Disclaimer: I consider myself libertarian-ish, rather than The One True Libertarian.
I want to get things out of the way by saying this is not an attempt at „Betteridge’s law of headlines” but a serious consideration, a kind of introspection one should have on occasion. Also, a little bit of clickbait, to be sure. The answer, off course, depends on how we define the words “libertarian” “delusional” and “are.” I also identify various levels: policies that may work if a country is libertarian and not if it is not; policies that would work if the whole world was libertarian, and not otherwise; and maybe policies that would not work regardless.
We often knock socialism because it does not consider the immutable parts of human nature. Those pesky millions of years of evolution. While I would want most people to be natural, instinctive libertarians, that is unfortunately not the case. I have made the argument in the past that, in order to get more liberty, you need to sell it to people, and that sometimes libertarians are not persuasive to people who are not instinctive libertarians. Just because something “just makes sense” to me, it does not mean it makes sense to others, and occasionally libertarians fall to the “feelings” justification of things, because liberty “feels right” to them.
I have observed recently, in various different arguments in the comments, that there are too many conservatives and not enough true libertarians around. This may or may not be true. There is a conservative bend to a good part of the comments. And none to others. I do not have percentages. I do not think this is necessarily bad. Something that helps towards being grounded in the real world is not having a bubble, a group think, a pardon the expression circle jerk. Having some variety of opinion. I do not believe purist libertarians hanging out only with other purist libertarians is the preferred outcome. If conservative leaning comments are a bit too many, the more libertarian inclined should comment more.
It can be fun to spend time in a group gloating about the superiority of one’s thoughts and how stupid the rest of the world is. This is, off course, fine. I do it myself. It helps one not lose it in the face of the absurdity of things (as long as one had it in the first place). But it does raise the question: is this all we want? If sufficiently black pilled, as I borderline am, there is off course the notion that liberty has no shot, might as well accept it and just employ sarcasm to make the pill go down easier. But this can lead to an excessively idealistic view that no longer accounts for the real world. It tickles the ego and gives one a feeling of moral superiority but little else. I like to occasionally think if something could be done for ol’ liberty, what could that realistically be? In any case, I like even the unachievable to not be beyond reality.
A good example of the above is, for me, is the open borders debate. While many libertarians hold open border views, I am not one of them. This is one element I find to be delusional, in the current world geopolitical context. I cannot see how bringing in undifferentiated masses of people with completely different world views will not utterly wreck any liberty loving society. Not to go down the path of far-right dog-whistle, but I get a whiff of the magic dirt theory.
There are other libertarians who oppose open borders with various reasons. The most oft employed is this is incompatible with the welfare state. Which is true. As a European, it is also incompatible with being the citizen of a political union that does it’s best to deprive the people of most forms of self-defense while the police do not protect said citizens. In a gun toting libertarian country, at least you could shoot the fuckers who only come with mischief in mind. Though it can be argued that you do not want to live in a country where you constantly have to shoot criminals, and I am not sure how much some would be deterred from coming in the first place by this. But many would be I suppose. Overall vetting is easier I would say.
I see additional problems with open borders. A certain society has a limited capacity of absorbing newcomers, and many potential newcomers will not be sufficiently deterred, they will think somehow, I will make it. And I fear the ones deterred would be the ones a country would rather have immigrate. This will lead to inevitable conflict. Absorb I mean both as infrastructure and housing, and culturally. As much as libertarians want to ignore this, people tend to want to maintain certain cultural elements in their community. Liberty is a cultural element to preserve as well.
Furthermore, a libertarian country bringing in a large number of authoritarians would be overwhelmed, as would a low crime society which imports large numbers of criminals. If you don’t want to just shoot all violent offenders, you need to be able to deport undesirables, and without border controls you cannot prevent them from simply coming back. Unless a libertarian society can simply deter those people from coming in the first place, you need borders. And I don’t think it can, in the present context. In conclusion, culture matters and must be accounted for.
