>

Sunday, June 17, 2018

A Few Questions for Newton Acton Paxton



At the post, The Street Hustler Trump and the Separated Border Kids, Newton Acton Paxton writes (My responses are in blue):

"if the families had been apprehended entering the country illegally"

See, here's the thing (for all you myopic, unprincipled, voting, bleeding heart LIBertarians): They were NOT INVITED. See, you guys (Wenzel at the top of the list) keep spouting off about how people who are invited to work blah blah blah.

So if the United States government set up a policy of allowing people in who were invited in advance to work would you be in favor of it?

But we are NOT talking about people with jobs waiting who were invited and have a place to stay and are insured and bonded.

"Insured and bonded," isn't this pre-crime thinking?

By your idiotic logic, what would happen if the ~5 billion people who wanted to come to America to ride welfare or just be awesome becuz USA showed up? They just get to march in and get on the dole? And vote?

I have never advocated that anyone entering the country be allowed to vote and have never advocated putting anyone entering the country be put on the dole. I have consistently called for a Welfare Wall.

The argument that because there is no current law against handouts and that therefore we must limit the liberties of border crosses is the ass-backward-libertarian reflected in the thinking that the way to advance liberty is to limit it even more. Is that what you want?

Wenzel, I would love to hear your understanding of this situation from a real world consequences perspective. Do you really think all 7 billion people on this earth have a right to march into the geographic territory known as the United States of America and settle here and collect welfare (since that is the reality: we have a welfare system that they can access).

As I have pointed out in "Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person," I do not believe in rights and have never advocated the trespassing of even one person on private property much less 7 billion. Do you not understand that private property solves the problem or are you just going to revert to some  ass-backward-libertarian argument and claim to advance liberty by advocating moving away from it---by supporting the separation of children from their families?

-RW  

48 comments:

  1. How do you think many of these immigrants are coming here Wenzel, just hopping on to I-59? Do you not know (or care) that ranchers are repeatedly having their water lines and fences destroyed by hordes of illegals coming across their land? What about the human waste, trash and dead bodies that are left behind on private property?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RW and others here don't care. Principled libertardianism.

      Delete
    2. Do you think the immigrants prefer to walk in the hot weather when they could drive to the US? They're not allowed to drive on the roads between the US and Mexico; that's why they walk through the ranchers land.

      Delete
    3. @Ben

      I don't care what the immigrants prefer; they're trespassing. I would prefer the ranchers be allowed to kill them, as would be permitted in Wenzel's private property society.

      Delete
  2. The whole “welfare exists, therefore the state can/should ban people from moving” argument is little different from the oft-deployed leftist argument that, since health care is tax subsidized, therefore the state should be free to regulate health insurance, smoking, eating trans fats, etc.

    Just like Mises warned: state interference begats problems which in turn begats further state interference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. We need to get rid of socialized "health care" because it gives leftists the argument of regulating every human activity; and we need to get rid of the rest of welfare because it creates moral hazard and adverse selection.

      But to weirdly say:" Well, since socialized health care exists then we should increase the immoral activity of taxing people's income so that we can give healthcare to the whole world; and since we have welfare here, we should allow every person on earth to come sign up!"

      The thing is that your (and RW's) arguments make no sense on their own terms. You can complain about taxes, or new projects that will increase taxation, but I can't complain about being taxed to subsidize any random person's family who happens to walk to the border?

      And you want people to cry for some reason when a foreign lawbreaker is "separated" (your information is dubious, and this is not new to Trump) from their "children" but not when a citizen breaks the law and is separated from their children.

      You both understand full well the difference between people coming because they've been invited to work, and people illegally showing up to "maybe" get a job, but at least get on welfare.

      And if you two really wanted to move towards a social system that values private property, then importing (yes, our government is literally importing) socialist, fascist, and fanatic foreigners--with no chance of assimilation into the "melting pot," especially in the numbers and with the welfare--just moves you away from that goal, both politically and culturally.

      I know you're smart enough to understand that, so I can imagine that it must be "blank-slate" virtue signaling on both your parts.

      Delete
    2. You talk as if more than a tiny fraction of US natives cares about freedom. And that the state suddenly wouldn’t be able to find any reasons to steal from us if only it could first halt immigration.

      Delete
    3. @Evan
      Your reply is a dodge. But I take that dodge, as I take RW's dodge, to mean that you are convinced but won't admit it in print.

