Friday, June 11, 2010

Another country heard from . . .

"Principles? Principles?!? We don' need no steenking PRINCIPLES!"

In reaction to my post below on the "rape trees":

Anonymous said...

"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?

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

I thought this blog was about resistance against our common enemy rather than a squabbling and pissing contest blog.

kenlowder said...

Protect the border? We don't need no stinking protecting the border. Protect our citizens from attacks from 'undocumented workers'? We don't need to protect our citizens from stinking illegal criminals. If our representatives (rulers) in congress wont protect our people and our borders maybe we don't need no stinking federal government!

Ken Lowder oneangrytaxpayer.org

Nanders said...

I do notice that libertarians are quick to ditch the zap principle the moment they confront a different view. This "cussin' coward" spewing his Jr. High trash talk (posting as anon no less) is just one case in point.

Dr.D said...

As a "card carrying" libertarian I have spent a great deal of time thinking over the issue of open borders. While an ideal I'd like to see eventually implemented it is currently a non starter. I'll explain why.
The open borders position requires a border and immigration policy that has parity, that is it's pretty much equal on both sides. People can move freely between both sides with no governmental or financial limitations from either side. The path would look like a pipe with one end in each country.

That is not the current situation.
The path between Mexico and the US is more like a funnel with the wide end pointed at Mexico and the narrow end at the US. The immigration and financial laws of the US are much more liberal (as in freedom) than Mexico's. A gringo can't go to Mexico and start a business or buy realestate.
Mexican citizens are specifically tasked with reporting and suspicious behavior to the gov and are impowered to make a citizens arrest if the deem it necessary.
Current US immigration and other policies/laws favor Mexicans (and many other non citizens), over similar similar policies and laws in Mexico.

Till this inequity is resolved we need to control immigration.

Dr.D

Matt said...

It appears that anonymous is the kind of moron he assumed you to be. If he paid attention to anything you write, he would have understood how you meant that.

Proof that ignorance isn't bliss, cause he sounded pretty mad, and definitely ignorant.

Old Pablo said...

I don't understand why the border is protected by minefields.

Anonymous said...

Once upon a time, in my country, there was no welfare system incentive to *migrate* here; and the people that came worked their asses off, and assimilated. And built this great place. The restrictions at that time on individuals protecting themselves, and their property, were few.

With a system like that, an open border makes sense.

Mike, your assertion that *we* need to protect *them* tears into the idea that this country is not based upon individual rights. *We* need to always focus on restoring individual rights.

milton f said...

Yeah, Mike, a follow up to my previously anon post...(pw no workee)
We have existing national immigration laws and they should be enforced.

But if (when) we ever unfuck the welfare system, the .gov support for individual rights (like 2A and property), wouldn't it be nice to be able to cross from Michigan to Ontario or from Texas to Mexico in much the same fashion as one does when going from Michigan to Ohio? I mean, are we free, or what?

Allen said...

libertarians, as much as I like them, are far more interested in the academics and theoretical side of liberty rather than it's practical application.

unfortunately there is such a thing as things that are too dangerous for society without certain regulation. that's what government is FOR.

(right now the pure libertarians are pointing, mouth agape, yelling at their computer motitors "STATIST!!!!!!!!")

for example, I'm all for regulating antibiotics.

a pure libertarian would allow anyone to get any antibiotics they want, at any time. the known result of that policy is drug-resistant forms of disease that eventually will kill a lot of people. we've already seen this in the drug-resistant forms of TB and staph that have been coming from countries that don't regulate.

theory is great...but theory doesn't always work once it's removed from the vacuum of academia.

in theory, a democracy works great. everyone votes on everything. but the founders knew that a democracy degenerates into mob rule pretty quickly. thus, we arrive at a republic. the founders split the difference between academic theory and human nature and gave us an imperfect, but free, government. and a lot of our freedom actually extends from those imperfections...things don't work well or quickly. it's hard to get steamrollered by a government that can't pick up speed.

once again, theory is great. but once placed in the world it doesn't always work.

parabarbarian said...

