|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
71 comments to Open borders; open carry |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I’m guessing there was supposed to be some point, just for the sake of argument, to be made?
Can’t have both. Because Open-carryin’ citizens will take out the illegals!
Open borders, open carry, no welfare.
That might work.
Kevin B: that would be more accurate, but then I couldn’t use the meme.
Yeah
“Open borders, open pockets” “”Why can’t we have both ?”
fits better. After all you’ve already got both, honey.
It’s the official policy of pretty much every major political party in the western world, barring a few fringe elements in the GOP; and even more importantly, the fixed and determined policy of the apparat.
Someone please explain “open carry”? Carry what?
Kevin B nails it.
No, they really won’t, unless you expect all your upstanding citizens to suddenly decide to gun down Consuela and Jesus, their maid and gardener respectively, just because they lack a stamp in their passport and cost less to hire. The world is a rather more complex place than you seem to think.
Indeed Kevin. There is no immigration problem, there is only a state welfare problem.
I disagree with what I understand to be the orthodox libertarian position on immigration. If human beings were just so many fungible monads, then open borders would be appropriate. But of course we’re not. Immigrants bear their cultures and values with them and in large enough numbers can displace the indigenous or the majority or the dominant culture. I know that for us Americans especially, there is supposed to be a meta- or umbrella culture or values set under which all ethnic cultures can be subsumed and harmonized. If that was ever the case, it certainly is not the case today.
I understand that “dominance” is a fraught subject and that to argue, explicitly or implicitly, for the preservation of dominance of European (a/k/a “white”) culture and cultural symbols is now taboo in the West. But then again, the reason all those immigrants are coming to the West and leaving the East is precisely because of the West’s dominant culture. One would think that an actual, lawful immigrant would be the most ardent defender of that culture he willingly and in most cases eagerly sought and would want not to see it jeopardized by unlimited immigration.
The border used to be basically open – but, as Kevin B. points out, that was pre welfare.
Food Stamps only date from 1961.
“Free Education” for the children of illegals was only forced on Texas by a Supreme Court judgement of 1982 (as with most Supreme Court stuff, the judgement was based on nothing apart from the collectivist whims of scumbag judges).
Free “emergency” health care came a few years later (an Unconstitutional Act of Congress – under Reagan actually).
So the Res Publica dies.
As all these things are now considered eternal rights.
Things that did not exist under Ike are all “basic” and “vital” now. Ask the Economist magazine and the rest of the “liberal” elite establishment.
As for the loyalty of the immigrants.
Ask them who was in the right in the wars of 1836 and 1848.
At least they have heard of these wars – most Americans have not.
However, the illegals also believe America was in the wrong.
Hard to have “open borders” with people who think you have no right to the land.
Although the “libertarian left” also hate Texan landowners and so on.
The border used to be basically open – but, as Kevin B. points out, that was pre welfare
It was also before cheap and easy travel. I’d like to believe that without welfare as a magnet, mass immigration would cease. But actually I doubt it.
It would not cease, thank goodness, it is just that the nature of the immigration would change. Welfare seeking immigrants would diminish in number and job seeking immigrants would probably stay the same. Even in the current distorted environment, it is hard not to see mass Polish, Czech and Slovak immigration into the UK in the last decade as anything less than a spectacular success.
So you’re *against* competition between cultures? But, I assume, *for* it between businesses? What about governments? Tax rates? Why is cultural competition so bad that we need to put up protectionist trade barriers between them but its perfectly OK for Johnny English to move freely to another city and potentially displace a local from his job?
@Incunabulum:
An interesting thought, but I don’t think the analogy stands up to scrutiny. The economic model of business competition is not really applicable to the evolution and conflict among cultures. At least I don’t think so. Culture is not a consumer good. People are not free to choose among cultures as they are to choose among automobiles or dishwashers.
Businesses compete under capitalism by providing a better good or lower price, or both. How do different cultures occupying the same country compete? In Europe for hundreds of years Catholics competed with Protestants. In the Middle East Shia competes with Sunni. In India Muslim competes with Hindu. In Africa tribes compete with each other. In Sri Lanka Sinhala and Tamil competed for a decade.
