compare that to immigration since the 1990's. Those two numbers are not the same. Therefore "they've always existed" is wrong. The welfare states of Europe did not change.

What is the "welfare state" of India that draws people out of Bangladesh?

You're in a hole. Stop digging.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 4:09 PM  

Paradigm - "Europe" is not a nation. Stop acting like it's a nation.

And actually, yes, they very much did change. Several times.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 4:15 PM  

@106
Spain is a nation. Tell me what the immigration policies of Franco's Spain are vs. now. Then tell me how the immigrants to Spain have "always been there".

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

"Muh WELfare!", lol. Why was the immigration act of 1924 passed? Tell us all that.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 06, 2017 4:19 PM  

Then tell me how the immigrants to Spain have "always been there".

The Moorish immigrants had always been there.

Until 1492.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 4:20 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger DonReynolds May 06, 2017 4:20 PM  

I can remember back to when Libertarian meant something entirely different than it does today. When I was an economics student in the 1970s, I was so taken and accepted myself. (In those days, being accused of being a Libertarian in the economics department was somewhere between a Japanese arsonist and an American child molester.)

I was sold on the capitalist argument and drank deeply from the cup. Capitalism works because it does not require people to change their basic nature. People are naturally capitalist, not altruistic. Libertarians were hard-nosed people with even harder heads, that refused to buy into the Socialist Utopia.

Since then.....the Libertarians have become merely annoying....with their own version of Utopia, what I prefer to call Hippie Libertarianism. The Libertarianism of Open Borders, free love and drugs, where everyone is nice and wears flowers in their hair, everyone is equal, and nobody has a legitimate complaint because there is no government to complain to. There are no problems because, as we all know, only the government can create problems. People are only nice to each other when the world is Libertarian. After all, the Non-Aggression Principle is something that everyone will simply agree to, no matter what history or human nature says. Everyone will be a pacifist because only governments fight wars.

No, I am not a Libertarian.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 4:21 PM  

Paradigm - You have yet to address what I actually said. Either address what I said or I'll assume you're arguing in bad faith and ignore you.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents May 06, 2017 4:26 PM  

@109 S1AL whining:
Paradigm - You have it to address what I actually said. Either address what I said or stop talking to me. I'm not going to respond to anything you say until you address my original point.

Here is your original point:

Yeah, but gentry liberals don't want to actually *see* immigrants unless they're employed in the service underclass. Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

I have addressed it multiple times, and asked you a number of questions you can't seem to get your brain around.

What was the "welfare state" in the US in 1910?
Why was the Immigration Act of 1924 passed?
What was the "welfare state" in 1954?
Why was "Operation Wetback" carried out?
What is the "welfare state" in India like?
Why has India fenced out Bangladesh?
What is the "welfare state" in Mexico?
Why has Mexico built a wall on the Guatamalan border?

You assert this:
Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

You don't offer any support for it.
You ignore all refutations of it.
You just keep parroting it in some varying form.
You are not tall enough for this ride.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer May 06, 2017 4:26 PM  

Nick is indeed an idiot. A necessary condition is the rule of law. That doesn't exit in the former Republic of the United States. NAP is good and all until someone violates it. I give up my unlimited power to the state in exchange for its protection. And for this to work, all must be accountable to the law. However, we only have some law for some people. Courts do not hold cops accountable for murdering their fellow citizens. Clinton has yet to be indicted. Reason is a non-profit because in the marketplace of ideas, no one wants Reason's stupid fucking ideas.

2ndly I believe we do have duties. My appeal to authority in this matter would be Kant.

Blogger YIH May 06, 2017 4:28 PM  

@33 John Morris
Who encouraged the diversity to settle [In Detroit]?
What Detroit used to be famous for, the US auto companies, Ford began bringing/encouraging Africans from the South to come for jobs, and in WWII everybody else did. Fast forward two or three generations of non-nuclear WMD and you have Detrafrica.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 4:35 PM  

"I have addressed it multiple times, and asked you a number of questions you can't seem to get your brain around."

You have not once addressed it. The point you keep attacking is:

"Without the welfare state we wouldn't have immigration".

The problem is that *I never said that*.

And I offered direct support for it in the original post. I'll reiterate here you're confused: Gentry white-liberals (the ones who've pushed mass immigration) are only willing to do so because the welfare state keeps immigrants out of sight and out of mind. Without the welfare state to create a semblance of functionality and Americanism, those gentry liberals would not push for mass immigration because then they'd have to actually see and deal with the results.

Without the welfare state, the current situation is simply unsustainable. The immigrant population, both illegal and legal, would generate massive problems that would spill over into all kinds of areas that don't currently have to deal with those problems. The people who supported it would be hollering to have them all gone within a week.

Now: address the point I made, not the hypothetical that gives a damn about Franco's Spain. My point doesn't.

Blogger Cassandros the Elder May 06, 2017 4:45 PM  

I'm wondering what sort of Libertarian shorthand Mr. Gillespie was speaking when he said he would not let his boys join the scouts unless they could have homosexual scout masters?

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 4:46 PM  

Nick and all the rest of the open border libertaridans are invited to take a nice, long stroll in the streets of Paris around Gare du Nord. Experience the vibrancy. Feel the energy. Enjoy the diversity. Leave you passport, your watch, your phone and any cash over 100 Euros in the hotel room.

This is like arguing with Bishop Berkeley about material substances. Or arguing with a rock.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 06, 2017 4:49 PM  

You're weaseling. Nobody has done a survey to establish if all small 'l' libertarians are "open border". My personal observation is that it's maybe 50/50.
Not All Libertairans Are Like That. I Know Some Good Ones!

