Hahahahaa!

Thanks for the laugh, bro. It has soothed my own dissillusionment a little.

though i grudgingly agree that an army patrolling the border is more benign than multiple armies patrolling hundreds of countries and principalities all over the world in a far-flung global empire of bases.

I couldn’t believe it so I went looking.

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php

Yep, the quotes are accurate. However, taken in context with the rest of the article, it’s not AS bad as it seems when you just read those quotes alone. Yes, it’s still troubling and I’m going to re-read the article several times and give it due consideration.

But I don’t disagree with a lot of what he says, such as “Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested and detained or extradited.” Of course, how do we know who the terrorists and criminals are? How much bureaucracy do we need in place to do this task?

Also: “Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals, and reasonable consideration of the nation’s ability to assimilate them.”

Now the first part of this statement is good. He’s not saying to stop anyone other than “terrorists and criminals” (whoever THEY are), but the last bit bugs me…reasonable consideration of the nation’s ability to assimilate them. It doesn’t seem likely that people will immigrate more quickly than we can accommodate them, so I’m not sure what that even means.

Also: “Not only is the current border policy not working, it is making national defense a more difficult task. Foreign nationals crossing into the US illegally and away from valid ports of entry, because they were denied legal entry without good reason, provide cover, by their sheer numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling people constitutes a vector for also bringing the nation’s enemies into our homeland.”

He doesn’t seem to be advocating limits on immigration as we currently have in place, he’s pointing out the problems with that, and really only seems to be worried about those who might intend harm. I can’t disagree with keeping out people who are likely to cause harm, though I’m not sure how we can tell the difference. Terrorist/criminal watchlists? Yeah, that works SO well with the airlines, keeping politicians and nuns from flying because someone suspicious has used their name as an alias or because they share names.

He doesn’t seem to be advocating fences, walls, or the military along the border, just stations where those wishing to immigrate voluntarily stop in and say howdy and someone somehow determines them to be not terrorists. Of course, 1) this has to be paid for out of someone’s pockets, and 2) since he’s apparently not advocating walls and military patrols, why wouldn’t terrorists and criminals just cross the border somewhere away from these immigration stations? Doesn’t seem likely that this plan will do ANYTHING other than make some people feel good.

I do agree that it’s entirely possible right now that someone could sneak across the border with a nuke or other high-fatality weapon, and that IS a real threat as we are so good at making enemies around the world. But border stations won’t stop it from happening, clearly. A better idea is to just end American military adventurism and stop creating enemies around the world who are willing to kill large numbers of Americans in retaliation.

To me, Badnarik just seems to be pandering to the “Stop Illegal Immigration” crowd without actually saying he wants to stop immigrants from coming to America (somewhat) freely. It looks enough on the surface like the anti-immigration agenda if you don’t look at it too closely that it might not scare off everyone voting based on that one issue. As a plan, it’s the lesser of two evils. Of course, as Badnarik likes to point out, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil.

It definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and is somewhat disappointing, but I hope I get the chance to hear someone debate him on the issue and get to the real meat of what he’s saying. I’ll give him a little bit of the benefit of doubt — I’m not completely disillusioned — but my skeptic-o-meter is now aimed his way.

I have been torn over this issue myself. My first reaction was to take the side of the anti immigration crowd. But then the leader of this movement Tom Tancredo of Colorado made a statement about not being concerned about chipping immigrants and that he was not one of those people who thought RFID or Real ID was of any concern. This set off red flags in my head…..these bastards are going to gain acceptance of Real ID and RFID by taping into the anger that Americans have over illegal immigration. Talk about smoke and mirrors!

I think it’s fair to say that those who come here legally are frustrated by this issue as well, there is so much BS to go through, and for those who do……. well the fact others come here illegally is just not fair! It’s like what the hell (with their mouth hanging wide open)?

I went to Ukraine last year in search of a wife, had I found her it would have been red tape on top of red tape getting her here. Well guess what???? a bill signed into law by Bush (The INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKER REGULATION ACT OF 2005 (IMBRA)) which became effective March 6th of this year, has made all of this even more pissing!

This is what it does:

It requires all U.S. gentlemen who petition for a fiancée or spousal visa to provide more personal background information to Immigration Service and the State Department than ever before. It creates more restrictions in the process such as the number of fiancée or spousal petitions one can file, and how quickly a gentleman can file some visa petitions.

