Does it matter if he just brings them back? Also there is now more surveillance right?
Discussion
Yep, more surveillance and more state sponsored violence.
But they broke the law you say. Sure but there is no victim for that law, its purpose is xenophobic defense of an imaginary line.
The entire thought process to justify that enforcement action only works if you exist inside a statist frame.
This but across all border, state, and city lines. Hello sir, we need to search your vehicle to make sure you’re not bringing in illegals.
First they suspended rights along the border, then they started expanding the distance considered on the border.
Now I think it is 95% of Americans have multiple legal rights suspended in the name of border enforcement and they don't even realize it. They think border means "can see the Rio Grande" not within 250 miles of any land border or coastline.
I very much agree with the last part of your note. But since we can't magically make the state disappear, one of the only valid uses of state monopoly on violence is to secure your boarders so that they cannot be overrun and your society ruined by the locusts devouring everything.
But you give more power to the state in the process. Now you need to present your paper when traveling to make sure you’re not illegal.
Sure. And I detest that. There are really, really easy things to do with immigration policy to make all this moot. They haven't been done because they don't suit the purposes of destroying "the West."
Idk if the goal is to destroy the west. Seems to specific and arbitrary. Why destroy the west? For pure evil purposes? I think it’s more about political power. Makes more sense to me.
Or stop paying them to come here and stop using WEF loans to keep their native country poor.
Beating on a people because they moved because you ruined their home is not a legitimate use of violence.
I don't care about people coming here. I'm upset about the benefits they receive. If we did away with the welfare state then boundaries and imaginary lines mean MUUUCH less.
The root of the problem is always government
Only a government could be stupid enough to pay people to come here then have an entire agency whose job is to kick them out if they try to take the offer.
Ready to join the anarchists yet?
I think I fall somewhere in the "Mises Caucus Libertarianarchist" range. I like order and agree that there needs to be SOME social authority to maintain it. Our forefathers did a great job, their work was just bastardized to hell.
Idk if it’s such great work. We went from paying 2% tax on tea to nearly 50% tax on living.
Thats not what they created. Thats the bastardization of corporatism. Things need to be stripped back. WAAAAAY back. Start by ending the Fed and tar/feathering 530ish members of the swamp.
They started by establishing a constitution that people didn’t agree to. A constitution that talked about freedom for men that literally owned slaves lol
No serious adult anarchist or agorist thinks there should be no rules. The rules should be imposed in a way that they can reasonably be opted into or out of using purely voluntary means.
What percentage of American adults do you think are capable of articulating within 75% accuracy, what a "serious adult anarchist or agorist" believes politically?
You're not wrong, on a foundational level, but very few even understand the concept of a foundation.
Less than 5% and that’s probably generous. Regardless, people’s stupidity isn’t a good reason to not strive for freedom from an obvious racketeering system.
I think less than 5% understand libertarianISH policies, and less than 2% could come close to understanding yours.
My point is that you and I need not quibble over our trivial differences when we are pulling the same side of the rope. We both have to pull it all back a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way before either of us come close to where we want to be.
You’re not wrong. Our views probably align more than misalign.
To you it looks like we are pulling the same way because you see all the authoritarians on one side of you and nostr:nprofile1qqsytuv4el7t3jtjfm7zfrc9q730ked40806he7dx5uctxqk8j4hvfcpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyw8wumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctvj8aavw and I on the other.
If you look at it like a giant tug of war, you are on the "have a state" side of the rope. You may not be pulling as hard, but you want the middle of the rope on the other side of the line painted on the ground than I do.
I don't think this is a no true Scotsman. The foundational principle I stand on is NO state. You are pro state so you oppose my views. It is the authoritarians who you stand on the same view with but quibble over degrees.
I'm here spreading the word and that is all I can say with certainty about the % who understand.