Seriously, if you don't want to be associated with Gillespie, stop calling yourself a Libertarian.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 4:52 PM  


S1AL
Gentry white-liberals (the ones who've pushed mass immigration) are only willing to do so because the welfare state keeps immigrants out of sight and out of mind

No. If that was true, then there would not have been any immigration prior to 1965. Dude, you're so wrong it's not even funny.

Without the welfare state, the current situation is simply unsustainable.

Why? Because favelas are unsustainable? Dude, look at Rio. Look at Sri Lanka. Look around the whole world.

What's the welfare state like in India?

The elites want to replace white Americans with 3rd world peasants. That's why the want open borders.

You're weaseling away from your original "no welfare, no immigration" position but it isn't enough. Are you man enough to admit when you are wrong, or not?

Blogger Were-Puppy May 06, 2017 4:52 PM  

Libertarians
https://youtu.be/DeiK0fdPv8Y

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 4:55 PM  

S1AL
Now: address the point I made, not the hypothetical that gives a damn about Franco's Spain.

Done over and over again. You're the one who brought up "the immigrants have always been there". SO 1 million people immigrated to some European country every year during the Cold War? Teh lolz!

Dude, you're too short. Give it up. Welfare isn't what's drawing the colonists, it's just a nice comfy pillow for them when they get there, but it is in no way necessary.

Why does India have a fenced border with Bangladesh?

Blogger Jew613 May 06, 2017 4:55 PM  

Libertarianism can't work because it denies the existence and power of G-d. The only thing that matters is the self, if an action furthers your self-interest its good. So if flooding your country with savages who rape and pillage but you get cheap labor because it furthers your interests its moral. This system will always lead to disaster.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 4:57 PM  

"You're weaseling away from your original "no welfare, no immigration" position but it isn't enough. Are you man enough to admit when you are wrong, or not?"

That was never my position. You are a liar.

Are you actually incapable of distinguishing between "there would be no push for X" and "X would not exist"? Get over your binary blinders.

Moreover, you are apparently incapable of settling on a date for the beginning of the welfare state. You should really pick one.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents May 06, 2017 5:06 PM  

S1AL
"You're weaseling away from your original "no welfare, no immigration" position but it isn't enough. Are you man enough to admit when you are wrong, or not?"


S1AL

That was never my position. You are a liar.


That is your position. Here, again, in plain text:

Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

Your words, not mine.

Are you actually incapable of distinguishing between "there would be no push for X" and "X would not exist"? Get over your binary blinders.


More weaseling. Look, dude, you said something ignorant and multiple people, starting with Vox, showed you how you are wrong. Get over yourself.


Moreover, you are apparently incapable of settling on a date for the beginning of the welfare state. You should really pick one.


Dude, that is a really pathetic attempt to move your goalposts. I mean, it's middle school level.

Look, you wrote something ignorant and indefensible. You know it's indefensible because you refuse to defend it. All the goalpost moving and weaseling is just digging you deeper.

You're wrong. Vox is right. Cail Corishev is right. I'm right.
Get over yourself.

Blogger alex69elijah9yaki May 06, 2017 5:08 PM  

Most libertarians are former white democrats, who left the party when it became the anti-white party, but they still follow their old mentality, and so they support open borders and deny human biodiversity

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 5:09 PM  

Paradigm - Alright, so you literally don't understand the difference. That's fine. No worries. But next time you should just say so at the beginning so I don't waste time with your stupidity. Vox understand and disagrees... you're just too stupid to understand.

Blogger Buybuydandavis May 06, 2017 5:13 PM  

I estimate that Reason has lost the support of the majority of their comments section over their open borders immigration policy.

It's civic nationalism, not ethnonationalism, but there is open antagonism and scorn for the universal Open Borders Uber Alles policy of the staff.

Nick is not stupid. At least not generally. He just has certain false dogmas of faith which have him sputtering nonsense whenever they come in contact with reality. Cognitive dissonance.

They spent the last year avoiding the issue that importing people who support big government is unlikely to make the US more free. They finally tried to address that point in a debate, and argued that immigrants hate Trump, and Trump is Hitler, therefore immigrants make the US more free. Ta da!

Blogger weka May 06, 2017 5:21 PM  

No. I am Presbyterian. The historical black church would say Amen....

Blogger Tom K. May 06, 2017 5:40 PM  

"The reason Paris was Paris was that, up until recently, it was full of Parisians! Now that Paris is filling up with North Africans and Arabs, it is looking like Algeria with better plumbing."

Perhaps, but I'll bet it still smells like Paris filled with Parisians!

Blogger Buybuydandavis May 06, 2017 5:42 PM  

wreckage wrote:@6; exactly. There's a big movement in Libertarianism right now that supports totally open borders and trans-nationalism; as far as I can tell those two ideas are completely incompatible with small government and personal freedom at a practical level.

I kinda identify as Nationalist Libertarian, do we need another sub-label? "Libertarian Except for Plainly Stupid Ideas that would Destroy Liberty, Obviously, Because that would be Counter Productive.... tarianism."


Two kinds of libertarians.

Clerico libertarians have One Rule to Rule Them All - Thou Shalt not Initiate Force. Extreme and narrow deontologists. That leaves them ideologically anarchists, and therefore rather useless in discussions of State action. The answer is always "The State Should Not". No borders for people or goods. The State Shalt Not.

Most libertarians aren't like that. Most are for minimal government consistent with peace, safety, and security.

A growing number of these have realized that libertarianism is a minority viewpoint in the world, while less so in the West, less so in the Anglosphere, and less so in the US. They've been grappling with how to act given that minority status probably starting with the fall of the USSR, which distracted from less obvious variations in Liberty within the opponents of the global gulag.








Anonymous DaveA May 06, 2017 5:44 PM  

Libertarianism works great at low population densities -- you do your thing on your 500 acres and I'll do what I want on mine. But heck, if it worked on the vast, harsh American frontier, it can work anywhere, right? Like the libertarian who insisted that he had a right to erect a tall, noisy windmill on the roof of his suburban tract house. Uh, no.

Blogger praetorian May 06, 2017 5:45 PM  

Libertarianism: Not even once.

The migration of the almost exclusively white, male libertarian movement into alt-right identity politics is the major ideological story of the last decade. It occurred (and is occurring) online, so some very interesting historical analysis will eventually be available on the phenomena.

Blogger tz May 06, 2017 5:50 PM  

Tom Woods in a QA with Michael Malice was talking that the 1000 page economic papers were still useful. Useful to whom? The Somali, either in Mogadishu or Minneapolis? Christopher Canwell is rapidly becoming more enjoyable.
Libertarianism is only even conceivable from a base of the Constitution of the founding fathers, which is a very narrow demographic.
Theoretical stuff. Utopia. non-organic ideas like DROs. By people who never had to work or provide value.
Libertarian journals are brain porn for utopians who have their own circle.
No corporation or entrepreneur would want a 1000 page speculation - that isn't how Steve Jobs created Apple's insanely great devices.
I have many ideas on how to convince people to really shrink government (Jury Nullification or a strike based on it even by a small percentage of people would monkey-wrench the in-justice system). (Taxation is death - Your property comes from the days of your lifespan, so robbing that is like killing you before your time, but because it is spread out you don't notice how many days of your life have been taken).

The alt-right's difference is they have a vision. Perhaps a bit foggy, and maybe not consistent, but they know what kind of culture and society they want - and it is what white men want. Not Hispanics, Somali, or Japanese want. Or many women, at least feminists.

Libertarians are saying it doesn't matter if we use Adobe bricks or Limestone or Granite, we can build a Cathedral.

While Mormons tend to be constitutionalists, in an area of 98% Mormons, you can have what amounts to an ancap society, and wouldn't need the DRO/insurance/security/arbitration nonsense because they just don't steal or cheat, much less do violence.

In an area of 98% immigrants, refugees, etc. attempts at getting a DRO to work would just result in a no-go zone and much hand-wringing since they wouldn't want to build a wall or fence to keep people who prefer Sharia, and won't do the NAP out from areas that do.

@14 "With better plumbing" "For the time being". Heard of Flint Michigan? Get the Lead out (of the faucet).

@15 Trans-nationalism is a bit like trans-genderism, a denial of science and reality.

@23 Not quite - they complain (L. Spooner) they never agreed to any "Social Contract", but are happy to violently enforce the NAP to those who haven't consented to it, or go splodey head if you ask.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 5:53 PM  

Not even once.

That looks like a man who is MORE than ready to defeat me in debate in 10 seconds. I am suitably cowed.

Blogger Buybuydandavis May 06, 2017 5:54 PM  

alex69elijah9yaki wrote:Most libertarians are former white democrats, who left the party when it became the anti-white party, but they still follow their old mentality, and so they support open borders and deny human biodiversity

Very false in my experience in the US. Most libertarians identify with the Right if they're willing to assert a preference between Right and Left. They have forever. Very few identify as Left.

Even at Reason, which is editorially Open Borders Uber Alles, about half the commenters are against open borders.

HBD doesn't actually come up that much, because that's the data and I don't see libertarians bothering to deny it.

Anonymous Roundtine May 06, 2017 5:58 PM  

The Arabs coming into France are voting for the graduates of its finest schools and guaranteeing they never need worry about a right-wing opposition bearing a resemblence to libertarians. Gillespie wants those graduates gone, yet doesn't understand they're using his own ideology to destroy him.

Blogger Steve Moss May 06, 2017 6:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Billy Ray May 06, 2017 6:10 PM  

Vox "the racist" Day is wrong again.

Detroit, Philly, B'more etc are not hell hole because they are black, they are hell holes because stupid liberal democrat policies made them that way.

The dems policies drove away whites AND SMART LAW ABIDING BLACKS. those polices drove away business and made the schools the sucky idiot factories that they are. The dems made excuses for black crime because CRIME COMES FIRST THEN POVERTY, and poverty means votes for dems. and the dems policies keep the hell hole going cause it means continued votes, people with jobs vote republican. not making excuse for the black criminals but if the mayor of B'more marches with BLM chanting burn baby burn, no justice, no peace, what do expect from the uneducated population?

Dump the dems, make the schools better, whites will come back educated blacks and hispanics will come back, crime will go down EVEN though the Black population increases.

and that's what Gillespie is talking about, if the idiot elites had made STUPID DUMB ASS policies in the first place, the muslims wouldn't even be there.

but this is obviously a higher level of thought than a supposed high IQ racists can muster

Blogger Buybuydandavis May 06, 2017 6:11 PM  

praetorian wrote:Libertarianism: Not even once.

The migration of the almost exclusively white, male libertarian movement into alt-right identity politics is the major ideological story of the last decade.


More generally, libertarians are trying to come to grips with the observation that they are a *minority* viewpoint.

People are different, whether race, IQ, culture, or personality, and therefore want different things in their politics, and respond to different kinds of persuasion.

How to carve out some freedom in a world where freedom is a minority viewpoint is a big problem.

