Saturday, February 18, 2017

About My Persian and Nigerian Friends

H. C. emails:
Dear Robert,

I hate to bombard you with emails, but on the immigration/borders/what will that make of our society given that the State prevents us from choosing with whom to associate, here is an interesting article. It goes toward my point about how, if our society depends on common law and voting then it is important who we let into our communities.

http://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-we-culturally-profile.html

I found it linked from Slatestarcodex.com, an interesting blog you may know of (but should check out if you don't).
-
PS Just fyi, if you recall my wife is a Syrian Christian (got here ~15 years ago). I'm a mutt. Neither of us are religious. She is absolutely terrified of Islamification, having lived it.
RW response:

Well, I am afraid of  Islamification also. That's why I stay out of ISIS territory.

But I am also afraid of government created urban primitives and they are a lot closer. I would say less than 10 blocks from me. That's why I stay out of the Tenderloin here in San Francisco--especially after dark.

And an urban primitive tried to mug me once late at night in Chicago's Loop when I had a serious number of Sapphire tonics in me. (It didn't work out so well for him.)

But I have yet to fear a Muslim in America. In fact, my two best drinking buddies in Los Angeles are Persians originally from outside Tehran, Amir and Hamid. One is now a banker, the other a corporate lawyer. We have closed Los Angeles down many a night together. I have eaten kale pache with them.

My third favorite LA friend is a Nigerian real estate developer named Bola. He is Muslim, but from what I have seen I would not consider him anywhere close to practicing--if you get my drift.

So you can send me all the links you want about cultural this and cultural that and I really don't care. I am having a blast with some people who you apparently would never go close to. By the way, I have no problem with you staying away from them, if you want to stay within your little club, based on whatever, go for it.

I have my little club centered around Sapphire tonics and good times--ethnicity not that important, ability to hold liquor very important. And I have my own prejudices.

But if you think that the U.S. government is going to protect you for a minute from the Muslims that you are so afraid of, please explain to me why Saudi Arabia was not put on Trump's travel ban when it was Saudis that flew into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?

Government protection is a myth. Try walking on the west side of Chicago late at night.

To call for the expansion of government in any way is ass backward libertarianism. Government is the problem, not the solution.

You always want to move toward liberty not away from it and that means in the context of Muslims, getting US troops the hell out of their countries, halting refugee status for Muslims that would be supported by the state,  but allowing in Muslims who have a place to stay and a money or job to support their activities here.

 -RW

39 comments:

  1. The 9/11 hijackers had money or a job. So did the man who drive a truck into the crowd in Nice, the attackers in Paris, the Brussels airport bombers...They all did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PH --

      Your examples are the result of Nato aggression throughout the Muslim world. The canard used to be that THEY hate the West because of its movies, music, etc., when it has always been the bayonet and boot they hate.

      The issues we read about in Germany, etc., with regard to immigrants and refugees, is the result of governments that refuse to defend the property (including life) rights of their citizens -- at the point of the gun.

      In other words, German police have pointed their guns at their own citizens while small numbers of refugees run amok -- similar to what occurs in the US at times (think of the riots in Berkeley).

      I would argue that it is the governments in Germany, etc., that the citizens in those countries must fear.

      Delete
  2. Best article ever on here, but Tanqueray is better! I want to hear more about how you repelled the mugger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We used to call Tanqueray, "that shit in the green bottle." When compared to Bombay anyway.

      Delete
  3. No planes on 911. Remember....4 crashes and no wreckage at any crash site. You've been brainwashed by false reports. The planes at the towers were CGI , painted into existing footage of tower explosions. It's all out there if you're curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. Probably the same people who faked the moon landing and created AIDS to kill black people.

      Delete
  4. (Crossing my fingers that this account will let me post to your blog)

    Dear Robert,

    Again, I don’t mind being used as a foil, as my comments are pseudonymous, but I think you are missing my point/taking the least charitable view. Perfectly fine as it’s your blog and thus its purpose is to help you put your views out.