They certainly did not compete by trying to be the better model citizen. Quite often, even today, groups compete using violence. When they don’t, often one group gains effective control of the government and favors the in group over the out group. Present US culture requires people in power to observe fairness in dealing with out groups (diversity quotas, voting rights act enforcement, and the such). In some other cultures that is not there.
While I believe an European immigrant to the US has put behind him religious conflict and accepts a live and let live attitude towards religion and ethnicity, I don’t have the same opinion of many people living in the Middle East, Africa, and many other places.
I’m not sure you need to consider the comparison to be an analogy.
Furthermore, I’m not sure it’s necessary to frame the competition between cultures as conflict. I emigrated to the US for a number of reasons, one of which being that I considered that the culture – overall – was superior to the one from which I came. I was, however, under no illusions that I needed to adapt to the new culture, or suffer the consequences of trying to be a square peg in a round hole. And yes, some cultures are superior to others, in part because they embody priciples and behavior that people value.
The only way historically that you got to have your culture, on some alien turf, was to eliminate the locals and move your tribe in. Otherwise, conform (sufficiently) or suffer ostracism.
Culture is simply an embodiment of a set of social principles and precedent. If you ignore precedent and throw away your principles, you lose your culture.
People like me (us?) still think that deep down, “Western European” Culture is founded on a bedrock of near-equality and somewhat-cohesive society. It may have been in the past, but our political class speaks of freedom, while binding us in slavery; in part because of the irreconcilable policies of free shit and an open border.
The prospect of creating an infantilzed, dependent polis is just too tempting.
Except they *are*. Sure, you may *start out* with the washer that grandma gave you since she got a new one – you don’t have to *keep* it. Or you can break it open and start modifying it.
US culture is the way it is because for a couple hundred years we’ve been doing exactly that – looking at what other people have been doing, adopting what works and ignoring what doesn’t.
When you have cultural *assimulation*, everyone is changed, even if only a little bit.
The problem is when, as is common in Europe, you basically enforce ‘multiculturalism’ (ie, protectionist policies to prevent cultures from competing against each other domestically) you get the immigrant cultures pushed off into ghettos where they fester and radicalize.
And then you have people calling for *more* protectionists laws (in this case limiting/ending immigration) – to have government fix a problem caused by earlier government action.
As an example, there’s a *yooooge* difference between the way San Diego, CA’s Arab population relates to the rest of the city compared to, say, Paris’. Or San Fransisco’s Chinatown and . . . whatever European equivalent exists. In both sets of examples there are large ethnic enclaves, in the US examples those enclaves are mostly integrated into the rest of US society (with a ‘safe space’ to retreat to for those who consider it too alien) while in the EU examples you have a bunch of people herded in and left to rot on welfare.
The violence was due to each side trying to *seize the power of the state*. When they focus simply on wealth creation and not on leveraging the state’s monopoly on violent coercion to rob the rest of the nation there’s little to no reason for violence. As an example I would offer the US – Protestants and Catholics compete in the marketplace of ideas and neither have resorted to the level of violence that their conflicts in Europe have seen. Because being top dog doesn’t mean you can use the state to rob your rivals (mostly).
And if there’s something that Europe does (and the US is certainly well on its way of doing that also) its this. Because those states are, for some reason, deathly afraid of being called ‘racists’. But its certainly not racist to tell a new immigrant that “grabbing ass on the bus (and worse) is not tolerated here – no matter what she’s wearing and if they persist in it we’ll go all Charles Napier on your arse.”
Welfare will never end. Instead, as technology wipes out millions of low skilled jobs countries will introduce basic incomes.
Richer countries will pay bigger basic incomes, incentivising immigration on a much larger scale than we see today. These people vote and they will vote to expand basic income, just as new immigrants today everywhere support leftist parties that promise the most goodies.
The Democrat Party in the USA is a hard-nosed political machine. They recognise the transformative power of this new voting bloc, while Republicsns wander aimlessly and libertarians remain wedded to the belief that the end of welfare is just around the corner.
AngryTory- if you have open borders, then you don’t have ‘legal’ citizens.
