/liberty/ - Liberty

>>103879

It depends if she even likes books at all. My little sister is also 14, and she enjoyed Animal Farm, which is short and entertaining, but besides that she doesn't really care to read much.

>>103879

It's INCREDIBLY rare for a girl to be ancap, let alone a 14 yo girl. I honestly don't think it's possible anon.

Women can't understand virtue, sorry.

>>103882

ok thanks for the idea

she likes reading so i will suggest that book to her

>>103884

i just dont want her to have sex early

>>103885

for women weakness is the virtue lol

You should get her genuinely interested in ancap before you start shoving books in her face (except for perhaps really short pamphlets like Anatomy of the State or I, Pencil). Make it seem cool on an aesthetic/emotional level first, talk about the virtues of liberty, the personal responsibility it implies, the value of first principles and internal consistency, and so forth. Especially since this is a woman we're talking about, and a teenage one at that, you need to change her mood before you can change her mind.

>>103885

This, unfortunately. It's not how evolution made them.

>>103895

>There are lots of ancap girls in my country, including my little sister.

Bullshit. That sounds so completely foreign to me I want evidence for that claim. Out of all the women I've met in my life maybe ONE is a libertarian, maybe. Certainly no ancaps though.

>>103895

Are you from Poland by any chance?

>>103895

>>103914

>>103916

I see an arbitrage opportunity here, friend. You have a supply of ancap girls, and here there is a demand for them. Make use of that entrepreneurial spirit.

Use your penis

Give her LSD, it might damage her mind enough to go for it

>>103939

are russian ancaps attending degenerate events like "pride parades"? or maybe you have no "pride parades" in russland?

>>104008

liberals in its european or american meaning?

>>104010

Reddit tier post

just have her listen to the radio about how sex workers shouldn't be taxed because they provide a valuable cervix to society

BUT she has to have bought the radio with her stripper bux from selling fart water to brown gays

>>104027

>t. virgin

>>103879

How can you call yourself a "virtuous" person, when you are literally asking how to groom a child with pedophile political propaganda?

>>104053

>expecting the state to protect your children

You are a bad parent or guardian

>what should i recommend 14yo girl to read to become an ancap

This thread.

Never read anything by Ayn Rand. I will not allow my mind to be manipulated by kikes, of which Rand was a flamer. Keep your thoughts on that which is purely white.

>>103879

The moon is a harsh mistress by Heinlein

>>104079

what is his name?

>>104229

Navalny.

how to find a russian ancap waifu?

t. non-russian slav from europe

>>103939

>1st pic

Wait, is that the guy from those Russian libertarian vids?

>>104395

Based posts like this sometimes make me sympathetic to ancap, but then I remember that anti-degenerate ancaps are an extreme minority, and that ancap would have no way of dealing with a degenerate society

>>104401

>no way of dealing with a degenerate society

>what the fuck is freedom of association and how does boycott work? t.neetsoc

>>104395

It's called irony, anon, have some fun.

>>104401

Oh, fuck off nigger, you're not welcome here.

>>104402

>>104410

>>104411

>>104419

Damn that butthurt. Why are you faggots so insecure?

>>104383

I wonder if there are english subtitles to his videos.

>>104443

>with Hoppe

Oh that would be glorious.

>>103895

This is something libertarians really need to step up compared to socialists.

Feminism, or to be more precise, freedom for people to be recognized in an individual level no matter their sex, race, etc… was always a libertarian talking point.

Libertarians were defending things like gay marriage or women liberatian centuries before any others.

I think women would feel compelled to liberty if they come to understand that they can and must be strong, they need to defend by themselves and create a better world own of their own virtue and values.

Fucking socialists took over feminism by guilt tripping everyone and putting them as victims, but liberty should try to aim for the good women out there that want to be the heroes and not the victims.

>>104506

this is how deontological libertarianism fails

it is libertarian to support gays and women voting rights but it leads to anti-libertarian ends- women and gays are usually anti-freedom

>>104506

>I think women would feel compelled to liberty if they come to understand that they can and must be strong, they need to defend by themselves and create a better world own of their own virtue and values.

Feminism is an ideology that exploits women's coping mechanisms, just like how socialism exploits men's, it's not so much about shilling libertarianism as it is about trying to uproot deep-seated fears and traumas when talking to these mentally ill people. It's like you have to be their therapist.

