Sign Up for the Good Stuff

What we’re seeing from Miss May is the original meaning of “conservative:” One who staunchly resists all but the most minuscule changes to the status quo. We have them in the U.S., too (e.g., the NeverTrumpers who call themselves Republicans or conservatives). It’s characteristic of a ruling elite more concerned with its power, prestige, and perquisites than with any notion about responsibility to the governed.

Naah she’sjust timid. Talks like she’s an elephant, acts like she’s a mouse

So, I try to summarize. I cannot recruit my baby-sitter from Honduras because:

1) my need of baby-sitting services is “owned” collectively by a group of strangers that happen to have a similar passport.

2) I was extorted and I had to pay for some strangers welfare, and although she lives in my place, eats my food and receives private health care I pay for her, there is a risk that she might decide to renounce to all this and become another parasite along the original parasites feeding on the money I was extorted of.

Am I correct?

Not at all. I’m just pointing out that there are losers from mass immigration and that those losers have voting power.

When you import your baby-sitter from Honduras you do not hire one from Houston (say). The reason why you want a baby-sitter from honduras is probably because you are not willing to pay as much as the baby-sitter from Houston would like to be paid. The baby-sitter in Houston is likely to feel annoyed that you are not paying her.

Also as someone at Samizdata(?) said recently paraphrasing Milton Friedman: you can have either open borders or a welfare state, you cannot have both

The voters in the developed world want the welfare state, therefore they do not want to have open borders. You can disagree with that, but you will need to convince over 50% of the electorate in the country where you live that open borders are superior or you will have to move somewhere that has open borders

“The baby-sitter in Houston is likely to feel annoyed that you are not paying her.”

Probably not, as unless you are pornographically wealthy like me, typically the option is a nanny from Honduras or no nanny at all, rather than a nanny from Houston. Of course, if there were no minimum wage laws in Houston…

Francis, do you think you’d be more comfortable writing for a Pro-Trump forum rather than a Libertarian website?

Perhaps you’ll like my latest post then? not a word on Trump and plenty of ideas about taxation, tariffs and the like

https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/brexit-out-of-the-box/

@masgramondou
I agree with what you say here. I misundenderstood what you wrote in your article, it looked like you gave an ethical pass to the forms of violence that you were describing.

Unfortunately, liberty is not an option, and convincing the 50%+1 to vote in a way you like is not only very difficult, it is also profoundly unethical, because you would coerce other people. Therefore in my opinion the only option is simply to disregard the statists: recruit the Hondurenan nanny, evade taxes, refuse to follow rules that do not have a natural right base, etc. In the longer term secede and create a sovereign propietary community with a few simple rules grounded in common sense, and invite anybody that like them to come, paying a rent. No elections, no politics.

How do you reconcile your self-identification as an “anarcho-capitalist” or your reference to statism as “a disease” with encouraging the Feds to resort to brutal force to maintain an artificial line in the desert? Defense of liberty is not a piecemeal conviction, and Tucker’s arguments are internally consistent.

I recognize when building a house, many materials and functions are involved that do not appear in the finished house. Perhaps you have seen how many powertools and scaffolds and scab braces are used during the construction of a house. Using your standard of excluding any materials not in the finished product precludes the assembly of the house.

I also recognized that a house must be built in order otherwise it will collapse. Your desire for open borders before the protection of my income and property rights is like adding a roof to a house that has no foundation or walls.

How do you reconcile your defense of freedom while driving on roads on land taken by force of imminent domain, and paid for by tax dollars taken by force. Defense of liberty is not a piecemeal conviction.

And yes, statism is a disease, have you ever treated diseases? Do you understand the concept of Triage? Do you recognize that diseases must be treated in specific orders?

Do you mean “artificial” line, or do you mean “arbitrary” ?
If you mean artificial, well, words are artificial. Artificial does not mean meaningless.
Money is artificial, culture is artificial, clothing is artificial, even contracts are artificial.
Perhaps you can see that artificiality is not a characteristic that discriminates between liberty and non-liberty.