      Delete
  3. RW: "So if the United States government set up a policy of allowing people in who were invited in advance to work would you be in favor of it?"
    A: Absolutely. (By implication each person coming is coming to do a job, and their visa is contingent on working that job; they would have no voting rights and no access to welfare, as they are fully-employed.)

    RW: "'Insured and bonded,' isn't this pre-crime thinking?"
    A: Are you joking? (If not, let me know and I'll explain what this means; "pre-crime thinking" is a ridiculous propaganda term.)

    RW: "I have never advocated that anyone entering the country be allowed to vote and have never advocated putting anyone entering the country be put on the dole. I have consistently called for a Welfare Wall."
    A: Well, that is what is happening. I never advocated that blank and yet blank is the case in the real world given current conditions. So your position is: "Until I get the full PPS I won't advocate for any rational policy that takes other irrational (but extant) policies as given." I might give you credit for being consistent, but you are not. You take positions.

    RW: "The argument that because there is no current law against handouts and that therefore we must limit the liberties of border crosses is the ass-backward-libertarian reflected in the thinking that the way to advance liberty is to limit it even more. Is that what you want?"
    A: This is ass-backward logic. The reason we must limit the liberties to cross the border is BECAUSE there IS current law that takes from the current residents and gives it to the people who cross the border illegally, on purpose, even sometimes endangering children in the process.

    RW: "I do not believe in rights and have never advocated the trespassing of even one person on private property much less 7 billion."
    A: But this is the actual question to you that you avoid (and will again, here): What if your rule was announced: "No one will stop you at the border of the US," and on that day began the travel of the world's poorest, least educated 3.5 billion people. When they began arriving at the border, is it your (RW) position that they current residents/citizens of the country should just watch the all march in--given all of the other laws and institutions all currently in place--? If not all, then when do you stop them, and why? And if all, do you think that works out well for the current citizens, OR the newcomers?

    RW: "Do you not understand that private property solves the problem[?]"
    A: Ok, now you're definitely just trolling. But I'll bite. Yes, private property. Duh. The only "private property" being taken are the benefits extorted from the current populace. So we agree: end that. Until you do, though, you must have a coherent immigration policy.

    I feel like you are suffering so much from TDS that you can't think straight. Or you're virtue signaling on an "easy" issue. You keep describing people as "invited for jobs" and credulously implying that soldiers are stealing babies (and you never follow up when the stories are proven false or proven to be the same policy under Obama--yet you never mentioned it before and use it as a cudgel against Trump instead of "the presidency"...); yet it is obvious that we are talking about people knowingly breaking the law as their first act on US soil. At least make that distinction and argue it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha! Good job Paxton! Yes, none of the critics can explain how what jobs will be available or how letting people with life threatening turd world diseases is a good thing. Hey, I have an incurable strain of or hepatitus TB now, but at least I'm not a 'da rasis'.

      We don't need anymore legal immigration either. If the unemployment rate is really 4%, I'll blow Michelle Obama's male appendage. RW has an inconsistency of criticizing government but really believes the unemployment numbers.

      https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform-barbara-jordan-commission.html

      Delete
    2. This is just the same old statist scare story.

      “If the state doesn’t give us police, the criminals will take over!”
      “If the state doesn’t give us healthcare, we’ll all get sick!”
      “If the state doesn’t give us regulations, businesses will poison their customers!”
      “If the state doesn’t give us schools, we’ll all be morons!”
      “If the state doesn’t dictate where people are allowed to move, they might not move where I want them to!”

      Delete
    3. So Evan, would you move to Africa or Central America? If not, why? You truly are an oblivious idiot. I guess magic dirt libertardian fantasies will make it ok. Kind of like Sweden, where all those Muslim savages have become law abiding Swedish people.

      Delete
    4. @Evan
      Care to reply to my comment and not just TLB's reply? I'm not sure your reply speaks directly to TLB, either, but I'd be interested in your and RW's thoughts on my replies-to-his-replies.