When I first read V's post I was confused as to what he was getting at, too. It seemed he was asking what libertarian principles justified rape.

Taylor H said...

Just give everyone who lives on the border a rifle, 1,000 rounds and declare lenient rules of engagement. We'll see where they are in six weeks.

David said...

I would like point out that its the need for women to rely on unsavory men to get them across the semi-porous border that sets up the circumstances that allow this to happen. Were there a libertarian principle involved in the border, those that want to cross would be able to do so in well secured locations and not worry about what can happen in remote desert locales.

FSHB said...

Wait a minute - you have a deliberately broken system of borders, broken by the 'progressive' ideologists and you are challenging the Libertarians over it???

The mind boggles. Libertarians are not your foes Mike - if anything we are closer to being your core supporters than most other groups. Open borders does not mean what we have now, and any crime committed on US soil needs to be addressed by some form of US Government.

Libertarians are *not* anti-government, we never have been -- we are anti BIG government, that government governs best that governs least.

pdxr13 said...

Dr. D. said: (open border with Mexico)"While an ideal I'd like to see eventually implemented it is currently a non starter."

I think that a "freely crossable border" is the maximum libertarian/anarchist situation that would be possible in Dr.D's scenario, if we assume that there are still 2 countries.

The current situation seems to be going in a direction that leaves Mexico as a country with defended frontiers and the former USA (fUSA) with hundreds of miles deep border States as lawless territory unaccountable to the former-citizen/owners.

A defense against this non-equal status of Mexicans and Americans is to equalize domestic rules concerning the behavior of Aliens (illegal and Resident Aliens) in the USA with those of Americans in Mexico. No political rights, limited economic rights, limited legal process leading to fines/prison/deportation for ANY criminal/un-American activity, and an end to "political correctness" (sanctuary cities) concerning non-citizens being present unlawfully. We must state publicly that (first-time) deportation is not a punishment, it is a correction of a wrongful situation. A strong border enforcement program of physical barriers, patrols, and cooperation with the Mexican government (such as it is) to stop pressure against the common border are in order. Let's stop pretending that Cartels would buy expensive and tightly-controlled firearms in the USA to ship to Mexico for the dope wars. With the exception of American made high-quality handguns, Nicaragua can provide Soviet military weapons New-In-Box for far less money, if the Mexican military is unwilling to hand over pallets of US-Gov. supplied Foreign Military Assistance weapons.

A notion that sticks in my mind (from unattributed, probably web, source) is that terrible times favor nation-states with populations accustomed to or with a history of accommodating totalitarian leadership. They don't do well in good times, but can identify and defend against enemies internal and external (with considerable sacrifices by the non-elite population). Unfortunately for the population, the elite have no motivation to end "the bad times", since it would increase the cost of labor and decrease their relative wealth/power. Sounds familiar, eh?

Cheers.

Dennis308 said...

To Annon: June 10, 2010 6:52 PM
FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!
You have no fucking clue as to what is going on down here and if you don´t believe me just go on down into Mexico for yourself and find out.Live there for 1 year if you can. Don´t go far stay on the border try Juarez or Nogales or even Reynosa.Then come back and tell the world how much you want to open the borders and let anyone and everyone in to the country.
In Mexico the world changes the ¨Justice¨is for who Pays the most unless your a Gringo then the price doubles.The Police are corrupted from the top to bottom.The Criminals are heartless vicious sociopaths. And the People are a conquered and defeated collective,and have neither the courage or the resources to change their lives. And I do NOT want these People in My Home,In My State,or in My Country.
Not All Mexicans are like these I have just described to you But The Vast Majority Are.
Does our Nation need Immigration Reform--YES But before there can be any Reform there HAS to be SECURITY of our Sovereignty.
I know that we have our own corruption our own criminals and our collectives so before you go there answer me why do we need more of them.Just go on down there and see for yourself.I DARE YA Then come back and tell me what youvé seen tell me where I´m wrong don´t give me you views tell me about your EXPERIENCE.

