Lolbertarian Party drops by to remind you it still sucks
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
You can get sued by illegals. Lolberts cast the businesses that hire illegals as passive actors who merely respond to "zany" things the "out of control" government does. That's bullshit. The immigration laws are the way they are because the same businesses doing the hiring want them that way. They never tell you that part.
They can sue you. However, the kind of illegals who get hired for under minimum wage are generally keen to avoid courts.
We're still working on getting people to shut up about ideal world border management (aka private property rights) while we still have welfare states, economic regulation, and business capture of government. It's a work in progress.
What do you mean by this? Borders are a matter of national sovereignty.
I oppose state sovereignty on principle, so the only borders I consider legitimate are the borders of private property, and any aggregations of them which are made by mutually consensual contract.
But that's off in idealism world, nowhere close to the state of affairs in society today.
That's globohomo shit.
Nations are peoples. States are expressions of monopolistic force used on behalf of their people. (realistically often against them) Sovereignty is the recognition of that authority by other people, nations, or states. Nations have various customs, flags, and creeds, but the only legitimate purpose of the State is to secure the private property and lives of its people. If the individual right to life and property is not seen as immutable and respected above all else, the state could arbitrarily redefine those things and decide to not protect unfavored citizens' rights, in which case it serves no legitimate purpose. Libertarian thought tends to cut off where "collective rights" end and "individual rights" begin, but there's a spectrum between those want to maintain sovereign nation states more-or-less as they are today only with more voluntary participation, and those that believe the only borders anywhere should be private property borders. The latter viewpoint is generally seen as an ideal, but not practical. In either case national sovereignty ultimately serves personal sovereignty, even where individuals are blood and honor-bound to nations.
(he did say "ideal", so I assume you're asking him about the theoretical framework and not geopolitical reality where tyranny reigns)
WTF is this nonsense? You don't get to kiddie porn in your house just because you own it. You don't get to let illegals poor into the country just because you own property on the border.
That's globohomo, abolition of nations shit.