      Delete
    5. @Newton

      I don’t have time to address all your points right now but a few observations:
      -Public property is not the same thing as private property
      -Few here will care that immigrants broke “the law” (aka politicians’ scribbles) and may even view it as a mark of courage
      -I agree that open borders is suboptimal. Private property would be better. But I’ll certainly take open borders to over state-managed borders.
      -Welfare and democracy aren’t going to go away, or stop being destructive, even if immigration is completely stopped. (The problem, as usual, is in the proverbial mirror)
      -How can you complain that people aren’t “invited for jobs” when the state declares it illegal to do so (which you presumably support?!?)
      -I complained a lot about Obama on immigration, and pointed out how he deported more people than Bush did. The reactions I generally got were either “No he didn’t” or “Why are you trying to defend Obama?” But regardless, I think you’d be lying to yourself if you denied the Trump Administration’s massive escalation in anti-immigrant and generally anti-foreign rhetoric and policies.

      Delete
    6. Newton (I like your initials, by the way):

      Either you believe that the state has legitimacy or you do not. If you do, by definition you are arguing that it is OK to initiate force to get what you want, since that is the only way in which the state acts. If this is the principle we are to live by, then any initiation of force by an immigrant (or any citizen, for that matter) is just as legitimate as the initiation of force by the individuals at the state. To remain argumentatively consistent, you cannot pick and choose who is entitled to initiate force, since all relevant actors here are human beings, regardless of what label you'd like to use for different sub-groups. Thus either it's OK for everyone to initiate force, or it's not OK for anyone to do so.

      Many libertarians, including me, do not agree that the state has any legitimacy, because we don't believe that any human has the justifiable right to initiate force against another human. Therefore, among other things, I don't regard the line drawn by the state -- the border -- as having any significance, and certainly not one that entitles the individuals at the state to use force against those crossing this line without permission.

      As to the welfare system, your opprobrium should be directed at the thief (the state), not his beneficiary (in the cases you're talking about, the illegal immigrant). If there were no thief, there would be no illegal immigrant beneficiaries; but, if there were no illegal immigrant beneficiaries, there would still be the thief, who would find other beneficiaries. In fact, this thief has already found many other beneficiaries, since welfare is (also) paid out to millions of citizens (including crony corporations) and state employees.

      Delete
    7. The NAPster - this is so on point! The problem is that both libs and the alt right just want to use the state for their own subjective reasons, whether it is taking control of healthcare or putting people in cages. Another issue is that Trump is pursing these policies for political and economically ignorant reasons. Also, I'm tired of the stupid argument referring to "virtue signaling". Yes Wenzel is virtue signaling, because real libertarian philosophy is the most moral system of governance, limiting the state as much as possible so we can actually live more freely. I see no consistent logic from the Trumptards. Its naive to believe that increasing the power of the state leads to more liberty later on.

      How about doing something productive and band together to figure out to how enact the Welfare Wall?

      Delete
    8. @Evan
      "Public property is not the same thing as private property" A: Yeah, what's your point?
      "Few here will care ..." A: Your arguments are all about bad faith. But that's just how someone avoids actually arguing the point.
      "open borders to over state-managed borders" A: So if the State came to your door, broke off the lock, and said you have two choices: A) We restrict entry to your house loosely (but not directly) based on who you would let enter; or, B) Absolutely anyone can come in--you're saying you choose "B"????? Ha. You lie.
      "Welfare and democracy aren’t going to go away" A: Which is why, unfortunately, we have to accept (and demand) that our slavemaster State control the borders/don't unilaterally elect the whole world as recipients of US welfare and voters (or, at least, bodies for purposes of congressional representation).
      "How can you complain..." H1B visas do not invite people for jobs? Are you saying something that didn't come through in your text?

      Delete
    9. @theNAPster
      Re: Initials. Thanks! Back at ya.
      The State is illegitimate. It's violence is just that. Yet, I don't follow you. When non-registering line-avoiding border crossers (colloquially: illegals) attempt to enter the property of the US (either directly on private property, or through the land that we are collectively taxed to finance) they are initiating force. So when the rancher, or the agent, detains them (or, as in RW's PPS, shoots them in the face), it is justified. Remember, no matter how much RW sputters, there is a difference between an immigrant and an illegal. We are talking about illegals.

      RE: Thief. If the illegals take the stolen welfare then they are morally responsible for the theft as well. So your logic there fails. It is wrong to steal to give "welfare" to anyone; it is wrong to watch a thief steal money and then accept it as "welfare."

      But as long as you can't stop the thief, and if you CAN do something to stop the growing line of beneficiaries (who each marginally increase the theft), you tackle the beneficiary problem first.

