Nostr Web Client

There is nothing more statist than demanding the monopoly on violence enforce your preferred population filters instead of questioning why anyone needs permission to exist somewhere.

G Force G 2w ago 💬 5

This is all problem reaction solution. In anarchy / free market the land would be privately owned effectively creating borders.

With no welfare state the immigrant would need wealth or some sort of sponsor (a charity, family, employer, or other contact willing to allocate their own resources to support them.)

Of course we don't live in such a world and so nations have borders. The UN, DHS, and a bunch of NGOs literally paved a road and paid people to immigrate to the US. This is an intentional demographic attack. These immigrants are pawns just like US citizens.

Biden opened the border claiming that legislation was the only way to fix the border, but he was simply not enforcing existing law. Drumph proved this to be true by simply closing the border. But he is also using the problem to normalize militarized streets and people being snatched up.

ITS ALMOST LIKE TRUMP AND BIDEN ARE PART OF THE SAME NETWORK AND EXECUTING THE SAME PLAN.

No voter is responsible for what "elected" leaders do. This is all pro-wrestling.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

nobody 2w ago

Ya but it’s not. Instead communists are using immigrants as pawns to dismantle what’s left of civil liberties. Do you understand how close the US was to collapse? If Kamala won then we’d be getting speech crime treatment like the UK

We are so far away from the situation you describe with open borders and no welfare state it just makes you look stupid. The US has by far the most laissez faire immigration policy and it’s not working to increase liberty only to take it

G Force G 2w ago 💬 1

I don't think we disagree actually. I'm not for open borders.

I think you may be thinking too small though. The people behind this aren't communists. The leftists who support the Biden immigration episode certainly are. Both political parties (the politicians) support what Biden did.

Divide and conquer is the strategy. What ICE is doing now just makes us look like assholes. I don't understand why Trump didn't just tell the states that he wants a list of every illegal alien that is in jail for a violent crime. It would be more transparent, focussed, and make any Governor who refused to cooperate look like the asshole.

They shouldn't be here but this approach sets the precedent that this is what the US government can do to anyone. Imagine the next leftist president who doesn't believe there is such a thing as an illegal alien but that there are certain groups of people who simply need to be picked up. Imagine another Covid with this precedent.

All of these agencies should have their power reduced, not expanded.

nobody 2w ago

If he did what you describe they would wait him out and just triple bidens efforts. They have to go back. Plain and simple.

makeheroism 2w ago

If it was guaranteed that anarchy would work. But. The only way it could be achieved and sustainable was to have a White ethnostate would you still be in favor of it?

G Force G 2w ago

I reject the premise. I don't even know what white means honestly. But if people who consider themselves white took a plot of uninhabited land and didn't commit aggression against others and became a shining city upon the hill that others would aspire too, I'm cool with that.

G Force G 2w ago 💬 2

Anarchy isn't really meant to "work." Its meant to be a morally superior system of self government that is based on responsibility, morality, and true cooperation with other individuals.

The ability to muster an army of obedient slaves is a great weapon against anarchy. Somalia was booming when the warlords gave up on ruling the country in the 90's. But the US broke all that shit up in 2001.

Anarchy doesn't work if the people aren't sufficiently educated morally and technically. Bureaucracy wins at the macro level it seems.

makeheroism 2w ago

"Anarchy isn't really meant to "work.""

G Force G 2w ago 💬 4

Haha I guess that was a pretty bad answer.

Anarchy seems like an asymptotic goal that you can never really reach. But if you actually limit a governments functions to protecting the rights of the people it was declared to serve. So protecting life, liberty, and property ala Frederic Bastiate's "The Law" then you would be pretty close to anarchy.

It sure didn't work out that well here in the states. Once people realized they could vote for politicians that promised to plunder their neighbors and then created these cartoonist puppet political parties it started to go to shit.

This is probably why voters were required to own property in the beginning.

makeheroism 2w ago 💬 1

Yeah I agree. I think property ownership being a necessity probably kept things pretty balanced here. I think we were largely taught "women couldn't vote" was a trick. I view it more of there was a vote per household. But yeah between opening voting up to everyone and then flooding the country with all sorts of people that can't comprehend the basis of the country let alone agree with the values things seemed to get out of control fast.

I was really only teasing about your answer. I think no government is a decent goal. I just don't think it's an option because we have strayed so far from the original meaning of what a nation is. But I guess does an anarchical society even consider itself a nation? I mean would there be a border? Would anyone be free to come and go or does everyone have to agree on the format and function of things? I don't know I'm riffing

G Force G 2w ago

I think property ownership was used as a proxy to select for those who had received a classical liberal education (trivium and quadrivium), and a basic Christian understanding of human rights. I'm not a Christian, that's just what I think was the logic there.

G Force G 2w ago 💬 1

We have a pseudo representative government in which the representatives and judges come from a corrupt psyoped public and the executive is always an intelligence asset. All are puppeted by international bankers.

makeheroism 2w ago

Yeah I agree with all these sentiments.

nobody 2w ago 💬 1

Anarchy is a goal you’ll never reach. So in the meantime imo it’s about optimizing governance to be minimally tyrannical and maximally beneficial to honest moral people.

The issue is that we are rapidly approaching anarcho tyranny which is the inverse: maximally tyrannical and maximally harmful to moral honest people. So at this starting condition I will take anything that either makes the gov less tyrannical or makes it benefit good honest people more. Stopping the flow of immigrants seeking hand outs is a no brainer. It has barely any negative consequences except maybe hypotheticals about Palantir boogiemen which imo are overstated or at best properly stated and going to happen whether or not we evict freeloaders from the Third World.

makeheroism 2w ago

Approaching?

G Force G 2w ago

"In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?"

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956.