Blogger Steve Moss May 06, 2017 6:12 PM  

My understanding is that black infants are more frequently the victims of abortion than whites. It might fairly be described as genocide.

Blogger Charles Martel May 06, 2017 6:17 PM  

@138 Nah. It's a provable fact that any place where one finds a critical mass of Negroes one will also find that which a critical mass of Negroes produces: very loud noise, litter all over the landscape (McDonalds trash, KFC trash, wine bottles, shell casings), a high level of violent and non-violent crime, and a whole lot of flashy chrome.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 6:18 PM  

@131
Libertarianism works great at low population densities -- you do your thing on your 500 acres and I'll do what I want on mine.

What's the population density in Afghanistan? Or Congo?
Nah. It's about behaviors, and behaviors are at least partly inherited.

Blogger Buybuydandavis May 06, 2017 6:20 PM  

Billy Ray wrote:
and that's what Gillespie is talking about, if the idiot elites had made STUPID DUMB ASS policies in the first place, the muslims wouldn't even be there.


While I agree that leftists policies are designed to destroy US populations, Gillespie and his Open Borders Uber Alles policy is why Muslims are here. He shares the policy with the Left of bringing them here. Nick would actually bring more than they would. Borders are an initiation of force, you wicked Statist! Invite them all!

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 6:23 PM  

@115 S1AL
Gentry white-liberals (the ones who've pushed mass immigration) are only willing to do so because the welfare state keeps immigrants out of sight and out of mind

No. You are still wrong.

In 1890's America there were some very rich people. Andrew Carnegie. Rockefeller. Morgan.
In 1890's America there was no welfare as we know it.
In 1890's America there was a huge influx of immigration.
In 1890's America the wealthy encouraged immigration.

You are wrong.

Maybe you meant to mumble something about "private profit and socialized costs", that would be Liberteenian 101 level but you did not get there. It doesn't matter because there was no welfare 120 years ago, but rich people still encouraged immigration. If nothing else, a constant flow of dirt-poor peasants into the US kept the "servant problem" under control.

You're wrong. Both history and Current Year proves it.
That's why you keep dodging the question "Why does India fence out Bangladesh", because it proves you wrong.

Blogger DonReynolds May 06, 2017 6:25 PM  

@142 A Deplorable
Agreed.
Move any population with savage behaviors to Kansas and see how many become Lutheran Republican wheat farmers. I would imagine none of them.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 6:26 PM  

By the way, S1AL, another way you are wrong: it's far more than "gentry white" that push mass immigration. La Raza Unida isn't gentry, isn't white, but luvs La Raza Cosmica. Islamic groups like CAIR are not white, not gentry, but demand MOAR colonists from the Dar al Islam.

You're just wrong and too stubbornly prideful to admit it.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora May 06, 2017 6:28 PM  

If Arabs and Dindus aren't a problem, why are policies that bring them in a problem?

Blogger tz May 06, 2017 6:33 PM  

@129 Paris used to be filled with Parisians. Now it is filled with paris-ites.

@24 Knife is becoming (battery, sulfuric) acid is the current

@44 It may be genetic or epi-genetic, but some things are so broken they can't be fixed. Detroit has too many single multiple mothers. Let a libertarian explain how to turn Detroit into Galt's gulch.

Even Galt's gulch basically picked out the libertarians so they wouldn't have to fight the looters and moochers.

@73 ask the native americans if their welfare was what brought the europeans in and how well it worked out.

I think the LP was founded in 1972. Like cuckservatives, they just complain. Unlike cucks they fantasize about their ancap utopia. While Tyranny grows and more is usurped every year. I mention Tom Woods, but he has many daughters (He's a Trad Catholic). Does he want them to read "scholarly libertarian writings" between brothel clients or through their burkahs?

If NK would Nuke the left coast, I'd be really sad while celebrating. But I'm tired of paying for the perpetually irresponsible. We used to have charity. Now the government sells temporal indulgences.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 6:37 PM  

@126 S1AL

Paradigm - Alright, so you literally don't understand the difference.

It's a difference without distinction, because it's just you trying to weasel out of a stupid position.

That's fine. No worries. But next time you should just say so at the beginning so I don't waste time with your stupidity. Vox understand and disagrees... you're just too stupid to understand.

Next time multiple people tell you "you're wrong, and here's why" you should pay attention. Learn to admit when you're wrong, and move on.

Blogger tz May 06, 2017 6:37 PM  

@142 You mean Lutheran (churchian reference omitted) Republicans aren't savage? They didn't nullify Tiller's assassin. Take a tornado to OZ - Dorthoy was an immigrant and she immediately killed the eastern ruler.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 6:40 PM  

Let a libertarian explain how to turn Detroit into Galt's gulch.

Two years ago at a conference I was talking to an intelligent Boomer. No, really, I was. He showed me on Google Earth where his wife grew up. It's trees. No house, no real street anymore, no sidewalk visible, just trees. He said Detroit now makes a little money with timber sales. Tree cutting for money inside the city limits. That's what Detroit is now. No liberteenies in sight, either.

Anonymous Smack MacDougal May 06, 2017 6:43 PM  

I wrote about dopey Nick Gillespie long ago.

See: REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA'S CRYPTO-NEOCON REPUBLICANS

Reason.com Libertarians are dopey.
Reason.com Reasonoids

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 6:44 PM  

I think the LP was founded in 1972.

The high water mark of American middle class wages.
Coincidence?

Anonymous BBGKB May 06, 2017 6:57 PM  

Without the welfare state, I guarantee you there'd be no push to bring people in.