>Fucking socialists took over feminism by guilt tripping everyone and putting them as victims, but liberty should try to aim for the good women out there that want to be the heroes and not the victims

I agree, I think we could get a shitload of women on our side, there's a huge market for this that incel alt-righters didn't want to capitalize on because they also have their fair share of trauma and bitterness. In my experience, women are kinda libertarian by default, a lot of them think they're socialists because that's what's supposed to be "normal" in a society where every nigger and their mom is expected to be an edgy anti-capitalist, but it's really easy to break through that bulshit conditioning.

>>104568

>this is how deontological libertarianism fails

No it doesn't. We just need to get our priorities straight. The libertarian movement doesn't exist for them, they exist for us, if they want faggots rights or lesbian communes, they should help us dismantle the state to get those things, not expect us to be their free personal army in a DnC democratic battle-royale. If the whole ship is sinking, there are much more important things to do than to help them pump water out of their personal quarters.

>>104506

>Feminism, or to be more precise, freedom for people to be recognized in an individual level no matter their sex, race, etc… was always a libertarian talking point.

No it wasn't, nor should it be. What the hell does "recognition" even mean? It's not a property right, so it's not a libertarian talking point. There is no reason to entertain the entitlement fantasies and persecution complexes of minority groups, or of women who want to play-act as men. The freedoms of association and discrimination preclude any such virtue-signaling, and there is no pragmatic reason to introduce leftist parasites into our ranks.

>I think women would feel compelled to liberty if they come to understand that they can and must be strong

That is incorrect on multiple levels. You will not entice women to give up their gibs and favorable position with the federal government by some empty rhetoric about strength. Most feminists who go on about independence have simply replaced their husband with the state, not achieved any sort of independent status. The state has become the biggest alpha male, and every single mother and thot a part of its harem. This is because feminists don't particularly value strength and independence—how could they? They're women!—and merrily latch on to this rhetoric to rebel against tradition. Liberty and the natural order are traditionalist, so no feminist looking to act out her daddy issues will be attracted to it. It is also wrong to presume this "strength" and independence of women is desirable. Its a simple comparatively advantage and division of labor problem. Due to their inherent superior abilities in homemaking and child-rearing, women face a much higher opportunity cost by entering the workforce compared to men. Therefore, in an unrestricted market they will specialize, and become feminine housewives rather than pretending to be men by joining the workforce. Femininity is a much more conducive goal than feminism.

>Fucking socialists took over feminism

From the very first wave, feminism has been infused with socialist, countercultural nonsense. The suffragettes were bitter, unmarried harpies who set out to destroy femininity and the female gender role because they felt spurned by it. There is nothing worthwhile to be found in feminism.

>>104568

>it is libertarian to support gays and women voting rights

No, it isn't. There's nothing libertarian about giving voting rights to anyone. Nor is there anything libertarian about eliminating the social costs associated with faggotry and deviancy. But I suppose it's easy to think otherwise when you adopt a relativist position.

>>104571

okay so i understand that you are open-border despite the fact that your country will be flooded by anti-freedom people as result?

>>104702

Are you responding to the right post? Nothing he said even implied being in favour of open borders.

Most Ancaps are against open borders and we all believe in the right to defend one's property, land included.

>>104702

What country are you talking about? I don't support open-borders.

>>104715

closed state borders are done by state

ancaps dont want state

>>104760

<But without the government, who would bake the crust?

>>104759

yes

>>104760

yes but ancaps prefer things being done by private entenpreneurs than state, if it is done by state then they oppose it (law, police, anti-gun laws, censorship)

>>104996

>yes but ancaps prefer things being done by private entenpreneurs than state, if it is done by state then they oppose it

This is stupid. If you're not an ancap don't put words in ancap's mouths. Have you ever seen an ancap demand that the government not prosecute serial killers simply because they would prefer a private system deal with these problems? Of course not, nobody does this because they realize that even if the system we have now is inferior, some variants are less inferior than others. A state-run justice system is worse than a private run justice system. But of the state-run justice systems, the one that prosecutes actual criminals is less worse than the one that lets them go free. By the same token, wholly privatized borders are better than state-run borders, because privatized borders are much more discriminating and much more secure. But of state-run borders, the state-run border that is enforced is better than the one that is not.

>>104715

>>104759

>>104760

Open Borders refers specifically to free movement over the imaginary lines of states and not for the allowance of trespassing on property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_border

>>105011

Aliens are not entitled to non-aggression rights.

>>105017

>that strawman

I was referring to the stance of "Open Borders" and not to open property borders.

>>105020

well it's not the state's property but it belongs to the taxed individuals living in that given territory. with open borders you give access to that property to other people and force the inhabitants of the country to serve the aliens and integrate them into society.