Dennis
III
Texas
On the border

Slobyskya Rotchikokov said...

You asked the anonny poster,

"What is your principled argument for protecting them NOW?"

Why, isn't it obvious? He can write a nasty note to someone and curse them. THAT should solve the problem!

rexxhead said...

OK, let's ban illegal immigration.

I'm sure it will work out at least as well as banning drugs. Or abortions. Or spitting on the sidewalk. Or guns in Chicago/DC.

And your solution when you achieve all the success you are likely to achieve? 'Ban it again', I suppose.

Paul said...

I view myself as being quite libertarian (small "l"), but that comment that the other guy made seems not to be coming from the libertarian side of things, but the anarchist side of things.

To me, libertarians hope for (and, hopefully, work for) a society in which personal liberty is maximized to just short of the point where society ceases to become orderly... because once order ceases to exist, so does individual liberty. To maximize liberty, you must have predictability in your commerce with the rest of society (and that commerce can be the literal monetary commerce that the word brings to mind, or simply the interpersonal relationships that we have with others).

So, no order means no liberty. Of course, too much order is no good, either, that's why I am a libertarian. It seems to me that the minimum order that we need in this society is that the very nation of which we are citizens must be able to actually BE a nation...which necessarily implies a border, this side of which is the nation, the other side of which is not...which necessarily means that the border must be enforced. That doesn't mean no movement either way (that's too much order), just that whenever people and goods are to cross that border then some rules must be followed, and some crossings simply cannot be allowed.

Liberty cannot co-exist with anarchy. You need SOME rules in order to have a functioning society, at least until the Messiah comes and everyone does only good things (and I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to occur).

Sean said...

By all means, let's continue the discussion, while thousands are raped, murdered, and robbed. I imagine we can continue to do so, for a while, when it's our turn. The Reichsbanner turns out to be a good example after all. Ah, well.

Uncle Al said...

I have no doubt that Anonymous is too stupid to apply principles even if he were to accidentally have any.

The applicable libertarian principle here it is that we are at liberty to make our own decisions about what we do with what we own. We have every right to travel anywhere we like...on our own property. If we want to travel on someone else's property, we have to get permission.

I'll go ahead and reply in advance to any rapists considering asking me for permission to come onto my property: Aw, Hell No!

Anonymous said...

I just want to say hi to all the "2007 Libertarians" complaining that we should have open borders and still squabbling about how it's a big deal that buses have seats for the disabled and elderly.

Do you guys just not understand what's going on or do you not care?

A friend of mine says idealism might as well be called "Columbian necktie." I agree.

Anonymous said...

"Rape trees are a real-world consequence of ill-defended mostly-open borders."

If the borders were actually mostly-open and ill-defended, then illegal immigrants would openly take a bus on an interstate highway like normal travelers, and their crime victimization rate would be no higher than anyone else's. The borders are not as open as your exaggerated straw man argument claims they are.

Parts of the Canadian border are ill-defended and mostly open, such as CANUSA street, a suburban street with houses on both sides. There is no fence down the middle of the street. When a child chases a bouncing ball to his neighbor's house across the street, he crosses an international border.

Organized crime is fertilized by prohibition. Rape trees exist due to US and Mexican prohibitions against the right to travel, right to work, right to KBA and right to USE the arms you've KB without being threatened by a "justice" system. The rape tree problem was mostly created by a government's direct crushing of liberty.

"[if there were no government-legislated limits to immigration] then the entire world would be here, wouldn't they?"

If they were all here, then everybody who is here now would have the rest of the planet to pick from. That's a poor trade for everybody else, and so everybody else will not be here. And even if they were all here, the only territory where you possess the moral authority to object is your house lot. As someone else commented, no borders means no sovereignty. That's correct and proper, because sovereignty implies slavery for the sovereigns' victims.

"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?"