Open borders are, off course, an example. Libertarianism should have two sides: a desired outcome in which you aim high, and a plausible process for getting there, as baby steps are sometimes needed. Open borders are a no go in the short term. Zero taxes are a no go in the short term. I believe many pension systems are deeply immoral, but they cannot all be canceled starting tomorrow. Also, some clear solutions for problems must be at least sketched out. Too many libertarians say get government out of the way and people will solve every problem, without any notion of how. They just will. Liberty will just fix things. Many socialists (starting with the Karlmeister himself) say the same: we get True Socialism and it will solve all problems, without saying how. Now not every detail is needed, but a broad outline. I do believe liberty solves a lot, but am ready to articulate how. And one must keep in mind, bad things will still happen, and problems will still exist. Libertarianism just gets an obstacle to a solution out of the way – government.
Sometimes, gradualists are attacked by purist for not being libertarian enough. Though keep in mind, many liberties were taken away gradually, it works better that way, make people take a step not a leap. Maybe getting them back is the same. I have said in the past that it is a tough balancing act, how much you can bend principles without breaking them. Some say not at all, but completely rigid principles may not work in real world scenarios. Like in structural engineering, you need to have some tolerances and some flexible parts to absorb some shocks. I do not have a clean solution for this.
I hear some libertarians say we are strongest when we stick to clear deontological principles instead of various lines of argument including data, stats, history. I do not believe this is always the case. One must evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Non-libertarians do not hold these principles by default and are unconvinced, they need to be persuaded in other ways so they end up embracing the principles. Then again, going back to open borders, I do not see a compelling principle for that myself, and was unconvinced by libertarian arguments for open borders.
A system made by humans will need constant work to keep it going. And it will be a constant struggle between principles and some degree of practicality. Any system made by people can be unmade by people. The Lysander Spooner Enjoyer will speak of the failure of the US constitution. I find this a bit silly, on occasion. Nothing made in the 18th century will preserve liberty in the 21st if current people don’t care to uphold freedom. There is no system that will last by itself, from inertia.
As a non-anarchist, I include anarchy in the delusional category, at least in the current technological and cultural environment. I like Micky Malice as much as the next guy, and he is a fun troll, but he does not make a compelling case for me. And I do not mean moral cases for anarchy, as much as practical solutions.
Anarchists will criticize minarchy because if you have a government, it will inevitably grow. As stated above, a system will not last in a certain form by itself. But by the same token, looking at the world today, anarchy will inevitably develop a government, as all world was anarchy once. Though this depends on definition. Is a tribe listening to the tribal chief anarchy? Anarchists point to some usually marginal areas as examples of anarchy, bits of Somalia, medieval Iceland, Zomia, etc. Yes, those areas were anarchic at times, more or less. Because they were somewhat marginal. Most areas were not. Even today one can go off grid in the mountains and live somewhat anarchically. But as I am not one who wants that, I am more concerned about increasing liberty in current mainstream societies.
I do not really believe in major breakthroughs for liberty unfortunately. But if they are to come, the need to come in a fashion that is gradual and persuasive to a significant number of people. Just saying “taxation is theft,” true as it may be, will not accomplish much.
To get to the point, before I Curtis Yarvin myself into a twenty-page post (by the way if you had read Thomas Paine and de Maistre you would know it has nothing to do with what I am saying). Should a libertarian blog have as much variety as possible of people – as long as they are not pure trolls – or stick to the purity? I believe the former, as it is good to have notions challenged on occasion. An echo chamber is no fun. If I want to hear my opinions mirrored back at me, I read my own posts. Also, this being a long post and assuming most people skim it, shout out to whomever reads this sentence.
I may have misunderstood the situation, but it seemed some people leave the comments if they seem too unlibertarian to them. That only leads to an echo chamber of those who stay. But if everyone agrees with everyone, there are few interesting conversations. And this is how the communists win.
Anarchists and open-borderites can make their case, even if in a minority in the comments, for example. You think I am wrong? Let me have it. You disagree libertarianism can be delusional? I’m all ears. Are you of the opinion of purist or nothing – Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus? Do tell. Red, black, white pilled? Let’s hear.
We have room for plenty of people as long as they are ehm… glib. Anarchist, minarchists, cosmos, yokels, paleo this, paleo that, cryptids, conservatives, liberals and whatever SugarFree is supposed to be. Glibertarians without adjectives, let’s say.