    But I don’t want to let the insinuations stand unchallenged. I have lived all over the world and have friends of many nationalities and other personal attributes. Like you, I also have a few (non-“practicing”) Muslim friends (who, incidentally, agree with me – not that that proves anything). I fear people of any religion who actually, “honest-to-god,” believe in an all-powerful deity, and look to books written centuries ago for moral and practical guidance. I’m quite sure I would get along famously with you and your crew out in the People’s Republic of S.F. (though I hardly drink and can’t deal with liquor – it’s purely physiological, not moral or ethical).

    But let’s be honest about what is really going on. I’m not speaking of Muslims (or anyone) being “allowed” to immigrate to America; I’m talking about people being imported, funded by the taxes of the people already here, with no consideration of: whether they are going to contribute (through work); or whether they literally hate the values of their soon-to-be neighbors (or at least have values that are incompatible).

    And hey, if we lived in a PPS and you, Robert, wanted to rent a room to [insert seemingly nefarious character here], that’s just fine with me. But we don’t. That’s not what is happening. We live in a “democracy” and a “welfare state.” These have implications. I would love a PPS, and I work towards it. But in the meantime the policy of forcibly importing people (Muslim or otherwise) who do not share an inclination to individualism and property rights moves us away from a PPS.

    YES! Of COURSE for the policy to be consistent it should have included, #1, Saudi. 99.999999% of everything that politicians do is for some BS reason that has is almost entirely unrelated to the stated purpose. You can’t get more cynical than me. Yet policies have implications and outcomes, regardless of the rhetoric. I would prefer no “travel ban” if it were instead replaced by a “you have to be invited, insured, bonded, and employed” to move here; or even better “you can move here if you can afford a place and take responsibility for your actions and impose no coerced burden on your new neighbors.”

    Finally, if an army was approaching the shores of San Francisco with the express intention of subjugating all inhabitants and confiscating their wealth, are you telling me that it would be ABL to agitate for the State to send an army to intercept them? Even if said army was funded by taxation? and thus to send them necessarily meant more taxation, the army being able to travel over private property, etc? In other words, given that the State has taken control of the “border” and made it illegal for you, Wenzel, to have your own army, are you going to be consistent and say that it is ABL to demand that the State violate rights (taxation to fund the army) in order to protect rights (all of the property of San Francisco)? Can you not concede that, given the state of the real world we live in, that there might be distasteful yet necessary tradeoffs that support more liberty in net?

    Thanks! -HC

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding the link I suggested: No, I do not believe that every person is the same as polls suggest that similarly situated people might be in aggregate. It was my intention to illustrate that if you are not going to have any criteria or standards when you admit people into your group, then you can safely assume that the distribution will look a lot like the polls suggest.

    I assume that you made your Persian and Nigerian friends after careful consideration, not by random selection from 1 million Persians and 1 million Nigerians. So I don't think you're taking my comments as charitably as you might.

    But again, you may be using my comments in a more pedagogical way that doesn't require strict adherence to my intended points. That's fine, but I just want to defend my (fake, anonymous) self. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. HC --

    Since "Muslim" is not an ethnic group, race (whatever that means), or a nationality, what exactly is a non-practicing Muslim?

    Keep in mind the conditions RW stated are valid for immigration. An army at the border does not satisfy them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is a non-practicing Christian? /sarc off

      Why are you asking me anyway? RW noted his non-practicing Muslim friend Bola. I don't appreciate RW fanboys wasting my time. (Not that he doesn't deserve fans, but c'mon, be a little intelligent and consistent with your critique of my comment)

      Delete
    2. BTW, regarding "You always want to move toward liberty not away from it and that means in the context of Muslims, getting US troops the hell out of their countries, halting refugee status for Muslims that would be supported by the state, but allowing in Muslims who have a place to stay and a money or job to support their activities here."

      I fully agree and endorse this statement. I believed our discussion to be, since this is clearly not what is happening, whether there should be enforcement of current immigration laws or not.

