The teleprompter must have froze up.
1 Like
I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that’s what you said. Again, open borders is NOT a free-market stance. At all.
The free-market/capitalist stance is: You make the rules for your property, and I’ll make the rules for mine. If we decide on joint management for our properties, we will decide on a method to determine our rules and how they will be enforced. However, if we can’t agree, then we will obviously have the right to separate our properties. Obviously, this country isn’t organized on some free-market principle.
Given that a government is supposedly instituted to defend its people, an open borders position invalidates that government…and has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets.
Of course open borders is the most free market position. It is the pinnacle of free movement, voluntary exchange, and free association. Heck, read what you said. You claim it has nothing to do with free markets BECAUSE A GOVERNMENT interferes…You just made MYARGUMENT for me… Open borders is the opposite end of the spectrum, the pure free market end.
Also you continue to use private property held in some common use agreement to compare/contrast with the border? I don’t understand its relevance. Do we compare/contrast government maintained social funds with a privately agreed upon pool between two or more private citizens?
I can’t help but feel there is some defensiveness because to recognize that fact that open borders is the purest free-market position, while holding that open borders would be harmful, is to acknowledge a failure in the market to most efficiently and beneficially order society. As I reminder, while I’m not even remotely Trumpinista on border/immigration issues, I’m not actually for open borders. Still, I can and do recognize that I then oppose the purest free-market arrangement.
Yes, I compare government with contracts between people because that is how many view government. That’s the “social contract” view, as far as I can tell. Nobody tries to defend a government by saying, “This government is justified in doing this because prison.” Of course, maybe the social contract is one-sided, and only the properties and people on those properties are bound by it.
Open borders are NOT free market. Private property is free market. If one is concerned about free markets, one should support full privatization.
Your argument only serves to reinforce mine, again. Private property is free market. Government controlled “property isn’t.” Hence, your full privatization comment. A private citizen can can impede travel over his own property in a free market. If he doesn’t own a chunk of land, he can not. In the pure-free market citizens would dictate who travels across their property, if anyone or everyone, or for trade. And unclaimed property (be it simply undesirable land or whatever) would have no gate-keeping property owner whatsoever. Your opposition keeps supporting my stance.
I think I see where the confusion is coming from, now. You’re looking at non-privately owned property as unclaimed, but it certainly is not. If the U.S. government is legitimate, then “unclaimed” property actually belongs to all U.S. citizens and is to be managed according to the rules agreed upon by them(whatever system they have chosen to use). I am not trying to argue that the U.S. government has any legitimacy beyond force; I am merely pointing out that IF the U.S. government has any legitimacy beyond the ability to compel its subjects with brute force, then controlling the border according to its owners’ demands is certainly within its job description.
Edit: Do you really think that the vast cooperatively-owned land in the U.S. would remain unclaimed by the citizens themselves if there weren’t a gatekeeper there? I think not.
Female Trump supporter gets egged in the face, food thrown at her. More diversity for you.
Yeah, but she’s for Trump so it’s okay.
1 Like
My brother went to this rally Zeb, the cops did nothing but stand there. One of these protesters is going to kill a supporter at one point, and no doubt they will blame Teflon.
This almost makes me want to vote for Trump…absolutely disgusting.
Throwing bottles at elderly couples? Gangs of people targeting Trump supporters as they walk to their cars?
Holding signs saying “you are standing on mexican territory” IN SAN JOSE, USA.
Mayor of San Jose (Hillary supporter, of course) “At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,”
Jesus.
2 Likes
You’re not alone in your thinking that this is only creating sympathy for Trump, it won’t propel him into the White House, but it will help him.
This behavior is straight brownshirt type of stuff.
1 Like
Fuck Trump. Fuck these people even more.
1 Like
I’m with you on that…but the one thing that is gonna help him is fucktards like that mayor.
“Yes gangs of Trump protesters threw bottles and hunted his supporters in packs…but it’s not their fault, totally Trump’s”
Shit dude, you don’t think that is going to swing people his way?
Added to those short bus riders who blocked traffic for miles in front of another of his rallies…are you telling me if you got stuck in that, you would not want to vote for the guy just because of these people?
1 Like
Has anyone seen the pamphlet the Mexican government gives to illegals to help them cross into America illegally?
Mexico gains a shit load of hard currency from money sent from the U.S. back to mexico (According to GAO’s analysis of the World Bank’s Bilateral Remittance Matrix, in 2014, about $25 billion was sent to Mexico,)…nobody bitches more about illegals sent back to Mexico…than Mexico.
1 Like
On top of that what is the quality of these people if they need to reminded to not domestically abuse their families?