With all that being said, I have to say we could use a little more positivity here either way. Even if that is delusional and the world really is all doom and gloom. Finally, Belgian beer still sucks.
Sometimes?
I’m with you, Pie. I’ve said for a long time that “pure” libertarianism is not compatible with human nature, any more than communism is. But the difference is that the more you push towards liberty, the better things get, while the more you push towards communism, the worse they get.
So to me it’s less of an ideal state, and more of an urgency to always push for more liberty in whatever way you can, and push back on authoritarianism and collectivism. People will be open to different things at different times. It’s just not possible to “win” on all fronts.
Oops, that was supposed to be a main thread post.
Dammit. I took a nap this morning.
I like to occasionally think if something could be done for ol’ liberty, what could that realistically be? In any case, I like even the unachievable to not be beyond reality.
The less you expect, the less you get.
Aim high, and prepare to be bitterly disappointed.
That sounds like a nightmare.
Like working at the DMV.
Ouch.
I agree with myself that I am never delusional.
Finally, Belgian beer still sucks.
And I am reminded of an old Monty Python skit about epithets for different nationalities: nobody could think of a more disparaging term for people from Belgium than “Belgians”.
Sur la Belge. /spits
Although many, many fine firearms come from this country. So, they got that going for them. Which is nice.
The most incorrect statement in the whole piece.
It was a trappistry of a comment.
Well, the Duvel is in the details.
Ommegang! I can’t believe you said that!
I tripel dog dare you!
To lick a flagpole?
It’s the wrong saison for that do be dangerous.
Bier wit me here.
The most incorrect part is thinking you can pigeon hole Belgian beer into a single category.
Some Belgian beer sucks, just like some American beer, some English beer, and some Romanian beer. Maybe all Romanian beer, but I haven’t had any, so I wont say that (for sure).
I broadly mean the styles that are generally popular which i do not like
Oh my God he did not invoke another beer-fight.
Part of the problem is that there is no place to which one can escape, practically speaking.
The American Frontier kept the power of the US FedGov mostly in check, until the South’s failed attempt to become independent. Even after, the FedGov didn’t see an explosion of growth until the closing of the Frontier.
Escape is not the answer. Working to change minds, working to change the course of the ship, that is the answer.
You can deliver an eloquent, impassioned argument to the highwayman/pirate/IRS agent all you want, he is still going to steal your shit.
And 2 of those 3 you can kill with minimal consequences.
wait are you implying my stargate is not practical?
Nice little write up Pie. Cannot have a free-market of ideas to debate and discuss with out the good and the bad. Breaking up an echo chamber is no easy task but I think we have some intelligent commentors that center this place quite nicely from time to time.
You want an open border? Get rid of welfare. You can have one, or the other, but not both.
And Pie still doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to beer.
Is a gradualist solution, how about we just get rid of welfare for non-citizens?
You’d need to amend the constitution, depending how wide your definition of ‘welfare’ is.
Technically, non-citizens are not eligible for welfare now, at least at the federal level.
The feds work around this by giving billions to NGOs to administer benefits for non-citizens.
That’s necessary but not sufficient. You can still seriously mess up your country by unfettered immigration even without holding your citizens hostage and stealing their money to pay for it.
This is a carryover from the dying embers of the lynx:
COVID-19 remains a danger, especially to older people and those with underlying medical conditions. There are still more than 20,000 hospitalizations and more than 2,000 deaths each week due to the coronavirus, according to the CDC. And people 65 and older have the highest hospitalization and death rates.
My immediate reflexive response- Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?
In the unlikely event this number was not just conjured from thin air, a little context would be helpful. Like, for example, how does this compare to other illnesses or accidental deaths? How many old people are hospitalized for slip and fall events in their kitchens or bathrooms?
I don’t feel hopeful about too many things these days, but one thing surprised me recently. I had a conversation with my mom and dad, the diehard Dems, a few months back. I asked if they were getting a COVID booster, and they said hell no, “those shots are poison”. I nearly passed out from shock. So yes there is hope that people will change their minds sometimes.
Something I am privy too, but cannot go into details on, but DEI is starting to be seen in liberal quarters as the poison it is, and is being backed away from.