The law also requires a U.S. gentleman who wishes to meet his future fiancée or spouse through an “International Marriage Broker” to first submit extensive personal background information to the broker agency. The broker must then share that information with a future lady fiancée or spouse who must consent before the couple can start a communication and relationship.

This is infuriating! What right does the damn government have in meddling in my love life?

I just shake my head; all of this is so stupid!

Back to the Mexico thing……..

I listened to Scott talk about the culture thing, as saying “What Culture” The point was well taken however I do believe there to be merit to the argument of loss of culture.

I remember listening to Scott interviews G. Edward Griffin (2nd interview) talking about collectivist and corrupt government and how small groups of people since the turn of the of the last century have been controlling the nation.

Scott had asked the question of “how long can America be under the control of these small groups of people before they are one and the same.”

Griffin goes on to say “as long as the people of America still have the concepts of freedom in their minds and in their hearts it’s still possible to revive it, but you know with the passing of each generation and the old folks are dropping away and the young guys and girls are coming through school and their not getting these old traditions, there getting new traditions and new ideas and one worldism and so forth, there comes a point where these concepts will not be held in the minds and the hearts of the American people, where that point is I don’t know, but I worry about it a lot, I think were right up to it right now.”

In the 3rd interview Mr. Griffin was talking about the success of the free market in America in the 18th and 19th century and how this attracted large amounts of immigrants, and they of course brought with them the failed ideas of the old world and once here they wound up killing the goose that was laying the golden eggs with those ideas.

These conversations were about American Culture. Americas’ culture was born from the Enlightenment.

The thing that bothers me the most about illegal immigration is that America’s guiding culture has been Individualism, where the government is servant to the individual. What we are going to is collectivism and a master servant culture where the government is master. I believe the immigration thing is a direct assault by the collectivist on the individualistic culture of America. Now I don’t blame the immigrants, but they come from a collectivist culture, and a culture where corruption is their system of government! A constant flood of people from such countries can only help speed up the demise of the Individualistic culture of America.
Does such culture still exist in America? As Scott pointed out “What Culture, Red Neck Culture, The Culture of the Hood, etc.” Good point! We are already divided, what difference does it make if we have an open border? My Answer: You have to help yourself before you can help others, only on the scale of nations.

I think we as individuals and those of us who understand what made America great don’t stand up and fight for her, the future of humanity may never know Liberty ever again!

We need a government that is servant to the people, one that does not meddle in the affairs of its citizens and one that defends its borders. I think it’s an act of self-preservation (or National Cultural preservation) to have citizens and perspective citizens learn the ways of the rugged individual.

The above paragraph begs the question; who will conduct this education? Scott, like you I hate the word “required” and I wish open borders coupled with a free market system would keep the system balanced, (perhaps in a world which was completely free market and no borders, this would work) but reality is much different. The world is a mess, and the US is on a downward spiral, if we are to take it back, it will have to be accomplished one step at a time by people who care about the cultural heritage of the American Individual, and this must be passed down to our children and to those who would come to make a life here. Like Mr. Griffin stated Collectivist seem to have an advantage over Individuals in that they can convince the masses of the greater good of doing something, but like Mr. Griffin I also agree that their way is not the best way. However due to the nature of humanity (that being we live on average into our 70’s) if we don’t require the teaching of the ideas and lessons of the Enlightenment and the rugged Individualism of America, then Liberty will only survive for a few generations before the collectivist win out. As to who would teach it, honestly I don’t know, I don’t like the idea of the government teaching it, but who will? Tell me your thoughts on this.

Scott, you’re a very talented man, and brilliant with abstract thinking and political theory, however you must recognize that one (let alone an entire planet) cannot go from where we are today to what you (and I) want in a matter of days. If it is to happen it will be a slow and deliberate march. For what it’s worth, I think you are being to hard on Badnarik.

Best,

Ryan

Let’s be a little fair to Badassnarik. Considering that the LP has gigantic loudmouths in it like Neil Boortz, Jay Severin, and Bill Maher, Mike Badnarik is practically gentle, friendly, witty Murray Rothbard in comparison.

Angela, come on. Nobody loves Badnarik like a brother. Nobody even likes Badnarik.

Curious, Angela what makes the California folks different from their Texas counterparts?

The only legitimate purpose of the border is keeping other governments out.

Admiral: Shhhh! Man!

I agree with the Admiral. Angela K does have a knack for radio and probably the sexiest voice in the universe.

As for collectivist culture, the nationalist concept of borders and immigration controls are themselves quite collectivist. Immigrants who came to America, attracted to a relatively free market, didn’t bring statism with them. America had slavery and aggressive war from the beginning.

