Sunday, August 23, 2009

'I've never seen anything like this': Let me tell you something. He ain't seen nothin' yet.

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we'll shoot back.

Your move.

-- The doctrine of the Three Percent, Mike Vanderboegh.


Jonathan Martin of the Politico.com profiles a Florida "blue dog" as he conducts town hall meetings on health care in the Panhandle here.

Some snippets:

Rep Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) is a skilled politician who has pretty much seen it all — a Deep South Democrat who’s managed to dispatch all opponents in his conservative-leaning Panhandle district since winning election in 1996. But as he fended off gnats buzzing through the August humidity after a morning fending off angry constituents at a town hall meeting here, Boyd confided that the depth of the unease spurred by the health care debate had caught him by surprise.

“They may be in a minority, but they are a larger minority than we’ve seen in the 20-plus years that I’ve been doing this,” said Boyd of the standing-room-only crowds who have been showing up to shout, boo, mutter and, in one case, hand him an actual stack of pink slips since he returned home for recess. “I’ve never seen anything like this.” . . . But for all the cries of Astroturf fakery and ginned-up crowds, a ground zero view in a district like Boyd’s underlines that a very real sense of anger and frustration is bubbling over as summer wanes. . .

“People are scared,” Boyd said twice, trying to explain what would drive his constituents away from home and work and out into the broiling Florida sun in the middle of the week to see their congressman.


I've been interviewed by a lot of reporters working on stories this past week and all of them are variations on a theme: "Why are (substitute convenient label here: gun owners, right-wingers, conservatives) so ANGRY?" And by angry they mean angry enough to train with weapons, go to a town hall armed, shout down their elected congressman, any of a thousand things that they see but cannot understand because it is not within their worldview. They simply cannot comprehend.

I guess they ask me because I'm viewed as the quintessential "angry white male," although why escapes me. ;-)

I try to explain, speaking slowly and using small words. It goes something like this:

Part of the interest in revitalizing the armed citizenry idea comes in part from the political threat to all our liberties, not just our firearms rights. The other motivation is the perception of an existential threat to the society, the nation and even to the civilization. I point out that when you have a government that engages in printing money and monetizing the debt, it is clear to anyone who knows a little history and economics that societies which have engaged in that suicidal behavior before have been plunged into chaos and tyranny. Can you say Weimar Republic? I knew you could.

And yes, this perception creates fear. It is a fear born of the realization that for a very long time, feckless, grasping leaders of both political parties have been paddling our nation's canoe toward the falls as fast as they could go, with no thought for what lies at the bottom.

So those concerned with garden variety issues like the health care reform are motivated not just be worry over medical treatments or who's going to pay for their medications. They see in it two very different competing visions of how society and government are supposed to work. And the Obamacare plan looks like tyranny to them. And worse, it looks like economically unsustainable tyranny.

Mussolini made the Italian people happy, or at least, less unhappy, about giving up their liberty because he made the trains run on time. Obama's actions so far promise not only tyranny but inefficiency. Not just less freedom but more chaos. Where is the trade-off? There is none. It is as if Dumb and Dumber are running the show with iron fists ("AND YOU DAMN WELL BETTER TAKE IT IF YOU KNOW WHAT"S GOOD FOR YOU").

Their actions violate both the rules of economics AND, more critically, the rule of law. When Obama takes over the auto industry, firing executives and stiffing creditors in violation of the rule of law, why, gunowners and ordinary people ask themselves, should we expect to be treated any differently?

Too, I said, this is the culmination of almost three decades of government misbehavior, over the reign of at least four imperial Presidents, and people have been paying attention. In the 70s and 80s, gun owners didn't pay much attention to the militarization of the police and the excesses of the war on drugs, because those miscarriages of justice happened mostly in the cities, where the victims were black and poor. "Too bad," we would say, "but they shouldn't live in neighborhoods infested by criminals."