Nol
Aagh!!!!!
Not de facto but de regur, in the same way the last round of Jim Crow was defeated.
De facto, de jure, or de rigueur?
I’m seeing stories about that too. Sometimes they are backing off, and sometimes they are just renaming things. That second option isn’t good, but it at least shows they know the concept is a loser so they feel the need to hide it.
You mean like the way socialists keep changing their name? Progressive, Liberal, Socialist…
FWIW, my top given goal last year was supplier diversity. No mention this year. Fortune 250 company.
“OK, I diversified our suppliers. We went from one to five. I estimate this has cost the company $XXX, as we now have to monitor quality, deliveries and payment for four more. Also, two of the new ones have persistent quality issues, which are harder to quantify, but could be in the range of $XXX.”
I did read every sentence, thanks for writing. This is a lot to think about. I always do enjoy the perspective of someone who’s looking from the outside.
shout out to whomever reads this sentence.
♥️
With all that being said, I have to say we could use a little more positivity here either way. Even if that is delusional and the world really is all doom and gloom.
Is your question are libertarians delusional or hopelessly cynical? Probably yes in either case.
Excellent post, Pie. I agree with most of this, but will need further reading to dial down in it.
I will probably ask you questions over the next week or so.
thanks. question i can handle.
Dave Smith has spent a lot of time (too much time) recently arguing with open borders libertarians on X. Is there a compelling argument for open borders based on where we are currently or is it only ever based on theory?
It has to be theory.
I can’t see any way right now people would want open borders. There are too many restrictions on defending yourself, starting a business, etc.. to even think about throwing a ton of new people in the mix. All that happens in today’s world is we end up with a metric ton of more government spending for people who came here and now can’t find jobs.
I was going to say there are compelling arguments but as a whole, our country doesn’t have the right parameters in place (mostly things you mentioned) to implement any of them.
Yes. You must first empower people to handle their own lives, and the people need to actively become strong individuals. It would require a strong moral compass which this country has steadily destroyed.
the people need to actively become strong individuals
You see, this is where libertarianism fails to appeal to the masses.
Absolutely. I don’t see how we can remake people to be strong individuals, any more than you could remake people to love DEI. It’s not an inborn trait in enough people.
The Earth and life in general will remake people be strong individuals eventually. Happened before, will happen again.
Bad times make hard people.
bad girls make people hard
We are currently in the “Soft men make hard times” part of that equation.
I wouldnt say theory so much as deontology.
I am not necessarily in favor of open borders, but way opener borders. I am a tall fence, wide gate guy. It should be super easy to get a work visa in the US, which doesn’t come with benefits and is not a path to citizenship or even permanent residency.
Also, if the FedGov is paying people to come here, then that isn’t immigration.
And, of course, they need to be immigrants, not colonists. Come here to be an American (whatever that means), not to be a foreigner trying to make America more to your liking.
As I tell people arriving in Texas from California. You come as a refugee, not a missionary.
Nice. Naturally with a headline like that, the answer is “yes.” I agree that a some libertarians are delusional and push for everything instead of small wins, that is true. Purity is a terrible test to foist on anyone, and I would say any libertarian demanding total ideological purity has already lost their way as a libertarian. In my mind to be a libertarian is to question everything, including your own beliefs and be open to improvements that lead to greater freedom. There will never be only one path to freedom.
I caught myself the other day. I read a story about how Argentina had a budget surplus last month. And my mind went “Oh that could help poor people.” Then I slapped my own hand and said “No dipshit, that’s how they got into trouble in the first place.” If that’s me, who hangs out with you lot, then changing other peoples’ minds is going to be a real uphill battle.
My thought was that they could pay off their debts.
That was my second thought, which should have been my first.
Mind you, I hate poor people.
Familiarty Breeds Contempt, and I used to be poor, so I knew a lot of poor people (including plenty of welfare queens. They are real)
I have a completely different attitude towards poor people. I imagine it’s because girls from the trailer park were much more likely to sleep with me than the rich girls were.
My neighbors were not attractive in either physical appearance or personality.
Very ugly people.
