Use of force against pro-immigration advocates is morally acceptable

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: b5d6af780d02be0⋯.png (102.51 KB, 624x434, 312:217, 3hs8h38agh29.png)

Use of force against pro-immigration advocates is morally acceptable Anonymous 03/02/18 (Fri) 02:16:06 No.78521

Definition

Objectivism states that it is morally wrong for one person to initiate force against another.

Murders committed (USA, 2016)

Whites: 4,192/(0.769 * 323,127,513) * 100,000 = 1.69 per 100,000 persons

Blacks: 4,935/(0.133 * 323,127,513) * 100,000 = 11.48 per 100,000 persons

Thus blacks are 6.79 times as likely to commit homicide as whites

>https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21

>https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

Welfare use (USA, 2016)

Whites: 11,405,000/(0.769 * 323,127,513) * 100,000 = 4,590 per 100,000 persons

Blacks: 26,884,000/(0.133 * 323,127,513) * 100,000 = 62,556 per 100,000 persons

Thus blacks are 13.63 times as likely to receive welfare as whites

>https://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

>https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

conclusion

Use of force against persons who advance multiculturalism and immigration of non-whites into white countries is morally acceptable because it is an application of force in defense of your life and property.

Anonymous 03/02/18 (Fri) 05:42:41 No.78528

File: f7e20968bace242⋯.jpg (33.99 KB, 501x554, 501:554, during both world wars.jpg)

>>78521

>Use of force against pro-immigration advocates is morally acceptable

There's a few problems in this thesis, some of which can be quite glaring.

If violence against those who advocate for more immigration and multiculturalism is a valid course of action simply based off what they say, then this would imply that immigration itself is inherently a violation of the NAP. Which it isn't, but to prove your point you bring up statistics of the crime of blacks against whites.

This already creates a problem because you are aware that these are all homegrown right? The niggers from Nigeria tend to behave quite well until the second generation comes along (as is usual with most immigrants from vastly different cultures). That's not to say that black immigrants don't bring problems, but at the very least you could reference a more immediate threat in the USA (such as Latino immigration) and you'd have a much more cohesive thesis. The point here is that this isn't directly an anti-immigration argument, but moreso an argument against a multi racial society which (in a stateless society) can be very simply avoided by people simply choosing not to do commerce with people of other cultures, which in a free society, you very well can.

The second problem in the thesis is that it implies that someone saying something is inherently a violation of your rights, when it's not. Someone voicing an opinion is not force, if someone actually tries to act upon his opinion in a way that directly hurts then you definitely have the right to defend your property, but even then you'd be hard pressed to explain how every immigrant that comes to the United States inherently violates your property rights in a way that justifies using force against pro-immigration advocates (and even the immigrants themselves). You could argue that voting makes force legitimate, but once again that's still quite a long stretch.

To use force against those who simply voice an opinion is ironically breaking the "defintion" you supplied earlier ( I put definition in quotes because that's not a definition that's a statement.)

Anonymous 03/02/18 (Fri) 05:44:03 No.78529

The point here is that this isn't directly an anti-immigration argument, but moreso an argument against a multi racial society which (in a stateless society) can be very simply avoided by people simply choosing not to do commerce with people of other cultures, which in a free society, you very well can.

>The point here is that this isn't directly an anti-immigration argument, but moreso an argument against a multi racial society which (in a stateless society) can be very simply avoided by people simply choosing not to do commerce with people of other cultures.

Holy shit how'd I fuck that up so bad?

Anonymous 03/02/18 (Fri) 12:45:39 No.78536

Hey OP did you know that most sexual assault against children is committed by relatives? Maybe kids should start murdering their family before they get abused.

Anonymous 03/02/18 (Fri) 14:31:04 No.78540

>>78521

What I don't like about these kinds of arguments is that an objection to them is usually taken as an objection to the conclusion. That's because they tend to be made by people who only care about supporting a conclusion, and for whom logic takes second place, and they expect it to be the same for others. However, it's not like that for any somewhat serious thinker, even for an unskilled one. If someone told me that taxation is theft because tax collectors have bad body odour, I would also ask him what's wrong with him.

Anonymous 03/03/18 (Sat) 17:49:44 No.78607

>>78536

i think i have read somewhere what most such crimes are commited by non-pedos