American culture is, overall, something I deeply admire, but it’s not like the Enlightenment and Western Civilization are great bulwarks against socialism. Hell, where do you think socialism came from?

Illegal immigrants come and most of them find jobs and work, more concerned with their lives, their families, and their communities than with an imaginary line on a map that was established by James Polk or a bunch of nonsensical laws drafted by criminals in Congress. American nativists, meanwhile, want to protect “their country,” “their culture,” and “their language” from immigrants, who for some reason threaten their fragile culture by speaking another language and eating a different food and refusing to fully assimilate to the American Borg. To fight this migrant menace, the red-blooded Americans will shred the Bill of Rights, sacrifice their privacy and ours, and rape the freedom of association by jailing and fining employers who dare to offer a poor guy from another country a job and with it a small piece of the American Dream.

Who are the collectivists again?

If left unchecked the flood of illegal and legal Mexican and Central American immigration, could theoretically, end in a conflict not unlike French experience in Algeria 1954-1962. You will recall that Algeria was once a Department [State] of The French Republic, that it was taken from Megrahbian Arabs in the identical manner the southwestern United States was from Mexico taken at the approximate same time…By War…Also bear in mind Borders are not geographic, they are economic, political, cultural and finally ethnic. Presently the cheap ephemeral labor demands of this regime are serving the same economic purposes as the multicultural designs served the purpose of the former. Thus inertia in terms of action, and an immigration policy of rhetoric. Decades of the same equivocation and inaction have perhaps sewn the seeds for a similar disaster. You will recall the first modern Proletarian Revolution was in Mexico in 1911, and that there was no internecine warfare in the former Yugoslavia under Tito. If despotism is the price of peace, then the United States is already well on its way to the same…coming events cast their shadows beforehand. From tribal chiefs leaving old people to starve to death in pre-history to the visions of a world state culling x thousands of its non-productive surplus population, the state will always exist. It is the byproduct of a hierarchical human society that is inherently unequal. The only human equality lies in base mendacity and mortality. Those vieing for power at the top of the hierarchy know it. Those at it’s bottom, always learn it too late.

Anthony,

I like what you say, and you are right, furthermore I do not mean to come across sounding like the guy that has all the answers (no one does), but tell me how do we go from where we are right now to a world in which most of us here on the board would be happy? Is there a practical road that will lead us out of this wilderness? This is a good site about this subject. http://www.holisticpolitics.org/Home/PageOne.php

Yes, nations and border control is a form of collectivism and American history is by no means a pure example of how things should be…….. and this is also one reason why Libertarians have such a tough time getting elected. It’s too much of a debate society! You can’t have a pure idea such as the Libertarians try to establish and ever win the hearts and minds of the masses. You must mix in a little of the other side in order to come to power, and the nation state with enforcement of it’s borders has to be a part of that mix if the culture as a whole is to survive!

You said: “Immigrants who came to America, attracted to a relatively free market, didn’t bring statism with them.” Oh really? That’s quite a bold statement! I don’t know about you but when I go somewhere I take with me my culture and understanding of the world, and a big part of that comes from the environment in which I grew up in.

You say American cultural is something you deeply admire. Can you be more specific and list off why you admire it so?

I tell you what, if you can demonstrate that it would be easier and quicker to realign the nation back to it’s Libertarian foundation with illegal immigration than with out it, I’ll work with you on this subject. If however you cannot then……. well you fill in the blank.

Like it or not Language is both a unifying and dividing force. Look at Quebec.

Or read these two recent accounts from Los Angeles:

http://www.tcla.gseis.ucla.edu/equalterms/dialogue/2/aguilar.html
http://www.kabc.com/listingsEntry.asp?ID=437469&PT=

I happen to think Libertarians spend much more time pondering the issues than the rest, and if I can just bring into the mix here the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator MBTI, AKA The Sixteen Types, we fall into the minority (as for me I am an ENTJ or an INTJ I can go either way on the E or I), and we can’t handle the masses of humanity in the way we think, we must try to understand how they think and operate from that modus operandi. All the back and forth between us here will not solve anything. My view of the action necessary to restore liberty is in part based upon the realization that the world is full of people who don’t think as I do. You guys and gals here think pretty much the same as I and I wish the world operated the way we would like for it to……but it does not.

Scott,

I agree with you in theory, in-fact in theory I would rather live in anarchy as long as the world was made up of people like you and me. But it is not and here we are.