Think of it this way. You would never go regularly feed bears in the woods. That is just asking for trouble and a ton more bears who rip though trash cans and threaten people. We have the same problem now with handouts. It fosters a mindset that depends on the handouts, and the population of indigent people grows.
People understand about the risk of feeding bears, and there are even laws against feeding them. Why is it so hard to see the same risk in giving handouts to people?
I remember one day in seventh grade realizing that literally every girl in my class was attractive.
When it all made sense NA
…where does that leave the cosmotarians.
On the side of the road trying to figure out how to change a tire.
no one changes tires these day it is so last century.
Throw out the car and get a new one.
I support that Pie needs a bonus
DEI is starting to be seen in liberal quarters as the poison it is, and is being backed away from.
Because they see the exposure of their methods and consequent pushback as an obstacle to their progress to Utopia, or because they have actually realized how destructive and counterproductive it is?
Probably both. I think more of the latter when there’s a lot of money involved such as banks and investing. And the former for something like colleges. Of course there are stubborn companies like Disney that are still on that bandwagon no matter how much they lose.
Exposure is the enemy. If they are retreating at all, it will be into shadows where they can continue their efforts without attracting notice.
It also depends on whether “usually” and “often” count as “sometimes.”
So over in my other writing venue, I’ve been working on organizational theory – why we behave the way we do (as humans) and how bureaucracy occurs. Nearly every question about governance is applicable, to some degree, to every other form of human organization.
There is no system that is immutable, and given that it will change and humans are driving the change, it will generally change for the worse. That is the human condition and it ruins every theory. That’s why I don’t even call myself libertarian anymore – it is too biased to theory and too blind to reality.
“That’s why I don’t even call myself libertarian anymore – it is too biased to theory and too blind to reality.”
Same here.
In the late 19th and early 20th century the country and the economy were expanding rapidly. The country could absorb large numbers of immigrants and put them to work. The Biden administration is just the latest and most openly hostile example of pernicious government meddling which has shrunk the growth of the tangible goods economy to a trickle.
As a Lysander Spooner Enjoyer, I have to say that the quote you put up is correct.
Does that make me delusional?
Maybe, but I see reality and it really hit me how wrong I was about Americans when the lockdowns were obeyed.
As a mask refuser, I was shocked at how many would argue with me with no data or real knowledge.
sometimes I wish I didn’t know things and have a need to understand deeper than what the corporate media tries to tell me.
Also, great article and I did read that sentence.
The corporate media is not trying to give you a deeper understanding of anything, it only wants to manipulate you into compliance with one narrative or another. That is not part of some conscious conspiracy, it is simply the role the media plays. In the era of mass advertising – it was to appeal to the most eyeballs (or ears back in radio days); in the era of targeted advertising – to a more specific audience/demographic.
I have a long running debate with a republican friend of mine about whether the federalists or the anti-federalists were right about the constitution. I support the AFs. Its a fun debate because it is totally meaningless 250 years later.
I wish the federalists had been right, but history has proven them incorrect.
You wouldn’t be living in Colorado if the AF had prevailed.
I might, it would just be French Colorado.
Or the Republic of Colorado.
Colorado de Mexico.
It is hard to be sure, since we don’t have the counterfactual.
Maybe a worse and more tyrannical government would have taken over if we’d kept the AoC. That said, I greatly identify with many antifederalist arguments and see how they were correct, albeit 1-200 years later (depending upon the topic)
Does that make me delusional?
I would more say delusional is to expect the constitution or any other constitution or system to work indefinitely regardless of the people. Also I would say while not free the US is freer with that constitution than with one like say Romania has now. the US constitution was not completely worthless or without merit. but it was far from truly effective as well.
We do have a second amendment, which I am glad for.
However, it has become increasingly easy for the government to find ‘reasonable restrictions” that will pass.
I am a member of the VCDL (Virginia Citizen’s Defense League) and at 52, I am one of the youngest people at the meetings.
I don’t see a great future for the freedoms our Constitution claims to defend.
the first is also ok compared to most
I don’t see a great future – 200 something years was a good run i s’pose
That is true.
I still remember a German woman saying that Germany has free speech and when it was pointed out to her that some people had been put in jail for speaking, she said that that was different because they were using hate speech.
At least we’re not that far yet.
