tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post6707478225835948736..comments2024-03-28T06:00:18.802-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: More on Freedom of Speechbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52941059650828028912016-06-23T04:53:15.104-07:002016-06-23T04:53:15.104-07:00Anonimous perplexed
I think you - and Matt, Uc, e...Anonimous perplexed<br /><br />I think you - and Matt, Uc, etc.. - are walking on a very similar path as the one taken by Tucker here: https://fee.org/articles/against-libertarian-brutalism/ <br /><br />You are evolving in your thinking about libertarianism over a similar direction: the importance of culture, realistic libertarianism, how to mantein a libertarian order, the importante of other goal stand values.. And so even the necessity of unlibertarianism.. Only you like an other culture, and you focuse on other goals, not the same of Tucker. But the process you are in, is the same. <br /><br />There are two different main mindset that can't coexist not even under libertarianism. You can call the two camps as you wish.. Humanitarian and brutalist.. Or in every other way.. Both are theoretically compatible with libertarian theory, and maybe also with a libertarian order in reality, they can't coexist in the same place.<br /><br />I know that you care about the difference between libertarianism and left-libertarianism, and so between you and Tucker, but maybe you wish for this difference too much, and accents it more that it exist in reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-48125623410791666742016-06-21T08:43:28.401-07:002016-06-21T08:43:28.401-07:00Without a doubt, removing this crowd from power is...Without a doubt, removing this crowd from power is vital. We like talking about decentralization, this is a power structure that would take lethal offense to our aims.<br /><br />But I'm not sure I necessarily agree with shutting down and silencing Cultural Marxist speech. It's (obviously) not because I support them, it's the total opposite: Letting them spout their drivel hurts them more than us, and if current evidence says anything they'll get knocked out of power on their own as a consequence of the market.<br /><br />I'm a younger guy, depending on what criteria gets used I'm considered a Millennial. A consequence of that is I have mostly Millennial friends, thus most of them are liberal or have liberal inclinations. <br /><br />As a result of the SJW generation, they can see the results of their theories in real time. Tolerance, multiculturalism, contents of the Trump protesters - let's just call it SJWism. These friends I have are changing their tune, wondering what exactly they've been supporting this entire time.<br /><br />I don't encourage you to take my word for it either, look at the reaction to Target's bathrooms and the new low enrollment figures at Mizzou University. There might be other reactions I'm not aware of either.<br /><br />If we want to hit below the belt: record their protests, put it on youtube, let them be their own worst salesmen. They may even know this, it's why they shudder like leaves in the wind whenever an obvious outsider shows up with a camera. Come home, do some commentary over the video, and upload it.<br /><br />To be honest UC, I think you'd probably be one of the best at this if it's a plunge you'd be willing to take.Black Flaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04264200450145227142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36233133131958010382016-06-21T06:39:41.048-07:002016-06-21T06:39:41.048-07:00C. Slayton,
I very much appreciate the nuance you...C. Slayton,<br /><br />I very much appreciate the nuance you shared here, regarding the commandments of God. I must ruminate on these things.Ron Colson, IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00683200423016675228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-49508923154460275472016-06-20T13:20:21.321-07:002016-06-20T13:20:21.321-07:00I think a lot of people, when they say they want a...I think a lot of people, when they say they want a "free society" mean they want a society that reflects their values. So if their values are to force you to fight in their wars, or pay taxes that keep you from ever achieving financial security, or keep your voice-trained dog on an unnecessary leash ... well, that's freedom for them and therefore, you ought to comply with "civilization."Lela Markhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12551161419368611350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-46896867276434372272016-06-20T03:23:35.522-07:002016-06-20T03:23:35.522-07:00It is a major problem of the NAP that it reduces t...It is a major problem of the NAP that it reduces the wide range of aggressive behavior, which begins with a nasty remark and ends with murder, into a simple yes/no scheme. This requires the introduction of an artificial border, say, between speech (no aggression) and doing something (aggression), and completely ignores the evil of escalation, of violations of "an eye for an eye". Ilja Schmelzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05344206562643658764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-47855588723050834742016-06-19T19:43:42.550-07:002016-06-19T19:43:42.550-07:00This thing about free speech reminds me of the tim...This thing about free speech reminds me of the time that I was living in Beijing, China.