Uhhh...based libertarians?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (72)
sorted by:
There's a difference between Libertarianism and Koch Brother's Corporately Sponsored Reason Magazine Libertarianism.
Open Borders between countries is not acceptable, especially when you have corporate colonization efforts.
International free trade can't exist when you have governments weaponizing their trade in order to facilitate colonialism and imperialism.
It's not "free trade" when the government institutionalizes massive subsidies into law to facilitate a single corporation to benefit, the same way telecom and finance are not free markets.
It's not a free and voluntary movement of people, when a corporation agrees to make a plan between two governments to forcibly remove a swath of people from one government to lower the burden on that socialist government's welfare state, in order to transplant them into a corporate colony where the other government is guaranteed to get voters.
While there is certainly an impetus on both governments and corporations to see this movement, you can't say with a straight face that it isn't voluntary. It's not free, but with how poor enforcement is, it may as well be unfettered.
The colonization effect you refer to is just people who can acquire a better standard of living than they're leaving, even if it's worse relative to the standard they're moving to. Of course they'll take that deal. It doesn't need a nefarious scheme, because it's simply the best option.
International trade should mostly exist in the space where autarky is impractical or highly inefficient, based on geography and resource distribution. A nation grows wealth when it doesn't bleed value.
Voluntary as in the concept of a contract. Yeah, it's voluntary when some asshole volunteers to squat in your house and shit on your carpet, he volunteered to do that. You were the party that didn't get a choice.
So, when someone steals your money to bring someone into your house to squat in your bedroom and shit on your carpet... that's not voluntary. Your house is being confiscated so it can be turned into subsidized slave barracks.
Put it like this. If you invite someone to your house, does that give your guest the right to drive through your neighbors yard because it's shorter? No. That's trespassing: hippity-hoppity. So if your guest crashes through your neighbor's yard, and your neighbor shoots them, is that wrong? No. Hippity hoppity.
This is one of the things that bothers me about the border. You have people who's property is on the border who can't do anything about illegals crossing, not the border, but their land. They should be building their own barbed wire entanglements. Hell, the government should be paying them to build barbed wire entanglements. If a horde of people is pouring through your property without permission you make them hippity fucking hoppity the fuck back to Guatemala, I don't care if Koch Foods Inc sent you. The McKloskeys did nothing wrong.
You don't get it. There's not supposed to be a deal. The reason there's a "deal" is because a massive corporation (a public business and legal construction of the government) made a deal with a Socialist fucking state to take X amount of the Socialist government's population to eliminate the pressure on that government's bloated welfare system.
If those Leftist governments didn't deport their populations to corporate colonies, their government would collapse form internal tension and economic malfeasance. So, they traffic people out of the country for political reasons to these public corporations who create plantations where everyone works and spends most of their time. This will include bribing the local government to control them, and then putting all of their illegal colonists into public housing and public accommodation.
The deal should never have been allowed at all. There shouldn't have been an easing on the Socialist welfare state's burden. There should not have been an offer from a public corporation. If you want to come to America, you shouldn't be offered anything except the luxury of becoming an American. No gibs. No corporate gibs, no government gibs, no charity gibs. No gibs.
I don't believe in Isolationism, but if we did that the Isolationists would have thought they had banned immigration. The strongest driving force of deportations is economics. As soon as it looks like Americans might not pay for illegals to work, they leave. If you stop paying illegals to come here, then they won't come either.
This is why public corporations that participate in these schemes should be actively fucking dissolved.
International trade exists because autarky is always impractical and highly inefficient.
All that reactionary attitude and I still gotta bat you on the nose for embracing socialist economics.
You unintentionally hit on the overarching problem with libertarianism. Incidentally, it's the problem with all ideologies that ignore basic human nature.
It is a deal, as much as an unattended $20 is.
Libertarianism didn't build public corporations and welfare states.
You're missing my point. If someone wants to come to America, that can't be part of a human trafficking scheme.
People who want to come to America need to earn their way in as individuals.