Birthright Citizenship

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

IF you want examples of Natural Law.....
Afghanistan
Pakistan
The West Bank with Hamas

It's always the strong crushing the weak.

[DanielVogelbach]

IF you want examples of Natural Law.....
Afghanistan
Pakistan
The West Bank with Hamas

It's always the strong crushing the weak.

Of course there are bad actors in society that want to harm and take advantage of others. Those bad actors can only do so much harm before humanity naturally brings them to justice. However, if you give those bad actors the power of government, then they're able to wage wars and kill by the millions, print money and rob people through inflation, extort everyone through taxation, etc. The crazy thing about committing crimes under this pretense is the people are all brainwashed to believe you have the legitimate authority to rule over them. At least with the bloods, crips, or Italian mafia it's widely recognized that what they're doing is immoral.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, USA, etc. are all governments. Some of them might be more tyrannical than others, but they are all bad. They're all creating problems with their central bank partners in crime. I personally don't think any of the "countries" are all that sovereign either. I think it's all pretty much a one world system of tyranny. But, that's really beside the point here.

Government is not necessary to perform good deeds. "Government" is only necessary to legitimize something that would ordinarily be seen as criminal or illegitimate e.g. legal tender laws or extorting everyone through taxation. The only moral way to collect money for a collaborative effort is through voluntary transactions.

There is no magic fairy dust called "government" that can transform human nature into some type of benevolent system looking out for your best interest. Your best option is and always will be the free market.

[gil]

IF you want examples of Natural Law.....
Afghanistan
Pakistan
The West Bank with Hamas

It's always the strong crushing the weak.

I agree with you. These are not "governments" in any real sense of the word. To say that Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. federal system are all "governments" is simply missing the most important points that make the U.S. different.

[gil]

How does your worldview address threats from other countries? E.g., Japan in WWII, or the concern about Russia during the Cold War? Even for the sake of argument, the "invasions" at the borders by people seeking a better life here?

On border security, Trump has increased that, and obviously that is central power and our tax dollars paying for it whether we agree or not. Do you argue that securing the border is wrong because it's not consistent with natural law, and that taxing me for border security is theft? Or do you argue that "private security" could do as good a job as central (i.e., national) authority?

A major premise of my worldview is that humans naturally go out of their way to avoid conflict and the bad, violent actors make up only a small percentage of humanity. That being said, if one out of 1,000 people decides to murder, they could murder tons of people.

My worldview is that any person who goes on a killing spree will ultimately be dealt with, because humanity values justice. But, if you give the psychopath the power of "government" then he will be able to do much more harm.

I don't believe that the people who wield real power are beholden to any borders. They can go wherever they want whenever they want.

I believe that foreign enemies are largely a fabrication that works for the mutual benefit of each "country". The people are conditioned to ask the exact question you're asking. Well, if we don't have this big powerful military and protect our borders, then surely the Russians or Chinese will invade us. I think it's propaganda and all wars are cooked up by the one world system.

That being said, it makes sense that any movement away from authoritarian government tyranny must work across all of the plantations, not just the one we're currently on.

Freedom is not given by the ruling class. Freedom is taken by the order followers choosing non-compliance.

I don't think anyone needs to defend a "border" that stretches all the way across North America. Then you end up living in a neighborhood where you don't even talk to your neighbors. I like the idea of intentional communities as well as networks that aren't defined by geography. I don't think anyone should desire birthright citizenship. I get that in our slave system it buys you some perks, but I don't think anyone should be forced to show papers to travel.

The free market will provide private property as well as roads and ports for travel and commerce. You can form any type of community that you want in a free market. You just can't force it onto other people without the guns of government.

it makes sense that any movement away from authoritarian government tyranny must work across all of the plantations, not just the one we're currently on.

Isn't this precisely the problem? What I call "national defense" you call "government tyranny." But what if it does NOT work across all countries ("plantations")? I think national defense is analogous to having locks on your doors.

I don't think anyone needs to defend a "border" that stretches all the way across North America. Then you end up living in a neighborhood where you don't even talk to your neighbors.

I don't follow your "A causes B" logic here.

[DanielVogelbach]

Nobody is forcing you to put locks on your doors. That's your own voluntary choice.

People are forced into paying taxes without their consent. The "government" element is the force part. Otherwise, everything works under free market economics. If you want security, then you can spend money on security within the free market. Why would you ever want the "government" version of any good or service?

Pooling money together to pay for security / defense is normal and a good idea, but it's immoral to force anyone to pay for anything without their consent. You can't morally force me to pay for your defense. You can't morally force me to pay for your child's education. You can't morally force me to pay for anything without my consent.

You can start with the simple fact that you can't delegate rights you don't have. If you don't have the right steal money from your neighbor to pay for your child's school, then you can't delegate that right to anyone else. From there you can see that any form of so-called government can only morally exist on a purely donation basis, in which case it's no longer government and simply free market activity.

It's generally more economically viable to earn wealth from trade vs through crime. Without "government" it actually becomes more difficult to corrupt markets and everything is based on trust and reputation. "Government" really is the biggest criminal due to the amount of money extorted and the tie-in with the central banking system. It's more difficult for criminals to hide in a free market.

There are many small countries today. USA could start by disbanding to 50 countries and then go from there. Ultimately you are born with individual sovereignty and did not consent to anything written in the Constitution or any of the millions of pages of statutes and tax code that came after it. Ultimately, you are only morally bound to natural law. If you want to sell an item to someone, nobody has any right to forcefully take their cut. Nobody has any right to tax your private property. Nobody has the right to stop you from traveling wherever you want to go unless you are trying to trespass on private property.

