Wednesday, June 20, 2018

I Have Lost a Reader


I just received this email:
Unprincipled liar -- not even a true bleeding heart

Wenzel,

You have lost a daily reader and advocate for your site. The way you sound like a leftist child calling people Nazis and " immigrant-hating fellow travelers" is disgusting and, frankly, shockingly disappointing. Do you even read the arguments, or do you just close your eyes and say "racist"? You sound like an ignorant SJW. You are giving thoughtful libertarians a bad name. Leave Murray's name out of it.

But then, you don't care, because you're just another greedy hack in it for himself, not a libertarian. "Muh traffic is more important than principles! I might get some Marxists to click on an ad by accident!"

Now I know where your true loyalties lie. And that's a worse insult than you calling me a Nazi. So, good riddance.
RW response:  

If I was just seeking traffic, I wouldn't be taking an anti-Trump stance.

My anti-Trump stance has cost me heavily in terms of traffic and revenue. To attempt to gain traffic and continue to espouse a hate of the state is not bending principles. I hate the state even when they are "only" taking children from their parents.

There is no role for the state in immigration, none.

27 comments:

  1. But in lieu of The State, I think you have to consider the alternatives offered by Hoppe, Bionic and what's his name? Oh yeah, Wenzel.
    To say "keep the state out of it", you've got to immediately offer up alternatives or you have folks going off like that guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wenzel offers no alternative. It's what a grandmother does when she complains about something. Don't you dare ask her what should be done instead, you racist. It's enough to close your eyes and masturbate while thinking of how righteous you are.

      Delete
    2. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      ── Wenzel offers no alternative. ──

      That's a false statement. Robert already offered an alternative - a Private Property Society.

      ── It's what a grandmother does when she complains about something. ──

      Better than hearing from the racist grandfather who keeps reminiscing about the great old days of eugenicist policies and white Union membership.

      Delete
    3. Capn Mike:

      It's not a credible argument against libertarianism to ask "Well, if the state doesn't do this, who will?" That is very close to "Who will build the roads?" Libertarianism is not about forecasting or planning the future, it is about opposing the initiation of force, which covers every aspect of state action. As history has shown, if there is demand for a service, entrepreneurs will risk their own capital and time to develop solutions.

      Delete
  2. To the letter writer's point:
    RW's reason for becoming an SJW on property rights violators and completely ignoring economic principles like moral hazard and adverse selection: "One of my first jumps in traffic at EPJ was when I featured an analysis of Obamacare by a conservative that I had very little in common with. But that post resulted in over 750,000 views.

    When you can drive that kind of readership to a blog page some small percentage is going to stick, perhaps .1%. But that is still an important amount."

    Hey, ignoring the nuance of an issue and calling intellectual opponents racist WILL increase the traffic to your ads (which I block), just ask CNN! No one ever said that anyone at CNN had principles, but they sure do get traffic and make money!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: Newton Acton Paxton,

      --- RW's reason for becoming an SJW on property rights violators [sic] ---


      Only inside the twisted mind of a Trumpista lives the notion that border crossers are "property rights violators".

      The "border" is not a property boundary. Thinking that it is insinuates that YOUR property boundary extends past mine, which I can tell you, is bunk. Immigrants no more violate my property rights than people who fly over my land on a magic carpet.

      Weren't you the one insisting that there's a difference between legal and illegal immigrants? If the distinction is predicated on who has permission from the government to step on this land, it would mean the government owns your property, or my property, otherwise who gave the government permission to grant concessions to "trespassers"? But immigrants are NOT trespassers, the government DOESN'T own your property nor mine. The problem, in any case, is the government and its acts of aggression against peaceful individuals, at the behest of scared nincompoops you would call "The Base" with a creepy sense of humor.

      --- completely ignoring economic principles like moral hazard and adverse selection ---

      The statement above leaves no doubt you understand neither concept. Adverse selection has NOTHING to do with immigration. Moral hazard has NOTHING to do with immigration. You're conflating concepts that cannot be linked with each other.

      Delete
  3. "There is no role for the state in immigration, none."

    So you don't believe that a nation has a right to borders and determining who comes in or who doesn't? The nation can't check for diseases, violent criminal records, ability to support themselves, etc? Nothing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only individuals have rights, and the only right they have is to not be aggressed against. This is basic libertarianism.

      Delete
    2. If by "nation" you mean "the state," then there are those, like me, who don't believe the state can be justified at all, so my answer would be in the negative. The state has no "right" to perform any function.

      If, however, by "nation" you mean private individuals situated in proximity to each other on a particular land mass, then I would say that each private-property owner would have the right to exclude anyone from his property for any reason (e.g., no redheads may enter my property).

      The problem is that parts of the immediate border area are controlled by the state. If that land were abandoned by the state, and homesteaded by private individuals, then they would be free to implement their own border rules for their individual pieces of property.

      In fact, this would be an interesting way to see how much those who want a restrictive immigration policy are prepared to pay for this policy. They would have to put their money where their mouths are. If they could round up the money to homestead or purchase these border areas and beat out others, and pay for a border patrol service, then they could restrict immigration across their properties to their hearts' delight.

      Delete
    3. Re: Robert What?