To answer you questions,
1.) Yes, I believe that one of the functions of the government should be to enforce our borders, but I would not hire thugs.
and
2.) I agree it is contradictory, however it is a result of the nature of our existence. Legal immigration should be simple and straightforward with a strong emphasis on the ideas of Locke, Kierkegaard, Sartre, the history of the nation, the English language, and a course on Austrian Economics.

It is pretty easy to be disillusioned with the LP these days. The general tone of Badnarik’s campaign has bothered me since the beginning. As weird as Badnarik’s campaign is, there
are other LP campaigns around the country that are even more disturbing to me.

Even when I thought the LP website couldn’t get much weirder after the really bad Iraq
Exit Strategy, now they want libertarians to call talk radio. They call this an action item.
Just when I was thinking about organizing a boycott of the advertisers on my local Clear Channel station that broadcasts 12 hours of war party propaganda daily.

Added to this nonsense is Michael Dixon’s campaign cartoon. Funny how he appears after two
years in hiding just before the LP convention where he is up for reelection as LNC Chair. While
some libertarians like Carl Milstead write that the LP must decide whether it is an anarchist party,
I must ask if the LP is the party of red state fascists … er, conservatives. Unfortunately, the
LPHQ seems stuck on pandering to disgruntled conservatives.

I’m hoping that Bill Redpath will be elected as LNC Chair as he is not Dixon and he is not
running for President.

And speaking of the Mexican “invasion”, I recently wrote an article comparing this to the
American invasion of Iraq that some may find entertaining:

http://www.pnar.org/foreigners.htm

The Romans thought that “He who is concise will remain anonymous.” Perhaps that’s a good thing. That, and apart from being selectively naive and a trifle profane Angela Keaton is, not only in her personal evaluation, but in terms of the general public perception of The Libertarian Party, most correct: “The LPC is mostly a cluster fuck of Republicans who are too fucking weird to make it in The GOP.” My own idea is that there are far too many big fish in a very small pond. Surely no way to acquire legitimacy, and legitimacy is precisely what this party lacks. Indeed the name Libertarian itself has over the years assumed a certain stigma that is less than endearing to future constituents and yet another reason it enjoys more ridicule than membership…Probably its name should be changed. That and tell Angela that the overuse of profanity, is rather like a kid dumping an entire bottle of catsup all over his french fries. Try to keep it to one fuck per paragraph. She’ll find that to be far more effective.

So much implicit double entendre involving the terms “Angela Keaton” and “fuck.”

I like it.

Um … anyone got a cigarette?

Scott,

You write:

“Hacker took credit for it”

Interesting. My response:

I joined the Badnarik campaign in the late summer of 2004, and was immediately assigned to the tasks of “media coordinator” and “head writer.” If Allen Hacker wrote any of the 2004 campaign’s position papers, I was, and am, unaware of that fact.

There were some position papers already in place when I joined the campaign; I edited and/or re-wrote and/or re-wrote most of them.

With respect to position papers which hadn’t been written yet when I joined the campaign, I wrote some of them, and edited/proofed/”voiced”/re-wrote as necessary the others, which were initially written and submitted by a few other authors including Anthony Gregory and Dr. Mary Ruwart. The single final position paper which I had no part in was the one on abortion. I declined to be in any way involved with that paper for reasons that are not of any great concern here unless someone is interested.

Back to you, Scott:

“Surely you don’t defend a Libertarian Party candidate’s call for the use of military force to keep individuals from traveling across public land? Surely Anthony didn’t.”

As I stated previously, Anthony’s original submission was pure principle/platform language, only more artfully written. Anthony did not in any way suggest the points which are at issue in this thread.

As you’ll recall, Michael Badnarik stated at the national convention that his “campaign platform” would be … the LP’s platform in its entirety.

On the other hand, Badnarik had been campaigning for a year-and-a-half, and had made numerous public statements on various issues, some of which were at least facially at odds with the usual understanding of the platform. Part of my job was trying to make Badnarik’s positions fit into the platform/make the platform accomodate Badnarik’s positions.

As to whether or not I agree with every jot and tittle of the position papers I wrote, re-wrote or edited, deponent saieth not. The position papers weren’t my policy statements, they were Michael Badnarik’s. My job was to make them as presentable and defensible as possible — and, yes, to the extent that I spoke at all for the campaign or was regarded as doing so, to defend them. More on that in a minute. First, here is the text of Badnarik’s 2004 paper, which Allen Hacker most manifestly did not write:

—–
Immigration is among the most contentious issues facing America today, and the specters of terrorism and war have only added fuel to an already fiery debate. Let’s take an objective look at immigration,borders and legitimate national security concerns.

