What do you think about open or closed borders?
Get the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK EVER for FREE in every format including audiobook at http://thefreedomline.com/freedom Please support FREEDOM! by liking and sharing this video, subscribing, and sharing! Then for everything else: http://TheFreedomLine.com
This wasn't much of a debate. It was Moly steem-rolling Adam...
Thanks for saving 2 hours of my life.
How is that?
"When you're talking about third world cultures, you're talking about cultures that are almost uniformly and unbelievably brutal towards their children. I'm not just talking about female genital mutilation, or male genital mutilation, for that matter.
I'm talking about rape of children, sexual assault, sexual abuse of children, beatings, spankings, torture -- both mental and physical -- and so on. There are a lot of brutal cultures. The vast majority of cultures out there in the world are extraordinarily brutal towards their children.
And so, it's not just that there will be a bunch of people who will vote for the left and want bigger government and are dependent on the state. You are bringing a permanent or virtually permanent child-hostile set of cultures into the west. That is going to produce traumatized and brutalized adults who are going to be irrational, who are going to be hostile, who may be prone to violence.
This is just statistically the way it works out.
It's hard enough to get libertarians to give up spanking. Getting someone from Somalia to give up genital mutilation? Well, that is a task that is certainly beyond my abilities and, I suspect, yours as well."
Your response was a great big smile. I like you and all, but you are def a light weight compared to Molyneux. Moly contradicted you on numerous occasions or at least made you look like a hypocrite. The Brexit questioning was funny, thinking collectivism is universally bad(families are collectivist by nature), and constantly conflating nation with government. Open government boarders are preventing the defense of trespass but your position is don't violate the NAP regarding people who do not believe in the NAP. Government existing is the violation of the NAP the question is which is a larger violation open boarders or closed boarders? It is clear open borders is a much larger NAP violation. Not recognizing tax payers have the highest claim to stolen resources certainly not late comers. Not recognizing that in a private property society immigration would be much more strict as there would be many more boarders and non trespass would be enforced. Promoting Cloward and Piven strategy to overload tax payers while not paying taxes yourself(self admission that 3rd world immigrants are not adding value to the nation but a net negative economically). Not recognizing that if you import big government leftist who benefit from large government this will not lead to smaller government but it will lead to tribal civil war. The constant cultural relativism is nauseating. That shot at Molyneux at the end was pretty classless. Shitting on someone while they're respectfully trying to disengage and end the debate pretty weak, like I said over matched and outclassed.
The boarder debate over the past 18 months has exposed the leftist infiltration of libertarianism. Big government leftist are not going to transform into small government or no government people.
You are right, individualism never dies it infects others and spreads socialism.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@digitalsecurity/counter-fiat-betting
What the hell are you talking about? The government steals your money and gives it to immigrants, not the immigrants come in and steal your money. Adam points this out multiple times in the debate.
And as Stef points out it doesn't matter. The government is preventing against the defense against trespass. Does a child of a bank robber get to keep the money their parents have stolen? That's a big fat, no.
Chase summarizes the debate well here:
https://radicalcapitalist.org/2018/01/07/post-debate-analysis-kokesh-vs-molyneux-on-immigration/
I am for OPEN BORDERS if people migrate under FREE MARKET conditions.
.jpg)
However the current MASS IMMIGRATION is STATE SPONSORED with HANDOUTS, and even a free ferry service!
In Europe, African and Middle Eastern migrants are being given homes for free and even pocket money on arrival, with taxpayers FORCED to foot the bill.
If an African migrant moves to Europe by buying an House I would fully support his right to move here. And migration from Africa would be very low under FREE MARKET conditions, as very few Africans would be able to afford an house in Europe.
To conclude: today's MASS IMMIGRATION has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE MARKETS but it's a STATE TAX FUNDED initiative to flood Western Countries with Third World immigration for cheap labour but even to enact a criminal globalist plan called the Kalergi Plan which aims to erase "whiteness" to then create a new mulatto citizen of the World.