Tell that to the jews who bought voodoo blacks from moslem blacks in Africa to sell in the US, because they didn't want to pay whites a living wage

Blogger Robert What? May 06, 2017 6:58 PM  

I used to identify myself as a Libertarian although never hard core or dogmatic. The thing about libertarianism is that it requires that all parties sign onto it. If faced with a significantly large number - even if still a minority - who don't subscribe to your platform of non aggression, then you're screwed.

Anonymous Grave Digger May 06, 2017 7:23 PM  

"Anyone who still believes in the Blank Slate Theory is an idiot, perhaps some day I'll ask that of Gillespie."

No good evidence anglos are any better at securing liberty in the U.S than Germans, Italians, Irish, Fremch, Jews or Greeks or Russians.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 7:31 PM  

Detroit, Philly, B'more etc are not hell hole because they are black, they are hell holes because stupid liberal democrat policies made them that way.

You're a moron, Billy Ray. Minneapolis is and was far more liberal and democrat than Detroit or Philly or Baltimore, but it remained a nice place to live because it was still heavily white.

It's not 1960 anymore. Give it up. There are 50 years of evidence proving that your idiotic notion that everyone is the same is completely wrong.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 7:32 PM  

They're right, S1AL, you are wrong. So stop digging.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 06, 2017 7:39 PM  

Billy Ray wrote:Detroit, Philly, B'more etc are not hell hole because they are black, they are hell holes because stupid liberal democrat policies made them that way.And what would a thread be without Billy Ray showing up to aggressively spew idiot slogans that are false n their face?
Detroit is less liberal than Seattle. Detroit is 90% Black and run by blacks. Seattle is 80% White and run by homosexuals (don't argue, Seattle's been run by gays since at least the 1970s).
Seattle has a law-abiding White population, largely Yankee and Scandinavian in descent.

Detroit is a war zone. Seattle is a prosperous, city.

You're wrong.

Blogger S1AL May 06, 2017 8:25 PM  

"They're right, S1AL, you are wrong. So stop digging."

Maybe. But it's gonna be hard to demonstrate until the first state's welfare system collapses.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 06, 2017 10:22 PM  

Libertarianism works great at low population densities -- you do your thing on your 500 acres and I'll do what I want on mine.

It also worked pretty well on the Internet for a few years in the mid-1990s, when the population was almost entirely white male computer hobbyists. The "acreage" was basically unlimited, and if you didn't like a particular "territory," you stayed away from it. If you didn't like that, tough, there wasn't anything you could do about it anyway.

But then people who weren't white male computer hobbyists got online, and soon the calls for civility and rules and the demands for safe spaces grew. And the key: the libertarian-minded geeks had no defense against those who didn't share their live-and-let-live ethos, so their free-for-all online world was quickly invaded and replaced by the SJWs and corporate culture. In real life, they defend freedom even more helplessly -- as Gary Bake-the-Cake Johnson proved.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster May 06, 2017 10:23 PM  

"The migration of the almost exclusively white, male libertarian movement into alt-right identity politics is the major ideological story of the last decade."

I'm not sure it's so much a movement that way as that libertarianism has moved away from the 20th century libertarians, and the alt-right has taken its place. When I was a libertarian in the 90s, there was very little talk about open borders, because most libertarians I knew could see that you couldn't have a libertarian society for long if you brought in a billion non-libertarians. I dropped out after 9/11 when some of the libertarians I knew switched overnight to 'bomb everyone!' neocons, so either I was lucky that those I knew were smarter than the average libertarian, or the open-borders lunacy came after that.

Blogger Lazarus May 06, 2017 10:47 PM  

Libertarianism is good thing, but not now. This is an example of how dispensationalism works.

Blogger Lazarus May 06, 2017 11:05 PM  

S1AL wrote:"They're right, S1AL, you are wrong. So stop digging."

Maybe. But it's gonna be hard to demonstrate until the first state's welfare system collapses.


Do you know where the motive for the welfare state came from historically? It is insurance against the elites being led to the guillotines.

Do you know why elites want complete retards from other lands to take over the west? Because the retards are completely submissive to government.

Your rationalizations are so not smart.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit May 07, 2017 12:34 AM  

Detroit isn't Detroit because of its predominantly black population, but because of those damned Democratic policies!

Yes. It is.

Because those Democratic policies include destroying fatherhood, marriage, self reliance and anything approaching civic cultural capital amongst the slave class voting block that keeps the Dems in power.

Democratic stated public policy includes indoctrinating Blacks from pre-school on up in the fanatic belief that self-control and the Confuscian virtues are a complete betrayal of your tribe.

Anyone who thinks that the (literally) damnable Democratic public policies are merely economic rather than cultural has been living under a rock.

Embrace the healing power of "and"

Detroit is the way it is because Democratic policies have created a colossally disfunctional slave class AND those people are a misery to themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be near them.

Anonymous Sharrukin May 07, 2017 2:35 AM  

165. The Overgrown Hobbit

Detroit is the way it is because Democratic policies have created a colossally disfunctional slave class AND those people are a misery to themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be near them.

And the Democrats somehow managed to do the same thing to Somalia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Gabon, the Congo, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Sudan, Cameroon, the blacks in London, the blacks in Brazil, the blacks in Haiti, the blacks in Sweden, and so many other places.

The Democratic cultural and economic tentacles are everywhere and the naturally conservative culturally traditional blacks cannot seem to escape.

Strange that the white areas of liberal Sweden, liberal Norway, and places like Minneapolis are somehow oddly resistant to the tentacles of Democratic cultural and economic sabotage as their liberal socialist communities don't turn into a bombed out Mad Max moonscape?

