FTL_Ian's Personal Attacks on CNHT

[tracysaboe]

The immigration issue is a real conflicted issue for me. Capitalist libertarians and market anarchists make good faith arguments on both sides.

You should see Hans Herman-Hoppe and Roderick Long go head to on this one. Both Misesiens who edit their respective journals put out by the mises institute. both highly influential and respected Austro-libertarian-anarchists and they disagree on what the government policy should be in the interum before government is actually abolished.

Tracy

[CNHT]

Ian, to ignore the push for global government is to be dangerously unaware of what is going on in the world. You have your head in the sand...

You refuse to read the UN website, but if you did it would give you insight to all of this, which I feel you are just discovering now. Anyone who won't read reference material, is being disingenuous in the argument.

Why do you think the Middle East is so resistant and warlike? Because of their religious beliefs, they won't comply with the new order of things. (Not that I like their religion or anything!) They hate us and don't want to be homogenized, or give up any of their resources...or 'equalize' according to the master plan, especially oil. The US is the biggest contributor of funds to the UN and thus is just as guilty as the rest of them that want to take over and globalize the world. The US should simply concern itself with honoring the Constitution and serving the people in the minimal way it was intended.

I still say my opinion about what I want is not wrong, just because you do not agree with it. And I do emphasize that I have been studying this for longer than you have been alive.

I feel that if we do not live in a sovereign country with limited government, we will just be inviting socialism on a bigger scale.

I feel that it is analogous to the right to bear arms issue in that giving up sovereignty will do no more for freedom/liberty than giving up guns will guarantee there will be no crime, as the liberals, do-gooders, and the UN wants. Your idea of liberty is reactionary, like a spoiled child who tests the limits just because they are perceived to be there, even if they are not restrictive.

So for folks like you, I fear you are no better than the hippies in the 60s who thought much the same way, and are just adding to the problem with your unrealistic utopian dreams of 'no governments' just as quislings like Bill are traitors for trying to undo the good work of someone like Dan McGuire, who works tirelessly 24/7 for freedom in NH, by engaging him in a useless argument about Iraq, on the radio show. (This is what I do not like about Belforti's show -- he is not about NH that much but about himself...).

As long as there are more than two people on the earth, there will be government.
As long as there are others who want to impose themselves by force upon us, we need to organize against them.
One of the limited powers of government that I will concede to is protecting us from those forces.
As long as there is force, there needs to be an opposite force, fact of life.

You may as well put your hands in the air and ask them to 'come take me' because that is what your ideas suggest. And that is what will be done...and I'm not going to be part of it.

---end of discussion---

[aries]

Ok, I haven't posted in this thread yet and I don't hold either argument against anybody.

But it is very clear that there are two camps of libertarianism - those minarchist/utilitarians (I dont know of an official name) that believe that government should restrict free international trade and borders with the intent of stopping globalism and global politics and trade from ruling the nation. I say utilitarian because this would lead to a lag in technology and progress, so its adherents are usually more the type of person who would like to live off the land or in a small community.

The other camp is the anarcho-capitalists that believe the government, if it should exist, should not have this power, and that we should live in a large, borderless political-economic community.

Both are valid forms of libertarianism. And realize that in a true libertarian society, a government, should it exist, would prevent peoples lives from being ruled by foreign corporations (hopefully).

Personally I think that the fear of "global socialism" and globalism is blown far out of proportion. Our government WILL lead us directly into global socialism if we shoot for a total free market.  A libertarian government, in theory, would not. Therein lies the difference - we don't have a libertarian government. Thus, the fear is not unfounded, but PLEASE remember that we are all fighting for the same end, and when we achieve it, this debate will be of little importance.

[CNHT]

I did NOT say I believed gov't should restrict free trade!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the issue of global socialism...is a done deal. Perhaps after you see the Russo film you will understand. Why then do FSPers burn UN flags? If the UN means nothing, why bother? Another useless exercise? No it's to bring attention to just how evil and all-encompassing this entity really is.

I simply do NOT believe there should be international laws/courts...but that is what is happening now.
How would you like to be hauled off to a foreign country to stand trial, perhaps where they cut off hands for stealing a piece of bread?
They have already gotten people arrested for being perceived to have given their child a spanking, right here in Nashua, all UN-inspired.

If you won't read the UN website, you won't see how much of this is already IN PLACE.

They have goals, strategies and ways to get more money to implement those goals.
They have taken on the minutiae of your life as their mission and they have been given the power to do it! They consider the participating countries to be 'states' of theirs!

All one has to do is work in a public school over a period of 35 years to see the result of their influence by the changes that happen.

Like is said, head in the sand.

You can go on air and rail against the gov't day after day and dream of your utopian society and meanwhile have absolutely no effect to bring it about. You are spitting into the wind.
I choose instead to do something every single day: working to educate and help people locally to get their money back and to expose corruption and repeal stupid laws.