The current mass immigration from third world countries is Jewish Bolshevism Communism, the very opposite of free market!
Very sad many Libertarians are totally fine with their party endorsing anti-Sanctuary cities Republicans who want local police forced to enforce Federal immigration laws. Republicans who refused to take a stance on whether taxation is theft, or whether they support the drug war.
This same local LP affiliate choose not to even message it's members about your tour or share your events on its Facebook page, Adam. LP is a joke.
As Stefan keeps mentioning, they are siphoning money from the economy and from welfare programs. If that is the reason they are immigrating we should cut off welfare to them. If their reasons for immigration is work and they have no intentions on drawing public assistance then it is no one's business why they are here. If we shut off the welfare programs the leeches will quit coming over and the ones that do will be here for the right reasons.
We, as a nation, do not have an immigration problem. We have a welfare problem.
Exactly. Adam kept trying to say we need to focus on the government as the initiator of aggression in the case of increased welfare load, not the immigrants. That'd make sense if the immigrants were declining welfare (they aren't) or they didn't know where the money was coming from (they do). Stefan should have pushed that point harder rather than argue about other things for almost two hours.
Doesn't really seem sustainable though because you have to spread the idea of freedom. For every 1 mind you change to want smaller government 10 more come in that wants large government.
Open borders and freedom of movement!
#FREEDOM!
Yet somehow smaller states? How do you square the circle of smaller government without enforcing borders?
If California wants to secede, how's it gonna maintain it's new found independence from the rest of the states without border enforcement? And without border enforcement what does it even mean to be independent?
Did you watch the debate?
I listened to the audio, yes.
My understanding was that you admitted that small government is preferable to large government (your point about violently small vs mostly benign and large seemed pointless) yet how can one get a "small government" without defending the borders of that governmental region?
A local community does not need a government. We can all make decisions with a simple app and whoever doesn't agree will not be forced. Government is always the exercise of violence. Democracy is domination of majority. People living in communities of their choice have moral duty to stop any agression. In case of security from the outside, in a free market society, there will be many security providers to choose from. Some will specialize in borders. Peace
agreed. but until we get rid of welfare programs which steal money from productive people, this isn't an option. The way to make this an option is to stem the bleeding of wealth by stemming the immigration. Immigrants overwhelmingly draw on welfare money. Hence the need for closed borders while the welfare state is still in place.
Once the welfare state has been demolished - open the borders.
There is no other freedom like freedom and there is no government like no government :D
Thank you so much for standing up for freedom! We don't need government officials throwing out peaceful people just because they were born on the wrong side of an imaginary line. If people have problems with taxes they should focus their anger on taxes and not on immigrants. We are a land full of different cultures and heritages and if I make this comment good enough I can buy slightly more bitcoin but I don't actually have anything of substance to add. Voluntary upvotes are way better than socialism at least.
Agree 100%!
I think we should try to picture a world with out borders! No more nations no more killing!
As an "American" who lives in Germany and has attended the mandatory integration course I have come to find that most of the immigrants from the third world countries are very open to the Freedom message. Most of them are less educated but are capable of learning and often speak several languages. Stefan seems to be basing his chosen position on very controversial statistics. Aside from that, he is not being principled by setting a bad example. I stand with you Adam, for freedom!
Thought provoking!
In response to this debate: https://steemit.com/stefan/@kierkeguardian/an-argument-for-stefan-molyneux
.
I have to agree with Adam, though Stefan did make understand his side a lot more. I have only heard things from others, so was nice to hear it from him directly.
well as they themselves said, they agree on the end goal which would be to have both freedom of movement and freedom from goverment
The main difference (from my interpretation) was that Adam did not wanted to compromise by maintaining the violations on freedom of movement temporarily in order to archive it as that would be inconsistent , and don't that he risks loosing both. as he makes his task harder ( even by his own admission), here Stephan was saying that by maintaining and enforcing the laws of immigration it would be possible to accomplish a smaller government and a population that understands that smaller is better, later it would be possible to get both
Thanks!
