You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why Citizenship and National Sovereignty are Obsolete
I guess I'll try and point out what I thought and felt while reading it.
Using extreme examples on opposite ends of the spectrum didn't settle well with me, especially when trying to tie it to Trump and by extension the people who support him.
It tends to suggest that the argument in favor of what is proposed with respect to doing away with citizenship type laws boils down to America as a white supremacist nation against the people of other nations who are no less than "Mother Theresa" types and to me that turned me off to the whole argument. While there is an argument to be made for much less government control or involvement in other peoples lives, using extremist arguments in favor of less extremism doesn't do it for me. imo
I'm sure the author wouldn't appreciate having the story below be the standard thought process about people who come here from certain other lands....no?
http://dennismichaellynch.com/baltimorestorepratorsbusted-for-16-million-in-food-stamp-fraud/
I don't even think those programs should exist. I don't think the State should exist. I don't endorse coercion as a way to achieve any goal.
I agree those programs shouldn't exist because it depends on taking by way of coercion and extortion (Income Taxes under threat of incarceration, etc. ) from some to give to others.
As for the "State", I happen to disagree. I tend to believe people should have the right to exercise the option to form a "State" for their mutual benefit and protection with some reservations (i.e. the right of expatriation) which is an option a good number of people have the option to exercise in the current state of affairs with "States".
Unfortunately, depending on the good will of people to act in their own 'rational' self interest when left unchecked is a recipe for trouble. What is 'rational' self interest for some may not be considered 'rational' self interest for others and when it comes time to determine who is 'right' when there is a disagreement and the issue is to be resolved, who will be ultimate arbitrator of who is correct in situations where life and death is on the line...the person with the most assets at their disposal to pay for the 'justice' being sought? It's taken quite a long time for "civilization" to get to where we are today and to be sure it's been a rough and rocky road getting here but leaving it up to the whim of people individually to make up the rules as they choose doesn't sound too promising. If you are a straight up anarcho-capitalist, I'd be interested in posing some scenarios about how you'd propose they be addressed if interested?
I suppose I could have used less obvious examples. But those (fictitious) cases I used are nevertheless valid. Any parasite who hates other people as a serious hobby can travel with limited restriction as long as his mother was Canadian, British, American, German, etc. And any productive, respected person from 50 other countries can not.
Trump is just a visible example of a Statist who perpetuates the old model of "others" being a threat, in a technical age when we are easily capable of dealing in specifics rather than vague generalities about where people's mothers come from.
Birthplace as a metric of character is absurd.
Happy to see you 'now' describe your writing of the racist American male and angelic sounding Female foreigner as fictitious. When you wrote "Again, dozens or even hundreds of people can corroborate the facts relating to both Norman and Khalila." I thought you were telling the truth about actual people. Thanks for the clarification.
While I don't disagree there is much wrong with the world and how it operates, it seems to me that spinning someones ideas about how to deal with what is truly crisis problems with immigration, etc. doesn't come across as too convincing. Given the world as it is, do you think anyone would get very far politically with your line of thinking to address the problems that are happening NOW?
I can only painfully imagine the state of affairs if all government were to shut down and people were "free" to do whatever they please. Do you really think there would be anything close to the property rights, individual rights, etc. that we have today? Do you not think there would be a mad rush for tyrants to build up large armies to rape and pillage whenever and wherever? I'll grant you that some of that already happens now with many governments, but I'm fairly confident it would be significantly worse without the rule of law in its current state. The model you speak of isn't some new age philosophy but rather knowledge gained and acted upon as a result of hard learned lessons over time that has demonstrated how bad things can get when left unchecked aka history. As for your obvious bias against what Trump is saying and your lack of criticism of Clinton, I'm guessing your thoughts are more aligned with the Clinton mindset (if you HAD to choose)....no?
As for the assertion of birthplace being a metric of ones 'character', I had no idea that is how any country or STATE ascribes 'character' and doubt it is the case in actuality or reality if what you mean by 'character' is "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual".