/liberty/ - Liberty

The problem is that welfare states attract the lowest tier of immigrants. In the kebab shop I go to, I heard the Turkish owner talking with an Afghan friend that is a tailor about immigrating to Australia because taxes are lower there. The intelligent and industrious immigrants have an incentive to move to more business friendly nations, the criminal scum have an incentive to immigrate to countries with high welfare and soft punishment.

Obviously we will say

>no welfare

>private property

But what I really want to know is how leftists respond

>>18182

The usual response to anything and everything, global communism, something that just isn't going to happen.

>>18181

>>18181

Too bad the smart immigrants don't have the moral courage to condemn the practices of their more retarded peers. I guess they say "this does not represent all muslims :^)" whenever there's a terrorist attack. Good job solving that problem within your community.

>>18186

I actually disagree with that. It's like SJW's calling for men to condemn to condemn rape, it implies guilt.

>>18188

Men have no choice in being born with a dick.

Muslims have a choice in being Muslim. Voluntarily selected group.

>>18189

Should I tell my fellow Republicans to stop beating their wives :/

Shitty example but I just don't like your idea

>>18190

If 40% Republicans adhered to an all-encompassing, violent, totalitarian, religious cult, and the other 60% only followed it but less consistently? Yeah.

>>18189

How that mean that they are guilty?

>>18193

It doesn't. It means they're all apart of the same cult, and the ones that are sane aren't willing to condemn those who aren't.

>>18192

Yeah I will abandon this because I'm don't really believe in morality anyway. And presumably it is good for society to speak up

What I really want is Muslims coming forward and laying out very obviously why the wrong (I hope) interpretation is wrong

>>18194

They don't need to condemn them because they aren't guilty of their actions.

>>18196

Need to? Yeah, they're not legally obligated, but it would be pretty cool if the more reasonable Arabs/Muslims would condemn the totalitarian nature of Islamists/Jihadists and, God forbid, even point out that bringing in shitloads of Islamists is going to be bad for any society that wants to respect anything that Western philosophy has been working to build for the past 2000 years.

>>18196

I don't think there's a moral duty to speak up but it would be a good

>>18197

>>18198

ALSO

These intelligent Moslem non-Islamists (they wouldn't impose death sentences for speaking ill of the childfucking prophet Muhammed) FLED their shitty violent cultures. Why the fuck aren't they saying "DON'T BRING THEM HERE, THERE'S A REASON I LEFT IN THE FIRST PLACE," what's the deal with that? If they were such great people, why the fuck did you leave? Obviously, it's because those societies are hell for anyone with an IQ above 110, as it's not quite so easy to accept all the bullshit like muh childfucker prophet flying to heaven on a winged horse if you're capable of critical thinking.

>>18199

btw I used Moslem intentionally, same meaning, but it pisses off Arabs

"According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z"

>>18220

>why did capitalists bombed their country in order to create a pipeline?

Forcibly extracting taxes which cronies then fight to have sent to their corporations, whether those corporations provide military assets or showerheads, is not capitalism, which is simply put the natural result of respecting the property rights of owners and permitting voluntary trade: free markets.

>>18224

If it's not a free market, it's not capitalism. You can't say this just a result of "private producers" given that no private firm steals for its income, as the state does. The Soviet Union's state apparatus was as "capitalist" as the US government is- neither is, as both were virtual monopolies on the initiation of force, funded by rents extracted from land they did not own and other forms of theft.

>>18181

He talks about refugees and you talk about economic migrants. Excellent.

Those with financial interest have an incentive to come to high welfare states. That's most poor people. In no way does migrating to a welfare state imply criminality or lack of value. They are travelling because there is a promise of economic security at the end of their migration, and both the virtuous and the criminal are drawn to this.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/154

>>18235

Opportunity (economic freedom) is more important to quality immigrants than welfare. Much more so. Good welfare and limited freedom is sought by people satisfied with being parasites and living in basic comfort and being a degenerate with all that spare time.

>>18220

>then why did capitalists bombed their country

Oh yea, I forgot when BP and Exxon teamed up to bomb Syria, thanks for reminding me

The government bombed Syria you stupid fuck

>>18236

That's correct and I never implied otherwise. I maintain that immigrating to a welfare state however does not imply criminality or lack of character. Welfare states simply attract people in need of easy money. This includes the lowest tier of immigrants and more, like parents, who might have slightly different priorities or a higher threshold for shame than the young and ambitious.

>>18256

The vast majority of immigrants to Sweden, the most welfarish of all welfare states, are young men without a family. Welfare states also have more lax laws, allowing to commit crimes with near impunity.

I'm not claiming all migrants who immigrate to welfare states are necessarily bad, but they attract the bad ones by design.

>>18256

>>18259

Worst possible person to bring in as an immigrant is a low-IQ man of a different ethnicity

1. Low-IQ so won't quickly learn language, appreciate Western philosophy or freedoms, won't do well economically. Also predisposed to crime and indoctrinating their kids with meme-tier religions see: islam

3. Will not be able to get married to a remotely high status woman who is also mentally sound (guys who don't speak the language/earn money < guys who do speak the language, earn money, share your values, look like you, etc.)

