Libertarians don't want open borders...

[churchmouse]

Yeah cause the Republican Party seems to be churning out some fantastic policies.....

News flash.............they all suck. Every one of them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah cause the Republican Party seems to be churning out some fantastic policies.....

At least Trump understands that if what you were doing worked, then you changed it and it stopped working, you obviously need to go back to doing what worked, not double down on the change that doesn't work.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

News flash.............they all suck. Every one of them.

Shocking news to some.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah cause the Republican Party seems to be churning out some fantastic policies.....

If it's 243 years old and not broke, stop tryin' to 'fix' it

When conservatives want change at all, the want it done slowly and carefully (conserve: protect from harm or destruction)

 

[ChristianPatriot]

If it's 243 years old and not broke, stop tryin' to 'fix' it

When conservatives want change at all, the want it done slowly and carefully (conserve: protect from harm or destruction)

Every system is flawed and should perpetually be open for debate on how to improve it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Every system is flawed and should perpetually be open for debate on how to improve it.

In principle I agree; However, in practice those pushing change seek to damage the system for personal gain.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have never supported the idea of open borders - so long as we exist as a nanny state.

We have medicaid, aid for children, and a hundred other government (ie. citizen taxpayer) funded programs. For someone to just walk across the boarder and have free access to these benefits may be humanitarian, but it is severely counterproductive to a strong economy.

Do I support the idea, in general, of a person being able to go where they want when they want to enjoy (at their own expense) the experience of being somewhere? Of course I do. But when you begin looking at the foundations of how the world really works you run into problems. I went to Notre Dame! I was there before it burned. The people of France were nice enough to allow me entrance and tour their great nation, but in the end I had to come home. This is the kind of travel and experience I support.

Far too many Libertarians support philosophical debate clubs without actually taking action toward the means of gaining political power. Running a campaign is WORK! To do it right you live, eat, and breathe campaigning. Raising money, filing reports on time, complying with state and federal law, setting up interviews, practicing for debates, deciding on the message, getting out the message - then do it again tomorrow. And that tomorrow may be a hundred days long.

I just watched a great movie "Brexit" with Benedict Cummerbach. His character makes a rather profound statement, "How do you win elections. You get 50% of the people to vote for you, +1." Which means that you have to pull the middle. No matter what it is you're voting for you must get the majority and purist Libertarians don't do that. Very regrettably in my opinion.

Regards,

Doug

 

[CampingJosh]

In principle I agree; However, in practice those pushing change seek to damage the system for personal gain.

The same could have been said about, for instance, slaves and former slaves who worked to end slavery. Sometimes the system really is flawed, and the ones most incentivized to to change it are naturally the ones with the most to gain.

You can't discount someone's position solely because they stand to gain from what they advocate. After all, many of those who advocate strongest not changing do so because the current system is quite good to them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The same could have been said about, for instance, slaves and former slaves who worked to end slavery. Sometimes the system really is flawed, and the ones most incentivized to to change it are naturally the ones with the most to gain.

You can't discount someone's position solely because they stand to gain from what they advocate. After all, many of those who advocate strongest not changing do so because the current system is quite good to them.

What acceptable honest motive goes onto trying to subvert our constitutional rights? How about redistribution with no constitutional authority? What about illegal use of official positions to try to control the outcome of an election, like Page and Storm or whatever the hell his name was?

Yes, I can very easily discount positions based on self-serving motives. Sometimes self-serving motives align with ethical and legal actions
It seems that far more often they do not.

 

[CampingJosh]

What acceptable honest motive goes onto trying to subvert our constitutional rights?

Not every change is a subversion of someone's rights. We have a good system, but we don't have a perfect system. Sometimes the change is a very clear, obvious expansion of rights.

One quick example: I think that we agree that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are an intrinsic characteristic of being human rather than simply having been granted by a government. But in our system right now, our government sometimes acts like those rights are intrinsic only to being an American citizen and therefore don't apply to all humans.
That's wrong, and changing the system to correct that would expand rights rather than contract them.

How about redistribution with no constitutional authority? What about illegal use of official positions to try to control the outcome of an election, like Page and Storm or whatever the hell his name was?