>>105022

>it belongs to the collective

Nigger that’s not how this works. That’s not how property rights work.

The problem of illegal aliens being serviced by the taxpayer is due to the welfare state and income tax. Perhaps anarchist efforts should be focused there rather than expanding and defending the border control function of the State

>>105030

>strawmanning my point and losing to the strawman

of course taxes are the root of everything but abolishing income taxes is as likely as a giant asteroid hitting the earth. if you have open borders you give more people that didn't contribute anything to the financing of "public property" like roads, healthcare or welfare. and of course it was expropriated illegitimately from the taxpayers but sharing that money with other unproductive people is even more wasteful.

you also ignored my point on forced integration, property rights imply exclusivity and discrimination and open borders policy is the exact opposite of that, it forces people who wish not to live together to live together and that always leads to conflict.

also this >>105031

>>105038

I didn't strawman your point you lying faggot. If I strawmanned your point, then explain what you were trying to say.

>of course taxes are the root of everything but abolishing income taxes is as likely as a giant asteroid hitting the earth

True, but neither will border control be successfully implemented nor will it be effective in decreasing State power like you seem to believe.

>if you have open borders you give more people that didn't contribute anything to the financing of "public property" like roads, healthcare or welfare

If open borders are actually implemented, it would simply make these issues actually pressing rather than taking a backseat to the democratic (as in the political system, not the party) distraction of border control. But again, I don't believe anarchists should focus their efforts on decreasing border control and I certainly don't believe they should attempt to increase State power via border control. I believe anarchists should focus their efforts on spreading libertarian ideas; but you go directly against that by encouraging authoritarianism in the hopes it will somehow decrease authoritarianism.

>you also ignored my point on forced integration, property rights imply exclusivity and discrimination and open borders policy is the exact opposite of that, it forces people who wish not to live together to live together and that always leads to conflict.

You clearly do not understand private property rights. Being "forced" to live in the same general geographical region as immigrants does not violate your private property rights. If you don't want immigrants to be near you, then put your money where your mouth is and live in a gated community. You do not have a right for someone else's money (who may not even support it) to go towards immigration control that you're not willing to pay for yourself.

>>105046

>if open borders were implemented it would make these issues more pressing

in many european countries very lax border polivies have already been put in place and yet the welfare state has been expanding even more. if the state controls the mainstream discourse and forms public opinion they will always expand their power through pressing issues, more problems always result in more people voting for a strong state to help them out. you have to change their views first to change society, not wait for a catastrophe and then try to influence them.

>just don't live with immigrants lmao

yeah I would love to live in a gated community where no immigrants are allowed but that's simply not possible with all kinds of "public" areas and anti-discrimination laws. this definitely does violate my property rights and by its extension my freedom of association.

>closed borders won't decrease state influence

like the lolbert you are you completely ignore the cultural aspect of every society. by importing africa and the middle east you also import their cultures and their customs, which are far more statist than european culture. I don't think that you'll doubt this but what do I know, so I'll link a few articles:

>http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Way(2010)SCAN.pdf

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/

and one about the 2016 election which you should be somewhat familiar with

>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

>>105005

> But of state-run borders, the state-run border that is enforced is better than the one that is not.

okay so you want more state

so you are not an ancap

>>105065

>REEEEEEE IF YOU'RE NOT AN OPEN BORDERS XENOPHILIAC YOU NOT REAL ANCAP

Fuck off back to Porcfest, libertine. Forced association is no less a violation of property rights than forced dissociation. The state forcing the border open is no more libertarian than forcing it closed. Given the choice between the two, since both are rights violations, I'll pick the one which doesn't violate my rights, and doesn't expose me to undesirables.

>>105060

>>105054

Trying to stop states from importing immigrants is impossible.

Economic pressure from their imploding Ponzi scheme welfare systems is mounting; the demographics don't work and the politicians know it.

It doesn't matter how much you campaign, how many walls you build, or how much you want your rights defended; the State WILL see its tax base expand.

Instead of pointlessly attacking multikulti and open borders we should be defendng the right to dissociate so that local, high-trust, semi-independent communities can form naturally and take over the functions of the State as it continues to die.

>>105077

>Trying to stop states from importing immigrants is impossible.

But it can be limited, albeit temporarily. I'd rather the collapse come later rather than sooner, it gives us more time to prepare and organize for it.

>>105054

>skips half of what I said

The most important part of what I typed was how border control will be impossible to successfully implement and expensive to the taxpayer.