What could possibly be the difference?

Anonymous Rocklea May 07, 2017 3:17 AM  

Libertarianism as SJWism+Dollar-i-dollartry+Minarchy.
What could go wrong?

Anonymous Rocklea May 07, 2017 4:05 AM  

VD wrote:
"Your guarantee is worthless. Also, you're wrong. Do you still not yet understand that they are bringing them here to replace you? Do you not understand that this is intentional?"

John Woo's Replacement Killers.

Blogger wreckage May 07, 2017 4:43 AM  

"And the key: the libertarian-minded geeks had no defense against those who didn't share their live-and-let-live ethos"

An excellent point. It could certainly be argued that Libertarianism is untenable because it offers no basis for organization against its adversaries.

Blogger S1AL May 07, 2017 4:53 AM  

"Do you know where the motive for the welfare state came from historically? It is insurance against the elites being led to the guillotines.

Do you know why elites want complete retards from other lands to take over the west? Because the retards are completely submissive to government."

This is not mutually exclusive with what I said. The current push depends on the gullibility of the gentry liberals (gentry liberals are not "the elite"). Without their support for mass immigration, it doesn't exist.

Blogger VD May 07, 2017 7:09 AM  

Detroit is the way it is because Democratic policies have created a colossally disfunctional slave class AND those people are a misery to themselves and anyone unfortunate enough to be near them.

You're wrong. It is race that drives culture, and culture that drives politics. You simply don't grasp basic cause and effect.

Anonymous Avalanche May 07, 2017 7:51 AM  

@7 "civic nationalists would call a "good" foreigner - one that is similar to a nineteenth century immigrant and would come even in the absence of government handouts because of perceived better opportunities."

Yes but was it Vox or a commenter who has written here before (paraphrasing): even without welfare -- "poverty" in the U.S. / West is a million times better and easier than poverty in their hellhole third world *nations* (word chosen intentionally!). A parasite doesn't CARE whether the host gives to it willingly, or is merely unable to dislodge the filthy tick; the PARASITE will still jump on for the ride!

Anonymous Avalanche May 07, 2017 7:55 AM  

@17 "If all Actors have to play along, there is massive advantage given to the 1 that chooses not to, most especially when everyone else convinces themselves not to respond."

My favorite motto is:

Those who beat their swords into plowshares...
will plow for those who don't.

Anonymous Avalanche May 07, 2017 8:06 AM  

@33 "Who will import the same vibrant diversity into Seattle and Portland as soon as they can manage it and bring the exact same result?"

"Will" import? Nearly 20 years ago (!) I gave up my hopes of moving back to WA from the still slightly free-ish South (yay Nate!) when "they" moved 20,000 somalis into Seattle!! (Granted many/most of THEM later moved to some small town in Maine where the welfare was better (and their infestation had already started taking over). (And a lot of the destruction of Washington was the ^&@$*# Californians who 'escaped' their 'we-built-this hellhole' and then started setting it up, up North!)

Anonymous Avalanche May 07, 2017 8:15 AM  

@43 "I'm a managed-border Libertarian"

YOU get a Libertarianism! And YOU get a Libertarianism! And YOU get a Libertarianism!

I thought Oprah give them all away a few years ago?

If you get to pick-and-choose (from a buffet; do you not see the truth provided by commenters above?) what is and isn't (or, rather, will be and won't be) in your version of Libertarianism, then WHY do you still call it Libertarianism -- and just how many OTHER upper-class White dudes have you found to agree to live in YOUR "state"?

(I see an analogy to churchianity: "I like THIS part of Christianity, but not THAT part; I will agree to follow THIS rule, but I won't accept/follow that one!")

Blogger wreckage May 07, 2017 9:10 AM  

Well like I said upthread, and as Vox also noted; open borders plus dogmatic adherence to particular philosophical shiboleths will result in LESS freedom, not more; hence if you're at all interested in policy and outcomes you are, by the standards of some here, not a Libertarian.

Well, OK, but I prefer "not an ideologically blinkered idiot with no interest in reality".

Which seems a rather long word for a political ideology.

Centralized systems get parasitized faster and more finally than dispersed ones. My attitude to centralized systems is generally best sketched by the phrase "Libertarian", since Conservatives are primarily about building a grand edifice then wringing their hands and sobbing when parasites conquer it; so I am clearly not a conservative.

The alt-right is split down the middle, or perhaps along a couple of axes, with a large chunk honestly believing that if they are control-oriented enough, and ruthless enough, they can impose utopia; that's never worked, it's a idiot's dream, ergo, I am not alt-right.

I can go on to point out the fatal, irrefutably moronic flaws in every political movement, and no doubt Vox can do so faster, better, and more eloquently. Every philosophy is by and for idiots. Hence I have two hopes: Nationalism, to prevent my subjugation by large groups of heavily armed idiots, and Libertarianism, so I don't have to waste my time following the dictates and endless dithering nonsense of local idiots.

Blogger wreckage May 07, 2017 9:14 AM  

You guys get alt-right, alt-lite, alt-white and alt-retard, but I don't even get two labels to split? What, is Diversity Your Strength now?

Anonymous Avalanche May 07, 2017 9:21 AM  

@138 "Dump the dems, make the schools better, whites will come back educated blacks and hispanics will come back, crime will go down EVEN though the Black population increases."

Tried that.