Don't misunderstand that redistribution is something that only one side does. Both the left and the right use the power of the purse to enrich themselves and try to ensure their continued success in elections.
For example, I think that the cheap lease agreements for extracting resources from public land is basically a redistribution to the stockholders of giant corporations.

Yes, I can very easily discount positions based on self-serving motives. Sometimes self-serving motives align with ethical and legal actions
It seems that far more often they do not.

I agree, and I tried to indicate as much by including and emphasizing the word "solely." Sometimes that just doesn't come through well in written words like this.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Our immigration system is absolutely broken, the exact same way the VA is broken.

Large slow moving Bureaucracy, that has more incentive to deny your forms than to approve them, with no accountability.

We have lawyers who specialize in filling out Federal forms for goodness sake. I think that should say it all.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not every change is a subversion of someone's rights. We have a good system, but we don't have a perfect system. Sometimes the change is a very clear, obvious expansion of rights.

One quick example: I think that we agree that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are an intrinsic characteristic of being human rather than simply having been granted by a government. But in our system right now, our government sometimes acts like those rights are intrinsic only to being an American citizen and therefore don't apply to all humans.
That's wrong, and changing the system to correct that would expand rights rather than contract them.



Don't misunderstand that redistribution is something that only one side does. Both the left and the right use the power of the purse to enrich themselves and try to ensure their continued success in elections.
For example, I think that the cheap lease agreements for extracting resources from public land is basically a redistribution to the stockholders of giant corporations.



I agree, and I tried to indicate as much by including and emphasizing the word "solely." Sometimes that just doesn't come through well in written words like this.

I think we are pretty much on the same page. I am just seeing that the Third Amendment is the only one of the ten truly honored.

I am with you on the redistribution and will go further to say that if it is going to happen I would prefer to see it go to people who truly need it as opposed to corporate welfare.

 

[HoughMade]

He said it better than I could, so I'll post it again. It just makes so much sense:

[video=youtube;_nLPsFeSw4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLPsFeSw4Y[/video]

 

[jamil]

Good point. Socialism would work beautifully if we had a society full of people who were altruistic to a fault. Happy hunting on that one!

Not just altruistic to a fault, but also very homogeneous. Wide diversity in ideas and opinions is not compatible with socialism.

 

[Libertarian01]

Not just altruistic to a fault, but also very homogeneous. Wide diversity in ideas and opinions is not compatible with socialism.

This is very true and often overlooked by supporters of socialism.

One of the reasons socialism has worked "better" in some European countries is due to their ability to empathize and sympathize with the fellow countrymen. In Sweden (just using as an example) everyone speaks Swedish. Everyone has learned the same history lessons. Everyone has parents or grandparents who took part in the same wars. Their suffering through hard times was a shared experience. The decisions that country was forced to make were a common thinking process.

This in no way is meant to disparage the uniqueness of each human being in these countries as I am certain they disagreed on many things, but the difference between their disagreements is probably smaller than ours. In the USA take two (2) separate, conservative members of the republican party. Both self identify as conservative. Both vote republican. Yet one is from Boston and the other from Evansville. Both were born and raised in these towns. I doubt that if they were in the same room they would agree on everything even though they both identify the same.

I don't think the differences of opinion would be the same in Denmark or Norway or Poland.

Another factor is also geography, for many reasons. If everyone agrees to pay for good roads in Belgium it is a much smaller task than in Indiana! Belgium has less than 12,000 square miles in area while Indiana ALONE has over 36,000 square miles. I would guess many Belgians know how most of their roads go in their own country. I doubt many Americans could say the same. Same thing with large disasters. Here, the biggest thing that hurt America in recent history was Hurricane Katrina, yet how many states were directly affected? Ten? Maybe...? Maybe one or two more or less. Had Katrina hit any country in Europe everyone in that country would have suffered some damage, and it would have made it more willing for them to "all chip in" since all would have been affected. When our neighbor right down the road in a nearby town is suffering it is honestly far easier to be willing to pay a few more dollars in taxes than it is for someone 2,000 miles away. There is a HUGE homeless problem in Los Angeles. How many of us, here on INGO, have personally seen it? I mean right there looking at it next to us or across the street? I haven't. I am aware of it and have seen pictures but not up close and personal.