      --- So you don't believe that a nation has a right to borders [...] ---

      Nations are concepts, not acting individuals of will. Only human individuals of will have rights.

      --- The nation can't check for diseases, violent criminal records, ability to support themselves, etc? ---

      Nations don't check things. Nations are concepts.

      The millions upon millions of acting individuals whose interactions build the network called The Market are the ones who check for those things all the time. The fact that you don't trust the Market and people's decisions is something completely different, something to talk about between you and the psychiatric ward orderly who is dangling your meds in front of your face.

      It's clear that the recurrent theme among Trumpista commenters is their skepticism or even downright hostility towards Markets and free, acting people. Their deference towards the State explains why they're so dismissive of people's rights while extoling government or State action against said individuals.

      Delete
    4. You are all being coy. You all know what I mean. So the Libertarian position is that a country has no right to borders. Ok, just wanted to understand the Libertarian position.

      Delete
    5. Arguably the most libertarian country in the Western world: Switzerland, has strict border controls imposed by the State.

      Delete
  4. The former read is right. I can only hope that people like RW, Torres, Evans and other idiots who think unrestricted one way immigration is great will be killed, raped, or beaten or have a relative who does at some point. Libertarianism only came from white Europeans; not Africans/blacks or stupid brown 'socialismos' from South of the border.

    Notice that RW picks on Trump but then can't accept the fact that all those stinky homeless people in San Francisco pooping everywhere are merely natural libertarians and plus he wants to state to fix it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @TheLabManager said: "Libertarianism only came from white Europeans..."

      That is not true. Most of the libertarian icons were not white, they were jews, which according to jews themselves as they constantly write in their own publications, are not "white."

      I also suspect this is why the libertarians adopt this insane & truly absurd open border utopian policy, which in fact has never existed in real life.

      And a p.s. to the ignorant, MURRAY ROTHBARD ENDORSED DR. DAVID DUKE.FOR PRESIDENT, that is FACT. LMAO!

      Delete
  5. 1978 Libertarian Party Platform
    Quote:
    15. UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS
    ...
    We therefore call for the lifting of all restrictions on immigration. and for full amnesty for currently undocumented aliens. We oppose welfare payments to aliens just as we oppose welfare payments to all other persons.
    ...

    1988 Libertarian Party Platform
    Quote:
    17. IMMIGRATION
    ...
    We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol. and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
    ...

    1996 Libertarian Party Platform
    Quote:
    18. Immigration
    ...
    We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally ...

    2002 Libertarian Party Platform
    Quote:
    18. Immigration
    ...
    We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally...

    2008 Libertarian Party Platform
    Quote:
    3.4 Free Trade and Migration...
    Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property...

    2016 National Platform
    Quote:
    3.4 Free Trade and Migration
    ...Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

    http://www.lpedia.org/National_Platform

    ReplyDelete
  6. I used to consider myself a Libertarian but you guys have a death wish. You think these millions of migrants who are flooding the West give a sh*t about your Libertarian niceties? Once they are in the political majority they will have no qualms using the power of the State to impose their will on you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah we’d be totally screwed if the majority of the population were statists...

      Delete
    2. I hear you What!! But I dont think people are going to like when these invaders start storming some peoples property and get a slug to the brain pan with extreme prejudice.

      No one is going to like that at all. And it will come to pass when the invaders start thinking they own this country.

      Delete
    3. Funny Smiley! I think a lot of this comes down to just that, people are afraid that one political party will lose power because all the new migrants are members of another political party. All statists in the end.

      Delete
    4. @AJO, as I've said in other threads, arguably the most libertarian country in the Western world, Switzerland, has strict border controls.

      Delete
    5. Robert What?

      I'm not sure why you classify Switzerland that way but, even assuming that is true, that does not make state-managed borders a libertarian position. State control over any aspect of one's life is unlibertarian.

      Note also that North Korea has strict border controls.

      Delete
    6. Just another statist who is legitimately worried about not being the statist in control of his local state - it's terrifying.

      Which is why we should be working to deligitimize, and abolish, the state instead of constantly worrying about this or that group being in "control" of it.

      Tolkien had it right: throw the ring of power away.

      Delete
  7. Do individuals exist? Or is tbat just a concept? Whose concept?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The concept of the individual was created by “the man.”

      Delete
  8. Just a bunch of confused cowards here getting tricked into cheering on the state.

    Fear of Culture Change. So lame. Poor frightened little losers who can't keep up with the plucky little immigrants.

    What a bunch of losers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their conception of “culture” is so wack, too. Like, how does someone crossing an imaginary line change your culture? Can you not say Merry Christmas or watch NASCAR anymore because the ethnic ratios in the country changed?

      Delete
    2. It's because they are all *actually* worried about being voted into oblivion, worried about losing (their supposed) control of the state. Lol...and its gone.

      Virtually, or really, open borders (like America use to have) can work, but only if nobody is forced to subsidize immigrants and there is no threat of democratic culture change - no violations of free association.

      In a democratic state, demographic changes come packaged with explixit threats of being voted out of your society. This is just another free association violation of the state.

      Same with being forced to pay for welfare and public institutions of anyone...people just get more vocal when its an alien they dont consider culturally close.

      Delete