Seeing the government involvement in internet censorship was a little jarring.
I kind of knew they were doing it, but not to the extent they were.
My mom doesn’t believe they were, and she also believes that it needed to be done to save lives in the pandemic.
in Romania we have free speech unless it is against “social mores”, which the constitution does not define so can mean anything.
And my mind went “Oh that could help poor people.”
“Helping” poor people is just the frilly dress they put on the vast network of well paid bureaucrats and advocates noisily slurping at the trough.
There is no system that is immutable, and given that it will change and humans are driving the change, it will generally change for the worse.
See: every Utopian community ever
Good intentions don’t scale well.
The Amish don’t try to scale, they just try to sustain. That’s the problem with anything that presumes itself to be universal – it’s a built in flaw. And I don’t think the Amish have the stupidity to believe they are utopian – to their credit and benefit.
‘The Amish don’t try to scale, they just try to sustain’
They’re the fastest growing demographic in the country, so I’m not sure that’s true.
Internal growth, you are extremely unlikely to join that community from the outside.
For Richer or Poorer was a lie? Damn Hollywood.
Sorry for the OT with all the good discussion here. However, this is a wonderful spread of propaganda comparing DW and Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-navy-almost-shot-down-us-drone-over-red-sea-reports/a-68400595
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/big-round-of-applause-to-germany–fires-at-us-drone-twice–f
Bonus and so perfectly typical for the German Navy.
“We have now only learned upon inquiry that apparently, a portion of the ammunition for the frigate ‘Hessen’ is no longer procurable because the corresponding industrial capacity no longer exists,” Hahn told Die Welt.
“If the stocks are empty, the Navy cannot replenish them – and must withdraw the frigate,” he added.
They missed… twice? Is there an easier target than a drone?
I imagine they have some type of countermeasures and/or jamming that other more rudimentary drones don’t have.
That said Germany should have top shelf drone countermeasures.
Yellow peril
The US Commerce Department is opening an investigation into the national security risks posed by foreign-made hardware and software in smart cars, particularly Chinese-made technology, the department announced Thursday.
The new investigation — which could lead to regulations restricting the use of certain car parts in the US — reflects growing concern within the Biden administration that countries like China could exploit navigation data or connections to car-charging stations, for example, to collect intelligence or sabotage infrastructure.
The inquiry will focus on “connected vehicles,” a broad term for virtually any modern car that uses network connections for roadside assistance, satellite communications or a range of other features.
“Connected vehicles from China could collect sensitive data about our citizens and our infrastructure and send this data back to the People’s Republic of China (PRC),” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “These vehicles could be remotely accessed or disabled.”
It’s a good thing we got rid of that paranoid anti-globalist America-firster crackpot Trump.
Biden’s broadband slush fund has buy American provisions. So at least one manufacturer (who used to have onshore manufacturing only a couple of years ago) teamed up with some no name boutique contract manufacturer to produce compliant equipment. And now the Commerce Dept is looking at waiving those same requirements.
I would like some left-wing non-trolls to post here. It would be more fun.
left-wing non-trolls
Jumbo shrimp, military intelligence, honest salesman…
They exist, just not on the internet.
Hmm, I was expecting you to bring up FdB as an example.
Open borders, you say?
https://www.9news.com/article/news/nation-world/biden-trump-parallel-border-trips/507-046e7292-5afb-4aec-95d8-ad8835419391
“The number of people who are illegally crossing the U.S. border has been rising for years for complicated reasons that include climate change, war and unrest in other nations, the economy, and cartels that see migration as a cash cow.”
Climate change explains all the people I see milling around from Dubai. And that damned war in Venezuela. Not mentioned: The UN and NGOs creating pathways for the migrants with resources.
“The administration’s approach has been to pair crackdowns at the border with increasing legal pathways for migrants designed to steer people into arriving by plane with sponsors, not illegally on foot to the border.”
Bullshit.
“Trump and Republicans claim Biden is refusing to act, but absent law change from Congress, any major policies are likely to be challenged or held up in court.”
Lawsuits, sure, but it just defies logic that the executive branch is unable to police its boundaries under current law.