4. At least low-IQ women from foreign nations are not as likely to commit crime and are more likely to be get married with someone outside of their culture (assuming their medieval village didn't come over with them to exert social pressures, and they probably did. Muh honor killings.) While women have pretty strong in-group prefences, they do not have an inherently strong tribe-preference, meaning it's better to import a bunch of women than men from a specific "tribal" (ethnic) group, given this weaker "tribal" in-group preference alone

Of course, in some senses female immigrants are more of a problem as they are better able to tap into the suicidal pathological altruism of western women and cuckolds and also, in the long run, 80 women and 20 men from a society that hates you is far worse than 80 men and 20 women from that same society, assuming you're thinking long term, the latter is probably less shitty.

>>18237

yeah, they did it in iraq

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html

you have never heard of lobbying?

>>18259

Alright. That's cool.

>>18275

Asylum is stupid. Nuff' said.

It's one of the worst policy manifestations of social/christian democratic thinking. It's highly expensive, community/nation destroying, involuntary "charity". There are no economic arguments for it and no good moral arguments either. At best it is supported by the woefully altruistic, at worst by parties hoping to gerrymander.

I agree that stupid women are marginally better than stupid men, but why settle for stupid in the first place? Meritocratic, sustainable, demand-led immigration. Settle for nothing less.

>>18277

They could only pull this off because corporations are heavily intertwined with the state. Solution: Get rid of the state. Congratulations, no more cronyism!

>>18301

"[ExxonMobil, BP] lobby[ed] their governments to ensure that the invasion would result in an Iraq open to foreign oil companies"

Does it matter if those corporations are intertwined with the state? In Iraq, there is today an open market for oil firms. In a market-anarchy, there would still be an open market for oil firms. Lobbying facilitated that an open market would be created in was hitherto a closed command economy.

>"Major western companies, such as Chevron and ConocoPhillips, that had hoped to sign contracts were unable to do so. A third round [of contracts] took place in December 2010 and saw no major western oil companies (except Shell) win contracts. I believe that there was an Iraqi backlash against the awarding of contracts to the large western major oil companies. Thus, in December 2010, fields went to Russian oil companies Lukoil and Gazprom, Norway's Statoil, and the Angolan company Sonangol, among others."

>"They are all back in. BP and CNPC [China National Petroleum Corporation] finalised the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad for the largest oil field in the country, the 17 billion barrel super giant Rumaila field. ExxonMobil, with junior partner Royal Dutch Shell, won a bidding war against Russia's Lukoil (and junior partner ConocoPhillips) for the 8.7 billion barrel West Qurna Phase 1 project. Italy's Eni SpA, with California's Occidental Petroleum and the Korea Gas Corp, was awarded Iraq's Zubair oil field with estimated reserves of 4.4 billion barrels. Shell was the lead partner with Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas, winning a contract for the super-giant Majnoon field, one of the largest in the world, with estimated reserves of up to 25 billion."

Turning this into an issue about lobbying is a distraction, when the issue raised was whether capitalists created this war (of course they didn't), and the wider point of contention which is should capitalists operate in Iraq at all.

>>18180

As long as there's a democratic government in the host Western country, and given the proven fact that alien cultures don't blend into Western culture (and racial divides further prevent any blending in), the mass importation of nonwhite, nonchristian future citizens into Western countries is an act of aggression against fellow (current) citizens. The victims have a right to self defense by all means necessary, including the ballot box and even, as a last resort, direct action against hostile immigrants, politicians and activists who willingly and knowingly contribute to this threat.

t. Hoppean ancap

>>18306

>the NAP ends where brown skin begins

>>18310

> oh please do tread on me

The state constantly violates the NAP, but leftie voters are bringing the NAP violation to a new level. Ancaps believe in self-defense by all means necessary.

>>18315

>brown skin is a violation of the NAP

>>18319

> invasion and demographic-democratic subjugation is not a violation of the NAP

>>18320

>invasion

Only a violation of the NAP if it's on your property.

>demographic subjugation

Also not a violation of the NAP. You don't own the demographics of your country.

>democratic subjugation

Insofar as democracy is always a violation of your rights, yes, that counts.

>>18342

> Insofar as democracy is always a violation of your rights, yes, that counts.

And that's my point. Demographic predominance leads to democratic subjugation and confiscation of your property, including ownership of your body (through increased violent crime). Whether they are conscious invaders or innocent pawns, inmmigrants from hostile cultures are a threat.

In an ancap nation this problem does not arise, because immigrants would only be allowed into the land of whoever invites them (no public land to squat on), and they would be there as guests unless/until they buy sovereign land from someone willing to sell it.

But Western countries are not ancap nations, and just because the NAP is constantly violated it doesn't mean that all violations are equally bad. Some are worse than others. Mass immigration from hostile cultures is the worst and most perverse kind, because it leads to more of all the other violations and because it ends all hope of peaceful correction within the democratic framework, leaving civil war and ethnic cleansing (ie mass deportation of the new "citizens") as the only way for the original citizens to correct the damage.

>>18346

>including ownership of your body (through increased violent crime)

really, anon

really

>>18350

was that supposed to be a rebuttal?

>>18351

a heightened risk of violent crime != an unequivocal attack on your person (a violation of the NAP)

I don't know why you felt the need to add that comment about ownership when your reasoning was otherwise brilliant.

>>18440

Well, I had to mention it too, because people forget it. Violent crime itself is a violation of the NAP, right? So, an increase in the risk of violent crime is an incease in violations of the NAP. If someone is willingly causing an increase in violations of the NAP, aren't they arguably violating the NAP?

Let's say we are flatmates and there's a violent gang outside, and let's say I'm so drunk and high with pot that I'm about to open the door and invite them in. Aren't you justified, as per the NAP, in physically stopping me from opening the door?