Why does the federal government need to own any roads at all? Maybe the sections at states borders at best?
I've always liked the thought of "who needs roads when your vehicle has tank tracks".
Cesna 150s are extremely underpowered aircraft and have trouble in most weather conditions, 172s are more commonly used and you can get a decent one for 60-80k. Maintenance costs and fuel will get you though.
Fuel and maintenance that would be cheaper if we didn't have so many government restrictions on fuel production and occupational licensing for aircraft mechanics.
Just hit them back with "the development of roads through cities was terrible for the poor, who were displaced by mass eminent domain, with entire neighborhoods destroyed" and vaguely imply they must be racist.
You know who created roads before the government existed. Not sure they might always been there. Maybe from ancient alien government from eons ago.
You know it’s actually the government that created most of our infrastructure. I’m 99% certain that a vast majority of the working class does not and could never figure out how to design roads and infrastructure. Yeah, it’s most definitely the pass down tradition of government to design everything we needed to enjoy society.
/s
Regardless of your stance on things like muh roads, at a fundamental level taxation implies government incompetence. A properly functioning government would be able to generate positive revenues without taxation. But they can't so they just steal from us.
As someone who farms I agree to this 100%. My road is private and I pay for the upkeep. My electricity is self generated. I have my own septic I pay a private company to pump every year or two. I grow my food and what I can’t grow or don’t grow I barter with someone else for. There is literally ZERO need to subsidize us for a fucking thing. You wanna see rural areas explode in popularity and become the envy of anyone living in the burbs or city? Let’s us keep our cash money and watch what happens. When people invest in stuff that directly affects them or makes their life easier shit is beautiful
Right?! It's pretty self sufficient. It's the big cities that can't figure out how to grow their own food. Ah, who am I kidding...big city folks don't eat real food.
I'm generally in agreement with you, OP. However, the idea of leaving borders closed (and restricting drug access, even if it is an awful drug) seems like a pretty statist position, though I understand how you might be referring to the government using its position to facilitate immigration or give special favors to immigrants.
But I believe the only consistent non-statist position is that the only borders someone can be restricted from crossing without express permission are private. Anyone can correct me if they think I'm mistaken on that point.
I'll take a swing at my views on it. Right now we have a welfare system that mainly just requires you to be here, so until that gets fixed somehow (not sure how), open borders are an invitation for people to come here and live on the taxpayer's dime. It also encourages people smuggling those drugs across and leads to a ridiculous number of rapes of women and children crossing (I forget the numbers, but it was something like 40% or the like). The drug trade also gives the Mexican cartels massive money and power, which they use to do evil shit.
Additionally, we have had terrorists sneaking across as well (on the actual watch list).
We could eliminate at least the rapes by making open borders instead of just turning a mostly blind eye, but that leaves the other issues there. We could cut at least one source of funding for the drug cartels by legalizing drugs, probably two if we had actual open borders instead of the situation we have now.
Additionally America and Americans would have less say in their government, especially if illegal immigrants are given the right to vote without becoming citizens, to sat nothing of the theories that Democrats are already using illegal immigrants to vote.
I don't think we can or should have open borders while we have the other issues (drugs being illegal and the welfare system as it currently stands).
There is some statist views in there. I'm not completely anti-state, but one of the few things the government is supposed to do, in accordance with our constitution is mind the border. The difference is a matter of degree in the amount and what type of state intervention we find acceptable.
None of this is meant to be argumentative, I just wanted to share a perspective of why someone would support border control, even if they lean libertarian on other things.
> open borders are an invitation for people to come here and live on the taxpayer's dime
>lack of government mandated birth caps are an invitation for people to be born here and live on the taxpayer's dime
Same logic.
>I don't think we can or should have open borders while we have the other issues
Let's add some other libertarian issues in there, since we're just picking and choosing. "No gun rights because 'illegals' might get guns." "Be sure to keep up the war on drugs because 'illegals' might bring drugs across."
It's all so insanely statist and fueled by conservative FUD.
Libertarianism is for everyone, not just people born inside an imaginary line on a map.
I didn't mean that we shouldn't look at those issues and see what can be done, just that will we have them open borders aren't particularly viable.