      I say that, absent the above quoted scenario, and given that there are laws on the books, and further that no citizen is allowed to enforce his own immigration policies on his own land (he will be taxed to support whatever policy the State imposes), then it is right to tell the State to at least enforce the rules on the books. And further, it is right for the citizen to tell the State that they should have a rational policy, not a "let anyone who wants come in, and on top of that we'll tax our citizens to pay for it, and 'settle' the 'immigrants' in neighborhoods of the State's choosing."

      I'm saying enforce a policy and it seems to me that you're saying, "Well, since it's not the PPS solution then it's better to have no policy at all; otherwise we'd be conceding more power to the State."

      Delete
    3. HC -

      "Fanboy"? What brought that on? It appears to be nothing other than a logical sleight of hand, so to speak. A red herring to cover your tracks.

      Seriously, to launch into such an attack at a simple question says a lot about you. I understand why you remain anonymous.

      Keep in mind that you used the term. That RW did as well does nothing to refute that.

      BTW. It is a serious question as it appears to be a question-begging argument.

      I would not term someone a Christian who doesn't practice (which is a proxy for the believe) Christianity.

      It would be a false claim -- as in, "I just read an article by that non-practicing Christian, Richard Dawkins."

      Yet, you may be using "non-practicing Muslim" to convey meaning. And that is what I am trying to discern.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, this comment (February 18, 2017 at 6:39 PM) was meant to be a reply to RW, not to Jim.

      Delete
    5. Jim, if you want to know what a "non-practicing Muslim" is, why don't you ask RW, who actually used the term?

      But if you must get it from me, it's someone raised in a religion, who identifies nominally as an adherent of the religion, but does not follow most or all of its precepts. It's a totally normal and commonly used concept, and you're being obtuse by pretending you don't understand.

      Also, "race" does mean something (not that I brought it up - YOU did - and I am annoyed by the implication). If you insist otherwise you're either dishonest or just an unfortunate product of modern politically correct anti-scientific thought.

      Delete
    6. HC --

      Please define "race" in distinct terms. Not loose generalities. List all of the scientifically-defined races, along with their specific characteristic. And do not rely on sociological or political definitions. Remember, science seeks truths that (it is hoped) exist outside of time and place. Have fun. Waiting ...

      You write this, "Like you, I also have a few (non-'practicing') Muslim friends (who, incidentally, agree with me – not that that proves anything)."

      So, you "actually used the term," in spite of what you now claim. Interesting.

      Again, how can you be a Christian or Muslim, but not follow its precepts? Is Dawkins a Christian simply because he comes from a country that is now only (and barely) nominally Christian?

      You are conflating religion with culture. Why?

      Delete
    7. Jim, ..."Please define "hill" in distinct terms. Not loose generalities. List all of the scientifically-defined hills, along with their specific characteristic [sic]. And do not rely on sociological or political definitions. Remember, science seeks truths that (it is hoped) exist outside of time and place. Have fun. Waiting ... "

      As for "non-practicing"... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/non-practising (I have an advantage, of course, because I have access to the internet!)

      Holy cow, man, are you really that ignorant? Another one I'm done with.

      RW, I love your blog and I think you're very intelligent and principled. Some of your commenters, however, are oh for two on that count. Ugh.

      Delete
    8. HC --

      I suspect you have very few positive interactions with those you encounter, which you (of course) blame on those others.

      Again, you claimed a scientific definition of race. Yet you will not provide anything other than epithets. Why not? Show your brilliance and leave me in wonder.

      Since only you have access to the internet (simply a bizarre claim on your part), you will note your definition of "non-practicing" implies culture, not religion.

      So, once again, why are you conflating religion and culture?

      Oh, no. I can almost hear the invective and vile comments erupting from your psyche. That you call a defense of your argument, intelligent and principled.

      Delete
    9. The above is actually from Jim. This is why I never like being forced to use a Google login to post comments. in Trumpian terms, "Very annoying. Just bad."

