How do good Americans and our democracy benefit from diversity again?

[Brian Blackwell]

Funny you should cite sovereignty... so a government has sovereignty over land stolen from others, but an individual doesn't have sovereignty over himself? You pay property tax on land you "own" - that's called "rent" and it means you don't actually own it. The government lays claim to your land, and even your mind. They can dictate to you which states of consciousness you are permitted to experience via drug laws. So their "sovereignty" trumps yours? By what right? Are they something more than men? The Feds can't "issue" shit, because they don't own it. Their claim is just an unfounded assertion. No one could have a valid claim to a tract of land that large.

Property rights extend from man's labor. If you build a house, you can be said to own that house. It's reasonable that you should claim the area immediately surrounding it, and yes, there is a grey area about where that boundary should be drawn. But there is no such thing as owning an entire continent. Any justification for such nonsense is just made up out of whole cloth, and has no natural law basis.

Are you serious or are you being facetious?

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

It's good to have another anarcho-capitalist on the board.

Jeez, tell me about it. Thank you for existing.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Haha...I have a hard time stooping to the level of ignorant fools but I’ll play along anyhoo.
Look up the meaning of sovereignty; try to wrap your little, tiny peanut brain around what it means when an Army TAKES land and declares sovereignty. The Feds issued deed to 80 million acres under the Homestead Act. Are you claiming they gave away land they didn’t “own”?

Funny you should cite sovereignty... so a government has sovereignty over land stolen from others, but an individual doesn't have sovereignty over himself? You pay property tax on land you "own" - that's called "rent" and it means you don't actually own it. The government lays claim to your land, and even your mind. They can dictate to you which states of consciousness you are permitted to experience via drug laws. So their "sovereignty" trumps yours? By what right? Are they something more than men? The Feds can't "issue" shit, because they don't own it. Their claim is just an unfounded assertion. No one could have a valid claim to a tract of land that large.

Property rights extend from man's labor. If you build a house, you can be said to own that house. It's reasonable that you should claim the area immediately surrounding it, and yes, there is a grey area about where that boundary should be drawn. But there is no such thing as owning an entire continent. Any justification for such nonsense is just made up out of whole cloth, and has no natural law basis.

Are you serious or are you being facetious?

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

Unfortunately .GOV is a necessary evil...they have to protect good people from disgusting, immoral Liberal filth.

 

[ATL]

Who needs a white history month with all these WNs arguing over which white culture built more of America....

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Unfortunately .GOV is a necessary evil...they have to protect good people from disgusting, immoral Liberal filth.

The term "necessary evil" implies that evil is inherently necessary for mankind to survive and thrive. Does this reflect your true position? I doubt it, as it's rather extreme in its pessimism.

Every individual has the right to defend themselves and others, and to organize to that effect. Why is it necessary to give that organization rights that other people don't have, like the right to use violent coercion to fund itself, or impose laws and regulations against people who aren't robbing or hurting anyone?

 

[Flopper]

Haha...I have a hard time stooping to the level of ignorant fools but I’ll play along anyhoo.
Look up the meaning of sovereignty; try to wrap your little, tiny peanut brain around what it means when an Army TAKES land and declares sovereignty. The Feds issued deed to 80 million acres under the Homestead Act. Are you claiming they gave away land they didn’t “own”?

Funny you should cite sovereignty... so a government has sovereignty over land stolen from others, but an individual doesn't have sovereignty over himself? You pay property tax on land you "own" - that's called "rent" and it means you don't actually own it. The government lays claim to your land, and even your mind. They can dictate to you which states of consciousness you are permitted to experience via drug laws. So their "sovereignty" trumps yours? By what right? Are they something more than men? The Feds can't "issue" shit, because they don't own it. Their claim is just an unfounded assertion. No one could have a valid claim to a tract of land that large.

Property rights extend from man's labor. If you build a house, you can be said to own that house. It's reasonable that you should claim the area immediately surrounding it, and yes, there is a grey area about where that boundary should be drawn. But there is no such thing as owning an entire continent. Any justification for such nonsense is just made up out of whole cloth, and has no natural law basis.

Are you serious or are you being facetious?

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Funny you should cite sovereignty... so a government has sovereignty over land stolen from others, but an individual doesn't have sovereignty over himself? You pay property tax on land you "own" - that's called "rent" and it means you don't actually own it. The government lays claim to your land, and even your mind. They can dictate to you which states of consciousness you are permitted to experience via drug laws. So their "sovereignty" trumps yours? By what right? Are they something more than men? The Feds can't "issue" shit, because they don't own it. Their claim is just an unfounded assertion. No one could have a valid claim to a tract of land that large.