TDK- they mean guns. Open carrying of guns. Here in Australia, that will only happen when the crocodiles (thanks to global warming) expand their range into the populated areas, and then guns will become a necessity.
Nicholas Gray:
When I first read your post I though you were using “crocodiles” as a euphemism — like “watermelons,” only more dangerous. Then I realized you meant literal crocodiles! It actually reads right both ways.
The descendants of the Muslims flooding Europe today will probably within a few generations fundamentally transform European culture, laws, and traditions.
Be careful what you wish for you.
You might just get it.
If you think the European Union and the current ruling class in general are antithetical to liberty…. you are in for a very, very rude awakening.
And you will deserve it.
Open borders, open carry?
Kinda like Syria?
Also, the example of my country Singapore attests to mass immigration WITHOUT welfare. As long as there is a significant difference in the purchasing power of currencies, there will be mass immigration even without welfare.
Sometimes, I wonder if the doctrinaire libertarians are really that dumb.
And? Mass immigration is not a problem if the people arriving actually want jobs. Poles have more or less taken over the construction business in the UK, making house repairs affordable where they previously were not.
And let’s hope Pole dancing replaces Morris dancing, the sooner the better! That’s the best way to add Polish to international relations!
Then have some pity for those native Brits who can’t compete with these immigrant workers because they have to account for their higher costs of living.
There’s no such thing as ‘house repairs affordable where they previously were not’, the market will allocate prices and labour accordingly and as people feel when it is necessary.
But if you think that’s fine… Welcome to the corporate nation, where you truly are just a digit.
How about- have some pity for the helpless home-owners, who had been ripped-off by the tradies, but now can have reasonable prices, thanks to competition from Poles! Only competition keeps prices low- or do you think some things should be protected? Even if it means higher prices?
The Wobbly Guy nails it!
What are you talking about? Native Brits are for the most part the ones getting their houses fixed up by the influx of new market entrants doing things cheaper. None of what you wrote makes any sense whatsoever.
In all honesty I am just saying what I want to aim for. That is mostly what I am interested in. I have not come to any definite conclusions about practical considerations. Arguments along the lines of “we will never get rid of welfare or have proper self defense therefore we must close the borders” leave me cold and strike me as giving up.
Can we have a culture of freedom that is strong enough to resist newcomers trying to take over? If not there is little hope. I am inclined to think the right culture will attract the right newcomers, or at the very least seduce their children.
And sure, native builders have to endure hardship when foreign builders undercut them. But that is no more an argument for closing borders than it is for banning cranes and diggers, or shovels for digging in favour of spoons.
“Open borders; open carry”
If countries and culture have any meaning obviously not. Open borders imply many bad people enter.
It is much easier to destroy trust than to build it.
Of course we create our own bad people.
luckylucky:
It is much easier to destroy trust than to build it.
Pearl of wisdom indeed.
Children need to learn it early, so that when they are adults it will be ingrained — even if they become “businessmen.”
“No,” she said innocently. “I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular. Why do you ask?”
I think the former is vastly less important than commonly assumed, and the later can take care of itself if the former would stop preventing civil society from actually working.
Here’s a paper that discusses the issue.
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/research/Documents/workingpapers/2015/swp574.pdf
A lot of the focus is on wages, which I find misleading. I prefer to focus on standard and costs of living. If wages went down 2% and costs went down by 5% for that demographic, there is a net gain.
That paper didn’t state the cost savings, but the wages went down by 2% for every 10% increase in the proportion of immigrant workers in that sector. So in a way I was right, but it can also be argued this decrease in wages is inconsequential.
European culture, laws and traditions live only in books and in the souls of romantic dreamers.
“The problem is when, as is common in Europe, you basically enforce ‘multiculturalism’ (ie, protectionist policies to prevent cultures from competing against each other domestically) you get the immigrant cultures pushed off into ghettos where they fester and radicalize.”
Incunabulum (I love this nickname), the ghettoization is the result of the weaker (minority, newer, foreign) culture resistance to assimilate into the dominant (majority, older, local) culture. They are competing all right and the minority culture is finding the majority culture wanting. This is specially true for Muslims.