It is easy to become socialist when we're all packed together in the same boat. Our geography creates a diversity that is directly counterproductive to producing a socialist society.

Regards,

Doug

 

[IndyDave1776]

Doug, very insightful explanation.

 

[jamil]

Doug, very well explained. Only one nit. Sweden isn’t socialist per se. It’s mixed. It does have a mostly free market economy and private for-profit enterprises. They just have a lot of government programs and insanely high taxes. But to the point of homogeneity making socialism workable, to the extent that Sweden is socialist, we’ll see how their liberal immigration program goes for them as their demographics become more ideologically diverse.

 

[Libertarian01]

Doug, very well explained. Only one nit. Sweden isn’t socialist per se. It’s mixed. It does have a mostly free market economy and private for-profit enterprises. They just have a lot of government programs and insanely high taxes. But to the point of homogeneity making socialism workable, to the ectent that Sweden is socialist, we’ll see how their liberal immigration program goes for them as their demographics become more ideologically diverse.

Right. That is why I used them "as an example" not as the example. I could have picked on Estonia or Norway or Greenland. I didn't mean "Sweden" exactly, just a small country with a generally shared language, history and culture. I didn't explain myself well enough.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

Right. That is why I used them "as an example" not as the example. I could have picked on Estonia or Norway or Greenland. I didn't mean "Sweden" exactly, just a small country with a generally shared language, history and culture. I didn't explain myself well enough.

Regards,

Doug

Yeah, your point is made either way. The nations that are making socialism kinda work, as much as they’re making it work, are not ideologically or culturally diverse.

 

[BugI02]

This is very true and often overlooked by supporters of socialism.

One of the reasons socialism has worked "better" in some European countries is due to their ability to empathize and sympathize with the fellow countrymen. In Sweden (just using as an example) everyone speaks Swedish. Everyone has learned the same history lessons. Everyone has parents or grandparents who took part in the same wars. Their suffering through hard times was a shared experience. The decisions that country was forced to make were a common thinking process.

This in no way is meant to disparage the uniqueness of each human being in these countries as I am certain they disagreed on many things, but the difference between their disagreements is probably smaller than ours. In the USA take two (2) separate, conservative members of the republican party. Both self identify as conservative. Both vote republican. Yet one is from Boston and the other from Evansville. Both were born and raised in these towns. I doubt that if they were in the same room they would agree on everything even though they both identify the same.

I don't think the differences of opinion would be the same in Denmark or Norway or Poland.

Another factor is also geography, for many reasons. If everyone agrees to pay for good roads in Belgium it is a much smaller task than in Indiana! Belgium has less than 12,000 square miles in area while Indiana ALONE has over 36,000 square miles. I would guess many Belgians know how most of their roads go in their own country. I doubt many Americans could say the same. Same thing with large disasters. Here, the biggest thing that hurt America in recent history was Hurricane Katrina, yet how many states were directly affected? Ten? Maybe...? Maybe one or two more or less. Had Katrina hit any country in Europe everyone in that country would have suffered some damage, and it would have made it more willing for them to "all chip in" since all would have been affected. When our neighbor right down the road in a nearby town is suffering it is honestly far easier to be willing to pay a few more dollars in taxes than it is for someone 2,000 miles away. There is a HUGE homeless problem in Los Angeles. How many of us, here on INGO, have personally seen it? I mean right there looking at it next to us or across the street? I haven't. I am aware of it and have seen pictures but not up close and personal.

It is easy to become socialist when we're all packed together in the same boat. Our geography creates a diversity that is directly counterproductive to producing a socialist society.

Regards,

Doug

Doug, I think another point in favor of your thesis is that the closest brush the US has had with socialism, IMO (FDR and The New Deal) came at the time of the greatest shared hardship in US history. The depths of the great depression had 1 in 5 Americans unemployed, millions of displaced and homeless, breadlines and soup kitchens, thousands of banks insolvent and millions of investors ruined in the crash of '29. Probably at no other time in modern US history had hardship been so widely shared, and Roosevelt was able to leverage that sympathy for the plight of our fellow man to pass some arguably very socialist programs