Property rights extend from man's labor. If you build a house, you can be said to own that house. It's reasonable that you should claim the area immediately surrounding it, and yes, there is a grey area about where that boundary should be drawn. But there is no such thing as owning an entire continent. Any justification for such nonsense is just made up out of whole cloth, and has no natural law basis.

Are you serious or are you being facetious?

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

Anyone. Everyone. Maybe the same people who do now (police, military). But they don’t get to have an exemption from morality (i.e. rights in excess of what any other individual possesses). Everyone has the right of defense and may organize to that effect. That doesn’t imply authority over others, though.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you serious or are you being facetious?

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

Anyone. Everyone. Maybe the same people who do now (police, military). But they don’t get to have an exemption from morality (i.e. rights in excess of what any other individual possesses). Everyone has the right of defense and may organize to that effect. That doesn’t imply authority over others, though.

I think what he's asking about is how do people like young single women defend themselves against predators. The answer is that she hires a security provider - a private company. She can also take other measures that people normally take today like living in a gated community with security.

 

[deanrd]

Southern whites fought one war.

And they lost.

Proof diversity makes you stronger.

 

[bripat9643]

Southern whites fought one war.

And they lost.

Proof diversity makes you stronger.

The South was more diverse than the North, so it proves nothing of the sort.

 

[Unkotare]

buncha 'papists' on this board as well as one Pole trying to take credit with mention of a few outliers eh Gents . Anyway , USA was formed in its beginnings , Foundations laid , Western law and legal theory , Constitution and Bill of Rights written by White Male Protestants . Just open yer eyes to see the mayhem and murder that 'papists' create ., see south of the USA border Gents .

Why would anyone think that White Catholics, and Hispanic Catholics are the same????????

--------------------------------- make it simple for you but they both worship the ... 'pope'... .

Wrong.

 

[deanrd]

Southern whites fought one war.

And they lost.

Proof diversity makes you stronger.

The South was more diverse than the North, so it proves nothing of the sort.

Why would you think such a thing?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Southern whites fought one war.

And they lost.

Proof diversity makes you stronger.

The South was more diverse than the North, so it proves nothing of the sort.

Why would you think such a thing?

The South had less people, and more Black people...

 

[Bush92]

I’m really trying hard to wrap my head around it all....how exactly do Americans and American democracy benefit from diversity? Can someone articulate that to me?
It’s seems as though all the data strongly suggests otherwise...no?
Is the data racist?
Is Japan ******* themselves...Would they be kicking a bunch more ass if they imported millions from Mexico, Central and South America? If so, someone should let them know.

We will not benefit. People need to think in terms of “I’m an American” and less about the color of their skin and professoriate history teachings of crybaby politics.

 

[Flopper]

Are you serious or are you being facetious?

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

Anyone. Everyone. Maybe the same people who do now (police, military). But they don’t get to have an exemption from morality (i.e. rights in excess of what any other individual possesses). Everyone has the right of defense and may organize to that effect. That doesn’t imply authority over others, though.

Carry that thought a little further. Who defines our laws or if you prefer right and wrong. Of course, everyone and anyone. The path you advocate is a path that leads to Chaos, which is from where society has evoked.

A man is murdered by his neighbor because he as an infidel. The man across the street, says we must strike down the killer. His neighbor says, I certain will not risk my life to kill someone who killed a Jew whose people murdered our lord and savior. And the guy at the end of the block says, **** all of you, I have bigger and better guns than all you and I'm taking over.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

Anyone. Everyone. Maybe the same people who do now (police, military). But they don’t get to have an exemption from morality (i.e. rights in excess of what any other individual possesses). Everyone has the right of defense and may organize to that effect. That doesn’t imply authority over others, though.

Carry that thought a little further. Who defines our laws or if you prefer right and wrong. Of course, everyone and anyone. The path you advocate is a path that leads to Chaos, which is from where society has evoked.

A man is murdered by his neighbor because he as an infidel. The man across the street, says we must strike down the killer. His neighbor says, I certain will not risk my life to kill someone who killed a Jew whose people murdered our lord and savior. And the guy at the end of the block says, **** all of you, I have bigger and better guns than all you and I'm taking over.