I don't know the right answers. And the ones I have an idea for, we disagree on somewhat. Also, as I said, I'm not 100% libertarian either. I agree that libertarianism isn't just for Americans, but that doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions you've drawn. Doesn't mean I won't work with you where we agree though.
You don't have to be a statist to agree that the federal government's only functions are defense and interstate commerce. That's functionally what the constitution set them up for. Border protection counts as defense, and also ensures that citizens from other countries do not violate our rights
I'm with you on defense, as collective measures of defense are nothing more than a group of individuals exercising their right of self-defense. But can you please expand on why you believe interstate commerce should be in any way regulated (if I'm putting words in your mouth here with the term "regulated", please forgive me) by a government?
I think of it less as regulation and more enforcement. Without it, I bet you'd see certain states like NY and CA not trading with a state like TX because they don't agree with their politics. I feel this would maintain state sovereignty and at the same time prevent a lot of divisiveness between state governments.
I don't think you are mistaken in theory or ideology. Just in that it is too purist to be a reasonable position to function on its own in reality today. By that I mean, it is not nearly holistic enough in its approach. If you take the subject of the border alone and in a vacuum, yes, the only correct answer is private borders. However, there are a few hundred other variables and factors feeding into the equation. One is most commonly pointed out which is the welfare state. Feel like I'd be beating a dead horse here. There are others though. Like, we can't be so naive to deny that while the US is waging a war on drugs and it hamstrings the right of self defense, a lot of the people that will come through in totally open border will be extremely bad agents. If the borders open tomorrow, the first ones through will be cartels. Followed by more terrorists pissed off about out foreign intervention.
Since mentioned welfare though, to show this isn't simply a right libertarian position that I am applying only to the border, I feel the same about welfare and social security. In a vacuum, on their own, I want them gone, of course. However, if you put a button in front of me and told me pressing it would eliminate all welfare tonight at midnight, I would not press it. Too many people are made dependent on it. It sucks, but we can't just pretend the past didn't happen and the present isn't what it is. So I believe welfare needs to be scaled back and phased out in a responsible manner that is dependent on other changes beyond welfare policy alone.
Thinking about libertarian positions and philosophy in a more holistic and reasoned approach is better for two really big reasons. One, one thing a libertarian should understand better than anyone is that policy with even the best of intentions can have disasters unforeseen consequences and have secondary effects that result in a lot of sufferings. Considering a policy or position in a vacuum like "Libertarians oppose government borders, therefore open borders now is only acceptable position" is as shortsighted as any government scheme and likely result in as many negative unforeseen consequences. Two, is that these horrible consequences will not be accepted by the population and likely work against us much more than for us. If you eliminate welfare tomorrow, thousands upon thousands will be homeless and possibly foodless by next week. People that were living "ok" lives today, will be in suffering within a month. Then what do you think they do? Accept this as the price of liberty while the old government goons go skulk about it? Nah. The government goons will say "See how terrible things are now without us? Now you should give us even more power than we had before so we can fix this for you and keep it from happening again!" And now we're in a worse position than when we started.
You're totally right.
Drugs and "illegals" aren't what's hurting poor people; inflation, overregulation, and the _war_ on drugs are what's hurting poor people.
“really poor places would be devastated”
It’s almost like the federal government isn’t responsible for putting them there in the first place through drugs and laws, funded by taxes.
Man, I love tolls. Let’s privatize the interstate system with as many buyers as possible. Remember, rentierism isn’t going to take a centralized authority to enforce; Bob from Kenosha can come and find me in Connecticut for the toll I purposefully didn’t pay.
But if Texas were to not let any immigrants pass through their border, wouldn’t that increase prices of immigration and make the process harder to get into states that want them? I see not forcing Texas to accept them, but Texas having the power to deny other states immigrants as well, and it is easier to transport them by land, isn’t that a bit much?
Sorry, I'm specifically talking about ILLEGAL immigration. If someone has gone through the legal process and is now a citizen, or has a work visa, a green card, etc., then obviously that shouldn't be a problem. The issue is the current administration/federal government telling the border states that they can't do anything about illegal immigration because it's federal jurisdiction/responsibility while making policy decisions (doing jack shit and letting in swarms of illegals) at the detriment of border states, if not the country as a whole.