Then came Ruby Ridge, Waco and a host of other lesser outrages and all of a sudden gun owners discovered what it was like to be poor and black. In the eyes of the Clintonistas WE were now the criminals. Just as a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, a libertarian is a conservative whose rights have been violated by a predatory state, making him realize that maybe the ACLU had the germ of a good idea anyway -- rights are for all, and if we want to be protected in our homes, our property and our liberty then maybe we ought to start watching out for the other guy's rights, too.

This was why folks in the Constitutional Militia movement were among the loudest voices during the Bush years against both illegal immigration -- which we viewed as horribly corrosive to the rule of law -- and the ill-named PATRIOT Act. We knew, that just as the bad laws of the Weimar Republic laid the predicate for Hitler, Bush was preparing the way for whatever tyrant wannabe came after him. (We expected Hillary, we got Obama. Go figure.) There were some folks then who thought that waterboarding was just for Islamofascists. Now they have a different take on it.

(I’m just waiting for John Ashcroft to be drug off under the PATRIOT Act, shouting the whole way, “It doesn’t mean this! I helped write it, it wasn't meant for this!")

The Founders understood (at least after the Alien and Sedition Acts) that you should never pass a law that you wouldn't be willing to see your own worst enemy enforce upon you.

The rule of constitutional law protects us all. Diminishment of the rule of law threatens us all. The Obamanoids are hacking root and branch at the rule of law, ergo, people are concerned, frightened and angry at the offenders. They want them, most of all, to stop.

And they are frightened by the dangerous hubris of any man who would say, "never let a good crisis go to waste."

Here, the reporter always pipes up, "But isn't it partly because Obama is black?"

I sigh, and ask, "Why is it all about race with you guys? Liberals are more obsessed about race than a Nazi Gauleiter."

(This is where they always pipe up and tell me they're not political. I invariably laugh.)

Look, I tell them. I mean really LOOK. Look who Obama has surrounded himself with. They're Clintonistas, or worse. Personnel is policy. And the worst of these in our mind is not Rahm Emanuel -- that faux tough guy from Chicago who thinks he's got everyone by the balls, and will, until someone sticks a .45 in his face and he's one expletive away from his brains being blown out, at which time he will break down in tears and whimper like a little girl -- but rather Eric Holder, the nation's new "top cop," a term that makes us want to laugh and puke at the same time.

Look at HIS resume, I tell them. Look at it from our point of view. Holder participated at all levels of the Clinton cover-up machine, most especially Waco.

And Waco was the original sin. We saw what happened there. We noticed most especially that no one was held to account for mass murder but the victims themselves. We noticed, and we remember.

We understand that Waco Rules still apply. And we understand that it will be Eric Holder who does the applying.

Which is why we have put him, and them, on notice. There will be no more free Wacos.

This is what the political class, the elites of the country, do not give us credit for. We actually have the intelligence and the memory, to recognize patterns of governance over time, from decade to decade, AND have discussed these things, absorbed the lessons and made . . . let's call them adjustments, in our thinking and our preparations.

Like I said, there will be no more free Wacos.

Contrary to our "better's" sneers, people are actually smart. But most are so busy with their daily lives, that they don’t pay attention to politics, which they see as sordid and unworthy. But when people lose their jobs, and they see a crisis, then they pay attention. And when they pay attention, and they understand what is happening, they start flocking to town halls. And writing letters to the editors. And, some of the,. clean their rifles and await events.

It is ironic, I tell these reporters, that the same politicians who only yesterday were bemoaning that citizens weren’t involved, now cannot run away fast enough now that citizens ARE involved.

But give the people, our people, credit, I tell the reporters, they are not stupid. Angry? Yes. Afraid? Rightfully so. But not stupid.

"Our people," the reporters always ask, picking up on the nuance, not "the people?"

No, I tell them. We are now two peoples, sharing a national border and a common laguage but little else. We are a divided nation, perhaps even more than in 1861. For example, if we cannot agree on the sanctity of life, does it matter that we agree on trivial stuff?