Great points, not sure where I stand on this quite yet.
Thank you, I hope to have cleared some things up for you to make your decision easier.
Great debate, good points from both sides, but my vote is for FREEDOM!
thanks for the video i just downloaded it but have not read it. i will do that in the morning but personally i prefare closed borders because of illegal migrant and the harm they can cause. i will share this video
Please consider my points in the video, thanks!
States will only get smaller when the populace of the area has an incentive for smaller government (incentives include purely monetary incentives OR ideological/moral incentives)
When borders are open and anyone can come in, coupled with welfare, this provides a very strong monetary incentive for low IQ people to flock to the country and reap the rewards of the violence inflicted upon the productive people.
Closing borders means less financial predation will occur on the geographical inhabitants - who really are the "owners" of that geographical area given that they've paid for all the improvements, albiet involuntarily through taxes.
Incidentally, if you only upvote people who agree with you... You'll push away people who are trying to engage with opposing points of view.
Maybe you want to do that?
Hey Adam
I was in NYC today, and, as promised, I left a home-printed version of freedom in the public library.
Just thought I would let you know!
Keep it up! Freedom is possible
Oh wow, thank you so much brother! Snap a photo or video next time and I will share it!
Will do. I like to spread publications such as yours as much as possible, so it will surely not be the last time
What an awsome episode.
Thank you!
(you hear an engine rev and horn honk)
MEEP! MEEP!
(the window on the humvee rolls down to reveal a warm smiling face)
"Hello! I'm @shadow3scalpel and with the help of my protege, @chairborne, we are actively assisting veterans, retirees and active servicemen and women here on Steemit. We feel it is our 'duty' to support each other. Any questions or comments you may have, simply respond to this comment, thank you!"
(the window rolls up and the engine roars as it drives to the next person on the list)
Comment by @killerwhale. This is a opt-in bot.
Thanks as always!
l'immigration est un mouvement humain depuis l'histoir...et il restera a toujours
open borders for israel!
bye bye israel...
they want open borders for everyone except themselves :P
yeah I don't understand the motivation behind that... why advocate for open borders for others, but not yourself? what do they stand to gain by pushing that sort of agenda, consciously or not?
what you're saying is certainly undeniable...
well they believe that dividing nations is in their advantage since they keep their identity and act like a united block against a totally unorganized world...
Great debate!
Stefan may have had the better arguments/statistics, but Adam definitely made by far the most money here on steemit.
Now the question is did people vote with there wallet?
Upvoted and resteemed!
Even as i agree that using national borders are only us validating the idea of nation governments, i disagree with you Adam that it is impossible to add a government program that reduces in the long term the size of government, for example (extreme just to prove the point) creating the ministry of dissolving ministries. which sole cause is to dissolve government institutions and ensure a peaceful and smooth transition to the free market. this may not be the best way but a good chunk of the country still thinks of government as a good entity and Stephan's point of keeping and even expanding the government on the "limit inmigration" side would in the long run make more likely for a limited government candidate to get elected and reduce the size of government
While logically possible, this has literally almost never been the case. Most times, government programs achieve the opposite of their proposed goals. If we have a bureau for reducing bureaucracy, then it's likely it will in fact grow it. Orwell illustrated this very well in 1984 for example with things like Ministry of Truth. The USA itself was supposed to be an experiment in small government, but now it's the largest and most powerful government that has ever been conceived. If you dance with the devil, you're gonna get burned.