By any reasonable measure, immigration is not just beneficial to the American economy but indispensable to the goal of a nation of freedom and opportunity. This nation was built on immigration. Allowing peaceful people to enter our country is not just an option. It’s a benchmark by which we measure whether or not we’re living up to the American ideal.

This does not mean, however, that the national defense must be sacrificed to some naive conception of “open borders.” The right to enter the United States is not the same as the right to enter the United States in contravention of its legitimate interest in securing itself against those who would do it harm.

Immigration and borders are two separate issues. When they are mixed, the result is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of the United States.

Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals. They should not be forced by restrictions or quotas to place their lives at risk by crossing the border at remote locations, often under the guidance of ruthless “coyotes” who are as likely to leave them to die as to get them safely across, and to then lead lives of fear of detection, detention and deportation. I do not regard the existence of the social “safety net” as a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The welfare state needs to be eliminated. It would need to be eliminated whether immigration was an issue or not.

Not only are immigration restrictions bad policy in and of themselves, they make national defense a more difficult task. Immigrants crossing into the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry for no good reason, provide cover, by sheer dint of numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling humans constitutes a vector for bringing the nation’s enemies into our homeland.

Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested or extradited. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom our armed forces must respond. There are obvious exceptions — Cuban and Haitian “boat refugees” who don’t have much control over where they make landfall, for example — but they are exceptions, not the rule.

As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations. Instead, I advocate a national defense which, sans any attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation’s borders. As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.
—–

As you can tell, the 2006 paper is a mangled revision of the 2004 paper. Significant changes (all, IMO for the worse both in terms of writing quality and the way the issue is addressed) have been made, but it’s recognizably the same paper — and Allen Hacker didn’t write it. I did. What I am specifically pointing out to you in my earlier comment is that the points you criticize aren’t the changed ones, but ones that were there all along while you were working for Badnarik in 2004. They were stated in his 2004 position paper, and in several interviews, including one of the biggies (Slashdot). Perhaps the changes cast those pre-existing points in a less flattering light, but they were there the whole time.

As to my “defense” of the paper, there’s are two extensive threads on the LPAZ-discuss Yahoo! Group from August 2004 , under the titles “Badnarik Must Pull Anti-Liberty New Mexico TV Ad” and “[Fwd: Fwd: Re: PROBLEM: Badnarik TV ad asks voters to "End illegal immigration" (!!!)]” in which I participated. Feel free to judge for yourself what I defended in those threads.

My personal position is that borders are imaginary lines drawn on maps by large and powerful gangs of thugs for the purpose of marking turf and delineating agreements on the issue of which gang of thugs gets to enslave which population. My job, however, was not to write papers outlining my position. It was to write papers outlining Badnarik’s position.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

If I had known that he had a call for US military force against immigrants back then, I would have made him take it down or quit “advising” him - not that he ever listened to a word I said anyway.

In any case, this “biggest LP campaign for congress” will be a disaster.

That jerk Hacker wishes he wrote that Nazi crap. How embarrassing for him

Scott,

Badnarik didn’t call for “using military force against immigrants” in 2004. As a matter of fact, that was precisely the distinction he was making: His argument was that, if the US opens the front door, those who refuse to use it and try to come in the bathroom window instead aren’t immigrants — they’re invaders.

As to what he’s calling for now, it’s impossible to tell. Every time I visit that position paper it’s been modified a little more. Each time it’s a little less readable, a little less coherent and includes a little more stock catch-phrasery of the Know-Nothing Right.

I hate to be excessively prima-donna-ish here, but I’m at least as pissed off over my reasonably well-written position paper being turned into an unreadable mess as I am about the further degradations in position away from libertarianism that said mess contains. It’s like someone moved into a Frank Lloyd Wright house and immediately started hanging velvet “paintings” of Elvis, Indians and dogs playing poker all over the damn place.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

“His argument was that, if the US opens the front door, those who refuse to use it and try to come in the bathroom window instead aren’t immigrants — they’re invaders.”

That’s a lame argument. They aren’t invaders unless they are carrying rifles in the employ of the Mexican government. A 2,000 mile public border is not a bathroom window.

By the way: How the hell are you Tom, we haven’t spoken in a while.

Tom, how many articles which have been attributed to Michael Badnarik, such as the ones listed here, for instance, were actually written by Michael Badnarik?