One people have a world-view that tells them that it is government from whom all blessings flow. For the other it is God and hard work and not necessarily in that order. One side wants the ability to tell the other side what to do and tries incessantly to get the government to do it. The other side simply wants to be left alone, for government to get out of the way of private enterprise, uphold the rule of lawm, and the right to life, liberty and property, and to otherwise keep its long nose stuck firmly on its ugly face and out of plain sight.

These are irreconcilable visions, I tell them. One or the other is going to win. It cannot be both.

You know, I point out, they call us gun nuts, fanatics, all manner of insulting things, dehumanizing things. And they call us racists. Why? I mean, the black guy in Phoenix was toting an AR and the media goes out of its way to crop the image so it is harder to tell he's black. Why? Because their world view is able to grasp that theme, that narrative and unable to grasp any other. No one who disagrees with them can possibly be rational because they believe themselves to be the ultimate rational people. So what does a "rational" society do with "irrational people?" They put them in an asylum, of course. And if they are perceived to be armed and dangerous enough, they are killed.

Do you see no hope of avoiding conflict? they always ask. Yes, I say, if the other side sees the unintended consequences of their actions and backs down. This is a slim possibility, I tell them, but it is a possibility. It has, I point out, happened before.

Really, they ask skeptically, when?

In the 1960s with the advent of the Deacons for Defense and Justice, I tell them. Martin Luther king and others in the "non-violent" civil rights movement despaired of getting the federal government to enforce the laws it had passed. But then came the Deacons and the prospect of armed conflict with the local governments conrolled by the Klan and the White Citizens Councils. When the Deacons picked up their guns, it wasn't just about the Klan beating heads with the cooperation of local police that they controlled anymore. Now the Deacons were going to shoot back. And, "well, would ya lookit that," then the Feds decided they needed to get between and enforce those laws. Gandhi had NOTHING to do with it.

The Deacons said, "If you ain't gonna do something about these murderous racist crackers, we will." And the Feds said, "Well, if you feel that way about it . . ." and went in and did it.

Now, with people exercising their rights, going armed to public gatherings and town hall meetings, we see something we have not seen in a long time. I understand how liberals are astonished about it. I'm a little astonished myself. I didn't know if we still had it in us to ACT like free people. Now it seems we do. So our hope is that they will back off. But will they?

You are looking at, I tell them, the tip of the iceberg. The people that the administration will find most troublesome as they go farther down this lawless, tyrannical road are not those who blog, or go to town meetings or write letters to the editor. If these folks get angered by events, they reassure themselves of their skills to handle what will come by going to the range and making sure their rifle is still sighted in or by putting back some more ammo or by teaching their teenage sons (and daughters) how to shoot, move and communicate.

In the unlikely event that the government is successful enough to imprison, silence or kill the last demonstrator, blogger and radio talk show host, it will be these people who emerge from the crowd, put a bullet in some henchman's eye, and fade back again.

These people understand that having been "out-voted," they can still vote. They are the rest of the iceberg upon which the great ship Leviathan, like Titanic, will of its own forward movement, rip out her hull below the waterline and sink to the bottom of history.

So, I tell them, the anger you see is not one tenth of the anger that's out there. And that other none-tenths you will not see until it's too late. So back off, I say, leave us the hell alone, and we won't have to go down this bloody road.

I usually sum up the Three Percent doctrine this way:

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we'll shoot back.

Your move.


-- Mike
III

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mike,
Thank you for your eloquence. A keeper of threeper article. One to pass around to the fence-sitters & those on the other side of the fence.

B Woodman
III-per

Geoff said...

Mike,

I don't see what is wrong with people trying to escape the economic devastation and political corruption in their land.

What made it moral for Europeans (who were hated more than the current Latin country immigrants, and called all sorts of vile things in the contemporaneous mainstream press) to come over in the 1880's, men who were fleeing the same things? Do some politicians making something illegal thereby make it immoral? You and I both know that's not the case. The act of crossing a political border in itself harms no one, and it is not intrinsically immoral.