      Delete
    10. Newton Acton Paxton

      I think what you don't understand is that he doesn't agree with you about our immigration laws. Maybe we should have a discussion about what a proper immigration system would be, because we definitely don't have one now.

      Delete
    11. Newton:

      Since all actions of the state are illegitimate, including its taxes and regulations, it cannot legitimately own property, and thus it is not legitimate for individuals at the state to "defend" that property (so-called "public property") from border-crossers. Nor can the state legitimately represent each individual taxpayer with respect to "public property" (and, even if it could, it could never reconcile the different views on this matter held by the millions of taxpayers). Moreover, ICE itself is wholly illegitimate, since it funded by coercively extracted taxes. Etc. There is no logically defensible argument in favor of the state, not in immigration, not in any sphere of life.

      On the other hand, private-property owners CAN legitimately defend their property from trespassers. The fallacy is to assume that just because an action can be justified in the private sphere, there must be a public-sphere equivalent. There isn't.

      As to the theft point, I wasn't using it to justify my arguments against state-managed borders, and I don't disagree that a knowing recipient of stolen funds shares some moral fault with the thief. My point was to note that, as a practical matter, if your objective is to reduce the amount of your stolen income given to others, as long as the state exists, whacking one recipient "mole" will simply give rise to another, and you'll never win "Whack-a-mole." And I'm guessing that the amount of your taxes transferred to illegal immigrants is very small compared with the amount given to other recipients (many of whom are citizens), so why not go after the big fish first?

      In any event, regardless of which fish you go after, the state is a wholly illegitimate agency to perform this function. I don't understand libertarians who want to enlist the state to achieve their objective. How do they differ from statists?

      Delete
    12. @NAPster
      "whacking one recipient "mole" will simply give rise to another" NO. If you whack the mole and the next one doesn't come because he saw the last one whacked... Besides, if you don't whack the mole, well, you've got one more mole.

      "the state is a wholly illegitimate agency to perform this function" The State is wholly illegitimate to perform any function. But honestly, if you saw a murder in progress and a policeman walking by, you are telling me that you wouldn't yell to the cop? You lie.

      I just want you guys to think through your talking points and be consistent.

      We all want the State gone. But in the meantime, since it has broken our locks, we must have them guard the door.

      Delete
    13. "I don't understand libertarians who want to enlist the state to achieve their objective."
      Traffic lights are operated by the govt.
      All govt is bad.
      Therefore I can drive thru on red.

      Delete
    14. PH, libertarianism is simply about when it is appropriate to use force. It says nothing about personal assumption of risk. The state has no legitimacy controlling roads, and if you disobey the rules it has set up, it would not be justifiable for anyone at the state to use force against you.

      But, if you do disobey the rules, the state may come after you, legitimate or not, and/or you may get injured, or injure someone else, in a collision; in the latter case, the other party may be entitled to use force against you as restitution. Those are risks only you can decide to bear or avoid.

      Delete
    15. Newton:

      The state never reduces its spending, and moles come out to grab some of that. Thus, even if you frighten off some types of moles, there will be plenty of others to fill the void. So your income will still be taken, in ever greater amounts. The problem (the cause) is the size of state spending -- since it's like nectar, attracting bees -- and not the identity or number of the recipients.

      Your comparison of a non-citizen crossing a state-drawn border and a murder in progress is curious in a number of respects. First, the border crossing is a non-violent act, but the murder in progress is not; surely you're not equating the two in terms of the appropriate response? Second, I would hope that if there is an in-the-moment opportunity to save a life, any passer-by would set aside political philosophy and get anyone's help, state officer or not (turning your example around, I wouldn't hold it against a statist who saw a murder in progress and grabbed a private security guard to help). This is quick-reaction time, not policy time. That libertarian passer-by can still argue and agitate for private security services as opposed to state-provided security services -- so that, in a future scenario, one won't have to rely on the state -- but it makes little sense to subscribe to a philosophy against wrongful use of force and, as part of that, allow wrongful force to unfold before one's eyes (which is what is happening when the state agents use force against border crossers).

      As to your final point, I urge you to re-read what you wrote. You want the the incompetent guard to stay on and provide security? In the private sector, the first thing you'd do is fire the guard and hire a new one; statists hold the state to such a low standard, it's almost impossible for the state to fail. Your point reminds me of the great Harry Browne quote, namely, "The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.' "

      Delete
    16. @NAPster
      You change the terms over and over again. For instance, now you assert that the "state never reduces its spending."