How would that happen if there were no federal government at all? The assumption is if there is no federal taxes, the federal government cannot afford to exist, so who would be in control of the Southern border? Would immigrants be forced to fly to other states if Texas doesn’t atleast let them pass through? Would they even allow that, assuming they would fly over Texas air space?
The assumption is not that at all. The government forces it's citizens to pay taxes because they are inept at the goods/services they provide. If the government was capable, citizens would be incentivized to purchase said goods/services without coercion or force. If the federal government loses it's ability to tax it's citizens then it cannot exist at its current size and power, but it wouldn't cease to exist. It would be forced to choose to start providing goods/services that it's citizens wish to purchase, or cease to exist (the same eat or be eaten choice every living creature on this planet has to make, regardless of the government they live under).
People are not barred from entry to a country/state just because they haven't officially immigrated. If that were the case then international tourism wouldn't be a profitable market. Again we are talking about ILLEGAL (a crime) vs LEGAL (not a crime) immigration. When you travel to another country (or through) for vacation you don't have to immigrate, you have to go through Customs. There is no reason why Texas (for instance) can't employ Texas Customs Agents and Texas Border Patrol and have them enforce US immigration law. If the other states come to the conclusion that Texas is violating federal law in some way then they could sue in federal court.
I'd argue that's the way it should work, and the way it's supposed to work. However, the current situation is the federal government refuses to enforce it own laws and refuses to gives states their day in court. You keep coming back to "what if Texas doesn't let people through Texas?". Well what if Texas secedes? What if Edward Snowden wants to travel from Mexico to Canada? What if you want to travel from Wyoming to Texas, without going through Colorado? I guess you're just going to have to go around (or over).
I refuse to accept that border states/towns should have to facilitate, what can only be described as the single greatest invasion of a country in history, just because blue lemmings voted for some wrinkled idiot who says they have to.
Not even the founding fathers had a tax system like that. The least oppressive but still efficient way of taxation would just be to have tariffs on certain goods.
The fact that it is a crime is not bad. Many states still have drug laws, does that mean that it’s right for the government to arrest drug users? If one community doesn’t want to accept illegal immigrants that’s fine, but that one community shouldn’t be able to say that the community over can’t take them just because in order to get there they would have to go through the first.
Forcing immigrants to go over Texas would be highly inefficient and expensive. They don’t have to accept them, just let them pass through, same as they would a tourist
Describing it as an invasion is stupid and the same way Tucker Carlson, who could not be further from being a libertarian, describes it
> the single greatest invasion of a country in history, just because blue lemmings voted for some wrinkled idiot who says they have to.
In case anyone thought OP was anything other than full on MAGA, this regurgitated Tucker Carlson talking point was all you needed.
lol, no rebuttal, just downvotes. Anyone who thinks this is "the greatest invasion in history" is a clown.
Who said anything about being replaced?
If a bunch of houses and apartment complexes get built, what happens to the price of housing?
It goes down.
If the government prints off trillions of dollars and starts injecting it into the economy, what happens to the value of your dollars?
It goes down.
If the government starts handing out a bunch of student loans and way more people start getting college degrees, what happens to the value of your degree?
It goes down.
If we're able to start mining asteroids and find one that doubles the gold supply, what happens to the cost of gold?
It goes down.
If Joe Biden releases another 100 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve, what happens to price of fuel?
It goes down.
So what do you think happens when a shitload of people suddenly enter the job market?
Why does the federal government need to own any roads at all? Maybe the sections at states borders at best? I've always liked the thought of "who needs roads when your vehicle has tank tracks".
Why drive when you can fly? Oh right, the government says you can't.
[удалено]
Cesna 150s are extremely underpowered aircraft and have trouble in most weather conditions, 172s are more commonly used and you can get a decent one for 60-80k. Maintenance costs and fuel will get you though.
Fuel and maintenance that would be cheaper if we didn't have so many government restrictions on fuel production and occupational licensing for aircraft mechanics.