If immigration in itself is not immoral, what is your problem with the current crop of immigrants? Is it their "refusal to adopt the American language and culture?" The Germans, Bohemians, Moravians, Irish, and Italians were accused of precisely the same thing. Give them a couple generations. They'll be sitting on their couches watching American Idol and sucking down cheap beer, just like the red-blooded American people who have a "right" to be here.

Is it about welfare? That they come and use up tax money? Mike, State welfare itself is the problem. Who has a right to your money? Does a native-born person of Hispanic descent have any moral right to your money, taken by force or the threat of force, to support him and his family? I propose that he does not! Other people who don't have the right to your money, taken by force or threat of force: a white person in East Bumbleduff, West Virginia, a "Native American" in Tumbleweed, Wyoming, or a black person in Destitute City, Alabama.

(Continued below)

Geoff said...

(Continued from above)

Let us make an example: say there is a playground, and the productive kids who play there each make themselves a piggy bank out of clay. They make it and fill it with money they earned with the fruits of their own labor. They see some poor kids, who have no money, not through any fault of their own. These kids volunteer to give some of their money to the poor kids. They do not do so in a way that makes them systematically dependent on getting handouts, but make sure they have enough that they can get by until they're able to get enough money to make their own piggy banks.

Now, some children come to the playground. Bigger, stronger kids. They say, "We want to be compassionate to everyone. You with the piggy banks, give us a third of it, or else I'll twist and break your arm." The big kids proceed to take the money from the kids with the piggy banks, pocket a healthy portion to reimburse themselves for the "necessary" services they render, then distribute the rest to their cronies and to the poor children. Because the poor kids got the handout of other people's money, they became loyal supporters of the bullies.

Back when the regular children gave their own money to the poor kids, they were close enough to see if the people were really trying to break out of poverty. The bullies didn't care. They came around just often enough to take the money from the little kids, and had no vested interest in seeing that the lives of the poor kids got better. They were taking the money for themselves, and for the support offered by the poor kids receiving the handouts.

What starts happening when the poor kids from other playgrounds start hearing about the handouts that they are getting here? They come and line up for their "share," too. And you, Mike: what do you do, witnessing all this take place? Do you busy yourself with overthrowing the punk bullies who are threatening to break arms and to bloody noses? No, you concern yourself with the poor kids coming to get the windfalls from the bullies' thuggish behavior. You're too busy focusing your energy at those dozens of people coming up to get money, than you are from the handful of thugs who are taking the money by violence or the threat of violence in the first place.

With all respect, that is a messed-up priority, sir. If you, or anyone else thinks that the Grenztruppen have a right to use violence against someone because they might commit crimes, or avail themselves of a socialist program called welfare, then logically, you must think that you have the right to use the violence of forced sterilization against a woman with three children who is already on welfare.

Please, Mike, respond with why "illegal immigration" is immoral. We both know that just because something is "illegal" doesn't mean it is immoral. We both know that crossing a political border does not in and of itself harm or violate the rights anyone else, and is also not intrinsically wrong.

Welfare itself is what is wrong, Mike. Leave the immigrants alone. Worry about the real leeches. Worry about the real drain on the fruits of your labor. Politicians.

Respectfully,
-Geoff

Anonymous said...

GREAT JOB! Sadly, I suspect we will have to display our resolve prior to any backing down.

Pickdog
III

cj428 said...

I think the hostile reception At the town hall meetings is from pent up frustration, lunch bucket Johnny is filling toward an unresponsive goverment. What at first seemed strange to me, is when I talk to people from other countries, they seem to think that we have some kind of say in what goes on in Washington. The rest of the world is holding us responsable for what they do.

Loneviking said...

The fact that you have to explain this shows what a vast divide exists in this country between two groups. I have run up against some of those who think government is a savior and their worldview is just incomprehensible to me.