"Here’s why $7 billion didn’t help America’s worst schools" http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/failing-schools-education-white-house-214332

From which:
The administration pumped $3 billion of economic stimulus money into the School Improvement Grants program. Six years later, the program has failed to produce the dramatic results the administration had hoped to achieve. About two thirds of SIG schools nationwide made modest or no gains — not much different from similarly bad schools that got no money at all. About a third of the schools actually got worse.

Just HOW do you expect to make "the schools better" if THREE BILLION DOLLARS can't move the needle one inch?! Oh! I get it! You're a commie: "it's just never been TRIED the right way?! It's not REALLY school improvement if it fails -- let's throw more money"!? (Go check out the 'news' on schooling in majority black Atlanta. SEE the corruption and embezzlement of the black staff (all the way up to school board head -- she just got sent to jail for corruption, if I remember. Oh, and don't forget the violence meted out to White kids!)

It will NEVER be the case that Whites will move into black -- or blacker -- neighborhoods! (Ever heard off White flight?) Do you not get that we Whites want to live WITH OUR OWN!?!? Have you ever lived in a majority black neighborhood? Are you just fine with ungodly thumping d@mned bass "music" at 105 decibels at 3 a.m. -- from an apartment 1,000 feet away through two sets of closed windows? HOW do you intend to get them to perform the upkeep -- and consideration of their neighbors - that WHITES take for granted? Right, you DON'T because YOU will not be living anywhere near them -- but OTHER White people will? (Have you ever even MET a White who wants to live in a black neighborhood -- not one of you pie-in-the-sky, peace-love dove-idiots; a REAL White person with actual experience with how blacks live when not forced to abide by White standards?

Are you gonna put your children into a majority black school? Or even a 25% black school? (And if you say yes -- then you have never SEEN such a school!)

I will bet YOU don't live in a black neighborhood, do you? And never have! And never WILL! But you can sure suggest OTHER White people will. Tell yah what: YOU GO FIRST!

Blogger seeingsights May 07, 2017 10:32 AM  

@178. Avalanche

Most of the white liberals/lefties I know live in mostly white, relatively affluent areas. I find that curious. I live in an area somewhat more "diverse" than them.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster May 07, 2017 11:51 AM  

@179: it's easy to believe 'we're all the same under the skin' when you live in an area full of people just like you.

Those who actually have to live with The Diverse are far less likely to believe it.

Anonymous Young Ned of the Hill May 07, 2017 1:11 PM  

If I'm reading any of this correctly, there seems to be an awful lot of talking past each other. No, the welfare state is not necesssary for there to be immigration, and yes, it can serve as literal "panem et circenses" to keep the elites safe from the native mob. It does, however, seem to have an effect on the type (and number) of immigrants attracted, whether in terms of race, religion, work ethic, or what-have-you. It also seems to be a unifying factor in cases where the elite, or the (((elite))), have elected to actively import hostile or servile foreigners to displace the native populace and then subsidize their increase in order to alternately buy their votes with gibs or weaponize them against the remaining natives. The dismantling of the welfare state might help to mitigate the problem of current and future immigration but is indeed not sufficient to solve it, nor does it adequately address earlier resident parasite groups, or the droves of invaders already here.

Blogger YIH May 07, 2017 1:59 PM  

@51 - 54: VD et al.
Bingo. If you hawk drugs, prostitutes, fake Rolex watches, or Chinese crap on the street, where is the better market for them? EU/UK/US or ''back home''? The grass is greener on the other side of the fence.

Anonymous FP May 07, 2017 2:38 PM  

This discussion reminds me of a favorite part of a libertarian utopia novel, by L. Neil Smith.

The graphic novel version:

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=158

All one needs as a bank account to join the confederacy of states. The best part though is the female president of the congress saying she won't give up her beliefs even if it means the end of her country.

I stopped taking any libertarians seriously when they didn't openly and loudly denounce Weedman for Pres. Though when I had some telling me that comparing obamacare to slavery was over the top back in 2010, I knew it was hopeless for any who leaned "left libertarian".

Blogger YIH May 07, 2017 3:44 PM  

DaveA wrote:Libertarianism works great at low population densities -- you do your thing on your 500 acres and I'll do what I want on mine. But heck, if it worked on the vast, harsh American frontier, it can work anywhere, right? Like the libertarian who insisted that he had a right to erect a tall, noisy windmill on the roof of his suburban tract house. Uh, no.
Good example of that: https://ericpetersautos.com/2017/02/17/the-libertarian-dilemma/
Hardcore ''libertarian'', who lives in (his words) a rural area, one with just one stoplight in the whole county – and no zoning laws, if you can imagine such a thing still exists anywhere in America today. Virginia I believe. Then guess what happened to his bucolic life?
Like the fact that there will soon be a Dollar General store about a mile down the road from me. Ugh. It will be the first corporate commercial presence within literally a dozen miles of my place and without question it will change the area’s character in ways that may benefit some but will absolutely annoy others – including me.
I wonder how he'd react if say a local corp such as a church or a bunch of bureaucrats from the eastern side of that state decide that county would be a wonderful new home for scores of Syrian or Somalian ''refugees''? Just not on his property so (again, his words) But I won’t join some of my neighbors in the rictus cry of authoritarian collectivism: There ought to be a law!
Specifically, zoning laws.
While I like his writing about cars, he's a good example of why many call them ''libertardians'' (again, his words)
As a Libertarian, I have the option to move. Or stay – and accept the changing topography.
Put up with (and whine about) decline or flee. That's it - no other options. Yes, fleeing ruination is still an option... Until it isn't. Ask White South Africans about that one.