This rhetoric seems to indicate that The Conservative faction of your party has nonetheless gained the upper hand. I’m in no position to say wheteher they are revisionists, the Old Guard or what you may term opportunists. But the question remains, where does that leave what Scott Horton terms the real Libertarians? Excluding of course the element that wants to remove traffic signals.

What do you guys think about one world government?

One world government? Why, what a splendid and novel idea! Never heard that thought up before! Just think, if there were only a single central authority dominating us all at gunpoint, we’d be so much better off! No more poverty, no more war, no more classism, sexism, racism, homophobism, or ageism!

Om.

… and skateboarding.

And fascists insist on borders and immigration controls. So what? Trotsky was a one-world communist who believed in one big border - the circumference of the earth in all directions. I am a libertarian. I would like to see 6 or so billion tiny little soverignties known as pieces of private property.

Scott, Ya can’t have your cake and eat it too; if nothing else I am a Realist. That and mellow out. You’re obviously stressed…Angela, all subjective judgements of erotic curiosity aside, your comment re: LP Leadership as a gaggle of Republicans too eccentric to rise in the GOP is succinct.

Mace,

What I can do is not ask the government to militarize the damn border. And shame those who do.

Angela and Scott: The bad news is that people and Politics are diabolic and will always be so. The good news is that according to the polls, only 23% of Americans have a favorable view of Congress…Necessity was the mother of Polity long before she was invention.

Saw some pictures of Angela online, and Good Lord, oh yes, she is some babe indeed. Here I was thinking she probably looks like Molly Ivins or worse, Eleanor Clift…Maybe I’ve been a realist for too long. I couldn’t imagine anyone being offended by her, not for very long anyway. That and I’m damned if an excessive heat warning from Weatherbug just didn’t pop up on the computer…Seemed very timely.

Jed, many of your questions are answered by Rothbard’s Libertarian Manifesto, available for free here. We all make our own regulations with respect to our own property, and we all understand basic things like violating those regulations is a crime (If I come into your house and trash the place, just for the hell of it, just about everyone who’s not completely insane would agree that I’ve committed a crime). A legal system based on real democracy, namely the ability to withdraw your funds from it if you don’t like the service, can be constructed based on that.

Angela Keaton does not look like your prototypical klingonese speaking female libertarian, and, who knows, maybe that’s much to her credit. But I am far more impressed with the way she thinks on her feet. She’s obviously got a pretty quick mind.

Look who the free market advocating Governor of California is now ah haha ha haha, as is said “only in America.” Only trouble with free markets is that they become Monopolies [not unlike Wal-Mart who dictates to their suppliers what they will and will not sell] which if you ask me operate little differently than the State we so deeply admire; and if I’m not mistaken that’s how the Nation State evolved from feudal cartels and lesser monarchies who decided they could collect taxes to keep armies to expand their authority with. We know it today as incorporating. I’d never ask the government to do anything because unlike this blog, they don’t listen to me. As far as “militarizing” the Border: First time? Allright I acquiesce…shame on me. I’m a Redneck Okie bastard. Second time, and a classic Algeria like conflict breaks down the road like I think it could, if the first symptom is LA starting to resemble an expedentially bigger Nuevo Laredo? Then shame on you, even if I think your intentions are good. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. That and it should go without polite inferences to the contrary that I’m impressed with Angela’s mind…and from now on she can cuss all she wants.

…Dude…you’re high…

But who is to say that all six billion will have just those two?

I’ll be go to hell. Another Mace. If truth is stranger than fiction even funnier is the fact my cousins still call me Bodacious, probably not without good reason. And if Admindin’ Brandon came into to my place and trashed it, it’d probably be an improvement. I consider Wal-Mart to be the 21st century equivalent of Standard Oil. Add to this the fact that even Bill Gates got called on the carpet, i.e. deposed by David Boies…and you begin to get an idea of a Hierarchy. Pragmatically speaking if markets are not regulated? Then how would Libertarians play the board game Monopoly…you can learn a lot by playing Monopoly. The inventor thought it up after losing his ass in The Great Depression. More food for thought. You’ll recall a quote by that former advocate of free markets and small business, Dick Nixon who even loaned his brother money to open a hamburger joint in So. Cal back in the day: “We’re all Keynesian’s now.” As it turned out Nixon Burger’s was another failed business. Bottom line: The best way to see reality is to have lived under the lash…kick all that around…

Standard Oil wasn’t a monopoly either. To corner a market is not the same as the legal right to exclude anyone else from that market. Microsoft has the benefit of IP law that I disagree with, which prevents someone from decompiling Winblows code and building a competing version. The Great Depression was created by pre-Keynesian policy regarding the printing of money (to simplify the matter). Nixon’s abandonment of the Bretton-Woods system, which had been in place since 1946, for his Keynesian adventure resulted in an economic catastrophe that the West still has not recovered from. Pre-Nixon, post-WW2 cost of living was galactically lower than it is today, and this is something I’ve heard from numerous independent sources, including my parents (I was born the year Thrillhouse was chased from DC). Unregulated free markets result in wealth creation, peace, prosperity, and choice.