      Delete
  7. RW,

    We may disagree on some things (IP, Bitcoin) but it's commendable how you're holding the line against the nationalism/nativism of the right. I co-sign your powerful post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think I am being misinterpreted here, and you, ES, seem obsessed with bringing the "alt-right" into this. I am a libertarian. Really, and ancap. What I am saying is that if the State has taken away a peoples' right/ability to control their own property and arrogated it for themselves over you (us in the US), then it must have some coherent policy AND it must follow through. Having laws in place that restrict private action, but then taking no action of its own is worse than both alternatives.

      You keep saying "alt-right" as though it proves I'm, what, some sort of racist? If you knew anything about my own heritage, or my life experience, you would realize yourself a fool. Try to think clearly about the issue at hand; don't try to pick who you like better and then assume ill motives of his "opponent."

      This is not nationalism. I am merely stating that the State has arrogated control of the borders and immigration/assimilation, and then it is creating a clusterf*ck by blocking private action but not taking action itself. This is not nativism. I am all for Muslim or any other person coming here if, in the present case, they are vetted somehow, they actually want to be here because they share American values of freedom etc., and they plan to be productive. I am against even people who share my strange mix of heritage coming here if they do not share American values of individual rights, economic freedom, religious freedom, etc.

      Please really think about the issue, consider my points, and don't just point and say "rayciss!"

      Delete
    2. Further, Evan, you did notice where I told you that I'm married to an immigrant, right? That makes me a piss poor nativist nationalist, doesn't it?

      And she went through the proper channels (as you or I would if we moved to another country, or even neighborhood). Now, we might think those channels are a poor substitute for the "channels" that would exist in a PPS, but we both agree that there should be "channels," right?

      Like, I can't just walk into your home and move in, right? If you stopped me, would you be a racist nationalist nativist alt-righter?

      Delete
    3. HC, Smiley, Torres and even Wenzel are unable to answer your question. You've asked it earnestly and it seems like a very important question a mature mind would ask. Some respond with name calling. That's all that needs to be said really about the quality of their response which, as I read here, has not been delivered.
      May your marriage be a long, healthy and happy one.

      Delete
    4. HC,

      I appreciate that you claim to want a real discussion, but at the same time I hesitate to respond because your post seems ridiculously defensive considering my post that you responsed to (and I never mentioned the "alt-right.")

      Anyway, your argument is fundamentally no different from the advocates of Obamacare who justified the insurance mandate based on prior state intervention in the health care sector. i.e. "Since the state forces hospital emergency rooms to treat everyone, therefore it's OK for the state to force people to buy health insurance 'for the public good.'"

      Also, public property is not private property, and deliberately blurring that distinction is dishonest at best. Remember, it's YOU who are trying to tell ME whom I'm allowed to invite onto my property, not he reverse.

      Finally, if you bristle at the suggestion that you may be a nationalist/nativist, then maybe you should stop worrying so much about on which side of an imaginary, state-decreed line a person happens to sit.

      Delete
    5. @Evan Smiley

      Evan Evan Evan... You troll, er, say, "(and I never mentioned the "alt-right.")"

      I guess here is where you lose all credibility:

      "Evan Smiley February 11, 2017 at 4:54 PM

      It's always the same argument from the alt-right."

      http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/02/the-open-borders-question.html

      See, I'm interested in finding truth. You are interested in "winning an argument," whether or not it takes lies. It is very common on blogs that the regular commenters defend the blogger. RW is an honorable man to defend. But that's no excuse for what amounts to either a lie or incredible deficiency of mind.

      Your Obamacare argument is a joke.

      And no, I'm not trying to tell you who YOU can invite. Wake up and smell the actual argument. I'm talking about THE STATE taxing people and then using that stolen money to force people on them.

      I "bristle" at the implications that you make with your (intended) slurs. And seeing what the strength of your mind has turned out to be, and the dishonesty of your argumentation, I am pretty darn sure you meant those as slurs and not adjectives from which to begin a discussion.