“During bipartisan talks on an immigration deal that would have toughened access for migrants…”
Bullshit. And yes, I’ve been pounding this issue hard recently, not just because of the insanity of it, but because I’m living it. These are my neighbors…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hG3mdBHnTo
‘Climate change explains all the people I see milling around from Dubai.’
Probably not Dubai, since it is pretty nice there, if you can stand the repression.
We have never seen this number of border crossings. Not under any president of either party. But somehow all these nebulous factors came together coincidentally under Biden’s watch, and him undoing every one of Trump’s immigration executive orders on day 1 had nothing to do with it.
The number of people who are illegally crossing the U.S. border has been rising for years for complicated reasons that include climate change, war and unrest in other nations, the economy, and cartels that see migration as a cash cow.
Blaming everything except the actual reason.
Look if we acknowledge the problem we might have to come up with a solution.
People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals. They are motivated by Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Wrath, Envy, and Pride. And yet many are simply not willing to put in the effort to satisfy those motivations (Sloth).
Socialism allows people to wallow in sloth and envy while trying to suppress the other motivations. This system fails spectacularly every time is is attempted.
Libertarianism allows people to chase their animal motivations in any way they wish so long as they don’t harm someone else. This system always succumbs to “social pressure” to prevent excesses as some people are offended by other peoples motivations.
No system works. In the end, we all die.
{swallows afternoon black pill}
That was just a Tic Tac.
The answer may just be killin motherfuckers (with kindness)
most excellent!
and cartels that see migration as a cash cow.
Finally recognizing NGO parasites for the organized crime operations they are?
I wanted to find a picture with a border area full of skulls for UCS but did not find one I liked fast and then gave up on the notion. I am not entirely happy with the wall from got but it serves.
I don’t know how important picture are in long text but I try to add some, this post i could have done better.
OT: Remember when we said it was a one-time thing with Trump just a couple of days ago? Yeah, we were just kidding.
Gee, its almost like they have a template now: AG James Sues [insert person/company] for misrepresenting [insert whatever here]
I redacted my comment
If it was a 1-time thing, wouldn’t that be a Bill of Attainer?
Insurance companies never co-mingle their NY policies with other states because of this kind of crap. Instead, they incorporate another company that only does business on NY so they can’t be sued for what they do in Florida or Kentucky.
I hope this gets everyone to stop doing business in NY.
It’s not really by choice. The individual states demanded it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act
It’s more complex than that. There are large insurance firms that cover almost all the states. They now have to respect situs, resident, and original purchase state mandates as well as federal. You can imagine it costs a small fortune to get that right. Still those large multi state insurers would never expose their main business to NY. They do as Blake indicated.
NY has mandates for insurance that would make a Mafia Don blush. The rates there are insane.
Yes. I didn’t want to go into that. I’ve spend my career in 50 state admitted carriers. And I’m typing this in Manhattan…
Shocking how many of us are in insurance.
New York insurance regulations say that an insurer has to follow their rules EVERYWHERE if they offer the product in NY. So a policy sold in Kentucky by a CT corporation has to follow NY rules (even though they probably directly conflict with KY rules).
It’s such nonsense that nobody even tries to deal with it.
Yes and no. They, CA and TX own the NAIC so they generally control the admitted forms.
I posted this morning that a Canadian investment company just sold a building in Manhattan for a dollar. Apparently they couldn’t wait to GTFO. Might be the issue of the litigious state, might be total collapse of the retail office space market. Or both.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-could-be-next-largest-canadian-pension-fund-sells-manhattan-office-tower-1
It’s not very Stoic of me to say this – I hope this fire sale hurts all the right people.
They assumed the debt.
“Law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are businesspeople have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior….really an extraordinary, unusual circumstance” -Hochul
Unusual circumstance that will be done over and over again to achieve their
utopiandystopian goals it seems.Hopefully Exhibit #1 in the appeal to the Supreme Court.
That comment by Hochul already hasn’t aged well.
She got a taste of success and now she’s power hungry. She’s going to single handedly go after all the Left’s boogeymen and be the big progressive hero. This isn’t going to end well.
It is a cut and paste formula that she will singlehandedly bring about the glorious Green(Marxist) Revolution with.
