Outnumbered and surrounded

2 months ago
60 in immigration

Concerning "immigration", no, I don't want to be outnumbered and surrounded by people who feel entitled to violate my life, liberty, and property. But... I already am whether there are immigrants or not, just because almost everyone is statist, and that is the defining characteristic of statists. That there is an "immigration control" debate is proof that I am outnumbered and surrounded.

It might be unrealistic to insist that property rights be respected and "welfare" be eliminated to make "immigration" a non-issue, but it's no less unrealistic to believe government will keep out people who advance its agenda of ever-increasing socialism. It needs them and will do whatever it takes to get them where they can be used. If "the borders" are "secured", and "immigration" is controlled, you can be certain it will be done in such a way that the State's agenda won't be threatened in the slightest. If that means using "loopholes", ignoring the "laws", or some other tactic, it WILL be done. They want it too badly to stop.

So, yes, "immigration control" will only be done in ways that grow the State, in size and in power. Believing otherwise is completely unrealistic. This is something "more" or "better" government will not solve to your liking. Ever.

If you're going to be "unrealistic" anyway, you may as well be principled while doing so.

Image

.

This blog, like all of KentforLiberty.com, is reader supported. Any donations or subscriptions would be GREATLY appreciated! Thank you.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
Join our amazing community to comment and reward others.
Sort Order:  trending
67
  ·  2 months ago

socialism and communism are where the workers control the means of production and get everything they produce.

communism is a stateless classless society.
Please stop reading American propaganda and read a paper by an actual communist.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_Wage_Labour_and_Capital.pdf

this is a good one to start on

·
60
  ·  2 months ago

They don't respect private property. Thus, they are parasites and archators, whatever claims they may make about themselves.
If someone spends the money to invest in a factory, and the "workers" decide to take over, they are thieves. They didn't take the risk with their own money. They are bad guys. Period.
That's not to say that some, or even most, Big Businesses are also bad guys, but two evils doesn't make a good.

·
·
67
  ·  2 months ago

are autistic?

without private property you can directly get everything you produce without a capitalist leech doing no work and getting a majority of it.

·
·
·
60
  ·  2 months ago

"Capitalism" is a nonsense word made up by communists who want to parisitically live at the expense of others.

The reality is there are only two ways to live among other people. There is either the economic method of dealing with others, or the political method.

In the economic method, both parties win, because both trade something they value less for something they value more. Perhaps it is time traded for a paycheck, or a squash for a cabbage, but both people come out feeling they got the best end of the deal. Otherwise they don't agree to the trade (unless they are idiots).

The only other option for people to use to live among others is the political method where there is a winner and a loser. Where no voluntary deal is agreed to, so one party uses violence (or the threat of violence) to force compliance to his demands, causing him to "win" and the other to "lose". This is the method used by all governments and muggers.

I prefer the economic method. This is the free market, what communists call "capitalism", especially when some of the profit is re-invested back into getting more product/infrastructure for future trades.

And this re-investment is what communists call being a "leech"? Ridiculous!

To set up a "means of production" is expensive. Money or work, it costs either way (and the money could well be the result of work done by the "capitalist" previously). He who invests the most deserves the larger payout.

Somehow communists believe a factory will just magically appear, without anyone having to make a huge investment, and that in that case, the employees-- instead of being happy they are getting paid for their time and labor, or building their own factory to compete-- should steal that which they didn't create. This is theft, and those who steal are parasites, regardless of their justifications.

Now, I have no problem with communists (or anyone else) setting up their own parallel societies. As long as they don't steal from those who haven't voluntarily joined them, and as long as they don't hold people hostage if they wish to opt out.

And it's hilarious you grasped the current statist insult: "autistic". LOL

·
·
67
  ·  2 months ago

please just read the fucking pdf and stop acting retarded

·
·
·
60
  ·  2 months ago

Do you believe if I read a defense of rape I would change my mind about it being unethical? Because that's exactly what you seem to be saying.

·
·
·
·
67
  ·  2 months ago

so you're telling me a man only must only move money around that he likely never even had to work for to get a majority of what somebody else produces without them getting anything close to fair compensation is ethical?

now tell me, if a women can either starve or become a prostitute (a common situation), is not rape?

·
·
·
·
·
60
  ·  2 months ago

Yes, it is perfectly ethical as long as he didn't get the money by theft (including fraud or through the political means), and as long as a person can choose to work for him or not. And, as long as the employer isn't holding a gun to his head, it is a choice. Not all choices are easy, and sometimes when you see only 2 options (there are always more that aren't always seen) it looks like there is no choice- but there is. Government makes options more difficult and riskier, but it can't eliminate them, try as it might.

If a person doesn't feel their compensation is "fair" why accept the job? ("Fair" isn't a real thing, but a concept invented so children and idiots could feel they are participating in the conversation-- according to Scott Adams, and I agree.)

No, prostitution in and of itself isn't rape. People do many things so they don't starve. Being forced to either farm or starve isn't slavery- it is a choice to do something a person might not want to do because the consequences of not doing it are worse. A woman who decides prostitution is better than starvation is making the same choice. And, again, there are always more options whether she wants to see them or not. Even I fall into the "either/or" trap in my own life, and it's a hard habit to break. But there are always other options besides the bad options I see.