I was puting this point forward as a contrast to the point that Adam makes about the size of government not reflecting the “evilness” of it, in no way i was proposing the exampled institution to exist :)
Stpehan advocates being non-libertarian in the present, to become libertarian in the future. Stpehan is an anarchist turned staist. You do not continue violating peoples rights to get to freedom. Does Stephan remind you of anyone? Cough Cough George Bush abandoning free market principles to save the free market.
who is right? @adamkokesh
good post
Stefan is advocating for the greater manifestation of terrorism through the United States "government" enforcing the immigration code, than many many Isis bombers. Also, don't get tough on immigration, which hastens the tax mans burden, get rid of the tax man. How far the mighty has fallen, smdh Stefan. Great Job Adam, you remained true to the N.A. P. & we're able to offer a better & more peaceful resolution to the issue. Get rid of the welfare magnet. If hard working folks who yearn & burn for freedom want to come & exploit opportunity in the agora, then let them come. Those who prefer the safe soft life of a slave may leave. I prefer the hardwork & uncertainty of a free mans life.
How is stopping people from entering a geographical region "terrorism"?
If I don't let you into my property, is that "terrorism"?
A "country" is the geographical region controlled by a government. Governments are moral abominations to be sure, but despite the fact that they've build infrastructure through stolen funds doesn't make those improvements unowned. It means that the tax victims of that country are the people with the highest possible claim to that land.
Given that, those people should be able to exclude whoever they want from their rightful property, just like you'd be able to rightfully exclude people from your property. How is this "terrorism"?
It is the tax enforcement & border enforcement that is the terrorism in this case. With out the welfare state & the tax imposed to sustain it there is no artificial draw to the region. If the yearning for liberty is the only motivation one would have to uproot & try their hand in the agora then we should welcome them with open arms. However the state has created artificial motives for coming to the U.S.; blow back, welfare "benefits", education, etc. So it's not the travel of free people that needs to be infringed upon but, the existence of the state which is distorting the market with immoral & unnatural incentives. Those incentives, by the way, are funded by the largest terrorist organisation in history...the U.S. "government".
The welfare state is the main problem. But the point is, until the welfare gets removed, open borders creates MORE violence/theft than having enforced borders.
Keeping people out of a region doesn't require violence unless they initiate by trying to enter without permission. At which point it is self defense anyway.
Until welfare is abolished, closed borders is the universally preferable way to go. This isn't "aesthetic" as @adamkokesh suggests in the debate.
You are sadly blinded to your falicy & won't see it. The violence is in every action of the state & that is undeniable. It is the state that must go. The rights of all people are what must be defended with vigor & conviction. If you give one small exception to a principal you discard the whole thing. Rules say "there is no candy allowed in the class room" a principal says "there is no food allowed in the classroom". Rules are exclusive, in contrast principals are inclusive. I'm guessing you'll cling to your cognitive dissonence as if for your life. But, when ever you want to return to defending the principals of liberty, voluntaryism will be waiting with open arms.
I don't deny that the state is violence.
But given two choices - open borders and closed borders, the debate is which creates the greater violation of the NAP. The answer is clearly the former.
Open borders means higher welfare requirements which means either higher taxes or higher deficits - which is just deferred taxation OR financial collapse.
Closed borders and the expulsion of illegals creates far less NAP violation. They're in the country illegally (ie trespassing) and they know it. They knowingly came here illegally. They knowingly accepted the fruits of stolen money (ie welfare). They deserve expulsion.
This isn't a debate about voluntaryism. It is a debate about the more preferable of two shitty options in an environment of coercion.
I reject your argument. Reducing state violence is the moral course of action & your contention is to further the states agression. I would lessen the states violent coersion on the citizens & traveler alike. Remove the artificial incentive & let people be free. You are on the side of the state on this one... I'll never be on their team. Even if there is a bit of "discomfort" for a short time. Better the growing pains of liberty than the chafing of chains.
Hello ~ LOL
We are friends in steemit.
I am interesting in your post and I want to share with the same
Good post
Thanks!
Thanks to the debate competition for sharing this video with us
LOL. Kokesh is an absolute joke. A child pushing an unattainable "utopian" fantasy.
We both have the same end goal and we both made that clear, so I guess we both are pushing a "utopian" fantasy....