As I said to the other poster: "That the extra "security" provided by the State comes at the cost of a greater amount of robbery via taxation or passive future taxation, known as debt. You also should be aware that immigrants provide cheap labor, which is GOOD for an economy. A surplus of cheap labor makes products cheaper, entrepreneurship more enticing, which creates more businesses, more innovations, which lowers the cost of living and increases the purchasing power of the worker. I am simply suggesting, not in a decrease of border control by the hands of the State, but rather that both sides of this debate should focus their efforts to places which would yield more results. That is, to spread libertarian ideas. But when you engage in supporting border control, you support an expansion of the State and spread authoritarianism."

>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

>thinks Trump is a libertarian

>>>out

>>105111

>It is creating new money out of thin air to pay for this.

No one is contradicting this, nigger.

>since you advocate for an increase of those things

I have done nothing of the sort. Stop inferring non-existent claims.

>Using that logic, one can justify the welfare State by saying "there might be a negative economic impact of the welfare State, but there are social impacts to having poor people in a community.

If you think that's what social cost means, you really are retarded.

>The European monarchs who reigned before them maintained open borders

The European monarchs also maintained the right to discriminate, and had comparatively little state-owned property. Because of this, the relatively unmolested market was more than enough to keep undesirables out. Now, free association is illegal, and the proliferation of state-owned public property means the movement of undesirables cannot be restricted by the market alone, because the market has been hamstrung. Until such time as it isn't, immigration controls are an inferior but expedient substitute for it. The author of the article does not compare like with like, and as such is either disingenuous or retarded.

>Actual dedicated terrorists will not be stopped by border control.

But Juan and Jose will. I want all the shitskins out, not just muh terrists or muh ms-13. If you increase the cost associated with an action fewer people will perform that action, this is basic law of supply. Even if some get in the number is much smaller than before.

>These are the same arguments we have to use with gun grabbers

The difference is that unlike the population of gun owners, every single illegal is a criminal. All of them are guilty of trespassing, and all of them should be physically removed. Any kvetching about partial effectiveness is irrelevant. Don't you have some Reason magazine blog post your need to be writing?

>>105120

>I have done nothing of the sort. Stop inferring non-existent claims.

So you advocate for government-funded border control, yet you don't advocate for the government to spend money on these things? What will pay for this, fairy dust?

>If you think that's what social cost means, you really are retarded.

The poor more often commit crimes. That was the point you made about illegals.

>Now, free association is illegal, and the proliferation of state-owned public property means the movement of undesirables cannot be restricted by the market alone,

Very clearly you seem to believe that the extra cost of gated communities will not be enough to keep "the Shitskins" out, as you did not reply to my point on that. Since you don't support indirect methods, it makes me believe you want to outright racially discriminate at the border. However, if you can convince the population to support racially-discriminate border policies, surely you can convince them to repeal laws that bar freedom of association? If you can't, then you are advocating for something that is impossible. You are committing the classic statist fallacy that only the government is capable of having consequences and not recognizing that problems that exist in the market will also extend to government policies.

>But Juan and Jose will. I want all the shitskins out, not just muh terrists or muh ms-13. If you increase the cost associated with an action fewer people will perform that action, this is basic law of supply. Even if some get in the number is much smaller than before.

It's nice that you very plainly took what I typed out of context. In my original post, I stated that Poland's strict border policy did not successfully keep terrorists out. You first disagreed when you said "Then you're either retarded, or you've allowed virtue-signaling to cloud your pattern recognition ability." Now, you agree with my original point and are trying to move the goalpost.

>The difference is that unlike the population of gun owners, every single illegal is a criminal.

And if you make gun ownership illegal, does that justify the government taking guns away?

>All of them are guilty of trespassing,

Public property is not a legitimate form of property.

>Any kvetching about partial effectiveness is irrelevant.

So, while you advocate for violating principles because of practical necessity, you agree that it is not very practical. The point I'm trying to make is that due to border policies not being effectively enforceable, the damage of increasing government power, spending, and economic devastation of the indirect effects of this policy (as I have stated earlier: "The wall isn't being built and it is unlikely it is going to be built. IF it is, you will be spending billions building a wall, billions annually maintaining and employing border guards. This will take lots of labor away from the economy as those people will now have a job at the border and, if it's effective, a decrease or complete cutoff of immigrant labor in an economy.") will outweigh any positive effects of keeping out more authoritarian demographics. It's also very telling that your proof of these demographics being more authoritarian is that they prefer democrats over republicans. As if there is a difference between the two major parties.

>ad hominem attacks

Nice.

>>105126

>funds should be reallocated from the totally useless endeavors to this slightly less useless one.

But they WON'T be reallocated. The government's not going to cut down its spending to pay for something else. That will NOT happen and you are deluding yourself if you think so. Any government spending saved by not giving government welfare to immigrants is outweighed by the negative economic impacts of the border control policies you advocate.

>discrimination is illegal. Normal people can easily see how discrimination being illegal prevents gated communities from maintaining homogeneity.

You do not need to outright discriminate to keep out "undesirables." If these immigrants are so useless to an economy and have such a negative impact, they would not be able to afford to live in gated communities. In the same way that border control policies ideally would keep out "bad demographics," they would be kept out of gated communities by the extra cost.

>And even if they weren't, shitskins outside the gated community still receive gibs and still vote for bigger government.

If you increase the power of the government and advocate costly border control policies that will badly effect the economy, the end result is no different than if "shitskins" receive gibs and vote for bigger policies. The only difference is that the former requires the spread of authoritarian beliefs, while the latter does not.

>Clearly you have no understanding of the overton window if you seriously think the policies being proposed are "racially motivated."

The policies you are suggesting, you justify with the logic of "keeping the shitskins out." Your arguments are clearly racially-motivated, even if you don't advocate directly racist policies, that is your goal of the policies. Lying faggot.

>They're a stop-gap, nothing more. But a stop gap is better than nothing.

An ineffective stop-gap that will fail and will do more harm than good.

>No, I think you're original point is irrelevant. I still disagree, I am merely showing that even if this one point is correct, it doesn't change the policy prescription.

It is relevant. As I explained in my post, these policies, if they fail, are bad for reasons that do not need to be explained. If they succeed, which they won't, they will simply be used as the justification of more State power and authority. And I argued this point further in an earlier post, a point which you did not rebut: "If it goes effectively, it would be the first (or at least one of the very few) examples, not arguments, but an actual example, of State power being used effectively. That's pretty huge. Of course, it won't be effective and it will just be a waste of anarchists' efforts, taxpayer money, and simply another expansion of State power."

>My money was stolen to maintain public property. Carlos' money wasn't. Therefore my claim was to public property is marginally less illegitimate than his

Okay. So, does all public property rightfully belong to the individual who contributes the most tax dollars? At which point, YOU are a trespasser on public property, just as the immigrant is, as you are not the legitimate owner of the property, since your claim is less legitimate than the highest contributing taxpayer.

>I'm not advocating for violating principles. The principles are already being violated. Your money is being stolen from you whether you do anything or not. Given that truth, it is marginally preferable to attempt to make sure those stolen funds are used to prevent further rights infractions on your person.

They're not trespassers. See previous point.

>If I can prevent it from being limited further, that is a valid case of self-defense.

See previous point.

>They're easily enforceable. Most of these people are here on expired visas that are easily tracked, and most of the rest get arrested for other crimes before too long.

I never made a point about VISAs. I was talking about just sneaking through the border as what happens already. The only solution to this would be a border wall/fence, which could still be climbed, cut through, etc. (depending on how it is constructed) and, even if you could make it infallible, the expense of this and negative economic consequences would cause more damage and expansion of the State than any immigrant could.

>There is. One will maintain a useless holding pattern and do nothing to better the situation. The other one is a dysgenic abomination that actively seeks to destroy all productivity. Neither is desirable. One is clearly less worse than the other.

Both parties are weak and inconsistent in terms of policy. My point is that trying to use whether immigrants statistically support Republicans or Democrats is not a viable way of measuring authoritarian tendencies.

>Welcome to imageboards, cock-smoking faggot. If you don't like it, git out.

If you don't like being called out for using an ad hominem, then leave.

>>105104

I only ignored your retarded irrelevant point because I thought you realized how stupid it was but another poster already answered all of your bullshit

<thinking trump is a libertarian

in his 2016 campaign trump was indeed the most libertarian candidate and that's what made him so attractive to most people. of course he hasn't actually done anything he promised and is now the next zionist neocon of the GOP but we're talking about the election results.

>>105071

> Forced association is no less a violation of property rights than forced dissociation.

incomers dont settle in your property if you dont want them to

>>105150

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM AND HAVE TO ALLOW THEM ACCESS YOU FUCKING MORON, READ THE POSTS BEFORE COMMENTING

>>105158

I’d tell you to lube up for an assfucking but it seems you are already butthurt.

