>

Monday, December 31, 2018

Is the Wall Around Barack Obama's House the Same Thing as a Border Wall?

Obama's new wall
President Trump tweeted on Sunday afternoon the following:
There is a serious problem with this comparison.

Walls for private security are completely different than a wall preventing an individual from passing through on a public road to a private sector job and place to live.

It is anti-private property and anti-free trade to put up such a wall.

With Obama's wall, assuming he used personal funds to build the wall, there is nothing wrong with him or anyone else building such a wall to protect against intruders.

If on the other hand, Obama started building walls around a McDonald's restaurant near him, or the Trump International Hotel in D.C., that would be a problem since it would be Obama trying to prevent private commerce. This latter purpose for a wall is the type that Trump wants to put up: To prevent individuals to pass through to private property where they are welcomed.

-RW 

21 comments:

  1. "It is anti-private property and anti-free trade to put up such a wall."

    This is a great comparison. It clearly shows the hypocrisy of leftist like Ovomit and others. I would guess the most tweets about 'diversity is our strength' come from those living in gated communities.

    I'm not ashamed to call the turd world immigrants humnan debris. They are burden on the tax systems of all communities thus violating the rights of taxpayers like me who do not want more of them here. What about my rights?

    Also, I would like you to offer proof that these people you want to let in don't have any contagious diseases and more importantly are true NAP, PPS, libertarians. I know you won't because libertarians are the new leftist in some ways.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder if any of these "libertarians" care that an illegal alien (Gustavo Perez Arriaga) just murdered a LEGAL immigrant cop. We all know that illegal alien's never commit any crimes, never go on welfare, and never drive around drunk (just ask the late Matthew Denice). In fact, aren't these illegals coming over the border just screaming for free markets and small government? Pardon me, these just the rants of a beleaguered white guy taxpayer.

    Read LewRockwell.com for the best Libertarian perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I've been wanting to know from RW and the critics here who call me 'da rasis' where all these African, Mestizo, and Asian libertarians are these days? Are these not the people libertarians want to import?

      I'm still waiting for an answer.

      Delete
  3. I d9nt think you know what a libertarian is.

    I prefer illegal immigrants to legal immigrants. We have enough neurotic.little Hitler youth rule followers already. What we need more of is the kind of chutzpah that propels real men over government fences. There is nothing more American than climbing a government fence.

    A legal immigrants who then becomes a COP? This is not my kind of American. Of you want to be a thug working for the state just stay home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is pure libertarianism all that matters? The legal immigrant that became a policeman was likely a person with family values and a respect for humanity. He probably would have been a great guard and community member in a PPS. On the other hand, the very-American wall jumper took that life.

      This is a thick vs. thin libertarian discussion. I much rather live in a community of (truly) Christian statists than Thick Libertarians (which tend to be libertines in my observation).

      Delete
    2. So Donxon, how about we import some 'illegals' to take your job? You would be cool with that right? Cheap labor and all. Everything just needs to be cheap; if it destroys the community, well, who gives a damn.

      Delete
  4. I doubt that anyone on this list disputes that one is entitled to put a fence around one's private property, and retain an agency to protect one's private-property borders according to one's preferences. But you can't validly use this as an analogy to support the concept that the state should manage the borders of land it illegitimately controls. Apart from the aforementioned major problem, the state as a border manager acts coercively against peaceful people (through taxation and regulation), and cannot possibly act as an agent of millions of different "principals," each of whom has a different set of preferences when it comes to border control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get what you're saying, NAPster, but unfortunately we do have a government in place, and it has a massive welfare system. It's not going away. Wish for NAP or PPS all you want, but it ain't going anywhere. Open borders + a massive welfare system = a recipe for disaster.

      Delete
    2. Chubba, justifying one state policy by the existence of another is a recipe for a permanent continuation (if not a worsening) of the disaster we have today. It means that you can never make any progress against the state, because there is always a justification to wait until all state policies can be eliminated at once. Obamacare was justified by a dysfunctional health-insurance system, which was just the result of prior state policy; military action in Syria was justified by a chaotic Middle East, which was just the result of prior military action. Etc.

      Besides, what one-size-fits-all immigration policy can possibly reflect the many different preferences of millions of US citizens? The only way to justify that is to argue for majoritarian democracy, which is just mob rule.

      Finally, if something is morally wrong, it doesn't cease to be so because you can't imagine how things would work if the wrong went away.

      Delete
    3. Most people have had enough of this illegal alien crime wave. These so-called "libertarians" want welfare and open borders. They won't even (gasp!) think about ending welfare first, then opening the border. I wonder what Matthew Denice's parents are thinking these days. Oh, never mind...