<br /><br />I was with some other foreigners from the US, Canada, and Europe. In our conversation they were roundly condemning China's abuse of civil rights, in particular free speech. I was stunned just listening to it. Are these people so blind? I thought.<br /><br />I then spoke of the thousands of political prisoners in Europe for whom the only crime was speaking or writing, and of the harassment of dissidents in Canada. In this way Canada and Europe are the same as China, the only difference being is that Canada and Europe enforce different taboos to China.<br /><br />They were angered that I would compare Canada and Europe to China, after all those people in prison were not there for exercising free speech, rather they were justly put in prison for "hate speech", according to my interlocutors. <br /><br />The very odd thing is that you probably have a greater latitude for speech in China than you do in west, with the exception of the USA. In the west you can criticize the government, but not the government enforced ideologies. In China you cannot criticize the government, but otherwise you can criticize whatever you like. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-59660230462659190452016-06-17T20:00:09.581-07:002016-06-17T20:00:09.581-07:00BM
I don't think one can own reputation, whic...BM<br /><br />I don't think one can own reputation, which is really the way others look at you, "others"-esteem as opposed to self-esteem. One way to look at honor or ego for that matter(both similar to each other and reputation as well) is the way you look at yourself, or self-esteem in a baser language. It is yours. If someone attacks that or threatens in any way, defense is necessary.<br />Like UC sausage, reputation can also be protected by deulling. Were society cannot agree where the NAP applies, which will be more often than not in a moral and productive society, dueling could be a viable answer to justice.<br />Don't get me wrong, it would truly suck if everyone just dueled willy-nilly, but the consequences of dueling pretty much solve that problem.Josh1476https://www.blogger.com/profile/07881701110722592922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-40284770078401836432016-06-17T19:42:24.874-07:002016-06-17T19:42:24.874-07:00UC
Apparently you are in the south and I am immen...UC<br /><br />Apparently you are in the south and I am immensely proud sir. I've read a lot on this blog regarding discussion of the "sovereign" and what or if it should be.<br />Dueling is a most excellent sovereign.Josh1476https://www.blogger.com/profile/07881701110722592922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-64260869195737082442016-06-17T17:46:07.005-07:002016-06-17T17:46:07.005-07:00Rothbard writes this on rights..
https://www.lewr...Rothbard writes this on rights..<br /><br />https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/06/murray-n-rothbard/theres-one-human-right/<br /><br />He makes the example of freedom of expression as property right. In doing so he make arguments as those.. Minorances are protected better by property rights.. Real freedom of speech, and expression is better protected by property rights.. Freedom in religion too.. And so on..<br /><br />He shows to care about minorances, freedom of speech, religious freedom, etc.. and about the goal many people generally defend speaking of human rights. And i like this. He is not saying "property rights and f**k with the rest". <br /><br />Libertarianism doesen't imply to be a nice person, to care about others, to respect everybody, etc.. This is culture and habits. But libertarianism in reality will always be woven with culture and habits. In theory you can be a racist, a homophobic, a suprematist, a misoginist, an asshole libertarian. But in reality is very difficult, as hate and strong disgust for someone often is the start for aggressions. This is no immotivated prejudice but well known reality, and common sense. As we have the rights to discriminate, and to do it as precaution, there is nothing unlibertarian in writing so.<br /><br />You say that a rude comment deserve a punch in the nose. I don't agree as this is unlibertarian. But i think it deserve a punishment also if not a phisical aggression. I think that Hoppe and right libertarians makes many rude comment on gay people. They speak of them as garbage. Also some of the people commentino here do the same. So they deserve many "punch in the nose". Gay, jews, muslim, etc.. are minorances. Libertarianism ad rothbard shows will be good for them. To care about this, also if one is not gay himself is good. Good culture, good habit, good mindset. Libertarianism doesen't requires it, but libertarianism is not a complete moral sistem. And the morality of many people requires respect for them. So try to see the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-17953303664484151542016-06-17T16:03:05.257-07:002016-06-17T16:03:05.257-07:00Alaska, thank you for sharing these here.Alaska, thank you for sharing these here.