immigration to a libertarian "nation" - by personal sponsorhip only?
This could be a policy breakthrough - cutting edge grounded rationalism, inspired by libertarian principles (only one small step, but why throw out the good stuff just because we can't have utopia in a single hit?): Libertarian country/ nation - premises: - all land is either privately or collectively owned (e.g. by the people who use the land, or who are otherwise permitted by the locals to use that land) - the world's only (hypothetical) libertarian nation, the USA, is bordered by fascist democracies, e.g. Mexico and Canada - coastal land is highly prized, and also well protected/ defended by owners/ residents - "corporations" are just individuals or collectives doing business with other individuals and or collectives, and may own land and buildings So, Habib and Dindu each wish to emmigrate from their respective current homelands (Iraq and Somalia), to this utopian libertarian USA. Habib is a young man chasing work. Dindu has a family and they are fleeing Somali terrorism. In this hypothetical "utopian libertarian USA," Habib, and Dindu and his family require direct sponsorship from individuals and/ or collectives of individuals operating together in "mutually beneficial commerce". Or possibly they land somehow by boat, or plane, and make their way to some isolated location in the hopes of being left alone as squatters? Remember: - No taxes, so no sanctuary cities. - No taxes, so no refugee camps except those run voluntarily by free lovin hippies who might likely get jack of the "freely taken" "love". - No taxes, so no free money / handouts, except by personal direct sponsorship. - No taxes, so no police, so most folk self armed (and knowing how to use said arms), and higher consciousness around communal alertness and protection of others. Perhaps if say Trump's administration wanted to pre-empt this particular libertarian conclusion as a policy, he could (besides all the rest he's doing e.g. "extreme vetting") sign an EO to: require every individual and or family that immigrates, to first have an actual sponsoring individual or family with whom they directly live with for some minimum period of time like 3 years; sponsor has absolute veto to say "no, go home" at any time in that 3 years. This would imply a few things: - greater awareness of the needs of immigrants in the community (you better be up to speed if you're going to personally sponsor and live with an immigrant individual or family), especially if you've got children to protect - the natives ("White invaders" for you Lefties), may be less inclined to accept immigration - immigrants may possibly be more likely to 'integrate' - the number of 'spots' available for immigration (quota) is only ever as many as there are actual individual or family sponsors - ghettoization would no longer occur - if you can't make it with your sponsor, you go back home, or possibly try with a second sponsor I'm thinking there are some folks who might appreciate the inescapable libertarian conclusion re immigration, yes?
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 02:10:24 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
I'm thinking there are some folks who might appreciate the inescapable libertarian conclusion re immigration, yes?
Sorry, I don't think you came to any libertarian conclusion. But here is THE libertarian conclusion from Spooner, who had better libertarian credentials than you. "The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation, in the first place? How is it that each of them comes to be stripped of his natural, God-given rights, and to be incorporated, compressed, compacted, and consolidated into a mass with other men, whom he never saw; with whom he has no contract; and towards many of whom he has no sentiments but fear, hatred, or contempt? How does he become subjected to the control of men like himself, who, by nature, had no authority over him; but who command him to do this, and forbid him to do that, as if they were his sovereigns, and he their subject; and as if their wills and their interests were the only standards of his duties and his rights; and who compel him to submission under peril of confiscation, imprisonment, and death? Clearly all this is the work of force, or fraud, or both." BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, No. 14 Bromfield Street. 1867. Force, or fraud, or both. Not hard to understand...