Give it up man. You are an absolute joke... because you think and know what freedom means. To someone who is not capable of imagining what it is... if sounds utopian. Silly people are funny :D
Stefan suggests that immigrants use tax money as though money isn't extension of credit. Wouldn't it only be the illegal immigrants (without bonds) able to bleed the credit of others?
Stefan says, "...or we're going to have this horrible crash, that I seek to avoid." (24:50) Then "...would you still have the relative wealth?" (48:50) Viva status quo.
I think the bigger issue regarding immigration is the manipulation of currencies that force the emergence of economic refugees. Or, if the world were on a silver standard, would Californians be trying to get into Mexico?
You were much more patient with Molyneux than I think I could have been. Very presidential form. Decentralize 2020!
Glad to see you engaging Stefan on this issue Adam. It's been one of the reasons I have stopped consuming his content. Good guy, but his ideas have parted too far from my own for me to continue with that influence. I hope you help bring him back around to your point of view. He's been a major asset to freedom in the past, so here's hoping we win him back to our side.
My vote is for freedom!
I don't know if I could advocate for abolishing all of the Federal government and I think you are going to have a hard time getting rid of nationalism. Despite our faults US citizens are still very much proud to be so and would still want the general protections of the federal government for our safety and welfare as a nation. ON the other end, I would like to see where Stephan gets his statistics. From what I read, those statistics of illegal immigrants using our government help, and draining our resources has proved false. And I do think you could make a good argument for more localized governments. Even in the smallest of communities you have some kind of leadership that people chose to keep things in some type of order and have some type of protection for it's people.
Thanks for the important info..
Dont want a bunch of cartel and whoever to just walk over the border. Open borders is a big HELP for human traiffickers. Who move children into USA through our border. Many people are shipped there from Europe to be trained as sexs slaves and sold.
You cant have a welfare state AND open borders!
And that is why I do not advocate for a welfare state.
Do you plan on creating a culture that is not welcoming to people who pose a threat to your societies stability? I am sure you are well aware of the plights and instability of multicultural societies.
Diversity also makes group cohesion less possible because not all cultures have the same values and trust. How can a high trust society accept people form low-trust societies, only to be taken advantage of?
What do you think of Hans Herman Hoppe?
#Very good content and great efforts in #publishing
D#eserves more #votes
I was #happy to pass from here to see your #publication
I wish my follow-up in my publications and# attention
#Greetings to you and wish more #wonderful publications
@WalidSalah
#Very good content and great efforts in #publishing
D#eserves more #votes
I was #happy to pass from here to see your #publication
I wish my follow-up in my publications and# attention
#Greetings to you and wish more #wonderful publications
@WalidSalah
I am in love with this post,freedom is the key
Open borders and approachable of leisure movement!
what is the cost to build?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nations_and_intelligence
We must decrease dependence, not the reciprocal. It's that simple. Less dependence= less perceived need for central authority. Use welfare money to teach self sustainability and make that the main goal of public schooling. This will make everything else more efficient and a more happy and peaceful society. Disagree? Then you are simply over thinking it and are part of the problem.
Nice article.Thanks for sharing.
Adam, please don't give this shill the time of day
kinda too late bro...
Ah Stefan Molyneux! I read some of his FREE books.
Arguing against the "anarchist" Molyneux accepting at the very beginning of the debate the preposition that voting is not violence (because you're running for president) is a bad idea. How you gonna' stump the "anarchist" (I'm being really over emphatically exaggerating those quotation marks for a reason) by sticking to establishing border enforcement, when voting isn't considered an enforcement as well? You're giving away the whole argument. You can't disprove arbitrary border enforcement is beneficial and non-violent, if you are also going to suppose that arbitrary ideological enforcement is beneficial and non-violent at the same time.
I suggested privatizing the border. Works well with contracts and allodialism. Please visit policyofliberty, too. Appreciate your upvotes! I upvoted yours as well.
At 45 minutes adam kokesh philosophically castrating stefan.