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38726200482116147262016-06-17T15:56:43.539-07:002016-06-17T15:56:43.539-07:00A functioning aristocratic society needs to have c...A functioning aristocratic society needs to have codes of honor. Personally, my honor means more to me than my life. If I am willing to put my body on the line for my honor then obviously it is not something that can be casually dismissed, and I am highly suspicious of those who would like to dismiss it.<br /><br />If someone is telling vicious lies about me and I introduce them to my friend the curb, what is the problem? They didn't have to lie, they chose their fate. Do libertarians really want to live in a society where dishonorable liars are protected against honorable truth tellers?<br /><br />We used to have a proud tradition of dueling in the West. Lets bring that back. UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-70035130522132527792016-06-17T15:47:37.286-07:002016-06-17T15:47:37.286-07:00Thank you for the comments; you have remained civi...Thank you for the comments; you have remained civil and always challenging - why others might ban you, I don't know.... Fear, maybe?<br /><br />As to the "tagline," I owe that idea to Ryan McMaken who wrote something that really focused my thinking on this. His post is here:<br /><br />https://mises.org/blog/anarchism-and-radical-decentralization-are-same-thing<br /><br />My comments on it here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-necessity-of-governance-in-anarchy.htmlbionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-41186790249681883202016-06-17T15:46:28.693-07:002016-06-17T15:46:28.693-07:00If I remember properly, a well respected libertari...If I remember properly, a well respected libertarian talked about something similar, which might be what BM is citing.<br /><br />I don't remember who, I think it was Block but could have been Rothbard, or someone else completely. The subject was Reputation but might have been part of a broader writing about owning intangible "things", but are still part of being a human. <br /><br />Summary: You can't own a reputation, a reputation is a collection of critiques from people that have experienced a particular person or entity.<br /><br />If I'm still remembering accurately and not confusing two different subjects and writers, this writing continued on and stated defending one's honor was also perfectly acceptable.<br /><br />Now I'm really curious who wrote it and what exactly they said, I'll try to find this and share it if I do.Black Flaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04264200450145227142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-73519860338484516772016-06-17T15:28:24.455-07:002016-06-17T15:28:24.455-07:00Josh
To the extent I have thought about these iss...Josh<br /><br />To the extent I have thought about these issues, I lean very much toward view.<br /><br />I think about my reputation. Can I "own" my reputation? I have read libertarian arguments that say no.<br /><br />I have not put all of my thoughts together on this, but it seems to me that such libertarians are wrong.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-36071378195417452252016-06-17T15:24:30.744-07:002016-06-17T15:24:30.744-07:00"So when people like Hornberger advocate thes..."So when people like Hornberger advocate these abstractions as actual policy, what they are proposing is imposing costs on people that didn't ask for it."<br /><br />This has been one of my many beefs about "open borders" supposedly being the only libertarian policy. It is perfectly libertarian for a community to make and enforce exclusionary rules.<br /><br />Unfortunately when it comes to state borders, such libertarians (those who choose exclusionary rules) are left with only one means to enforce these rules.<br /><br />So, where is the sympathy for such libertarians? We won't find it from those like Hornberger.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66242675858178761382016-06-17T15:18:34.521-07:002016-06-17T15:18:34.521-07:00UC
He still is, thank God!UC<br /><br />He still is, thank God!bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-64140417196421849902016-06-17T15:17:07.768-07:002016-06-17T15:17:07.768-07:00Ira
Thank you for the kind words. Your article i...Ira<br /><br />Thank you for the kind words. Your article is worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. Thank you also for bringing it to my attention.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82264572253745636832016-06-17T13:54:17.717-07:002016-06-17T13:54:17.717-07:00"The older I get, the wiser my father sounds...."The older I get, the wiser my father sounds.... In my youth I tried explaining libertarianism to him. His response: 'What? Are you a communist?'"<br /><br />LOL. Sounds like your old man was one cool guy.UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-48594054296684089152016-06-17T13:17:02.643-07:002016-06-17T13:17:02.643-07:00Hey Bob,
Couple of points.
"I think it esse...Hey Bob,<br /><br />Couple of points.<br /><br />"I think it essential to remember that only violations of the NAP trigger defensive violence and would thus be “actionable”"<br /><br />There is no reason to think that law will be based on the NAP in a decentralized society with smaller sovereigns. Perhaps some will, but even the ones that are will have different standards of "aggression." For instance "anti-libertarian" speech may be outlawed. Going off a Block's view this would be an "unlibertarian" law.<br /><br />The NAP does not "keep us safe." Force does. NAP is a theory about just legal application of force. However, if you let your interpretation of the NAP prevent the apriori exclusion of problem-demographics then you have just allowed the NAP to make you less safe.<br /><br />On this " It does not tell us how to otherwise live our lives," I would leave out the word otherwise. I doesn't tell us how to live period. It simply assumes there will be consequences for certain actions in a libertarian legal order (which doesn't even exist, lol). If I rob a bank does that mean I am no longer a libertarian?<br /><br />Libertarians often criticize leftism as a form of secular theology (I believe they are most influenced on this by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Alexander Gray). It never seems to occur to them that the same criticism applies to themselves. I interact with many libertarians that can be fairly described as deferring to a political theory for morality and meaning, which there is a word for....<br /><br />UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-31319972886732466072016-06-17T11:14:50.621-07:002016-06-17T11:14:50.621-07:00BM: "How do libertarians, as libertarians, vi...BM: "How do libertarians, as libertarians, view this thing called “morality”? <br /><br />More "grist for the mill" ? :<br /><br />To repeat what I have tried to clearly state here before to no avail [whoa is me :-) ] , morality and moral valuations are ultimately subjective and unique to each individual - what one person sees as being "moral" and "immoral" is going to be different [in fine detail] from what another person sees. <br /><br />Fact: no two persons can ever have the exact same view of what constitutes morality or immorality [although they might agree in more generalized, less defined ways, giving the surface appearance of total agreement ].<br /><br />Also, the term "libertarian" is no less subjectively interpreted - inevitably, one person's "libertarian" is another person's "fascist", or "communist", or whatever. <br /><br />The trouble with "libertarianism" [as far as I can see], is that, absolutely no differently from all other self-described"world-changing" groups past or present [e.g. marxist, fascist, objectivist, conservative, liberal, environmentalist, christian, buddhist, moslem, jewish or whatever] , the individuals within it almost always unfailingly presume that their own unique, personal view of what constitutes "moral" and "immoral" behavior will inevitably be [first] accepted by everyone within said group, and then later on, and in order to supposedly "make the world a better place", by a sufficient/winning number of individuals presently viewed as being outside of the group, but who later would [presumably] come to "see the light". <br /><br />This, presumption is, of course, pure fantasy based on the false assumption of the possibility of the present and future similarity of most individuals moralities. <br /><br />As a personal freedom consultant, what is most interesting to myself about all this is the fact that many claimed"libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists" and "Austrian economists" etc.etc., while seemingly able to grasp the basic tenets of what is usually called "methodological individualism" which underpin much of their "leaders" thoughts, will, at the exact same time, consistently refuse to acknowledge and apply the very same principles to the subject of theirs, and others, personal moralities, which will [in close detail] always main unique to each individual, no matter what. <br /><br />And so it goes... :-)<br /><br />Regards, onebornfree<br />onebornfreeatyahoo<br />Onebornfreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17865185718738348312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-74301547681187745352016-06-16T14:52:57.085-07:002016-06-16T14:52:57.085-07:00You warm my unhappy heart BM.