Blogger S1AL May 07, 2017 4:24 PM  

@Young Ned - Yes. In large part because I allowed the responses to drag me away from my original point. I'm not sure I fundamentally disagree with Vox on the issue.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 4:30 PM  

@184 - EP also hasn't thought out when all the roads are privately owned - by Clovers.

@171 - Why is Detroit permanently Democratic (and corrupt) since the Coleman Young Era. Lee Kway Yoo said it, but failed to point out that if you end up with the wrong monoculture, it will still vote in-group.
Also single mothers might be slaves, but they end up as semi-pampered (who pays for diapers) house slaves. Opportunity knocks up to vote for a nice master.

@159 I lived in both Detroit and Seattle. Neither have a "law abiding population". The latter has SJW virtue signalling statheists. The eastern half of WA wants to secede and form "Liberty". Check out mayday protests - that is yearly for the "law abiding". Actually Seattle is worse than Detroit. My car was never burglarized in Detroit (I don't keep valuables), but was in Seattle - I can handle evil, but not stupid, which is to say a lot that the populace of (white) Seattle (though they have lots of Halal food) is less smart than Detroit.

@157 Hellhole, Black Hole. There is a Castalia House Scifi Book somewhere in there...

@155 OR - you have to be a militant libertarian using violence aganst those who don't sign on to the NAP, but that is apparently why they create complex cloud castle ideas like Dispute Resolution Organiztions.




Blogger wreckage May 08, 2017 5:07 AM  

@186 via @155, well, that's why you have a State. It's also why Libertarianism can't exist without a State to protect it.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl May 08, 2017 8:05 AM  

On Detroit - The Democrats (Deathocrats) did cause the demographic shift. However, this does not negate the point. The shift and the resultant economics are to blame; the Democrats did what Democrats do. Had Republicans done the same thing, the same result would have occurred.

As for libertarians - yeah, the kind of got to me after a while with their lack of willingness to defend, well, anything.

I will say that Lew Rockwell and the gang are at least upfront with saying all their stuff is theoretical and can't be achieved at the current political moment (and LRC has been tagged as RAAAACIIIIST for saying such things). Reason Mag is notorious for becoming Democrat during elections and being a bit more hippy (along with other libertarians). Hell, a Reason writer recently wrote about how tax reductions for businesses in Detroit is BAAAD. For reasons, of course!

Blogger wreckage May 08, 2017 8:38 AM  

Reason has been infected and is being piloted around by zombie slugs.

Blogger Jaycephus May 08, 2017 5:21 PM  

I think true Marxists and Libertarians are both just wrong, as much as I would personally like for Libertarianism to be viable. A fundamental feature of their belief is that the State would just whither away naturally. (If not naturally, then they cannot adhere to the NAP.) Yet where does the State just whither away? I see a history of popular uprising against a strong state or dictator, and then, in the cases a State was pruned back, a growth back to a stronger and stronger state. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, basically.

And all too often, basic roads, bridges, sanitation, water-works, etc, simply don't get built by locals who just live with the state of affairs, even if there had been some infrastructure present previously that decayed. They just sit there and live in filth. If they won't do it for themselves, whither Libertarianism?

I'm well into the bottom-right quadrant of the Political compass. I'd be even further if the weird 'racism is a feature of the Right' was removed or race-dynamics was placed on a third axis. There is no equivalent on the left of most compass questionnaires. Do they ask if one believes their race must be reduced if it is dominant? I don't think there are fair & equivalent questions on the Left for race issues, which skews all users of the questionnaire to the Left. Plus it just arbitrarily positions the Nazi party as 'far right' despite it being a collectivist Socialist Workers Party.

Blogger dfordoom May 08, 2017 10:56 PM  

@29. Johnny

>>Libertarians: All about "rights" and nothing about "duties"

Close but not spot on. The thing about "rights" is that a workable arrangement requires that people be held responsible for their own conduct in those areas where they are allowed free will.


I'm not sure you understand what the concept of "duties" means. Taking responsibility for your actions has nothing to do with duties. They're two entirely different concepts.

Blogger dfordoom May 08, 2017 11:06 PM  

@ John Morris

End the Progressives, end the Democratic Party, end the similar parties infesting the West, and the problems are solvable. Do not end them and they will forbid any solution to 'problems' they create and feed upon.

Basically correct, but you have to destroy the plague of liberalism in the places where it breeds - universities, churches, the media, etc. Just getting rid of the progressive parties would achieve nothing. Liberals need to be purged and the purging needs to be thorough.

Libertarians should be purged as well. They may not be as consciously evil but in practice they're anti-civilisational.

Blogger dfordoom May 08, 2017 11:25 PM  

@47. Phelps

If there wasn't welfare waiting on them, they would still be raping their cousins in the sandy hellholes that bred them. If France cut off the money, they would all be fleeing in a week (just like the Somalis fleeing Minnesota for the Greener Welfare Pastures of Canada.)

That's like saying that it's my fault I got burgled because I have nice things in my house. If I didn't have nice things the burglars wouldn't have robbed me.

It's absolute hogwash.

On the other hand if I had nice things in my house and I l went out leaving all the doors and windows open then it would be my fault I got burgled.

Somalis are not relocating to western Europe because of the welfare state, they're going because traitorous western Europeans left the goddamned door wide open. The answer is to close the door. It's not difficult. Western European countries have things called armies and navies and police forces - things specifically designed to keep doors closed.

Western Europeans have every right to have a welfare state for their own citizens (even if that annoys libertarians). All they need to do is to learn to keep that door closed.

Blogger wreckage May 09, 2017 8:35 AM  

@193 An excellent point, well made.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts