So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.Who was it who said that the whole of human history is naught but the migration of tribes? Well, we do live in a world where the lowest available human designation is "stateless person." Although there are certainly cryptoracial motivations for the various anti-immigration efforts in the United States (and Britain, and Europe, &c.), laws like the recent Arizonan foolishness are not Laws for the Protection of American Blood and American Honor or American Citizenship Laws, which in a sense makes them even more absurdly indefensible. Absent a good, racially pseudoscientific, rationalizing foundation, birthright citizenship and closed borders start to seem like the joke they are. We are left to argue that "illegals" commit more crimes, which of course they don't, except insofar as we have criminalized the natural migration of populations in pursuit of resources . . . uh, what we would now call "economic opportunity."
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 6:20-21
Anyway, this is all just to demonstrate once more that citizenship is a form of serfdom; we are all confined to the manor of our birth except by the varying graces of our various milords.
48 comments:
How true, and a solid argument for world government.
I was going to go with some sort of left-anarchism like council communism, which seems like more of a logical endpoint for the workers' revolution; but sure, world government, why not? Also, robot minions for all.
Anyway, one bright side of the hysteria over the Arizona law is that it allows J.D. "J.D." Hayworth to really play up how his primary opponent is only a native-born citizen thanks to government amnesty. Hayworth would be a much more entertaining US senator than McCain. (And a better deal for Arizona, if his neck ends up with the extra vote it so obviously deserves.)
I admire Mike Gogulski, a recently stateless person.
Feh on you world-gonvernment statists. I'd rather have 6.7 million little sovereign governments.
Do you mean 6.7 billion?
Gah! yes billions (I even used the preview button)
Yeah, may the whole wide earth become the manor of our birth. Seriously, amen, IOZ, but this is still one issue on which globalists and anarchists are strangely-in-bed, the most common justification I hear from minarchist libertarians for "Sucks, I agree, but we gotta be tough on borders or the globalists win" authoritarianism. Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfhSmhuOVY
McElroy self-identifies as anarchist but doesn't mention that on this show, which, like other shows, is significantly funnier if you're stoned.
I've destroyed a few asses with the edge of my sword in my day, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
Throughout history—all over the world immigrants have been treated horribly. Look what we did to those poor people who crossed the Bering land bridge.
Fukkin Siberians.
We divorce WIVES, not legal structures.
What's Vietnam got to do with this?
So why does Stepehn Hawking get a free pass? He came right and said no one should have contact with aliens. Hell, he didn't even bother with the "illegal" modifier.
"Do you mean 6.7 billion?"
"Gah! yes billions"
Wait, I was okay with your first figure. So sovereign entities consisting of only a thousand people would still be a bad thing? 'Cause I guarantee that some of those 6.7 billion sovereign nations (the ones who hadn't already starved to death because there's no iPad app for food production) would start banding together, albeit in comparatively small numbers, in order to increase their firepower. In which case it would really suck to be playing dress-up as Benjamin Tucker.
"So why does Stepehn Hawking get a free pass?"
Well, to be fair, if Columbus had never gotten that late-night wrong number call from Hispaniola, things might have turned out somewhat better for the New World's previous wave of undocumented immigrants. Which I believe was the analogy Professor Hawking was driving at.
No doubt they could band together - voluntarily - for trading, food production, defense, edumacation, etc. But it would be voluntary.
If'n you didn't like one tribe you could join another.
If'n you didn't want your hired guns killin' swarthy, innocent towel heads in far off lands, you could fire 'em.
I have been to that imaginary line that separates Texas from Mexico. I have been to the imaginary line that separates Minnesota's BWCA from Canada's Quetico. It looks the same on both sides. The fish and wolves and moose and javelinas don'y give a damn about some imaginary line, why should I?
Also the dialect is remarkably similar on both sides o' dem imaginary lines.
I ain' fer it, I'm agin it!
First thing we do, we get rid of states. Next thing we do, we magically... stop people... from getting together... to act like states... hmmmm. Maybe we could pass a law!
Your puppy looks a little more dignified today, IOZ.
Unlike with a Camel Crush, no spearminty tingle attains when you squeeze with iron fingers the narrow filter through which an immigrant people, imbibed and wafted forth, backwardly progress to the airs of freedom.
"The fish and wolves and moose and javelinas don'y give a damn about some imaginary line, why should I?"
they don't use the internet, either, do they?
Hey, now!