      Well, if that's the world you live in, then what is the point of even talking about the State?

      You ask if I "want the incompetent guard to stay." That is not the choice. The State arrogates the role. Your choice is use the State's guard or have access to none at all. Just like in this case your choice is to have the State defend the property line or have no barrier at all.

      Sure, if we had your magic wand we would make different choices. Usually libertarians are grounded in reality. You and Wenzel (and others whom I'll leave out) seem to think if we ignore the State that it doesn't exist.

      As to Harry Browne, yes, if the government breaks your legs and offers you a crutch, AND if it has monopolized the crutch industry by force, then you damn sure take the crutch, right? That doesn't mean you've just said, "Well, I guess the State is legit!"

      But you, NAPster, you would not take the crutch and instead stay bed-ridden and starve?

      Delete
    17. @Tar Heel
      Sorry, I missed your reply earlier. You may never see this.

      But yes, I definitely agree there should be immigration law reform. That could go a long way towards ending this manipulation and abuse of children.

      Delete
    18. Newton:

      I'm confused about how I changed "the terms." When did I suggest that the state voluntarily reduces its spending?

      My form of libertarianism is to always and everywhere advocate for the elimination of state action, because such action (and even the mere existence of the state) is manifestly unjust. It would be inconsistent with that philosophy to find room for the state, to advocate for state action, even in the interim. I don't believe that interim injustice is any less unjust than permanent injustice.

      I'm guessing from your advocacy for state management of borders that you don't have the same view, at least as regards interim injustice. Perhaps you're not a libertarian, I really don't know.

      Delete
  4. If we genuinely needed these people, I would not object to the old brasero program of the 1960's. We know the black population in this country is worthless but there are plenty of inner city blacks that are not contributing anything useful to society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lab thats a slippery slope and if you open that box (and there are certainly situations where skilled immigrants will have jobs waiting for them.) But how do you mitigate that.

      Of course Principled libertarianism is little better than none at all when you are applying black and white to a grey area.

      Delete
    2. For once we agree, manager. That old program worked. That's why Chavez and the UFW killed it. Drove down wages, dontcha know.
      Also, we need a new court decision on the 14th amendment pronto.

      Delete
    3. The corporatocracy certainly has no problem rent seeking when it comes to labor.

      Delete
  5. Sorry. Contract with a private agency to protect your property. Not a gang that steals from me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Open borders even with a welfare wall would still likely be nine digits of people arriving. Without welfare there are still all the socialized things that need to be paid for to cover this massive influx. Everything from schools and roads and beyond. It is unlikely the net of these immigrants will cover it all. And even if they did government zoning and other factors coupled with this would create quality of life issues, cost of living issues, and more. Without a full private property society, free market, and generally libertarian utopia open borders for the USA is a disaster in the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Statist,

      --- Without welfare there are still all the socialized things that need to be paid for to cover this massive influx. ---

      There's no such subsidy. You're making stuff up.

      Delete
    2. I see two non-replies. As I have repeatedly stated there is an order of operations needed to open the borders. Open borders is one of the last things to do when aiming to achieve a PPS or some other form of libertarian society. If you begin dismantling the state with open borders you'll destroy any hope of it before you even start.

      The fact that so-called libertarians react this way a simple order of operations argument to dismantle the state successfully tells me the motivation for open borders is likely something different.

      "There's no such subsidy. You're making stuff up."

      I pay for schools for which I have no children in attendance. That is the largest segment of the property tax bills and just the start of the subsidy. Subsidy of the neighbors through the state is why the neighbors vote for it and why libertarians can't win elections.

      More people, more children, more schools, more government employees, more government employee pensions. The idea the new comers will pay more in taxes than use in services is nonsense. Especially overpriced government services. First we know from the studies that exist that women in the net consume taxes rather than pay them. That's half of the people right there. Now will the men make up for it? Only if they are highly productive. And what they do doesn't simply displace someone else. Now maybe when the male children grow up they might put in more than they and everyone else takes out. But that is many many years down the line if at all.

      Delete
    3. @Francisco
      There are no socialized goods in the US besides welfare? Not even roads that would suffer more traffic?

      I replied to you in earnest previously. Now I realize you're a moron or a dissembler.