Tom Luongo talks to the Duran about all the crazy shit in Europe and the U.S.
https://rumble.com/v4gdrd9-the-holy-grail-for-european-integration-w-tom-luongo-live.html
2024 compensation statement: No COLA, merit increase is less than the rate of inflation, annual bonus is half of last years.
Market distortions giveth, market distortions taketh away.
I suspect my bonus will suffer this year, though to be fair it was quite decent last 2 years
What’s a bonus?
In my world? He who golfs with the boss.
a bonus is when the peasants gift you a young woman and she is also a virgin
I would like some left-wing non-trolls to post here. It would be more fun.
You mean people who can correctly identify a problem but be completely out to lunch about effective solutions? That sounds like fun.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan died 20 years ago. There are no more thoughtful left wingers.
Gabbard, RFK Jr, Jimmy Dore, and Russell Brand.
Probably aren’t really considered left-wingers any longer because they are thoughtful.
ding-ding-ding
As soon as you really start to think, you cease to be a left-winger. Being a left-winger is like being a Christian – it is what you believe, not what you reason.
Gabbard
She’s good on 2 topics and insane on 20, and somehow that’s “thoughtful”. More like “thotful”.
And that’s probably better than RFK Jr.
I definitely find Gabbard more attractive than Jr.
Being a politician takes all the tingle out of my leg.
Still 2 more topics than Biden or Trump is good on. Unless you considered making libs so irrationally angry that you can literally see flames shooting out there ears a topic. Then Trump has 1.
Eh. Going issue by issue, I’m going to prefer Trump’s position on a large majority of those issues compared to Gabbard’s. Not sure about Biden, though. She probably beats or ties him on almost every issue.
You could go recruit over at Data Secrets Lox maybe.
My tax return keeps growing in size. I’m fighting to keep it down to 1 manila envelope this year.
Is the mandatory Schedule C filing for every 1099-NEC new? I don’t remember that last year.
remember every penny is going to be used efficiently for a good cause
It will either be used to buy bombs for a country our elites are laundering money through or given to the corrupt government and NGOs working in the country bombed by the country our elites are laundering money through.
Some will be given to our open border operations. Eventually the fighting age men will be recruited into the Army or an internal police force to keep us bitter clingers in line.
can I have one billion pplease? I will only ever spend it on whisky and young ladies of negotiable affection
Obviously not. Raytheon doesn’t sell either of those things. That money is for lining the pockets of MIC bigwigs and blowing up brown children in third-world countries. Please try to take this seriously.
today in weird youtube shorts recommended
Gen Z vs TBK
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XP8iCeC5Ho8
the black keys seem to be some sort of band
black keys
The question is not open/closed borders. The question is do we have free markets or not. Free markets and closed borders are incompatible. Once we abandon free markets we have to have some sort of government. With government comes boundaries. Boundaries for schools, towns, water, ad infinitum. We wouldn’t need an army to protect us or go off hunting dragons to slay with a free market.
Picture this. Canada is sort of similar to the US. Erase the border. Free flow of goods, people, .Ah, you say, how can we have a free flow with out some sort of of transactional costs?. We could adopt a currency backed up by a private company, exchanges into gold or cheap whiskey or seashells. But somewhere there would lurk someone dissatisfied and would try to enforce some rules. With the rules comes boundaries. It becomes circular. Then we need enforcement people, some way to pay them.
Even private property needs some mechanism of enforcement. Fences can easily be transgressed, we see it everyday. Without a cop there is no law.
Sometimes I feel like I’m in a stoned quandary.
boundaries exist either way, be it private property, a burbclave or mr lee’s greater hong kong or tribal land.
borders are not open or closed there are degrees.
free market != anarchy
Oh, it’s you again.
yes.
Top notch post, Pie. I detect some alignment with one or two of my most recent posts, which of course means you are highly intelligent and likely very good looking.
I do have an impressive nose
LOL
‘ Not to go down the path of far-right dog-whistle, but I get a whiff of the magic dirt theory.’
There is nothing magic about the dirt, it is about culture/upbringing. Though there may be a genetic component as well, I don’t know which group of people may be the most genetically libertarian, probably some hunter-gatherer tribe.