Libertarians should oppose the Arizona Immigrant Laws

Look at your dollars, today they are Federal Reserve Notes, not Gold or Silver certificates. They also have printed on them "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE".

The purchasing power of the dollar is greatly affected by the creation of additional dollars, which reduces the value of each one. True value is found only in resources, labor, and the products and/or services they provide us. Currency only provides us with a means of bartering with one another more efficiently.

Exactly, and what is the government doing to resolve the problem? While banks can easily be put out of business, essentially to the detriment of their depositors, the Federal Reserve is invincible and immune. No debts owed the Federal Reserve are written off, they are simply compounded and put off for future generations to repay.

Being a little, perhaps lot, older than most here, I grew up in an area where money was not an absolute necessity of life, and as long as you produced something of value you could easily acquire other necessities through trade. I remember riding horseback with a second cousin to the trading post to trade some eggs for flour for my Grandmother. Of course the option existed to purchase it with money as well. But in todays world there exists just too great a variety of wants and needs to trade, so we are bound by some form of currency. You can check for yourself, but I believe todays dollar purchases less than what a nickel did prior to the creation of the Federal reserve.

Of course from the governments viewpoint, a diminishing value dollar serves government best, while a nearly constant valued currency would serve those who prefer to save and take responsibility for own needs in the future.
Government depends and thrives on a growing economy, and debt can be more easily rationalized when the dollars borrowed had much greater purchasing power than the dollars used for repayment. The rationale makes sense for the individual as well which creates a society in which nearly all are indebted until death. Debt is never forgiven without loss to someone, and in most cases involving government intrusion, the loss is shared by all those who work and earn a living.

But what's any of this to do with the Arizona immigration law? And, was Rothschild right or wrong?

 

which is why e need to eliminate money and profit

 

Eliminate money? Elaborate how that could or should be accomplished.

Eliminate profit? Now you're talking purist Communism. And if not, just exactly how could or should that be accomplished?

We might have been able to accomplish your proposal if only N!xau had been born an American citizen, and became the first African-American President, but he wasn't and sadly is now deceased.

 

If you don't believe in totally unrestricted contracting for jobs- that is, totally open borders- you're simply not a libertarian.

 

Thanks for the reassurance, I was getting worried.

.

 

As long as the pub will take a few of them in return for a White Russian, I couldn't care less what the print says.

Sentence 2 contradicts sentence 1, and sentence 3 says we control the value.

You can check for yourself, but I believe that the pay scale is greater than 20 times what it was then. At the time to which you refer, the average job only provided the necessities, if one was lucky.

I'm sure that he was right about some things, and wrong about others.

.

 

use your imagination

or...

read a little theory, which i'm sure you already have

[these are hardly new ideas]

 

Sure, just let all the drug runners and terrorist come on in, right? And they say there are jobs that Americans won't do. So maybe we can let some of them in. Let them come in the legal way. Don't force them to come in the illegal way, and always be scared of getting arrested.

 

the arizona immigration laws are incredibly prejudice and very scary pieces of legislation.

arizona used to belong to mexico, known to the natives as aztlan. so actually its all the white americans who are illegal immigrants.

 

Texas and California also?

 

yes thats true aswell. i left it out because the thread was just referring to arizona

 

Oh, I should have clarified my opening statement. I myself am not advocating open borders. Although I do think we should grant amnesty to many illegals, especially those from nations America has so thoroughly fucked in the ass over the years.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy in the New Right movement. They claim to be libertarian, then scamper back to big government when they feel uncomfortable. I'm not a libertarian but I've always respected the guys at the Cato Institute, most of whom don't have a problem with illegal immigrants (or, at the very least, don't support the draconian measures many Tea Baggers want to take in order to kick them out).

And PLEASE...I hate when people say "Let them come the legal way!" Because coming here legally now is extremely difficult. And I don't want to hear that bullshit, "My great grandfather came the legal way!", because the process of getting into the country back in the day was a lot easier...because all those poor huddled masses came from white countries.

 

Look up the Cato Institute's stance on immigration. They're probably the most intelligent libertarians in America and they're opposed to most of our border laws and especially Gov. Brewer's proposed Arizona laws.

And please. The Libertarian Party is getting a boner off of the Tea Party. The Libertarian Party might not be ideological purists like the Cato guys, but seeing as how the Libertarian Party often (grudgingly) aligns with Republicans -- because free market is apparently more important to the Libertarian Party than social issues -- I can't see how they wouldn't love a general shift in the Republican Party to little-to-no government interference with the free market.

I'm down with small "L" libertarians on number of issues, notably sex, abortion, drugs, isolationism, and marriage. But the big "L" Libertarian Party is in bed with the Tea Baggers. And, in doing so, they're betraying as many of their core principles as they did when allying themselves with the Republicans. Because really, the Tea Baggers are just Republicans, only on steroids (steroids that make you retarded).

 

Dude...no offense, but stop writing like you're a textbook author. I believe the semi-famous rapper Common once said something like: "You use big words, but you ain't saying shit."

Although I have "writerly" credentials (I'm a shorty story author, novelist, and run-of-the-mill dick joke writer) I can firmly say that you, sir, are using complicated terms simply for the sake of using complicated terms.

Instead of saying, "I surreptitiously infiltrated her nether regions whilst she was inebriating herself", you can say: "I finger-banged the broad while she was busy drinking herself stupid."

 

not a william f. buckey fan, ay

 

Theoretically many things appear to be possible, but might you propose something practical?

 

I would say the land was won. not stolen.

 

No, because until our welfare system is fixed and we have a better grip on the rights of preexisting American communities (not immigrant ones) we can't just have an open-border policy with one of the poorest nation in North America.

The better solution to helping Mexicans is getting better involved in their internal affairs and providing troops to help quash organized crime. They are, after all, our neighbors.

 

I hear ya on the second paragraph but, as I said in my earlier post, I'm not advocating open borders. My point was that so-called "libertarians" who want to build a big ass fence or put troops on the border are sorta going against libertarian ideals.

As for me personally, I think the USA should allow any immigrant from a Central/South American country we fucked over amnesty no matter what. For instance, a Guatemalan born after the 1950s (at the very least) is living in a quagmire of violence and filth because American power players owned stock in United Fruit. Guatemalan illegals already in the country should be allowed to stay as compensation, provided they can prove they're from Guatemala. Just an lite example...

 

No. Libertarian is a political concept applicable to one's own country only. It isn't intended as an international co-operation. Other countries have their own laws and political systems and Libertarians have no interest in meddling in the affairs of those nations. The American Libertarian movement is a political movement for America and American citizens only.