What we’re seeing from Miss May is the original meaning of “conservative:” One who staunchly resists all but the most minuscule changes to the status quo. We have them in the U.S., too (e.g., the NeverTrumpers who call themselves Republicans or conservatives). It’s characteristic of a ruling elite more concerned with its power, prestige, and perquisites than with any notion about responsibility to the governed.

Naah she’sjust timid. Talks like she’s an elephant, acts like she’s a mouse

So, I try to summarize. I cannot recruit my baby-sitter from Honduras because:

1) my need of baby-sitting services is “owned” collectively by a group of strangers that happen to have a similar passport.

2) I was extorted and I had to pay for some strangers welfare, and although she lives in my place, eats my food and receives private health care I pay for her, there is a risk that she might decide to renounce to all this and become another parasite along the original parasites feeding on the money I was extorted of.

Am I correct?

Not at all. I’m just pointing out that there are losers from mass immigration and that those losers have voting power.

When you import your baby-sitter from Honduras you do not hire one from Houston (say). The reason why you want a baby-sitter from honduras is probably because you are not willing to pay as much as the baby-sitter from Houston would like to be paid. The baby-sitter in Houston is likely to feel annoyed that you are not paying her.

Also as someone at Samizdata(?) said recently paraphrasing Milton Friedman: you can have either open borders or a welfare state, you cannot have both

The voters in the developed world want the welfare state, therefore they do not want to have open borders. You can disagree with that, but you will need to convince over 50% of the electorate in the country where you live that open borders are superior or you will have to move somewhere that has open borders

“The baby-sitter in Houston is likely to feel annoyed that you are not paying her.”

Probably not, as unless you are pornographically wealthy like me, typically the option is a nanny from Honduras or no nanny at all, rather than a nanny from Houston. Of course, if there were no minimum wage laws in Houston…

Francis, do you think you’d be more comfortable writing for a Pro-Trump forum rather than a Libertarian website?

Perhaps you’ll like my latest post then? not a word on Trump and plenty of ideas about taxation, tariffs and the like

https://ombreolivier.liberty.me/brexit-out-of-the-box/

@masgramondou
I agree with what you say here. I misundenderstood what you wrote in your article, it looked like you gave an ethical pass to the forms of violence that you were describing.

Unfortunately, liberty is not an option, and convincing the 50%+1 to vote in a way you like is not only very difficult, it is also profoundly unethical, because you would coerce other people. Therefore in my opinion the only option is simply to disregard the statists: recruit the Hondurenan nanny, evade taxes, refuse to follow rules that do not have a natural right base, etc. In the longer term secede and create a sovereign propietary community with a few simple rules grounded in common sense, and invite anybody that like them to come, paying a rent. No elections, no politics.

How do you reconcile your self-identification as an “anarcho-capitalist” or your reference to statism as “a disease” with encouraging the Feds to resort to brutal force to maintain an artificial line in the desert? Defense of liberty is not a piecemeal conviction, and Tucker’s arguments are internally consistent.

I recognize when building a house, many materials and functions are involved that do not appear in the finished house. Perhaps you have seen how many powertools and scaffolds and scab braces are used during the construction of a house. Using your standard of excluding any materials not in the finished product precludes the assembly of the house.

I also recognized that a house must be built in order otherwise it will collapse. Your desire for open borders before the protection of my income and property rights is like adding a roof to a house that has no foundation or walls.

How do you reconcile your defense of freedom while driving on roads on land taken by force of imminent domain, and paid for by tax dollars taken by force. Defense of liberty is not a piecemeal conviction.

And yes, statism is a disease, have you ever treated diseases? Do you understand the concept of Triage? Do you recognize that diseases must be treated in specific orders?

Do you mean “artificial” line, or do you mean “arbitrary” ?
If you mean artificial, well, words are artificial. Artificial does not mean meaningless.
Money is artificial, culture is artificial, clothing is artificial, even contracts are artificial.
Perhaps you can see that artificiality is not a characteristic that discriminates between liberty and non-liberty.