They have no reverence for the consitution, viewing it as something whose time is past and which needs to be changed to fit the new worldview.

They have no fear of government, having somehow convinced themselves that the past really doesn't repeat itself; that humanity today is somehow smarter than those folks who came before us.

They have no faith in their fellow citizens ability to govern themselves without an extensive government beauracracy. This, despite the fact that the beuracracy is made up of human beings and not machines. They seem to view the all encompassing regulations of government to be, somehow, a panacea against any human failing.

Like you, Mike, I truly have my doubts that armed conflict between the two groups can be avoided. In your example of the Deacons of the civil rights movement, it was the Deacons (armed) versus the state governments. The Fed. played referee.

Today, though, it would be 'Us' versus the Fed. government....but who would be the referee? It sure wouldn't be the U.N.! The states don't have standing armies that can stand up to the Fed. And the Fed. has been taken over by a nightmare from Chicago.

I'm not optimistic....

drjim said...

Thanks again. Mike, for another excellent article.
"Speak slowly and use small words".
HAH! That's one I'm going to remember!

Parapacem said...

Excellent - as always - succinct, concise yet suitably subtle in the right places.

And the remark near the conclusion about those who will simply ghist out of the shadows, deliver a kill shot, and ghost out again, reminds me of one of my favorite sayings -
"From a place you will not see - Comes a sound you will not hear"

Anonymous said...

Hey, Geoff, put the word LEGAL into your otherwise ignorant scribbling and most of us here would probably agree with at least some part of what you wrote.

Those others that you write about came here legally and passed through a large number of filtering processes before they were allowed out of Ellis Island.
And just to rub it in, illegal immigration wasn't nearly as big a problem until the fat killer from Massachusetts and his dimo buddies rewrote the immigration laws in the "70's.
emdfl

ScottJ said...

I'd be interested to see what your words look like coming out of the other side of the lefty spin machines.

Because chances are about 9 to 1 your interviews are with propagandists, not reporters.

Happy D said...

Geoff you seem like a thoughtful fellow so if I may ask respectfully, How can I not have a problem with illegals? The first act they committed was to break our laws. Not by accident not under coercion.
And if they come and support those whom steal from me and give some to them is this not organized crime?

Happy D said...

Mike,
As always worth reading.
It occurs to me that the let us call them Libs have forgotten the two rules most important about propaganda.

1. Never believe your own propaganda, without independent unbiased confirmation.

2. If it feels like a lie it probably is not true. For example those people with the homemade signs are astroturf but those people bussed in, in the same shirts with the same glossy printed signs are authentic grass roots.

They believe what Mr. Limbaugh so accurately calls the Drive By Media as "unbiased" as they claim or should I say Lie to be.
This is dangerous to us as the Anointed may try to "civilize" us.
But could be fatal to them as it was to the turd I mean Third Reich.

III

Toastrider said...

And that would be just the most overt reaction, Parapacem.

Sabotage is an art, after all, and art comes in many forms.

Anonymous said...

Where do these politicians and commentators get the idea that the average American citizen is "scared"? I am NOT scared.
I decided on 9-11-2001 I would NOT live my life in fear.
I am PISSED! NOT scared.
And they best not forget it.

chris said...

Realistically, as I watch the day to day outrage boil, I get this increasingly sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I firmly feel that this car we are collectively in has lost its brakes and is heading for the cliff. I really have a hard time believing that anything can stop it.

What strikes me the most is that I don't believe that groups like the threepers will even have to do anything other than sit back and pick up the pieces when it is done. What you said about the anger below the surface is spot on. Those of us that have been vocally angry in either print or voice are most likely going to be drowned out by the ones that speak with action.

The teapot is whistling ferociously and no one is turning off the heat.

Geoff said...

"Hey, Geoff, put the word LEGAL into your otherwise ignorant scribbling and most of us here would probably agree with at least some part of what you wrote.