As to immigration I have a simple issue which is one very few pols seem to appreciate which is they think of people as always a burden on the NHS/benefits etc. Even if they have good jobs and are net contributors to HMRC (The Curse of Allah be Upon Them). It is ludicrous and until we realise that people are not a burden per-se. It is patronising and nasty and not a million miles away from the whole Green Optimal Population idea. It is evil and wrong. It is the ultimate nannyism but even (in a rational world) the goat farmer ought to think the bigger the herd the better.
Culture is different. And I am with Bod on this – competition doesn’t necessarily imply conflict.
I think Perry is naive and wrong on this issue, as my fellow libertarians tend to be. I think mass immigration (illegal or legal) is suicidal for libertarianism, for several reasons.
1) Increased diversity lowers social trust, which then increases demand for government.
2) The more economically libertarian a society, the more prosperous it will be. This lures people from non-prosperous societies. Unfortunately, they usually bring their beliefs with them. In the US there was a term: “Californication.” This meant people escaping problems in California by moving to Oregon or Nevada, but then voting the same way, thus reproducing the original problems. See also residents of New York, Massachusetts, etc., moving to New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, etc.
3) The entire public school system is devoted to “diversity.” This serves to slow or stop assimilation, and inculcates statist attitudes in immigrants who often already come from societies in which socialism is praised (e.g. Latin America).
4) It’s especially problematic when much of the Muslim world seems to waging a generations-long war against Western values. Why is it “libertarian” to import people whose fundamental beliefs are anti-libertarian?
I think that the “free movement” aspect of libertarianism should not override all other libertarian values, and that Lew Rockwell is correct.
Following on from PapayaSF’s Lew Rockwell piece, was it not formerly the case that in order to immigrate into the U.S., at least from Eastern Bloc countries, one had to have a U.S. sponsor who would attest as to his bona fides and ability to be self-supporting, and who would be held responsible for his conduct for some period after entry into the country?
I can’t say certainly that that is true, but I did pick up the idea from somewhere, quite a long time ago (perhaps the 70’s). Can anyone confirm?
AngryTory- if you have open borders, then you don’t have ‘legal’ citizens.
Nope – you let millions of non-citizens in (the distinction between “illegal and legal” is one without a difference)
You can have open carry for CITIZENS because RIGHTS are for CITIZENS.
Angry Tory,
How long were you in the Mobile Infantry for?
Actually RIGHTS are for HUMANS. What ‘citizens’ have are state granted privileges. But then my views regarding the true meaning of citizenship are well known.
Rights are indeed for humans, which is why it is so important to actively and aggressively resist the application of that term to anything which is not legitimately a “right”. This means, for instance that the concept of “positive” rights, any non-contractual claim on the property or person of another, is morally bankrupt and an impermissible corruption of the concept of a “right”. And it is also why the “free” movement of persons, anywhere they may wish to go upon the face of the earth, is not and cannot be a legitimate “right”.
Unless voluntarily offered, movement into the lawful territory of others is a trespass against the legitimate rights of those others. This can apply to an individual who owns a parcel of land, or to a community which holds some of its territory in common. And if that community chooses to manage its common property through the agency of an entity called a “government”, and to refer to that territory as a “country”, it is perfectly legitimate for the members of that community, acting through a legitimate government which is accurately reflecting their wishes, do decide precisely who, and how many, persons from other lands will be permitted to visit and/or settle there and upon what terms they may be permitted to do so.
This is a matter of both property rights and the right to freedom of association (which, necessarily, includes the freedom not to associate), both of which are legitimate human rights.
@laird By this kind of logic you can justify every violence a government uses against its citizens. By running all the public property it can impose his own set of rules and enslave its citizens. This is not libertarianism.
Very well put, Laird. Agree in principle.
Unfortunately, when property is held jointly or in common — I’m probably eliding two separate legal terms, but I’m just a layman — even if by only two individuals, what happens when one of them disagrees about some issue over said property, such as who may use it and under what terms and who pays for its upkeep (if any) and on what terms, etc.?