"voluntarily a...You warm my unhappy heart BM.<br /><br />"voluntarily agreeing to non-libertarian standards in order to maintain some sense of societal order."<br /><br />Now if only we could to do something about the first part of that. The voluntary part. Of course we both agree that in theory, and hopefully in the long-run, that is the situation we want. The Ideal. In the meantime, we cannot rely on people to chose correctly. If we could, we would have president Paul (the good one, not his lame son). As long as their choices affect me and the people I care about, I have an interest in restricting their influence.<br /><br />The Left is the Permanent Revolution. We need counter-revolution. They need to be shut down and removed from positions of influence. It is literally the only way. Physically remove them from our societies. Purge.<br /><br />I have zero problem with, in fact I am emphatically supportive of, outlawing Cultural Marxism. Criminalize its dissemination. Which of course entails speech laws.<br /><br />I believe Hoppe to be the premier libertarian theorist after Rothbard, and where his contributions were original, he surpassed Rothbard. My interpretation of Hoppe is that illiberalism is more conducive to a libertarian society than liberalism. Because libertarianism grew out of the classical liberal tradition, this is a tough pill for many libertarians to swallow, but if we are honest with ourselves it is not hard to see it. By its very nature a libertarian society would be narrow and exclusive. It is specifically libertarian, not other things. Other things would not be allowed. Anything that threatened that order would not be tolerated. Furthermore, there would be other criteria for specific communities in addition to respect for private property. There will be ethnic and religious restrictions as well.<br /><br />Liberalism leads to its own form of imperialism. Everything has to be subsumed underneath it. The small and the particular are thrown out in favor of the big and universal. Which is why I think you (BM) are right on the money with your line "libertarianism in theory is decentralization in practice." You should have that as a tagline for this site. I am going to be using that line when I interact with libertarians (I will of course give you the credit).<br /><br />Thanks for your intellectual honesty BM, an honest man is hard to find these days. Alot of the views I express would (and do) get me banned from various forums. You have behaved honorably in addressing my points and for that I am very grateful.<br />UnhappyConservativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03120041008604859202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-84289662452422938962016-06-16T09:23:40.620-07:002016-06-16T09:23:40.620-07:00"I believe I have read that Rothbard (maybe i..."I believe I have read that Rothbard (maybe it was Block, maybe someone else, maybe I am making it up) has stated that to speak of “aggression” regarding something other than property or the physical body just muddies up the NAP. I have never felt settled about this in theory, and I know it won’t fly in practice. Why do I believe this? Read on…."<br /><br />I would like to address this.<br />I agree with rothbard or whomever that considering ownership of other "things" muddies up things. While this is somewhat true it cannot be ignored.<br />For example, there are all sorts of non-physical things that people possess but not exclusively(like physical property)- love, anger, emotions... Soul, honor, ego.<br />All of these "things" belong in a higher category so to speak, that is, more "heaven" like, less "earth" like.<br /><br />While I have emotions, I may not exclusively own these, and so you may do with them as you wish.<br />But my honor, soul, and ego ARE exclusively mine, and if one attacks my honor by insulting me, then I have a right to defend my honor, or that which is mine exclusively.<br />The fact that I may sell my soul or honor on the market proves their worth as abstract "property".Josh1476https://www.blogger.com/profile/07881701110722592922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-11495379952583098032016-06-16T08:12:20.866-07:002016-06-16T08:12:20.866-07:00When discussing how the NAP might work in practice...When discussing how the NAP might work in practice, I think it essential to remember that only violations of the NAP trigger defensive violence and would thus be “actionable”. There are and will be zillions of nasty and disgusting things that people do on their own property that do not rise to the level of a violation of the NAP. The sanctions that might be applied to these behaviors can be in the form of concerted refusals to deal. If there are nothing but private roads, nasty people can be denied access to those roads. This is where culture comes in. And with it, peer pressure. Further, the members of a particular cultural community might bind themselves contractually to a particular mode of behavior. Violators could be expelled. <br /><br />In most of these discussions, libertarians tend to fail to differentiate between “actionable” wrongs and other wrongs that can still be effectively addressed by various levels of ostracism or through contractual requirements and the like. For starters, this differentiation can be applied to people who want to “discriminate” where the broader culture could minimize whatever harm might be inflicted by such behavior.