Those others that you write about came here legally and passed through a large number of filtering processes before they were allowed out of Ellis Island."

I see. To be consistently logical, your beliefs would have made you one of the people who help capture escaped slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, because aiding and/or refusing to capture a fugitive slave was "illegal." You would have thrown Harriet Tubman in prison, because what she did was "illegal." You would've dropped a dime on your neighbors if you suspected they possessed alcohol during the 20's, when it was "illegal." You would have forced that uppity Rosa Parks into prison because not getting up for a white man was "illegal." And you will turn in your guns when the politicians say it's "illegal" for you to have them. I fully understand, Anonymous @ 7:03.

I agree with you on Chappaquiddick Teddy, by the way. But not for the same reasons.

The Hunter said...

I'm with you, Mike. The outrage bubbling away beneath the surface is astonishing. People I never thought would care are going to town hall events, going to Tea Parties, and writing indignant letters to their congers-critters. Oh yeah, and buying guns, and asking about training.

One of the Threepers commented that we may have to do nothing to pick up the pieces. A lot of truth to that, though I suspect that the "Boston Massacre" of this round of the eternal struggle between statism and individualism will be the attempted suppression Waco style of one outspoken critic or another.

I hope there is somebody left in DC with enough sense to back slowly away from the abyss, keeping their hands where we can see them... Sadly, I don't have a lot of confidence that they believe just what a firestorm will erupt if they don't.

Anonymous said...

Hey Geoff, since when does a country NOT have the fundamental right to secure its borders? Kind of like your right to secure your backyard.

Anonymous said...

Happy D, you said the first act of an illegal immigrant is to break our laws. The Government breaks our laws (Constitution) every single day. I know, I know, you're preparing for them and preparing and preparing and preparing. They've been doing it for 80+ years, how much preparation does it take? You won't focus on the bullies because the bullies already took your money, pride and courage. You're bullying the illegals because the big bully turned you into a bully.

Anonymous said...

The only problem here being that those laws that the Feds enforced on behalf of the Deacons were the nose under the tent.

Anonymous said...

Chris, if you don't think that China, Russia, Venezuela are just waiting for this country to implode, you are not paying attention. If you think our worst fight will be against the politicians, you are ill-informed. An armed Revolutions should be the furthest thing from anyones thought process. You should be prepared for it, but a peaceful solution is the best solution. But hey, I'm not a 3% so don't listen to me.

Steve K said...

"I see. To be consistently logical, your beliefs would have made you one of the people who help capture escaped slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, because aiding and/or refusing to capture a fugitive slave was "illegal." "

Geoff,
Just because someone wants to be in this country doesn't mean they just get to waltz in and automatically become entitled to the full rights and protections that the Constitution acknowledges. Otherwise, nothing would prevent 500 million Chinese from coming over here, taking residence, outnumbering everyone in this country and then start making the laws and demanding benefits. Your logic fails on immigration because you assume because that they are human and on our soil, they are America. Not so, not so whatsoever. It is not immoral to deny citizenship or make it illegal for them to be on American soil without following the laws (that are moral in this case). They do not have a Constitutional nor a Moral right to be here.

Anonymous said...

"Otherwise, nothing would prevent 500 million Chinese from coming over here, taking residence, outnumbering everyone in this country and then start making the laws and demanding benefits."

I agree. Once you accept Communism (aka voting, republican democracy), the system is broken. Instead of fixing the problem by removing Communism, the Communists attempt to work around it by converting the newcomers to the majority religion by the sword. Thus American Protestants oppressed American Catholics, the USSR tried to create New Soviet Man, etc.

Happy D said...

