I have always had "practical AnCap on the brain" which I think is a good thing. There is no immigration without permission of the property owner under AnCap. Having thirty kids to the owners' two kids does not result in a loss of the property to the thirty kids by being outvoted. Since AnCap is our ultimate goal, how does supporting the no-borders position (which is vastly unpopular with normies and voters) move us closer to our goal?
The next time a progressive, who believes they will receive more power from immigration that they allow, makes the "acktually that group is statistically less violent and contributes to society" argument ask them to clarify if right wing and conservative types who are at the bottom of the violence and welfare scale also qualify.
I've generally always had some qualms with the argument for free, unrestricted immigration and I've been thinking about some things since I read your part one to this. Consider these few things:
Most people whether they admit it to themselves or not tend to view the world in a series of concentric circles, i.e. I care about my home/family a little more than I care about my community than I care about my state, than I care about my country. Most of us also tend to apply our values in this way as well. We don't want shitheads in our house (I'm looking at you parents of teenage girls who just started dating!) and would also prefer we don't have them in our communities at large. This has been glaringly obvious as of late with some of the interesting immigration antics playing out with TX and FL shipping immigrants to places that loud and proud claimed they were sanctuary cities. Now all of a sudden these folks are screaming about how this is damaging their cities and they don't have the breadth of services to deal with it. Well no shit. Unrestricted access to anything combined with perverse incentives is likely going to create a breaking point like this.
Next, as you mention here Pete, a vetting process is imperative. Between having friends who are parents to teens and remembering back to my own teen years my parents were giving the kind but exhaustive inquisition to anyone I was bringing home to make sure they felt this was a safe person for their teen daughter to be spending copious amounts of time with. Why wouldn't you want your community or country to not also have some type of vetting process to weed things out? Let's face it, there are some serious trashballs in the array of humanity, I'd prefer they don't come here for the free stuff and be left to their preferred devices of violence. So, 100% to say illegal immigration is victimless is foolhardy at best. Aside from the deaths you've listed here let's also consider how an economy can realistically sponge up millions of people in weeks or months and not experience a huge downward pressure often affecting those who were already struggling to get out of the bottom? I mean where do all these people go? Where do they live? Do they immediately find jobs? Do they know how to function in and speak the language of the society they're going to? My observation in the recent years tells me often no. These are not your star heroes of society.
Lastly, in all but the MOST DIRE circumstances FIGHTING AGE MALES ARE NOT REFUGEES! Look at pictures of the border flood and it often seems at least 50% if not more fall into this group. What are they running from? Or maybe a more important question what are they running to? When you've made it easy to flee and aqcuire free stuff then that's exactly what people do. I'm not trying to glamorize standing up and fighting. It's hard, it sucks, and a lot of people can get injured/killed but traditionally this was young men were the ones who when all else was going to hell stayed and fought to save what they could. So someone tell me, what's different here?
Kind of you to say. Glad my on the spot stream of thought made sense. When I re-read it I wasn't sure I articulated my economic argument very well. But oh well, that's what happens when I brain dump
I’m getting up there. I recently rediscovered a bunch of material I wrote for Blogspot back in 00-08 and I’m both a little embarrassed but also fascinated by it. Put your thoughts out there. You won’t regret it.
I totally agree. I write a lot in actual journals just to jot down thoughts or observations and like to go back and read my own things. It's definitely fascinating and sometimes I find I'm pleasantly surprised by myself
I tend to think of it a little differently. I frame it as this is my little piece of the world and I have the ultimate right to defend myself if you try to take it or harm me in it. I do not have the ultimate right to impose myself on your little piece of the world.
I have always had "practical AnCap on the brain" which I think is a good thing. There is no immigration without permission of the property owner under AnCap. Having thirty kids to the owners' two kids does not result in a loss of the property to the thirty kids by being outvoted. Since AnCap is our ultimate goal, how does supporting the no-borders position (which is vastly unpopular with normies and voters) move us closer to our goal?
The next time a progressive, who believes they will receive more power from immigration that they allow, makes the "acktually that group is statistically less violent and contributes to society" argument ask them to clarify if right wing and conservative types who are at the bottom of the violence and welfare scale also qualify.
I've generally always had some qualms with the argument for free, unrestricted immigration and I've been thinking about some things since I read your part one to this. Consider these few things:
Most people whether they admit it to themselves or not tend to view the world in a series of concentric circles, i.e. I care about my home/family a little more than I care about my community than I care about my state, than I care about my country. Most of us also tend to apply our values in this way as well. We don't want shitheads in our house (I'm looking at you parents of teenage girls who just started dating!) and would also prefer we don't have them in our communities at large. This has been glaringly obvious as of late with some of the interesting immigration antics playing out with TX and FL shipping immigrants to places that loud and proud claimed they were sanctuary cities. Now all of a sudden these folks are screaming about how this is damaging their cities and they don't have the breadth of services to deal with it. Well no shit. Unrestricted access to anything combined with perverse incentives is likely going to create a breaking point like this.
Next, as you mention here Pete, a vetting process is imperative. Between having friends who are parents to teens and remembering back to my own teen years my parents were giving the kind but exhaustive inquisition to anyone I was bringing home to make sure they felt this was a safe person for their teen daughter to be spending copious amounts of time with. Why wouldn't you want your community or country to not also have some type of vetting process to weed things out? Let's face it, there are some serious trashballs in the array of humanity, I'd prefer they don't come here for the free stuff and be left to their preferred devices of violence. So, 100% to say illegal immigration is victimless is foolhardy at best. Aside from the deaths you've listed here let's also consider how an economy can realistically sponge up millions of people in weeks or months and not experience a huge downward pressure often affecting those who were already struggling to get out of the bottom? I mean where do all these people go? Where do they live? Do they immediately find jobs? Do they know how to function in and speak the language of the society they're going to? My observation in the recent years tells me often no. These are not your star heroes of society.
Lastly, in all but the MOST DIRE circumstances FIGHTING AGE MALES ARE NOT REFUGEES! Look at pictures of the border flood and it often seems at least 50% if not more fall into this group. What are they running from? Or maybe a more important question what are they running to? When you've made it easy to flee and aqcuire free stuff then that's exactly what people do. I'm not trying to glamorize standing up and fighting. It's hard, it sucks, and a lot of people can get injured/killed but traditionally this was young men were the ones who when all else was going to hell stayed and fought to save what they could. So someone tell me, what's different here?
👍🏻👍🏻 You should have published this as a Thread on your Substack.
Kind of you to say. Glad my on the spot stream of thought made sense. When I re-read it I wasn't sure I articulated my economic argument very well. But oh well, that's what happens when I brain dump
I’m getting up there. I recently rediscovered a bunch of material I wrote for Blogspot back in 00-08 and I’m both a little embarrassed but also fascinated by it. Put your thoughts out there. You won’t regret it.
I totally agree. I write a lot in actual journals just to jot down thoughts or observations and like to go back and read my own things. It's definitely fascinating and sometimes I find I'm pleasantly surprised by myself
The right to have weaponry is secured. The right to free immigration is not.
I tend to think of it a little differently. I frame it as this is my little piece of the world and I have the ultimate right to defend myself if you try to take it or harm me in it. I do not have the ultimate right to impose myself on your little piece of the world.