I propose the citizens on the border do away with the welfare system NOW. They should file a new income tax withholding form on Monday and stop withholding and paying the portion of their taxes that is going to welfare. I propose the citizens on the US side of the border do away with whatever is telling them they can't protect themselves from cattle rustlers, NOW. I propose the citizens on the Mexican side of the border do away with whatever is telling them they can't RKBA, NOW. I propose the new illegal immigrants do away with whatever is telling them they can't shoot their rapists, NOW.

Anonymous said...

Q: What's the difference between a woman getting raped in Chicago and an illegal immigrant woman getting raped crossing the Southern border?

A: The Chicago case you correctly diagnose as voters and their politician hirelings forcibly denying the victim an effective defense against rape in the form of a handgun. The Southern border case is exactly the same, but your mind is blinded by flag-waving. As if God cares about the color of their passports when he judges their souls of the rapist and his victim. You say it's illegal for Mexicans to travel here? Well, it was illegal for Negros in 1830 to travel, too.

Witchwood said...

Does our Nation need Immigration Reform--YES But before there can be any Reform there HAS to be SECURITY of our Sovereignty.

Ideally, our nation needs a 10-year moratorium on all immigration. During that time we can decide exactly what kind of immigrant we want and how many. If any at all. Last time I checked, there weren't enough jobs for native-born Americans, and here we are worried sick about how foreigners are going to feed their families.

I'm sure it will work out at least as well as banning drugs. Or abortions. Or spitting on the sidewalk. Or guns in Chicago/DC.

Bank robbery is illegal as well. But by your logic we should make it legal, since motivated criminals are going to find a way to rob banks. And why stop there? Leave your doors unlocked tonight. The motivated burglar will find his way in somehow. You are helpless before his expertise.

If anyone else is foolish enough to think a border can't be sealed, see this.

Dennis308 said...

to Witchwood
NOW THAT´S WHAT I´M TALKING ABOUT,
only problem is......... NO ONE IN WASHINGTON OR AUSTIN HAS ANY BALLS!

Dennis
III
Texas

monkeyfan said...

It seems the socialist engineer's 'plan' to stop Illegal immigration involves reducing the net income of American citizens to the level of Mexican citizens; thus having achieved parity, any incentive for Mexicans to cross the border is removed.

Dumba$$e$.

Billy Beck said...

I would like to know if anyone in these comments could present actually definitions for these terms:

"Theory"

"Principle"

I see no one here who knows what they are talking about.

You motherfuckers *live* according to principles and theories, but that never stops you from slagging them when you don't know what you're talking about.

It's really very boring and disappointing.

W W Woodward said...

I tend to agree with Anon (4:06) - as to his comment about resisting the "common enemy".

Mexican Government,
US Government,
Drug Runners,
Illegal Immigrants,
Gun Grabbers,
7 Alaskan Wolves,
or maybe,
ALL the above?

I would like to draw your collective attention to a solution suggested in comments to a earlier blog, - "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up!"

[W3]

Pogrom said...

David wrote:

"I would like point out that its the need for women to rely on unsavory men to get them across the semi-porous border that sets up the circumstances that allow this to happen. Were there a libertarian principle involved in the border, those that want to cross would be able to do so in well secured locations and not worry about what can happen in remote desert locales."

David speaks the truth. Alcohol prohibition had similar trends. Today, you don't see Jack Daniels workers doing a drive-by on liquor stores that sold Jim Beam.

Dedicated_Dad said...

Those espousing open-borders on pie-in-the-sky principles are ignoring most of the pertinent facts on the ground.

If we were still Our Founders' Republic, I could actually agree - but we're not.

Every illegal increases the costs of our Welfare State. Every one takes a job that some American should be doing. Every one contributes to the downfall of our society.
Priority #1 should be to seal the border. All illegals rounded up should be returned to the FARTHEST (from our border) possible point in their home country, and dumped ashore penniless. Repeat-offenders should be sentenced to HARD labor while imprisoned in an AZ "tent-camp" - or whatever else it takes to REALLY discourage illegal immigration.

Next we must eliminate the welfare-state, and return charity to its proper place -- voluntary, private and *LOCAL.* Those who won't work should not be fed - until every American is earning his keep.