However, I still agree with you. :>)
Actually RIGHTS are for HUMANS.
only if you’re a leftist (or a leftertarian I guess)
This is a matter of both property rights and the right to freedom of association (which, necessarily, includes the freedom not to associate), both of which are legitimate human rights.
There are no “legitimate human rights” because there are no “legitimate humans”. There are only citizens and non-citizens. For any “right” the question is: who has the duty to enforce that right? If you posit rights for non-citizens, who enforces them? The only people who can are the citizens, typically via “government” by their taxes- but this is unconscionable.
For the same reason: there is no “right” to association, and especially no “right” to avoid discrimination because of discrimination. Any citizen, for example, who associates with communists by that association loses their citizenship and the rights that citizenship brings.
@ NickM: Very well played, Bonnie Lad.
Actually it is a classical conservative position too but as you are an old school fascist you would not understand that.
TDK,
Open carry refers to policemen. Or, in the event that a policeman becomes too heavy for you to carry, a gun.
Chiozzo, you seem to have missed the ‘acting through a legitimate government which is accurately reflecting their wishes’ part in Laird’s comment (with which I perfectly agree).
PapayaSF, you wrote:
I don’t think you can determine Perry’s position either way from what he has written here so far. We do know that Perry is a minarchist, and so to him the role of the government in protecting the borders of the state from external aggression is a legitimate one (and of course he will correct me if he finds it necessary). Therefore, problem here seems to be: how does one tell a peaceful and well-intentioned mass immigration, from a hostile invasion disguised as the former (albeit non-uniformed and unarmed – at least not in an obvious way). The answer to that is not easy, but it is not non-existent or unknowable either.
Alisa, I think the problem is (as the old TV commercial put it) that “it’s two mints in one.” Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Muslims may be peaceful, or terrorists, or anything in between.
Since the Western Enlightenment, we’ve established the principle of freedom of religion, which is linked (to a great degree) on the separation of church and state. That leads many to the false belief that all religions are essentially the same. Unfortunately, no. Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., do not believe that it is their destiny to eventually, one way or the other, conquer the world and rule it as a theocracy.
So I believe it’s wrong to see it as binary, either peaceful or hostile. It’s inherently both, and you cannot separate the two. Even vetting individual Muslims would be pointless. Look at the experience of France. The Muslims who entered in the ’50s-’60s were not radical, but many of their children and grandchildren are.
I agree
But the what?
(then)
I think it will have to be something like this.
1) The First Law of Holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging. So no more Muslim immigration to the West, including refugees, family reunification, whatever.
2) End all welfare systems that encourage the Muslims already here (and anyone else) to have children at the expense of the state.
3) I think there needs to be a memetic assault on Islam itself. The radicalization is based on the Koran, which is supposedly perfect. Our Earthly copies are merely copies of the one Allah has in Heaven. Obviously it’s nonsense, but it’s also provably nonsense. Western scholars have shown that the Koran is partly copied from earlier sources, and contains many errors and strings that make no sense and seem to be copying errors. This information needs to be publicized. A good summary is here.
The goal would be to make Islam more like Christianity, in relation to the Bible. Christians know that it was written by many different people “inspired” by God, in many languages. There’s a lot of room for interpretation. I think breaking the grip of the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (which is by far the most widespread and official view) may be the only hope for avoiding an eventual worldwide religious war.
PapayaSF:
1. I do not trust the state with that ability.
2. Agree completely
3. Indeed, there must be unrelenting of criticism of the Koran and the entire intellectual edifice upon which Islam is based. Sam Harris has been rather good on this score.
I don’t think I understand your objection regarding #1. The state already has that ability. Maybe not to do it perfectly, but they do decide matters immigration and refugees. And I don’t see a non-state option there: controlling the borders seems like one of the few legitimate functions of the state.
classical conservative position
please. The idea of a universal suffrage – even a universal male suffrage – is completely antithetical to any kind of “classical conservative” position. In the UK, universal suffrage was “won” by terrorists, not conservatives.
controlling the borders seems like one of the few legitimate functions of the state.
via cost-effective private contracting, sure. but as the other comments above point out, controlling non-citizens (immigrants, bludger, subversives, terrorists) is if anything more important. Both can be effectively outsourced: there’s no need for the “state” to have powers that citizens don’t when citizens have the powers themselves.