On 2/1/2017 4:01 PM, juan wrote:
"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation,
Usually through tribalism, ethnic identity, ideology, or shared religion. Religion is how Mohammed did it. And what happens if men do not come to be a nation, or just cease to be nation, perhaps because of loss of tribal or religious identity? Bloody shovel has an interesting tale on this topic: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/trade-and-peace/ “You know, this tribe I got the milk from. They have no leader, no man above all of them. They would be very easy to conquer, we could grab their stuff and have an easy life”. Big brother approved of the suggestion, and just on getting back home, he recruited a bunch of able bodied men, put Bodonchar on command of them, and rode forward to conquer the tribe of the Uriankhai. They stole their livestock and their women, killed the men and enslaved the children to work for them. Bodonchar was a great hero, he had tens of sons born from the concubines he captured, who went on to found the various tribes of the Mongol people, among them the great Gengis Khan, who looked up on his ancestor Bodonchar, the great hero who destroyed the tribe that had been giving him milk when he was needy. Rotherham shows us what happens when outsiders have more social cohesion that you do, more asabiyyah than you do Enemies take your women, your land, and your stuff. Whites got ethnically cleansed out of Detroit and the inner city. White Swedish chicks get pregnant by brown or black Muslims and white male taxpayers who cannot get laid pay for other men's children. A people with high asabiyyah, like the pagan Icelanders, can get by without a central government, provided that they are proud, brave, and valiant warriors, but when Christianity arrived, things fell apart. Something like anarcho capitalism worked for the pagan Icelanders, because they had a state religion without a state, because their religion gave them strong social cohesion. When universalist Christianity arrived, anarchy stopped working.
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:41:16 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Something like anarcho capitalism worked for the pagan Icelanders,
worthless piece of shit, you don't know the fuck you are talking about. you are the poster child for the ignorant right-wing americunt who read half a page from half an article from the randroid cunt and fancies himself the Master of...who the fuck knows what. at any rate you are just one more rayzer on this list - another anti-libertarian scumbag.
because they had a state religion without a state,
yes, that's as much sense as scumbag like you can make. One sentece, three contradictions.
On 02/01/2017 01:41 AM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 2/1/2017 4:01 PM, juan wrote:
"The question still remains, how comes such a thing as "a nation" to exist? How do millions of men, scattered over an extensive territory --- each gifted by nature with individual freedom; required by the law of nature to call no man, or body of men, his masters; authorized by that law to seek his own happiness in his own way, to do what he will with himself and his property, so long as he does not trespass upon the equal liberty of others; authorized also, by that law, to defend his own rights, and redress his own wrongs; and to go to the assistance and defence of any of his fellow men who may be suffering any kind of injustice --- how do millions of such men come to be a nation,
Usually through tribalism, ethnic identity, ideology, or shared religion. Religion is how Mohammed did it.
And what happens if men do not come to be a nation, or just cease to be nation, perhaps because of loss of tribal or religious identity?
Bloody shovel has an interesting tale on this topic: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/trade-and-peace/
“You know, this tribe I got the milk from. They have no leader, no man above all of them. They would be very easy to conquer, we could grab their stuff and have an easy life”.
Big brother approved of the suggestion, and just on getting back home, he recruited a bunch of able bodied men, put Bodonchar on command of them, and rode forward to conquer the tribe of the Uriankhai. They stole their livestock and their women, killed the men and enslaved the children to work for them. Bodonchar was a great hero, he had tens of sons born from the concubines he captured, who went on to found the various tribes of the Mongol people, among them the great Gengis Khan, who looked up on his ancestor Bodonchar, the great hero who destroyed the tribe that had been giving him milk when he was needy.
Rotherham shows us what happens when outsiders have more social cohesion that you do, more asabiyyah than you do Enemies take your women, your land, and your stuff. Whites got ethnically cleansed out of Detroit and the inner city. White Swedish chicks get pregnant by brown or black Muslims and white male taxpayers who cannot get laid pay for other men's children.
A people with high asabiyyah, like the pagan Icelanders, can get by without a central government, provided that they are proud, brave, and valiant warriors, but when Christianity arrived, things fell apart.
Something like anarcho capitalism worked for the pagan Icelanders, because they had a state religion without a state, because their religion gave them strong social cohesion. When universalist Christianity arrived, anarchy stopped working.
participants (4)
-
James A. Donald -
juan -
Marina Brown -
Zenaan Harkness