Then - and ONLY then - if we still have jobs we cannot fill with citizens - should we even consider allowing more immigration.

Perhaps someday - after the full restoration of our Republic to its truly Constitutional design - we could consider unrestricted immigration.

No matter what, "open borders" are a prescription for disaster. So long as we have enemies, we need to know who is coming into our Republic - PERIOD.

DD

Dennis308 said...

Billy Beck you forgot.... REALITY!

Dennis
III
Texas

Will said...

Open Borders is a condition that only works in the real world when easy, cheap, transportation does not exist. Motorized transport changes the dynamics. Open Borders may be practical today with a bordering country such as Canada, but the pair would still have to have identical external border controls to make it feasible. And still, as close as our cultures are, there are still dramatic differences that would be troublesome.

Unlimited borders are a no-go in today's world, for the most part. Frankly, the main reason is incompatible cultures. That is a BIG problem with the Mexicans flooding into the US. They have no inclination to assimilate. They want to replicate their own worthless culture here. We had a unique culture here, that was the envy of the world. We were never able to export it to any great degree, and our enemies (internal and external) are determined to extinguish it. Multiculturalism and the flood of outsiders is the means to accomplish it. Three generations in the future, and you won't be able to find it. It's possible the name might continue (but don't count on it, that's the first thing new owners change), but the essence will be gone. The odds of this kind of nation being created again is pretty much nil. The factors required are impossible to create in the present world.

Anonymous said...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals in the past; drug dealers and Mexicans today; white rural gun owners tomorrow. You still haven't explained what evil the Mexicans did, aside from not follow rules you demand they follow.

"Every illegal increases the costs of our Welfare State."

Stop paying welfare. Problem solved.

"Every one takes a job that some American should be doing."

Protectionism for labor makes most people worse off, just like protectionism for anything else.

"Repeat-offenders should be sentenced to HARD labor while imprisoned in an AZ "tent-camp" - or whatever else it takes to REALLY discourage illegal immigration."

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics called their tent-camps the gulag. They were filled with "undesirables".

Tell you what. Everybody who wants to be surrounded by only third-generation Americans and who demand everyone buy American: take Arizona, put up a no-man's land around it with mines, and turn it into North Korea. Then the rest of us can have our happy, prosperous, no borders, no tariffs, no green cards, no work permits, no taxes, free world trade zone. Historically, the richest and the best lifestyles were most widely available in the trading route hubs.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know if anyone in these comments could present actually definitions for this term:

"Theory"

Let me offer you a definition of "sanctimonious" instead. It's when you insist someone else pay the bill to make you feel good about yourself.

If you want foreigners to have unhindered access to the political jurisdiction known as These United States of America, simply post a "blank check" surety bond guaranteeing their good behavior and I will recognize your good faith in this matter.

No doubt you and your army of randroids will have have little difficulty in creating such a fund to settle the damage claims.

MALTHUS

Anonymous said...

"They have no inclination to assimilate. They want to replicate their own worthless culture here."

And you allow them to do it by conceding that a majority of voters gets to do anything it wants to a minority. Voting is truly the Hobbesean state of every man against every man; whereas libertarianism is civilization, where the good agree that the evil shall not be allowed to coerce other men.

"We had a unique culture here, that was the envy of the world. We were never able to export it to any great degree"

We have exported it to China! At the beginning of the US' industrial revolution, lots of young single women came to the cities seeking factory work that was better than farm work. This demographic trend is occurring in China now. Expect to see another industrial revolution that grows on top of the current technological level. Why do you think so much stuff is made in China, and so cheaply? Because at this moment they're better at making stuff than we are.

"The odds of this kind of nation being created again is pretty much nil. The factors required are impossible to create in the present world."

Do you know there's an open source scanning tunneling microscope project, and the atomic force microscope is next? Boy, are you going to be disappointed when the continued movement of manufacturing ability into the hands of the individual raises the costs for anybody to do politics.