>>105160

>ignores all the posts and starts virtue signalling

>gets called out on his bullshit

>"LOL YOU BUTTHURT"

kill yourself and go back to >>>/4cuck/

>>105158

yes you are probably right that you arent allowed to discriminate against them

however open borders is "more freedom" scenario so it should be prefered by libertarians

>>105206

>open borders is "more freedom"

No it isn't, whatever faggot leftists started this idea deserves to die a fiery death. The fundamental principle governing private property is exclusion. This is mine, and not yours. Resources are scarce, and the only way to prevent conflict over their use is to clearly define their ownership and boundaries. There is no libertarian argument that can be made against exclusion.

>>105206

As I mentioned before you do not have to outright discriminate in order to keep them out of gated communities. The extra cost of gated communities is what keeps out those who contribute negative social costs. This is the intentional design of gated communities.

>>105208

As mentioned before, just as you argue the illegal immigrant is not a legitimate user of public property because they don't pay taxes, by your own logic neither are you because there are people who pay more in taxes than you do and property can only have one owner. If the illegal should be prevented from using public property, so should you.

>>105218

Section 8 housing already exists in gated communities, circumventing any effect of increasing coats. Increasing costs does nothing to keep out undesirables able to pay those costs, hence the necessity to discriminate.

>by your own logic neither are you because there are people who pay more in taxes than you do

All right, I guess all of my IRA holdings are all invalid because I'm not that majority stockholder. Are you actually this stupid or just a pilpuling Jew?

>>105219

>Section 8 housing already exists in gated communities, circumventing any effect of increasing coats.

How bad are you at economics? This is a known thing that all vouchers do is set a price floor for a product. It does not make it easier for the poor to get into gated communities, as the entire design of gated communities is to be gated and cost extra.

>Increasing costs does nothing to keep out undesirables able to pay those costs, hence the necessity to discriminate.

If an immigrant is able to work hard enough and save their money enough to live in a gated community, they are clearly a benefit to the community and the ability to save for the long-term shows a low-time preference, meaning they are much less likely to impose social costs like crime. In fact, I would argue that at the point that they can save enough money to intelligently invest in a gated community, they have shown themselves to be on the level of whites and at which point the distinction between them and a white is purely looks.

>All right, I guess all of my IRA holdings are all invalid because I'm not that majority stockholder.

Illegal immigrants do in fact pay sales taxes and State taxes in some states. This begs the question, at what point is someone a "legitimate user" of public property? How many tax dollars do you need to pay in order to no longer be considered for "physical removal"?

<everybody who disagrees with me is super dumb and jew

>>105220

>they are clearly a benefit to the community

You are retarded and fail to understand subjective value and non-monetary costs. People can be undesirable by the mere virtue of difference, regardless of how often they chimp out or how much they money they make. The spics stay out, including the tail end of the bell curve.

>>105220

> It does not make it easier for the poor to get into gated communities

http://archive.is/BKgPl

>Illegal immigrants do in fact pay sales taxes and State taxes in some states.

You understand what's the word "net" means, yes? They receive more in taxes than they pay. So do nearly half of Americans, none of whom should have a say in how to spend stolen money. Ideally no one would steal the money at all, but here we are. The state isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Better for its violence to be inflicted upon leftists and r-selected vermin than on me. Any serious effort to dismantle the state will take place outside of the state system, not within it. Therefore, I have no concern with limiting "authoritarianism" within the state so long as leftists are the exclusive target of it. L

>>105225

>It is partially being inflicted on you for the extra tax burden that you and other taxpayers will receive for paying for ineffective border control.

Border control is cheaper than public schooling and food stamps for 20 million wetbacks, especially considering most of them get arrested for committing other crimes. You don't even have to seek them out, they come to you.

>You yourself admit trying to use the Statist system is ineffective for change, yet you do it nonetheless?

That's not what I said, nigger. Working within the state is ineffective for reducing the scope of state power. Redirecting state power in a different direction, namely against human garbage, is perfectly feasible. Any collateral damage associated with removing vermin is surely less than that committed by the vermin themselves.

>>105226

>Border control is cheaper than public schooling and food stamps for 20 million wetbacks, especially

We've been over this. I'm arguing the border control wouldn't be effective. The only way it could be even partially effective is if we built a wall, which would cost tens of billions of dollars and divert labor away from the market towards border guards. On top of that, even if border control is effective and we somehow save money, what then? We've now removed cheap labor from the economy on top of the labor diverted towards the border. The negative destabilizing effects of this deficit of labor (rise in the cost of goods, decrease in entrepreneurship, increase in authoritarian tendencies within the native populace) would outweigh any tax burden the immigrants place upon the government. The government might even have less tax revenue than before, in a sort of immigrant Laffer Curve.