      Delete
    4. Chubba, I'm not sure how you can conclude that "[m]ost people have had enough of this illegal alien crime wave." The vigorous debate about immigration both on this blog and nationwide would be evidence to the contrary. In addition, even if everyone except me wanted to halt immigration from country A, if I wanted to employ, rent to, or personally associate with an immigrant from country A, why does anyone have the right to use force to interfere in that relationship?

      Personally, I have had enough of the crimes committed by those at the state, which dwarf those committed by illegal aliens.

      Delete
    5. That's an easy question to answer. I can conclude that most people have had enough because Trump got elected based on his promise to build a wall. That solely got him elected.

      U.S. citizens are held to a much higher standard than illegals. If you get arrested, for example, for drunk driving, the punishment will be far greater than that of an illegal. I know a cop and he has told me horror stories about the difference in treatment. The state wants to bring them in, give them welfare, coddle them, and have them vote democrat. They're not voting for libertarians; that I can assure you.

      I could accept open borders - if we didn't have this massive welfare system. But, we do, and it's attracting the wrong people.

      Delete
    6. Chubba, first, I'm not sure how you have been able to see into the minds of all of those who voted in the past election.

      Second, this same state that is corrupt and/or inefficient is who you want managing borders? What about the consequences of state management of borders on US citizens, such as raids on businesses, boarding private buses and asking for papers, hassling citizens well inside the border, etc.?

      Third, I don't think that illegal immigrants qualify to receive federal welfare. In some US states, state-level benefits are available to them. So if you live in one of those states, your argument should be at the state level -- cut off benefits -- and not at the federal level of barring their entry into the US (which, if you care, has no basis in the Constitution).

      Delete
    7. Come on now, why do you think Trump got elected? He was considered a joke as a candidate until he started talking about the wall.

      What about the destruction of the country through the welfare system? The destruction of families and the disincentive to work or be productive. Why aren't any of these so-called libertarians calling for that to end before anything else. It's the Cloward Piven strategy, and it's working. Bring in as many as possible and put them on the dole.

      Illegals get welfare. Period. ID theft is rampant. The government doesn't care. It's in its best interest to have as many welfare "customers" as possible.

      Delete
    8. Chubba,

      I think our problem has been that we place some things higher than the NAP or PPS (as great as those things are).

      For example, I value Christ, family and culture over politics and government. If the choice is between a healthy Christ-centered culture (an my family's happiness/safety) and pure NAP obseevativing society, then the choice is clear to me (the former).

      Delete
    9. Forgive the typos, please. My phone autocorrects to wrong spelling... It's odd.

      Delete
    10. Sherlock - agreed, 100%. Some of these "libertarians" really get lost in the weeds; they're too rigid to think properly. We're one or maybe two elections away from total socialism. Once that happens, they'll then realize it's too late. Culture matters, no matter what they pretend otherwise.

      Delete
    11. Sherlock, I'm not sure why your expressed values would be inconsistent with a NAP-based society. The NAP is not a comprehensive behavioral standard, just a minimum -- no violence against peaceful people -- and thus any non-violent values layered on top of that would not be in conflict. Indeed (and I concede that I am out of my league here), isn't the Christian message also one of peace?

      The point of emphasizing the NAP is that it says that it's illegitimate to use violence -- the state -- to get to your preferred society; rather, you have to take the long road of peaceful persuasion.

      Delete
    12. Yes, I understand the NAP, and your point NAPster. I agree, the NAP is perfectly compatible with my cultural and religious values. My point is that I am not willing to compromise those cultural and familial values (particularly the safety and happiness of my family) in order to reach a NAP society. In other words, the ends of reaching PPS/NAP do not justify the means of compromising other, more important things.

      Delete
    13. Chubba,

      Culture matters, indeed! Political organization follows culture. Not the other way around. The cultural "soil" that would sprout a PPS is not what we have in the USA.

      Delete
  5. A fence is a fence, but a Maginot Line. Is a failure of epic proportions.

    I want to thank in advance all of the shallow thinking Useful idiots, for the coming Sovietization of America society. Due to the milquetoast fetish of Wall Porn.

    You all know goddamn well that any government built and maintained Wall. Will fail as long as there are profits that can be made by the people and contraband that can and will broach it.

    After that failure, the next demagogue will offer his vision of National ID cards, internal passports, and government checkpoints. And the Whitebreads cheer!!

    #DestroytheCityInOrderToSaveIt

    ReplyDelete