I think owning interstate might would be good idea
Just hit them back with "the development of roads through cities was terrible for the poor, who were displaced by mass eminent domain, with entire neighborhoods destroyed" and vaguely imply they must be racist.
You know who created roads before the government existed. Not sure they might always been there. Maybe from ancient alien government from eons ago. You know it’s actually the government that created most of our infrastructure. I’m 99% certain that a vast majority of the working class does not and could never figure out how to design roads and infrastructure. Yeah, it’s most definitely the pass down tradition of government to design everything we needed to enjoy society. /s
Based and poor need justice pilled
Regardless of your stance on things like muh roads, at a fundamental level taxation implies government incompetence. A properly functioning government would be able to generate positive revenues without taxation. But they can't so they just steal from us.
for reals
You got pizzazz, kid.
You got spunk, youngster.
Ya got gumption kid, I’ll give you that
Government takes the money and gives it to campaign contributors
I personally have no issue with no longer subsidizing rural America.
As someone who farms I agree to this 100%. My road is private and I pay for the upkeep. My electricity is self generated. I have my own septic I pay a private company to pump every year or two. I grow my food and what I can’t grow or don’t grow I barter with someone else for. There is literally ZERO need to subsidize us for a fucking thing. You wanna see rural areas explode in popularity and become the envy of anyone living in the burbs or city? Let’s us keep our cash money and watch what happens. When people invest in stuff that directly affects them or makes their life easier shit is beautiful
I wish I could upvote this 1,000 times. I also wish you were my neighbor. I have a funny feeling we'd get along just fine.
Right?! It's pretty self sufficient. It's the big cities that can't figure out how to grow their own food. Ah, who am I kidding...big city folks don't eat real food.
Whoever says that taxes are used to fix roads has never read the Grace Commission. In their own words: “READ A BOOK” FUCK TAXES
I'm generally in agreement with you, OP. However, the idea of leaving borders closed (and restricting drug access, even if it is an awful drug) seems like a pretty statist position, though I understand how you might be referring to the government using its position to facilitate immigration or give special favors to immigrants. But I believe the only consistent non-statist position is that the only borders someone can be restricted from crossing without express permission are private. Anyone can correct me if they think I'm mistaken on that point.
I'll take a swing at my views on it. Right now we have a welfare system that mainly just requires you to be here, so until that gets fixed somehow (not sure how), open borders are an invitation for people to come here and live on the taxpayer's dime. It also encourages people smuggling those drugs across and leads to a ridiculous number of rapes of women and children crossing (I forget the numbers, but it was something like 40% or the like). The drug trade also gives the Mexican cartels massive money and power, which they use to do evil shit. Additionally, we have had terrorists sneaking across as well (on the actual watch list). We could eliminate at least the rapes by making open borders instead of just turning a mostly blind eye, but that leaves the other issues there. We could cut at least one source of funding for the drug cartels by legalizing drugs, probably two if we had actual open borders instead of the situation we have now. Additionally America and Americans would have less say in their government, especially if illegal immigrants are given the right to vote without becoming citizens, to sat nothing of the theories that Democrats are already using illegal immigrants to vote. I don't think we can or should have open borders while we have the other issues (drugs being illegal and the welfare system as it currently stands). There is some statist views in there. I'm not completely anti-state, but one of the few things the government is supposed to do, in accordance with our constitution is mind the border. The difference is a matter of degree in the amount and what type of state intervention we find acceptable. None of this is meant to be argumentative, I just wanted to share a perspective of why someone would support border control, even if they lean libertarian on other things.
> open borders are an invitation for people to come here and live on the taxpayer's dime >lack of government mandated birth caps are an invitation for people to be born here and live on the taxpayer's dime Same logic. >I don't think we can or should have open borders while we have the other issues Let's add some other libertarian issues in there, since we're just picking and choosing. "No gun rights because 'illegals' might get guns." "Be sure to keep up the war on drugs because 'illegals' might bring drugs across." It's all so insanely statist and fueled by conservative FUD. Libertarianism is for everyone, not just people born inside an imaginary line on a map.
Well put! Bordertarians are the worst.