Anonymous at 12:10
So I am bullying the illegal immigrants.
So when I move into your backyard or more appropriately on your front sidewalk you will not call the cops to bully me off?
I suppose the illegals are staying at your place?
Borders Language and most important Culture (see Switzerland) otherwise you do not have a country. Illegal immigrants are invaders. When they side with the Government supremacists hostile invaders.
Yes I would love to see the welfare system shut down. Or at least barred to the able bodied and non citizens. This would not solve the illegal immigrant issue.
As for large scale organized crime A.K.A. Government getting them to behave is why we are here. WE are taking suggestions.

d'Heat said...

Re: shoot, move and communicate, The Appleseed Project is available to teach us to shoot, but short of enlisting, where does one learn to move and communicate?

Ymarsakar said...

How come if W was planning the way for his successor by enlarging Executive Powers, he did such a crappy job of it given lost opportunities like 9/11?

Anonymous said...

You guys should definitely check on a group calling themselves "The Free & The Unashamed." Underground hyper-libertarians. (You'll have to google the links.)

They may will differ with you in some political opinions, but that really matters almost nil when it goes down. They are the types to be partners in the struggle and partners in freedom.

Suggest you find their "Declaration of Separation."

Blessings.

Anonymous said...

Ymarsakar:

Did you perhaps miss the Patriot Act's passage, or the expansion of Presidential Signing Statements, or the strong-arming AT&T to install hardware on their net backbone in order to warrantlessly tap US citizens phone lines? All on George’s watch, IIRC.

Happy D said...

Ever notice how asking questions shuts
collectivists and their fellow travelers/apologists down?

Anonymous said...

Happy D asks: "Ever notice how asking questions shuts collectivists and their fellow travelers/apologists down?"

Yes.

"So I am bullying the illegal immigrants. So when I move into your backyard or more appropriately on your front sidewalk you will not call the cops to bully me off?"

This is a different question than you posed before.

"I suppose the illegals are staying at your place?"

Sure. Suppose I am hiring them to assemble clothing, and then they hire me to rent them housing. Suppose the illegals avoid using tax-funded services to the extent they can without becoming hermits. They are not trespassing by squatting in my backyard or on my sidewalk. What are your morally defensible grounds for legal action in that scenario?

Happy D said...

I was hoping that would provoke a response. Sorry if I offended.

Suppose the illegals avoid using tax-funded services to the extent they can without becoming hermits.

They don't! With the exception of avoiding the police services that even I would not deny them. But when they injure or destroy another's Property or person they feel the calling of the homeland until the heat dies down.
If they are caught well suddenly equality under the law is not so important. The poor misunderstood illegals. Funny that.

Suppose I am hiring them to assemble clothing, and then they hire me to rent them housing. Suppose the illegals avoid using tax-funded services to the extent they can without becoming hermits. They are not trespassing by squatting in my backyard or on my sidewalk. What are your morally defensible grounds for legal action in that scenario?

Like my original question to Geoff was meant imply.
We will assume under this scenario your "employees" didn't damage rancher brown's property on the way to your shirt factory? Your neighbors property is unaffected? U.S. Government property was left alone? The city's tax base was not negatively affected? I suppose this city/county does no public health or welfare program? Wages of local workers were not artificially depressed by low wage workers? More police costs were not incurred? Your employees pay for their medical care so my bill does not go up? They don't register to vote and vote for the government supremacists?
I think even in a L.Neil Smith "anarchist" utopia you would end up in court. Or the Probability Broach equivalent. Good book by the way.

Under that theory I would have no legal moral or personal grounds or problem. But in a slightly more real world?

Happy D said...

Mike said...
It is ironic, I tell these reporters, that the same politicians who only yesterday were bemoaning that citizens weren’t involved, now cannot run away fast enough now that citizens ARE involved.

They need at least 50ish percent of the eligible voters participating in major elections to avoid being seen as illegitimate in the eyes of their peers U.N. EuroGov and such.
They do not care about local stuff. They think in terms of central government. Which is Why you should care about keeping everything possible local.

Sorry I didn't catch this earlier.

Anonymous said...

Geoff - do you understand the difference between "Illegal" and "Unlawful"?