In reaction to my post below on the "rape trees":
"Kindly explain the libertarian principles embodied by these."
What kind of fucking moron are you that you believe that has the faintest relation to libertarian principles. Go fuck yourself, you diseased piece of shit.
June 10, 2010 6:52 PM
Libertarian principles are consistently thrown in my face as an argument for the alleged nirvana of "open borders."
Rape trees are a real-world consequence of ill-defended mostly-open borders.
May I make the introduction?
Principle, meet reality.
Reality, meet principle.
Mexican Border Reality to Libertarian Principle: "Principles? Principles?!? We don' need no steenking PRINCIPLES!"
You may argue that absent any immigration laws, there would be no rapist polleros (which is what the coyotes call themselves -- the illegals themselves being referred to as "pollos" or chickens and "pollero" being a chicken rancher). Probably true. But then the entire world would be here, wouldn't they? Common sense libertarians such as Walter Williams have denounced that insanity. So if you have borders that mean anything, there must be border enforcement.
Yet, as it stands now, we have the worst of both worlds. The hundreds of thousands (at least) of women who are raped every year on American soil by the diseased products of Mexican machismo would find arguments of principle to be of no comfort whatsoever. They would find them incomprehensible when confronted with the monstrous reality.
You may say, "well do away with the welfare system" or whatever, but the fact is that these women are being raped, brutalized and murdered NOW. Citizens on the border are living in terror NOW. What is your principled argument for protecting them NOW?