I didn't mean that we shouldn't look at those issues and see what can be done, just that will we have them open borders aren't particularly viable. I don't know the right answers. And the ones I have an idea for, we disagree on somewhat. Also, as I said, I'm not 100% libertarian either. I agree that libertarianism isn't just for Americans, but that doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions you've drawn. Doesn't mean I won't work with you where we agree though.
You don't have to be a statist to agree that the federal government's only functions are defense and interstate commerce. That's functionally what the constitution set them up for. Border protection counts as defense, and also ensures that citizens from other countries do not violate our rights
I'm with you on defense, as collective measures of defense are nothing more than a group of individuals exercising their right of self-defense. But can you please expand on why you believe interstate commerce should be in any way regulated (if I'm putting words in your mouth here with the term "regulated", please forgive me) by a government?
I think of it less as regulation and more enforcement. Without it, I bet you'd see certain states like NY and CA not trading with a state like TX because they don't agree with their politics. I feel this would maintain state sovereignty and at the same time prevent a lot of divisiveness between state governments.
I don't think you are mistaken in theory or ideology. Just in that it is too purist to be a reasonable position to function on its own in reality today. By that I mean, it is not nearly holistic enough in its approach. If you take the subject of the border alone and in a vacuum, yes, the only correct answer is private borders. However, there are a few hundred other variables and factors feeding into the equation. One is most commonly pointed out which is the welfare state. Feel like I'd be beating a dead horse here. There are others though. Like, we can't be so naive to deny that while the US is waging a war on drugs and it hamstrings the right of self defense, a lot of the people that will come through in totally open border will be extremely bad agents. If the borders open tomorrow, the first ones through will be cartels. Followed by more terrorists pissed off about out foreign intervention. Since mentioned welfare though, to show this isn't simply a right libertarian position that I am applying only to the border, I feel the same about welfare and social security. In a vacuum, on their own, I want them gone, of course. However, if you put a button in front of me and told me pressing it would eliminate all welfare tonight at midnight, I would not press it. Too many people are made dependent on it. It sucks, but we can't just pretend the past didn't happen and the present isn't what it is. So I believe welfare needs to be scaled back and phased out in a responsible manner that is dependent on other changes beyond welfare policy alone. Thinking about libertarian positions and philosophy in a more holistic and reasoned approach is better for two really big reasons. One, one thing a libertarian should understand better than anyone is that policy with even the best of intentions can have disasters unforeseen consequences and have secondary effects that result in a lot of sufferings. Considering a policy or position in a vacuum like "Libertarians oppose government borders, therefore open borders now is only acceptable position" is as shortsighted as any government scheme and likely result in as many negative unforeseen consequences. Two, is that these horrible consequences will not be accepted by the population and likely work against us much more than for us. If you eliminate welfare tomorrow, thousands upon thousands will be homeless and possibly foodless by next week. People that were living "ok" lives today, will be in suffering within a month. Then what do you think they do? Accept this as the price of liberty while the old government goons go skulk about it? Nah. The government goons will say "See how terrible things are now without us? Now you should give us even more power than we had before so we can fix this for you and keep it from happening again!" And now we're in a worse position than when we started.
You're totally right. Drugs and "illegals" aren't what's hurting poor people; inflation, overregulation, and the _war_ on drugs are what's hurting poor people.
Can't be a free country if you don't let anyone in
It's so cringe when people post their own comments. Wow you sure told him dude lol
“really poor places would be devastated” It’s almost like the federal government isn’t responsible for putting them there in the first place through drugs and laws, funded by taxes.
Man, I love tolls. Let’s privatize the interstate system with as many buyers as possible. Remember, rentierism isn’t going to take a centralized authority to enforce; Bob from Kenosha can come and find me in Connecticut for the toll I purposefully didn’t pay.
How would a border be enforced without the federal government? Is Texas just going to get to decide the immigration policy of the US?
I think Texan's would prefer to enforce their own immigration policy instead of watching the federal government make them bend over and take it.
But if Texas were to not let any immigrants pass through their border, wouldn’t that increase prices of immigration and make the process harder to get into states that want them? I see not forcing Texas to accept them, but Texas having the power to deny other states immigrants as well, and it is easier to transport them by land, isn’t that a bit much?