Mace, I realize that you’re thinking in pragmatic terms. Wal-Mart receives all kinds of corporate welfare, just like I’m sure every F500 corporation does; the quickest way to level the playing field is, use the mechanisms that Wal-Mart benefits from against it. To my way of thinking, the violent mechanisms of the State are the problem, not the solution. Wal-Mart is simply well equipped to manipulate those mechanisms. So what’s the answer - perhaps a new round of internationally agreed-upon regulations to level the playing field? For every pro-Wal-Mart law we write, we write an anti-Wal-Mart law. I know that’s how Chomsky views the issue. You’d hardly every know he was an anarchist from some of the talks he gives. Perhaps that would be the quickest, easiest way to solve the problem. Perhaps you’re right, and I’m wrong. But I will not compromise my principles one millimetre on this or anything else. The right thing to do, and advocate, is to remove the system that Wal-Mart (and the like) use. It may not be practical, in fact I freely admit that it’s more likely that more laws and regulations would be passed than existing ones would be eliminated, but that’s my position.

Looks like this discussion is meandering toward a debate on free trade. The other day, I heard an outstanding one between Paul Craig Roberts, the anti-open trade supply sider vs. the pack of wild-eyed Mises jackals who tried to tear his arguments limb from limb.

It was interesting, though, and both made valid points that made me scratch my head a bit. Roberts was saying that yeah, free trade between nations is great, but that it often cannot occur with a country like China, which practices labor arbitrage (sp?) and can seize the market’s consumers even though China might not necessarily have the “comparative advantage.”

What does this have to do with WalMart? Well, proponents of WalMart say that is a model of efficiency and a great triumph of the free market. WEll, maybe it’s not. All the same, the way the Left gets all hot and bothered by it often seems to smack of trendinista snobbish NIMBYism…as in lots of unwashed, uncouthed masses love to hang out at WalMart so it therefore must be a menace to the town, or maybe even bring into existence the poor and uncouthed masses that ignite some mildly dyspeptic tremors of liberal guilt.

Oh well, complicated. I shop at WalMArt occasionally when my nerves can handle it. There is some good stuff buried in that mess of products, especially in the garden department.

Yep we need a change, but Mace we can’t even get a 3rd party on the ballet here in Oklahoma. I started out in OK, moved to Texas for a little over two years (I met Scott while there) then moved out to New Mexico for a year. Now I’m back in Oklahoma, and I am quite ready to move again! This State sucks! I have never used the words stupid and retarded as much as I have in the past few months.

For myself I try not to shop at Wal-Mart.

Hey Scott, I need to read that link you listed…..that’s a lot to cover, and I’m not the speed reader you are, but what little I did read, leads me to believe it is a manifesto on how a Libertarian society would look in a pure form. And if that is an accurate interpretation then we are right back to the same argument of being practical vs. theoretical, monism vs. pluralism.

I think Badnarik understands how to be a politician better than most of us here do. He understands the Sixteen Types of people and how to relate to each one of them. Do we only support him if he fits our ideas 100%, or do we compromise a bit in order to get a real good guy in office who might open up a torrent of change.

Here is a little fuel for the fire……In 2004 when I was living in Texas I asked a Mexican waitress at a Mexican restaurant about the Mexican woman who was running for president (I don’t recall her name, I saw her at politics1.com, they list all candidates) she said she did not know a Mexican woman was running for president. I said well she’s not well known. I then asked her if she would vote for her. The waitress said “yes!” I then said “without even knowing anything about her” She said “Yes” I then said “why?” She said “because she is Mexican.”

While in Ukraine, I noticed a real lack of tolerance for other races! (It was strange, to be in a culture where my cultural political correctness was not a concern.) I remember talking to Vlad about how strange it was not to see hardly any blacks, and he said, “We don’t have that problem here.”
Vlad was a good guy and very political, anti-communist, and spoke about how he and his father insisted on speaking Ukrainian during the Soviet occupation he said to speak Ukrainian during those times was “not cool” people were killed for it. He also talked about snitching and government attempts to create fear among the people by instituting a “Watch your neighbors campaign” Like I said, a very freedom loving guy, however his views on race were not so evolved.