[FrankChodorov]

for trying to undo the good work of someone like Dan McGuire, who works tirelessly 24/7 for freedom in NH, by engaging him in a useless argument about Iraq, on the radio show

how is honest and open debate "undoing the good work of someone"?

is anyone above being challenged on assumptions like we are in a "war on terror" when congress has not declared war as required in the constitution or asking a comparison to the efficacy of a "war on drugs"?

or asking him how he can defend his party's president in his illegal wiretapping of us citizens, redentions, suspension of habeous corpus?

why are these issues "useless"?

btw - Dan and I had a perfectly pleasant conversation in line to see the Russo movie (you can ask him about it)...

[CNHT]

Because you admitted to going after him with the purpose of tearing him to shreds and were quite proud of it.

And I doubt Dan defended wire-tapping...!!! I have known Dan for over a year.

It would be like me saying to Ian, let me call your show so I can make a fool out of you.

That is not the point. I am trying to get him to see personally where I think his beliefs will simply lead to the OPPOSITE of our goals.
My goal however is not to publicly shame him into it or tear him to shreds on anything because it serves no purpose other than to be a quisling for liberty.

By the way, the UN wants to tax our water supply, just like Bill does.

They want to register your 'space vehicle' as soon as you might acquire such in the future, and want to regulate and control the speech on the internet. And on and on...

The UN is already several steps ahead of people like Ian.

[Lex]

End welfare and eliminate all "free" public services, then open the borders.

[CNHT]

End welfare and eliminate all "free" public services, then open the borders.

End welfare and keep the US a sovereign country that does not participate in and honor the wishes of the UN but whose sole duty is to honor the Constitution!

[KBCraig]

Ok, I haven't posted in this thread yet and I don't hold either argument against anybody.

But it is very clear that there are two camps of libertarianism - those minarchist/utilitarians (I dont know of an official name) that believe that government should restrict free international trade and borders with the intent of stopping globalism and global politics and trade from ruling the nation. I say utilitarian because this would lead to a lag in technology and progress, so its adherents are usually more the type of person who would like to live off the land or in a small community.

The other camp is the anarcho-capitalists that believe the government, if it should exist, should not have this power, and that we should live in a large, borderless political-economic community.

Both are valid forms of libertarianism. And realize that in a true libertarian society, a government, should it exist, would prevent peoples lives from being ruled by foreign corporations (hopefully).

That's a pretty good summary. It's not unlike how libertarians can disagree on the use of military force outside our borders. Both sides agree that initiation of force is contrary to libertarianism. Some believe that preemptive overseas strikes in response to a threat are valid self defense, while others would withold military force unless there's an overt military attack against us here at home.

Many libertarians point out that the best way to overturn bad laws is to enforce them universally and with zero tolerance. Others believe that every example of breaking unjust laws without consequence is a victory for liberty. When it comes to immigration, I'm not sure which approach I prefer.

Naturally, I'm in favor of eliminating government charity, so that arguments about illegal immigrants overwhelming schools and social services simply wouldn't apply. I'm all for a free market for labor as well as for goods, but the policies of some governments result in dumping -- both labor and goods. Dumping is an act of aggression that endangers business and disrupts the free market. What should the proper response be?

No one is worried about illegally working on either side of the Canadian border, because wages and standards of living are similar on both sides. Things are very different across the Southern border, because Latin America has never attained any measure of freedom, and the socioeconomic conditions reflect that. Government policies create an impoverished worker class desperate to work for what Americans would consider slave wages.

Just remember this: everyone resents illegals until they need a new roof. 

Kevin

[Lloyd Danforth]

End welfare and eliminate all "free" public services, then open the borders.

End welfare and keep the US a sovereign country that does not participate in and honor the wishes of the UN but whose sole duty is to honor the Constitution!

Yes!

[Russell Kanning]

If we can choose our government .... then I choose none. I also choose no UN control.
The US Federal Government invented the UN. They are not our friends against tyranny.

[FrankChodorov]

Because you admitted to going after him with the purpose of tearing him to shreds and were quite proud of it.

Dan B. went after him and invited me to give my opinion...do you think if I had torn him to shreds and not just challenged his assumptions we would have had a perfectly pleasant conversation while waiting in line to see Russo's movie?

And I doubt Dan defended wire-tapping

we didn't discuss it...I was just using wire-tapping as an example of what would be USEFUL to talk about

where I think his beliefs will simply lead to the OPPOSITE of our goals

now your speaking for who exactly when you say "our" goals?

the UN wants to tax our water supply, just like Bill does

the "taxing" will occur when the use of our common asset goes beyond the sustainable yield as those being excluded are being economically disadvantaged.

thus the taxing is just to protect the property rights interests of those being harmed by the initial unjust taking.

how come you have backed away from asking me to show you the law that says our water is owned in common in NH with the state as the public trustee?

[BaRbArIaN]

thus the taxing is just

Never is it just.  Historically present, currently practiced maybe.  Never just.

[FrankChodorov]

thus the taxing is just

Never is it just.  Historically present, currently practiced maybe.  Never just.

it is if it is righting a wrong...

even in an anarchy those being excluded from occupying what is necessary for life (a place to stand) will be economically disadvantaged.

the state righting a wrong is a justified use of force to protect the right of self-ownership.

[Lex]

right of self-ownership.

What does it mean to have the right to self-ownership? Define what a "right" is and what "self-ownership" is please.