>considering most of them get arrested for committing other crimes. You don't even have to seek them out, they come to you.

Okay, so if they come to us by committing crimes, why even bother wasting money on border control? Why not just let them out themselves and let the "good" immigrants stay? That way, we can have our cake and eat it too.

>>105227

>We've now removed cheap labor from the economy

Sending factories over the border is better than bringing spics in. You get cheap labor without the social costs.

>Okay, so if they come to us by committing crimes, why even bother wasting money on border control?

Because once they're deported they need to be kept on the other side.

>>105228

>Sending factories over the border is better than bringing spics in. You get cheap labor without the social costs.

But now the government is working to close factories that are outsourcing jobs. After all, if the government intervening in the housing market can justify more government intervention at the border, doesn't the government action of closing outsourced labor justify open immigration policies that you perceive to encourage statism in a population? Also, as addressed before, the social costs don't affect those who are willing to pay (you are not entitled to the tax dollars of others going towards the programs YOU want) to live in gated communities.

>Because once they're deported they need to be kept on the other side.

Actually, if there are 20 million illegal immigrants that would come into this country, the incarceration rate of illegal immigrants is 0.85%, and the average annual federal prison cost is $26000, the total annual amount cost of incarcerating criminal immigrants would be 4.42 billion, which is cheaper than the wall, the only arguably effective way to maintain the border, which is up to $25 billion. And that's not including the negative economical effects of immigration restrictions.

>>105081

>>105228

>it can be limited, albeit temporarily

It has not, it will not and it can not, at least in the case of the US, which is nearing terminal collectivist death spiral.

Throughout this discussion it seems like you're selectively forgetting how democracies work, or rather how they don't. Sealing the border and deporting the illegals currently in the US would collapse its economy immediately because the welfare state needs a constant expansion of the tax base to sustain itself and, like it or not, eliminating 5% of the workforce in a country, particularily when said workforce fills a niche of unskilled hard labour that won't be done by most Americans, would cause a recession the country might not survive. Sending factories to Mexico won't work because the problem here isn't the lack of labour per se but rather the combination of out of control welfare spending, and a decreasing tax base.

It's what Japan's going through right now, and it's what Germany, France and the UK tried to avert by importing millions of young, working age men (though the US is in the fortunate position of not having to import illiterate muslim fanatics because it has Mexico). And what's with the hate boner you have for hispanics? It's not like they're culturally incompatible.

And all of that is a moot point anyways because the west is never going to accept deporting illegal immigrants anyways, much less curtail legal immigration which is the only way to make a dent in the immigrant population.

>>105231

>It has not, it will not and it can not,

It was limited just fine for 150 years without issue. Deporting a tax burden of criminals and welfare queens won't crash the economy. Neither Abdul nor Jose are net taxpayers, they aren't being imported to sustain the welfare state. You're attributing a far lower time preference to politicians than they have in reality; nobody's thinking about the sustainability of their Ponzi scheme, they just want the votes. Japan's current situation has nothing to do immigration and everything to do with Keynesian monetary policy.

>It's not like they're culturally incompatible.

Yes, they are.

>And all of that is a moot point anyways because the west is never going to accept deporting illegal immigrants anyways

Trump won the election specifically because of immigration.

>>103879

i (biologically female) was 14 when i got redpilled. it's possible, anon. depending on your sister, it might b better to show and watch some videos with her. some undefeated debaters showing how brainwashed the left really is, then go with jordan peterson and his videos on monogamy and pair bonding. maybe ease her into jared taylor. she isn't dumb, she just needs you to show her the way.

also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSq54f2JT_U&t=674s

good luck.

>>105234

>It was limited just fine for 150 years

It's not the 19th century anymore, of course you can control immigration when the state doesn't have trillions of dollars in future liabilities.

>Neither Abdul nor Jose are net taxpayers

Almost certainly untrue.

https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf

But also doesn't matter. They're here to increase the size of the workforce and raw national GDP by having lots of children.

>they aren't being imported to sustain the welfare state

Incorrect.They're being imported to prevent a contraction of the workforce and the collapse of the pension system.

You keep making the same faulty assumptions over and over again.

>nobody's thinking about the sustainability of their Ponzi scheme

Also incorrect.