Legislation and Law in a Free Society | Stephan Kinsella

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I'm serious. If government has authority over the area within its claimed borders, then you don't have authority over your own property. What could be more obvious? Their laws apply on "your" property, just as anywhere else, you pay them property tax (rent), and they claim the right to take the property if they "need" it (eminent domain). They are your landlord. You own nothing, according to them. Not your land, not your body, not your mind - nothing. They have their claws in all of it.

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

Anyone. Everyone. Maybe the same people who do now (police, military). But they don’t get to have an exemption from morality (i.e. rights in excess of what any other individual possesses). Everyone has the right of defense and may organize to that effect. That doesn’t imply authority over others, though.

Carry that thought a little further. Who defines our laws or if you prefer right and wrong. Of course, everyone and anyone. The path you advocate is a path that leads to Chaos, which is from where society has evoked.

A man is murdered by his neighbor because he as an infidel. The man across the street, says we must strike down the killer. His neighbor says, I certain will not risk my life to kill someone who killed a Jew whose people murdered our lord and savior. And the guy at the end of the block says, **** all of you, I have bigger and better guns than all you and I'm taking over.

And what prevents this from happening now? You have described a neighborhood of murderous animals. Do you think respect for the lofty notion of man’s responsibility to civic law is what stops such people? No. It’s the threat of punishment by violence - a cage or a bullet.

Well, we still have cages and bullets in a free society, so why do you suppose those people would act differently than they do now? In fact, we have more bullets, in the hands of more moral people (since most people are moral, and it’s mostly moral people trying to obey the law who forsake illegal gun ownership now).

What’s more, a murderer knows that with cops, he need only throw his hands up, and he’s likely to be taken to a cage and get three squares a day without having to work. In a free society, this is not so readily guaranteed. So the one effective deterrent is actually stronger in a free society than under governmental law. Considering these undeniable facts, the scenario you presented can be seen in a new light.

 

[otto105]

maybe they and their kids will get what they wish for SOB !!

So, why do about 4.5 X more Americans per capita say that diversity is a good thing than White Catholic countries like Poland, Hungary, and Italy?

Because Poland is choking on coal?

 

[otto105]

If you're serious, I think you have a serious problem. Government has to have authority over all area within it's boarders including private property or there would be no point in having government at all.

We're in complete agreement. I believe there is no point in having government at all. Or better said, the only point in having government is to launder immorality (to justify immorality such that it appears moral). After all, governmental authority is additional rights above and beyond those of the individual, and what do we call actions which individuals do not have a right to perform? We call them wrong or immoral.

If there is no government to protect the rights of the individual, to enforce laws based on moral codes, then who does?

Anyone. Everyone. Maybe the same people who do now (police, military). But they don’t get to have an exemption from morality (i.e. rights in excess of what any other individual possesses). Everyone has the right of defense and may organize to that effect. That doesn’t imply authority over others, though.

Carry that thought a little further. Who defines our laws or if you prefer right and wrong. Of course, everyone and anyone. The path you advocate is a path that leads to Chaos, which is from where society has evoked.

A man is murdered by his neighbor because he as an infidel. The man across the street, says we must strike down the killer. His neighbor says, I certain will not risk my life to kill someone who killed a Jew whose people murdered our lord and savior. And the guy at the end of the block says, **** all of you, I have bigger and better guns than all you and I'm taking over.

And what prevents this from happening now? You have described a neighborhood of murderous animals. Do you think respect for the lofty notion of man’s responsibility to civic law is what stops such people? No. It’s the threat of punishment by violence - a cage or a bullet.

Well, we still have cages and bullets in a free society, so why do you suppose those people would act differently than they do now? In fact, we have more bullets, in the hands of more moral people (since most people are moral, and it’s mostly moral people trying to obey the law who forsake illegal gun ownership now).

What’s more, a murderer knows that with cops, he need only throw his hands up, and he’s likely to be taken to a cage and get three squares a day without having to work. In a free society, this is not so readily guaranteed. So the one effective deterrent is actually stronger in a free society than under governmental law. Considering these undeniable facts, the scenario you presented can be seen in a new light.

What "facts" are you pissing on?

 

[otto105]

WASPS made America work and are now making it great
Diversity is an unproven theory of appeasement

WASPs made a Merica work?

America was made great by the melting pot generations ago and your lazy belief is whiteness is simply old, tired and boring.

 

[WEATHER53]

WASPS made America work and are now making it great
Diversity is an unproven theory of appeasement

WASPs made a Merica work?

America was made great by the melting pot generations ago and your lazy belief is whiteness is simply old, tired and boring.

And true