@ AngryTory: “there’s no need for the “state” to have powers that citizens don’t when citizens have the powers themselves.”
That’s a very interesting comment, and reaches into the heart of governmental legitimacy. If one believes, as many of us do, that governments “derive[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed” (to cite one popular example), then governance is merely a species of agency, and it is an elementary principle of agency law that the agent can possess no more power than does his principal. Thus a government can do nothing which its people cannot also do.
It is also a fundamental principle of agency law that the principal can withdraw a grant of authority from his agent at any time*. Thus the people could, legally, divest their government of any power they choose. Good luck with that!
* Subject to certain exceptions, such as when the grant is “coupled with an interest”, which are not here applicable.
reaches into the heart of governmental legitimacy
right. It leads directly to the conclusion that – there being no such thing as “society” that there can be no such thing as “the governed”— or rather, that the governed, the people, are constituted by the government, and not the reverse.
This gives the lie to the leftertarians who claim that force/policing/prisons/roading/water/education/healthcare are “natural monopolies” and that some level of taxation is required. Their being no such thing as society, there is no justification whatsoever for any corporation to use force to tax anyone or to be privileged in any way.
Talking about “prosperity” or “poverty” or “humanity” is simply meaningless — it has the same validity as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (there are no angels; there is no “humanity”, there are only individuals). To engage with communism on its terms is always to lose.
Individuals have more in common with Killer Whales than we do with communists.
Communists have more in common with insects than they do with individuals.
libertarian free market policy is a goal, is it not? do any of the people entering the US come from places with strong (or even weak) histories of rule of law, economic/political liberty, limited government? no? what on earth compels libertarians to believe that today’s economic migrant will vote in tomorrows’s libertarian government? when Californians flee the economic destruction they’ve wrought in their home state ballot box do they see the error of their ways? No, they move to texas, colorado, oregon, et cetera and quickly pine for the same bureaucratic overreach and economic stagnation. that’s just the effects of similar people enacting bad policy. now add in the contentions of race and ethnicity and you have a powder keg for future bloodshed.
Doug, what is your problem with capital letters? They serve a purpose, because they make it easier to read text. You should give them a try.
Ann K., welcome to the club. That was quite a good joke! Please try a few more out on us.
Maybe doug is not an (automatically-evil) capitalist?
1. Open borders are incompatible with the Welfare State. Milton Friedman knew that. Why not you?
2. All cultures are not equal. Your devotion to unfettered immigration may someday lead you to a future date in Sharia Court arguing Adam Smith in front of a tribunal of Imams. Get real.
Does anyone here not know that? Not a lot of folks in this particular parish are fans of the Welfare State.
Non-sequitur. Yes, all cultures are not equal. And the only problem here is not immigration but state imposed laws against societal pressures that favour integration (i.e. anti-‘discrimination’ laws), and a welfare state which actively funds people who cannot be bothered to integrate. Our culture is not being allowed to actually work.
Perhaps Doug needs to shift a bit…
I’ll get my coat.
But those aren’t the “only” problems, Perry. Even without anti-discrimination laws and a welfare state, there’s still a core problem: a more libertarian society is more advanced, peaceful, and prosperous. People from less libertarian societies with thus want to move there, but will bring non- or even anti-libertarian attitudes with them. And the more libertarian culture cannot “work” to assimilate a foreign culture that, for religious and ideological reasons, doesn’t want to be assimilated. On the contrary, that foreign culture wants to assimilate you.
To Alisa,
if the government owns the land (or the roads…), even if it is reflecting the wishes of the people’s majority, it can always impose illiberal policies on its citizens. This is against the very core of libertarianism (or classical liberalism). To me it seems “collectivism”.
Chiozzo: sure, but I don’t see why your comment is addressed to me?
And the more libertarian culture cannot “work” to assimilate a foreign culture that, for religious and ideological reasons, doesn’t want to be assimilated.
So we shoot them – as free citizens in a free country, that is most certainly our right!