My point is in all of this, for all our shortcomings and problems, I think Americans are much more tolerable towards others and are more likely to cast a vote, not on the race of the candidate but on their positions or party affiliation. My interactions with foreign peoples are rather limited, but I feel people of American culture are the only ones who would even entertain this sort of debate. I think we should protect it!

These are two personal cultural reasons why I support enforcement of the border.

I’ll say this, you guys are right in a theoretical and monistic way, but I’ll bet you a Silver Liberty that the nature of different people and cultures will cause a Balkanizing effect on the United States and we will then be gobbled up into the regionalization of the western hemisphere and then globalized into a world government, that non of us here will be able to stomach!

Like Mace was saying if we can’t get past the micrometer stuff among ourselves, I believe the groups in power today will roll right over us and have us all in a globalized community based upon very anti-libertarian laws.

What say you?

I say bullshit. Immigrants from all around the world have been coming here for 400 years and we are less balkanized - at least in terms of race - than ever before. If you want to preserve liberty and individualism, abandoning it in favor of tribalism is a bad way to go.

Kofi Annan was against the Iraq war too. Are we supposed to be for it now?

Y’all know how to tell an Okie frum a Texan? Ye dawn’t? Allright I’ll tell ye. Ye Okie got the shit on the outside of he’s boots. AH HA HA AHHHH HA HA Warse’n that, Ol’ Scott’s a Texan…

Oh yeah? Y’all know whut a quarter, a big Stetson and a pair of Justin boots is dawn’tchee?—That’s a Texan with the shit kicked out of him…Ah ha ha ha

Mace Price writes, “To be brief: Unregulated markets at the very least mean Enron and The Savings and Loan scandal at their worst they mean J.P. Morgan loaning money to The National Treasury.”

To be brief, Enron made its money by contracting with the state, which is why it was a prime promoter of the Kyoto Treaty and other business regulation. The Savings and Loan Crisis was a result of regulation and government management of savings and loans. So too was the evil bailout that followed it. And the idea the J.P. Morgan’s excesses had anything to do with a free market is about as historically accurate as asserting that Abraham Lincoln flew to the moon in the sixteenth century. Morgan was a huge supporter of banking regulation, especially central banking, which is why the Morgans financially supported both Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the two progressive darlings of the 1912 presidential election.

You’re conflating fascism—the type of economic system whereby costs and risks are socialized and profits privatized, the type of system we more or less have now—with free markets. It is akin to blaming censorship on the First Amendment, or genocide on too great a concern for civil liberties.

“The United States of the past is not the United States of the present. The immigrants of the past came to an America that was much more Libertarian and as a result it worked well”

Yeah, then the progressives started destroying American liberty with such measures as immigration controls.

Jed,

Your argument is basically that government should do this instead of that. That is not an effective argument at all. We live in a hegelian world, if you want any liberty, you’re going to have to demand it all.

And I still don’t understand what the big deal is anyway. I have lived in Texas my whole life. Mexicans are not a “problem,” they are just people around just like everyone else.

I am tired of all this tribalism. (Nationalism is simply another word for the same thing, only, perhaps it implies more force.)

The advance of man is in individualism and it is in no way enhanced by reversion to its opposite.

And even after America falls, no world state will ever be able to take real power over the whole planet. Just look at Iraq.

“If you want any liberty, you’re going to have to demand it all.” If it’s an individual doing the demanding, the state will lock you up or kill you. If it’s a group of individuals they will be surrounded and sniped at until finally the group surrenders or the state burns your compound to the ground. If it’s a small state demanding liberty, the more powerful state will turn popular opinion against you, then bomb you followed by an invasion force, and then a puppet will be installed.

The beauty of America was the remoteness and vastness of it in a time of limited technology. This allowed for a very unlikely event to occur………………..oh the hell with it, I’m tired of this.

I’d vote for Mike

Let me try to “deconstruct” this as the Leftist say: If you want Mom ‘n Pop Stores back again ya gotta bust Wal-Mart’s sack first. but that runs counter to Libertarian instinct. So Walmart’s got nothin’ to worry about. Someone edify me…

Dude…quit scarin’ me. When I saw Fatal Error Permission Denied on my screen I almost started drinkin’ again…