Even accepting arguendo the dubious proposition that illegal aliens---outlaws out of the gate---don't then commit more crimes per capita than legal residents, it remains a rather flaccid justification for the status quo. "Gosh, the strangers who crashed our dinner party ate no more and no less than the guests I'd actually invited and planned for! What right then have we to single them out?"
Now if we apply this rather elementary il-logic to the increase in absolute terms of rapes, murders, thefts, and drug deals because of folks who aren't supposed to be here in the first place, suddenly even one unnecessary victim seems like one victim too many. Unless Americans are just supposed to Take One For The World Team.....just like they do in Mexico, and China, and Russia, right?
I thought they brought an appetizer? or dessert, at least. pudding? a jello mold!
I wasn't aware that the landowners were required to wine and dine tresspassers.
A property line is something completely different than an artificial national border.
the royal trespasser, you know, the editorial. . .
"A property line is something completely different than an artificial national border."
Yeah, a property line isn't a legal fiction enforced by coercion, the way those completely artifical national borders are. The private dotted lines were put there by God when He was laying down the fake dinosaur bones.
oh lulz. is it possible to enforce something by coercion? I thought that's implied. that must be one of them double untundras.
but I mean yeah, if you're going to enforce property laws and lines and such, well, good luck with that project! I mean, what about the people that don't own anything? whatever, you know? they should be expelled, or something. to like, that non-property area over there.
is that your garden, dude? where's the weed growing?
folks who aren't supposed to be here in the first place
Uh, you mean, like, white people?
Or maybe you mean humans in general? I hear the earth is putting up a wall, gonna kick us all out.
Shorter Inky: If I imply that a proven but incidental aspect of your argument is false, then pretend as if your criticism of that argument was instead the sole support for your argument (a la "you are arguing for Al Qaeda by saying they don't hate us for our freedom"), then your criticism of an artificial demarcation has negative effects if you assume that the demarcation is valid.
You don't usually see that sort of profound confusion outside of the Corner. Its like you dumped all of your propositional logic out of wheelbarrow, then scrambled to pick it up. Victor Davis Hanson, is that you?
is fun.
ROUND AND ROUND WE GO WHERE WE STOP NOBODY KNOW
"Even accepting arguendo the dubious proposition that illegal aliens---outlaws out of the gate---don't then commit more crimes per capita than legal residents"
You're going to accept the truth as true? That's rather big of you.
"it remains a rather flaccid justification for the status quo."
Who's using that fact to justify the status quo?
Something there is that doesn't love a wall
Old-stone savage humping along something
Elves? says I to him playfully, hoping
The humped swelling hunters something something
Will have their rabbit anyhow [illegible]
My apples won't eat your pine-cones
Ground frost spring swelling the imp in me
Something something
"Good Fences Make Good Neighbors"
Moving in darkness not of wood nor something
Won't go behind it
Victor
Davis
Hanson
Who killed Homer anyhow?
Elves did it, the old stones, stone-armed savage
I have been one acquainted with nice Mexicans
Pistoffnick---
Is the southeastern Mexican border "artificial" as well? How about the Iranian border or the Chinese? If Mexican bayonets prick doe-eyed undocumented Guatemalans looking for economic opportunity, do the Workers not bleed?
George Jones---
I mean "folks who aren't supposed to be here" as a function of current laws and borders, Sparky. Unless we're tracing Prior Use all the way back to Asian land-bridge migrants and disposessors, you've said exactly nothing.
La Rana---
I don't think "shorter" means what you think it means. But maybe start with "non sequitur"....
Anon @ 5:16---
"Accept the truth as true" ? Boy, that doesn't even rate as question-begging.
Who's using that "fact" to justify the pre-Arizona law status quo? IOZ, and those who agree with him here. Did you discern a different reason for him floating it?
Lulz, we needn't go that far for you to look ignorant. In this case, the phrase "in the first place" is an awfully contentious formulation given even a century of history in which to play--perhaps less. Prior use? You gotta be fucking kidding me.
Anyway, it's kind of amazing to watch someone defend with flailing ad hominem and pretzeled logic the notion that current laws and borders, and not any of the zillion iterations before or to come, are the true and correct ones. I grant you have some basic verbal facility, Inkberrow, and that you can be an amusing troll, but the tiny exit from your viscera always seems to limit your perspective.
George J---
As to "contentious", not to mention tendentious, I'm afraid it's time for a liitle Physician, Heal Thyself. I never swerved from borders as "correct" only in the latest, positivistic sense---nor need I do otherwise, as that's precisely how other sovereign nations are permitted to proceed without pious cavil from our America mod-progs.