      So I am done with you.

      Delete
    6. @Unowned

      Thank you for your kind words.

      I agree that RW is not necessarily confronting my argument head-on (and that may be because I haven't made it clear enough), but I respect that he is within his rights to use my comments to his blog as a foil from which to pivot to what he wants to get across. That does leave me feeling I haven't been answered. I may be wrong, but that hasn't been established in this thread. The march goes on.

      To be clear: RW and I want essentially the same thing if possible.

      BUT, given where we are, I think he is worried that I am advocating "your papers, please!", and I am worried that by not enforcing border and immigration controls (that have been monopolized by the State) they are going to move us further away from a PPS.

      So, if the State tomorrow said "PPS!" then I would be first in line (I'm probably quicker on my feet than most) to let people do what they want and rent/sell property to who they want.

      And this sickness where people are saying (as a way to ad hominem out of an argument) I'm A) alt-right; B) nativist; C) nationalist; or D) racist (by implication of the previous) is really a problem in our social discourse. If you could see me, knew my history, or anything about me you'd know I'm pretty much the furthest from those things. I'm also a devoted Murray Rothbard AnCap. I graduated summa cum laude. I've been to prison (for a year) for a plant. So maybe, MAYBE, there are legitimate concerns I have that merit a little more honest confrontation than assuming I'm (WTF????) a statist nationalist nativist alt-righter.

      Thanks all, thanks @Unowned, and again, thanks RW for your work.

      -HC (in this thread)

      Delete
    7. OK, bye.

      I will say that your whole notion that "I'm trying to find the truth and you're just trying to win an argument" is complete bullshit. It's more that your own in-group prejudices are incapable of being ethically justified.

      Delete
  8. RW,

    Regarding "Government protection is a myth. Try walking on the west side of Chicago late at night."

    I've been robbed and beaten by police more often than by traditional criminals. Not even just American ones. (I've lived an exciting life.) I don't believe in government anything. But they do have control of the borders, and they do have the ability to tax us and then use the tax dollars to bring anyone in the world that they want into the country and into somebody's community, and then give them the right to vote, which is the right to commit violence against me and my family through the ballot box.

    I think at this point I have lost site of your point.

    You can't possibly be saying that, because it's not a PPS, there should be no border control; that any of the 7 billion other humans on earth have a right to come to America and live, vote, work, collect welfare, etc.; and more specifically that the State has the right to tax us for the purpose of importing whoever will make them more powerful (whether in the ballot box or by creating fear and dissension) but it is ABL to protest and enforce a rational policy.

    Border agents prevent ranchers on the border from protecting their own land! If a rancher is told he'll be jailed for pulling a gun on someone entering his land, and then the border agents just let people trample over it, I can't imagine that you would claim that the landowner asking the border agents to enforce the border would be ABL, or would be "growing the State."

    So, to be clear: If we had a PPS, I would have no problem with people taking responsibility for themselves, and selling property to the highest (or most attractive) bidder. I also think there are much better immigration policies that the State could implement. But we don't have it, and you haven't offered a solution, just a criticism of the only solution so far available.

    My original point (many posts ago) was that people who knowingly violated the law to enter the country have committed a crime and shown that they are willing to do so. They had an option to do it legally. This is how I've done it each time I've moved to and worked in another country. (Evan, does that make me a nativist nationalist racist?). It is the same as if the State banned door locks and people just walked into my house and started eating out of my fridge and voting in family matters. This is untenable, and immoral.

    I know you fear "Your papers, please." I do, too. But if someone is determined by normal means to have entered illegally, it seems insane to say, "Well, this particular crime we don't punish." I'm all for anarchy, but not anarcho-tyranny.

    Holy cow, comment bomb over!

    Take care and as always thanks for your efforts!

    -HC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HC,
      --- You can't possibly be saying that, because it's not a PPS, there should be no border control ---

      That's not what he's saying. Don't be intellectually dishonest.