<If Germans want to maintain their economic well-being, we need about half a million immigrants every year; Wolfgang Kaschuba, former director of the Berlin Institute for Empirical Integration and Migration Research

Angela Merkel, leader of the CHRISTIAN democratic union, has imported over a million muslims in the last few years.

These people won't vote for her. But you know who will? The millions of boomers for whom she lowered the retirement age.

>Japan's current situation has nothing to do immigration and everything to do with Keynesian monetary policy.

Keynsian policies are the reason why the economy, and hence te workforce, always has to grow.

>Yes, they are.

No more than the Italians.

>Trump won the election specifically because of immigration.

Clinton.

>>105276

>cato

imagine my shock

>>105231

>when said workforce fills a niche of unskilled work that won't be done by most Americans

Get fucked, CIS already proved this bullshit to be a myth.

>Of the 472 civilian occupations, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans still comprise 46 percent of workers even in these occupations.

https://cis.org/Report/Are-There-Really-Jobs-Americans-Wont-Do

>>105031

>less egregious violation of property rights for the money stolen from the taxpayers be used to purchase a service the taxpayers desire–in this case security

No, it is not when you account for "unintended consequences" such as the Patriot Act and increased state-caused homocide due to these security enforcement.

>Further, the most expedient method for eliminating the welfare state and the income tax is to remove the demographics which vote for such things.

This just shifts one welfare-voting block to another welfare-voting block.

>>105358

>"unintended consequences" such as the Patriot Act

Immigrants will vote for these with much greater fervor than natives, because immigrants come from socialist shitholes. And the PATRIOT act was the result of neocon interventionism, not immigration policy. And I've got nothing against state sponsored homocide :^)

>This just shifts one welfare-voting block to another welfare-voting block.

>removing a welfare bloc magically creates another one

>>105360

>Immigrants will vote for these with much greater fervor than natives, because immigrants come from socialist shitholes

Non-sequitur and also meaningless because the Patriot Act passed by representatives elected by native-born citizens.

>And the PATRIOT act was the result of neocon interventionism, not immigration policy.

Neocons intervened in immigrant policy via the Patriot Act.

>removing a welfare bloc magically creates another one

Strawman. The existing welfare bloc will reap more benefits and expand and ultimately crash like all Ponzi schemes.

I don't know how good an idea going with fiction is. My favorite ancap manifesto is Friedman's Machinery of Freedom, which approaches the topic from a utilitiarian market perspective and doesn't bring any of the iffy stuff like natural law or inviolable rights into it, just purely economics. If she's a logical type she'll really appreciate it. If she's going in with absolutely zero economics knowledge, you can add Basic Economics to the reading list too. The Dictator's Handbook is another great book I'd recommend; it's a sort of modern rewrite of Machiavelli that demonstrates just how perverse government's incentives are and what it takes to stay in power. Neither of those latter two books are ancap works, but they really lay down the background facts that'll make somebody respect market forces and be wary of the state.

>>105369

I've never seen a normalfag's viewpoint changed by moral principles. You need to show practical application. Vid related is what made me an ancap.

>>105373

Normalfags are cancer. Ignoring first principles and dumbing down arguments to petty empiricism only attracts human garbage to liberty. The inevitable result is Gary Johnson, the libertarian party, and libertine shitholes like Porcfest becoming the public face of the libertarianism. Because property rights are fundamentally undemocratic, anti-egalitarian ideals, it is self-defeating to advocate for them using tactics of mass appealing. Normalfags who can't appreciate first principles will never be libertarians; the only way to get them to call themselves such is to dilute the meaning of the phrase such that it no longer has anything to do with property rights. Trying to get human trash that can't appreciate first principles into libertarianism is a waste of energy-efficient that is better spent elsewhere. On the off-chance you succeed, all you have managed to do is subvert the ideology from within, strengthening the left-libertarian 5th columns. And a traitor from within is a hundred times as dangerous as the enemy at the gates.

>>105394

You don't. The natural order is fundamentally undemocratic, trying to achieve it through some leftist democratic revolution is not possible. The natural order, should it be restored at all, will be achieved through enclaves seceding from their respective states. Memetic propagandists will serve to make people aware of these ideas; those with the intelligence to appreciate the natural order whose interest is piqued will seek it out on their own.

>>105375

>Normalfags are cancer

I would personally avoid making statements like that. It belies an attitude of disdain that libertarians need to get over.

It's not most people's fault that they were born into an unjust world where they're shoved through two decades of indoctrination camp as soon as they can understand language.

And on top of that, the kind of people who are inclined towards liberty also tend to be too busy having careers and families to faff about with politics in the first place.