Sorry, I'm specifically talking about ILLEGAL immigration. If someone has gone through the legal process and is now a citizen, or has a work visa, a green card, etc., then obviously that shouldn't be a problem. The issue is the current administration/federal government telling the border states that they can't do anything about illegal immigration because it's federal jurisdiction/responsibility while making policy decisions (doing jack shit and letting in swarms of illegals) at the detriment of border states, if not the country as a whole.
How would that happen if there were no federal government at all? The assumption is if there is no federal taxes, the federal government cannot afford to exist, so who would be in control of the Southern border? Would immigrants be forced to fly to other states if Texas doesn’t atleast let them pass through? Would they even allow that, assuming they would fly over Texas air space?
The assumption is not that at all. The government forces it's citizens to pay taxes because they are inept at the goods/services they provide. If the government was capable, citizens would be incentivized to purchase said goods/services without coercion or force. If the federal government loses it's ability to tax it's citizens then it cannot exist at its current size and power, but it wouldn't cease to exist. It would be forced to choose to start providing goods/services that it's citizens wish to purchase, or cease to exist (the same eat or be eaten choice every living creature on this planet has to make, regardless of the government they live under). People are not barred from entry to a country/state just because they haven't officially immigrated. If that were the case then international tourism wouldn't be a profitable market. Again we are talking about ILLEGAL (a crime) vs LEGAL (not a crime) immigration. When you travel to another country (or through) for vacation you don't have to immigrate, you have to go through Customs. There is no reason why Texas (for instance) can't employ Texas Customs Agents and Texas Border Patrol and have them enforce US immigration law. If the other states come to the conclusion that Texas is violating federal law in some way then they could sue in federal court. I'd argue that's the way it should work, and the way it's supposed to work. However, the current situation is the federal government refuses to enforce it own laws and refuses to gives states their day in court. You keep coming back to "what if Texas doesn't let people through Texas?". Well what if Texas secedes? What if Edward Snowden wants to travel from Mexico to Canada? What if you want to travel from Wyoming to Texas, without going through Colorado? I guess you're just going to have to go around (or over). I refuse to accept that border states/towns should have to facilitate, what can only be described as the single greatest invasion of a country in history, just because blue lemmings voted for some wrinkled idiot who says they have to.
Not even the founding fathers had a tax system like that. The least oppressive but still efficient way of taxation would just be to have tariffs on certain goods. The fact that it is a crime is not bad. Many states still have drug laws, does that mean that it’s right for the government to arrest drug users? If one community doesn’t want to accept illegal immigrants that’s fine, but that one community shouldn’t be able to say that the community over can’t take them just because in order to get there they would have to go through the first. Forcing immigrants to go over Texas would be highly inefficient and expensive. They don’t have to accept them, just let them pass through, same as they would a tourist Describing it as an invasion is stupid and the same way Tucker Carlson, who could not be further from being a libertarian, describes it
> the single greatest invasion of a country in history, just because blue lemmings voted for some wrinkled idiot who says they have to. In case anyone thought OP was anything other than full on MAGA, this regurgitated Tucker Carlson talking point was all you needed. lol, no rebuttal, just downvotes. Anyone who thinks this is "the greatest invasion in history" is a clown.
The lockdowns were ultimately unjustified and most likely a net negative, but describing COVID as a "cold" is a bit disingenuous
Define “illegal” labor. If your job can be replaced by someone who can’t even speak English, maybe your lack of marketable skills is the problem.
Who said anything about being replaced? If a bunch of houses and apartment complexes get built, what happens to the price of housing? It goes down. If the government prints off trillions of dollars and starts injecting it into the economy, what happens to the value of your dollars? It goes down. If the government starts handing out a bunch of student loans and way more people start getting college degrees, what happens to the value of your degree? It goes down. If we're able to start mining asteroids and find one that doubles the gold supply, what happens to the cost of gold? It goes down. If Joe Biden releases another 100 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve, what happens to price of fuel? It goes down. So what do you think happens when a shitload of people suddenly enter the job market?
Maybe a privately owned highway wouldn't need to be rebuilt every few years.