Now, I am not in favor of mass immigration from foreign lands. But, I don't think that immigration is occurring based on free market forces. I don't think the answer is statism and borders. We've had that this whole time and there's been tons of immigration. I think a lot of it stems from governments and banks that lead to wars that lead to refugees.

Nobody really wants to go where they're unwanted. USA prevents things like "whites-only" communities, but something like that could be created peacefully and lawfully. You don't need "government" to preserve the white race. All you need is the white race. I am in favor of preserving all of the ethnicities. Mixed race is fine, but we need to preserver the primary colors as well.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

IF you want examples of Natural Law.....
Afghanistan
Pakistan
The West Bank with Hamas

It's always the strong crushing the weak.

I agree with you. These are not "governments" in any real sense of the word. To say that Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. federal system are all "governments" is simply missing the most important points that make the U.S. different.

I like his optimism when it comes to "man". But I disagree with that optimism. I believe man to be evil, lazy and violent. Even in small communities as he is [trying to] suggest, there will always be people that will take advantage and/or bully someone to get ahead in life. There are so many "Old Westerns" that portray this lifestyle.
[and please don't come back with "but those were movies, not the real lifestyle in the old west", because you would be wrong. The old west was harsh, mean and tragic.

Government has certainly over-reached by a few thousand miles over the last century and have way too much impact on our lives. But we still need them, we still need the services they provide:
Military presence in the world
Police in communities
Roads
Hospitals
Water
Sewer
Electricity in some cases
Regulation to keep companies honest and not harmful to their patrons

[DanielVogelbach]

I like his optimism when it comes to "man". But I disagree with that optimism. I believe man to be evil, lazy and violent. Even in small communities as he is [trying to] suggest, there will always be people that will take advantage and/or bully someone to get ahead in life.

The people that want to take advantage or bully people are the exact types of people that seek out the power of "government". That's what "government" is.

Do you really think there is some type of magical fairy dust called "government" where all of a sudden someone goes through the trouble to gain power over you and then will act in your best interest?

[douche]

Government might have a chance if someone could find a way to breed out the greedy, self-serving corrupt gene that resides in men. But that will never happen. And the people most attracted to government are mostly awful people. Narcissists, sociopaths and the like. If government was run like a business with a bottom line, I might be able to get behind that. But government as it stands? No way.

I found this amusing... the latest uproar involves Trump changing the garden at the White House. He's had it paved over for the most part, and the Trump haters are beside themselves. But here's the thing that those same people fail to consider... who paid for that? Well, you did, Mr. Taxpayer. So the grounds are revamped to appease this president, and then they'll be changed again to appease the next one. It never ends. And the taxpayer foots the bill for it all. So where's the accountability? Where's the sensibility? Nowhere to be found.

Government is grift, taxation is theft.

[DanielVogelbach]

Government might have a chance if someone could find a way to breed out the greedy, self-serving corrupt gene that resides in men. But that will never happen. And the people most attracted to government are mostly awful people. Narcissists, sociopaths and the like. If government was run like a business with a bottom line, I might be able to get behind that. But government as it stands? No way.

I found this amusing... the latest uproar involves Trump changing the garden at the White House. He's had it paved over for the most part, and the Trump haters are beside themselves. But here's the thing that those same people fail to consider... who paid for that? Well, you did, Mr. Taxpayer. So the grounds are revamped to appease this president, and then they'll be changed again to appease the next one. It never ends. And the taxpayer foots the bill for it all. So where's the accountability? Where's the sensibility? Nowhere to be found.

Government is grift, taxation is theft.

It's the same thing when people are upset and they decide to go protest at the capitol building. They're just further cementing the idea that there's something special about that building and what it stands for that gives people the authority to rule over other people. They're legitimizing the ruling class and the virtues of obeying the commands handed down from the legislature. Everybody thinks they can protest and vote to make a difference, but that doesn't do anything. The only way to make a difference is through non-compliance and less reliance on the government.

It's the same thing with border control. Everyone thinks the answer to stopping the influx of immigrants is tighter borders rather than realizing the influx is the plan. The borders are the plan. You're being bamboozled. If you want to live with more white people, then you need the freedom to do exactly that and the free market will meet this need. You don't need the massive trillion dollars of extorting everyone and inflating prices to the moon just to stop foreigners from invading. You just need freedom.

If government were run like a business, then they would provide products for a fee based on contracts with consent between both parties. There would be no forcing everyone to hand over their money through sales tax, property tax, income tax, estate tax, cigarette tax, gasoline tax. There would be no legal tender laws forcing you to use their counterfeit money that isn't backed by anything.

The simple concept that taxation is theft is massive in terms of how it changes your view on life. Then when you consider the legal tender laws on top of that... Then you kind of realize that it's not all that important if the house is controlled by Democrats or whatever nonsense the talking heads are spitting out.

[gil]

I consider myself a strong advocate of free markets and capitalism (e.g., discussions here on tariffs), but we have to recognize situations that involve market failures, public goods, and free riders. Most of us benefit from roads, for example, but we also have an incentive to not pay our fair share. I would argue that we would not have adequate investment in many things if we just relied on "the market."

Also ... The pondering the practicality of all the contracts for all the services (defense, roads, food safety inspections, education, basic research) that would have to be negotiated with individuals is mind boggling. It would make the current federal bureaucracy look like a one man repair business.