      Delete
    4. JJM:

      "As I have repeatedly stated there is an order of operations needed to open the borders. Open borders is one of the last things to do when aiming to achieve a PPS or some other form of libertarian society."

      This suggests that you have in mind a well-thought out sequencing. Let's assume that opening the border is indeed the last step. What is the first step, the second step, the third step, etc. Where is this "order of operations" set out?

      Delete
    5. @NAPster
      You can't just agree with him, can you? No, you have to keep adding levels until you can find fault later.

      Do YOU disagree that open borders is a logical last step on the way to "Libertopia" or "PPS"? Or not?

      Delete
    6. Newton:

      Why am I obliged to agree with JJM (or anyone else)? And I don't agree with the sequencing argument, so I can find fault right now, I don't have to wait until later.

      However, I am curious about this whole line of thought, because I hear this sequencing argument a lot, but no one ever outlines anything but the last step, and it's always, coincidentally, the borders (and the only people who raise the sequencing argument are, coincidentally, the state-managed borders crowd).

      The sequencing argument is central planning for libertarians, which seems like a contradiction. Only there doesn't seem to be an explicit plan, other than the last step. How can one agree that a particular step is the right last step until you've seen all the others, in order?

      And if there is a sequence, what happens if the chance comes to eliminate one area of state action out of order? Do you reject that?

      Delete
    7. @NAPster
      I don't say you're obliged, I just mean argue your point. And I believe you do agree with the sequencing argument in theory, just maybe not *that* particular part of a sequence. There are many things which must logically be done in sequence.

      Certain things you don't have to do in order. Eliminate welfare or socialized police first? Either would be great, in any order. But eliminate the border before you eliminate welfare and e.g. birthright citizenship? That would lead to a worse outcome. So order matters for some things but not all.
      Could you eliminate the border if every bit of property was privately owned but there was still (and only) a head tax that funded the military or courts or police (but zero other State laws, including voting--because you don't need to vote in judges, cops, or generals)? That could be doable.

      NAPster, do you agree with Wenzel on his PPS premise that a 5 year old child that trespasses may be rightfully shot in the face by the landowner? No? Then would you mind stating your position?
      Yes? Then why do you hold the position that people who crossed the border over private land can't even be held with the administrative policy of not housing adults and children together in detention?

      I'm honestly curious, because I do think that you've been (one of?) the only one in the comment section at least reasonably confronting the arguments of the majority of commenters. RW chose not to post only one of my comments, and it happened to be the one where I posed a similar scenario. I've tried to post it again in the hopes it was just an error on his part (of course he's free not to post any of my comments).

      Delete
  7. Welfare wall really is the best solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Blake

      I agree. I don’t know why this idea isn’t discussed more.

      Delete
  8. Arm the immigrants. Deport the feds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bob,

    I agree that the separation of children/parents is disgusting. However, as far as deportation, why do you see a difference between someone claiming ownership of a plot of land and removing people by force if necessary, and a group of people claiming ownership of a plot of land, calling it a country, and removing people by force. I mean, what gives an individual a right to "their" property and makes the same thing wrong for a collection of individuals?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David T, when an individual legitimately/peacefully claims ownership of land -- through first use or contractual transfer -- his decision about who can come on and who cannot is the only relevant decision.

      In the case of the state, the individuals who compose the state and purport to make decisions on the state's behalf do not legitimately own any land, since their means to acquire and hold it have been seized by force from others. And, if you mean the owners are actually taxpayers, one problem with this is that there are varying, conflicting views among this group -- witness just the TL commenters -- and these views cannot be reconciled except by force (such as the majority claiming the right to coerce the minority).

      Delete
    2. 80% want secure, not open, borders.
      Source:
      http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/372152-new-polling-proves-president-trump-is-right-americans-are-dreamers-too

      Delete
    3. PH, there are many arguments against the validity of surveys as reliable indicators of individual preferences (choice of questions, choice of the questioned, choice of questioner, sample size, stated vs. revealed preferences, etc.).

      However, even if this were THE perfect survey, acting on it would still mean trampling on the preferences of the 20% minority through the use of force. Majoritarianism is antithetical to liberty, so I'm not sure why you would support this. If the majority view was something you disagreed with, why should you have to live under that?

      Moreover, the 80% itself might be composed of different preferences. Some might favor keeping out group A, some group B, etc. You're going to task the inefficient, incompetent, corrupt state machine to be faithful to all of these preferences?

      Delete