If indeed borders, property, and prior/existing use are or should be considered, for historical and ethical purposes, anyway, as broad and fluid as you seem to wish (when it suits you), then you can spare me the Dread White People (from your initial reply here) canard simply because Europeans forcefully shook the Amerindians from their aboriginal stasis.
Is the southeastern Mexican border "artificial" as well?
Further proof that, in John McEnroe's famous words, "You cannot be serious."
""Gosh, the strangers who crashed our dinner party ate no more and no less than the guests I'd actually invited and planned for! What right then have we to single them out?""
They're the help.
Anon @ 9:00---
Though it was a simple point, I believe you've managed to miss it. Our border is no more and no less artificial than those actively enforced elsewhere by gunshots and prisons, including Mexico's border with Central America, to keep out poor riff-raff. More of that sanctimonious mod-prog inversion of American Exceptionalism.
Romerocker---
The thing about diversionary comedic riffs is that they should work within the initial framework. "The help" would neither be strangers nor crashers, would they? You're left now with attempted subject-avoidance of the utmost lameness.
Why do so many cybercynics waste their time arguing with someone who doesn't know the difference between a private dinner party and a de facto economic zone?
citizenship is a form of serfdom
It's the non-citizens that look most like serfs to me, but OK.
visibly agitated,
Try not paying your yearly tithe to the Great Landowner Boss man. You might get away with it for a little while, but eventually he's going to send his mad dogs after you. Are you free, do you own what you think you own? Or are you indentured forever?
Ve vant ze money, Lebowski. Or we cut off your johnson.
Try not paying your yearly tithe to the Great Landowner Boss man
I would never think of doing such a thing. As a serf, I work tirelessly to produce food simply so I can feed myself (inadequately), and I make sure the Lord has what he needs, so he isn't tempted to kick me off his land.
Oh wait, that doesn't sound like me; that sounds like an undocumented worker.
I would ask IOZ to justify riffing on Arizona's new police state to make a point about why it's really citizens who have it bad, but I don't think I care to hear it.
oh lulz. pwoggies always freaking shy up and pull their punches when it comes to talk of denigrating official state sanction. if you didn't want these laws, then why did you elect these people? this is what democracy gets you.
and that's the problem with people, they're people.
Are you dense, visibly agitated? The point IOZ was making is that the concept of "citizenship" forces the citizens of a nation to act as serfs in exchange for the protection of the landowner. Leaving one nation and going to another without clearing it with the bossman means they're still serfs, only without any protection at all. "Citizenship" still applies to illegal immigrants in America, because they're citizens somewhere else!
I think it's a silly argument and disagree, but you're really just doing it wrong.
"Birthright citizenship" - i.e. if you are born in the U.S., you are a U.S. citizen, no matter the status of your mother - is silly. The nativists are right about that, at least.
@ MC, PhD
Why would having more serfs be a bad thing for Massa BossMan?
@ V.Ag
Aren't they cute those "Freeman - Not Serf" tatoos that Massa BossMan brands on the serfs he keeps for good?
Capt'n Obvious
"The nativists are right about that, at least."
Yeah, most of them still hate the fact that it was applied to Southern slaves, too.
In general, formal citizenship is silly. Given its existence, however, a grant of citizenship based on being born inside the country is at least less restrictive then jus sanguinis. It certainly helped those sinister Jewfolk to re-establish a foothold in Britain, though the UK made the rules more restrictive in 1983 to reduce the impact of the swarthy hordes on decent society.
The other bit that makes jus soli currently so awkward arises from the 20th Century barriers erected to immigration. I.e., a non-citizen mother can be legally deported for violating immigration law, while her US-born child cannot. Naturally, the answer is to adopt the Duncan Hunter / Ron Paul approach, and pretend that the 14th Amendment can be overturned with ordinary legislation. Or, we could drop all the nonsense about "illegal" immigration, which allows an even weaker worker underclass to exist at the whim of the bosses. But that's just stupid pwoggie spin applied to von Mises.
The point IOZ was making is that the concept of "citizenship" forces the citizens of a nation to act as serfs in exchange for the protection of the landowner.
Whoa, that's just too deep for me. mds did the heavy lifting and spoke to the issue intelligently. I'll add, "also, meh."
I don't believe there are any Russians,
And there ain't no Yanks.
Just corporate criminals,
playin' with tanks.
'And the Walls Came down'
Post a Comment