      --- But if someone is determined by normal means to have entered illegally, it seems insane to say, "Well, this particular crime we don't punish." ---

      Nobody enters the country "illegally". The country is not a house. The difference is that those immigrants that do not enter through the entry ports do not have permission from the Leviathan to work in the US. That's all.

      Delete
    2. FT,

      Re: "You can't possibly be saying that, because it's not a PPS, there should be no border control"

      Not only does it sound like he's saying that (or, at least, accepting that and offering no other position), but you literally ARE saying that! If "[n]obody enters the country 'illegally,'" then you are saying there is no border "control."

      There are laws about borders and entry. Have you ever traveled internationally? If so, did you really think that skipping customs wasn't "illegal"? Don't peddle those cow chips around here.

      "That's not what he's saying. Don't be intellectually dishonest." In all sincerity, please tell me what he is saying.

      (Or better yet, RW, what ARE you saying? I honestly think we may have reached the point of talking past each other!)

      Delete
    3. HC, I advise you not to waste any more of your time with FT... I don't think anyone takes their comments with any seriousness. I've gained invaluable minutes and lost no intellectual enlightenment skipping his (or her) blather.

      Delete
    4. Re: HC,

      --- If "[n]obody enters the country 'illegally,'" then you are saying there is no border "control." ---

      Those two are not the same thing, HC. You're conflating legality with 'control'. If you look at what the government's immigration policy is all about, it is clearly a licensing scheme (the visas that purport to provide work 'rights' to immigrants) and not border control. Thus a person who enters the country is not really illegally in the country if one looks at the policy purse, but rather he or she is not allowed to work by the State - Ergo, it's a licensing scheme. That is NOT what RW is talking about, by the way; you're merely begging the question by assuming that only the government can control the border.

      --- There are laws about borders and entry. ---

      That may be so but that does not mean these are effective or even valid. There are so many laws on the books that, on average, the average American breaks about three federal laws per day, every day. Does that mean each American is "illegal"?

      Delete
    5. Unowned, duly noted and appreciate the tip.

      Delete
  9. @ Veterans for Peace Indianapolis

    I had to look up “Jerry Wolfgang” to even know what you’re talking about.

    I’m not going to get into a double-blind pissing contest in the comment section of a blog I enjoy and respect, so I’ll just say that if you have nothing constructive to contribute you should probably just observe.

    In the interest of sticking to the debate and our clumsy attempts at building our knowledge base and understanding, I’m going to let you say whatever else you’d like about “HC” without further reply.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Many of their arguments seem to always revolve around the "They want to kill you" stance. Lets just say for the sake of the arguement that they're right but given who I am; conservatives, liberals, alt-righters and hoteps want to kill me and my family as well. So it's a weak argument. I have no issues with people who wish to hire, rent to, and otherwise associate with, if I dont like them I'll stay away from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a lot of people are projecting something onto this discussion that isn't there.

      "I have no issues with people who wish to hire, rent to, and otherwise associate with, if I dont like them I'll stay away from them."

      Nor do I. But this is not what is happening, nor is it what I am arguing against. Please read the whole thread (and RW, I think it would be worthwhile to link to all of the posts in this thread).

      Delete
  11. Yes, let us become a third world country. A very small minority is small doses that can be assimilated may be acceptable. Letting in hordes with no clue of Western civilization is not a recipe for future prosperity. Yes, I've met some decent Indian Muslims and Iranians, but I don't want hordes of them here.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.in/2017/02/how-to-become-third-world-country-in-3.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your average Trump/Bernie/Hillary supporter certainly has "no clue of Western civilization" so I don't see how this suddenly becomes an issue when it comes immigrants.

      Delete
    2. True enough, but these immigrants from 'turd world' countries are not needed. At least those you speak of can function with some normalcy in our society. Bad enough blacks and other ghetto people are a problem already without bringing more. But I know you got that 'libertardian' principles to uphold.

      Delete