<br /> <br />The NAP is there to keep us safe. It does not tell us how to otherwise live our lives.<br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-2823371702306381972016-06-16T06:11:52.893-07:002016-06-16T06:11:52.893-07:00Another great post that has helped me further clar...Another great post that has helped me further clarify my thoughts -- thank you. For me, the concept of liberty/NAP as negative and culture as positive draws from a similar concept in the reformed Christian tradition regarding the Ten Commandments. To more fully understand and appreciate the Ten Commandments (the reformed Christian argues), they cannot merely be understood as negative statements, "Thou shalt NOT," but as negative statements springing from the character of a positive moral being (God) and thus implicitly positive statements. To not murder anyone does not make you a good person - it merely makes you morally neutral. Thus Christ clarified that the (negative) commandment to not murder is really a (positive) commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. He condemned the Pharisees for only understanding the negative aspect of the law and not understanding the more foundational positive aspect of it, rooted in the very nature of God.<br /><br />In that context, you might argue that culture derives from the personal character of individuals living in community with one another. Culture is not external but internal expressing itself externally. The NAP is purely external.<br /><br />So NAP = negative, external<br />and culture = positive, internal<br /><br />The libertine libertarian only wants to uproot the state so that he can do whatever he likes short of violating the NAP. In that case, he may as well argue for a managerial state that unreservedly facilitates his hedonist lifestyle, a la A Brave New World. A true libertarian must fight for the right of the libertine to live as he pleases while at the same time criticizing his lifestyle and compassionately reasoning with him to change.<br /><br />On the topic of freedom of speech, this negative/positive concept could be applied to say that freedom of speech as a law is strictly negative -- the government cannot use force against an individual for merely speaking (which is by nature nonviolent). The positive aspect is that we are free to speak wisely and out of love, or free not to speak at all if we feel our words will be detrimental to others.C. Staytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18396087766472554582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14668426691839219372016-06-16T04:42:16.999-07:002016-06-16T04:42:16.999-07:00This relates to free speech, and also to Jacob Hor...This relates to free speech, and also to Jacob Hornberger's state enforced open borders advocacy. <br /><br />When we talk of freedom, are we speaking of the freedom useful to an actual human being, or freedom in the abstract? Jacob Hornberger says that taking in middle eastern refugees, who are mostly illiterate and will overwhelmingly spend their lives on welfare, is "freedom". I will have to pay taxes for it, and deal with the crimes and other aspects, and in the real world my freedom has decreased as a result. <br /><br />However because the refugees can now live in my country at my expense, their freedom has increased. It is of this "freedom" that Hornberger speaks.<br /><br />Before the state policy of importing Muslims I had the "free speech" of blasphemy against Allah or the Prophet Mohammed, but now I must watch my words for I might blaspheme in error if not in intent. So my real world freedom has decreased. <br /><br />Somehow when "libertarians" speak of freedom, they are not talking about freedom here and now, in the real world in our day to day lives. Instead they are speaking of abstractions that do not intrude into reality. <br /><br />So when people like Hornberger advocate these abstractions as actual policy, what they are proposing is imposing costs on people that didn't ask for it. "Freedom" indeed. Matt@Occidentalism.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395220402283030311noreply@blogger.com