🚀 go-pugleaf

Lady Liberty wrote:
> "Kingfish." <spam_trap_void@yahoo.com>  said, and I quote:
> ...
> 
>>: >: No one said all libertarians have to think exactly the same, and I
>>: >: think some libs are wrong in thinking we should just open our
>>: >: borders to the whole world. It doesn't work the way they claim it
>>: >: would. 
>>: >
>>: > So we should be able to drive any speed we want,
>>:
>>: As long as you're responsible and don't harm anyone. Just like with
>>: free speech, eh?
>>
>>no.  being able to put others in direct physical danger because you feel
>>like it is not liberty.
> 
> 
> Just driving does that, anyway. Anyone who drives is able to put others in 
> direct physical danger because they feel like it.
> 
> Then you should have no right to bear arms because you could shoot someone.
> 
> 
>>: > come and go across our
>>: > boarders as we please, but lock out certain undesireables?
>>:
>>: Are we allowed to go work in any country we want at any time? How many
>>: countries allow us to just go work there without permission and have
>>: unlimited open immigration?
>>
>>If somehow through big-government action - coercion might even be the
>>word - Canada took all of our jobs and made it unprofitable for us to
>>work here, we'de be jumping our northern boarder, too. People don't
>>leave their homeland, only to become criminals just because of where
>>their feet are planted for kicks.
> 
> 
> How could Canada do that? Do you really think it's up to pure "luck"? 
> "Fortune"?
> 
> If the people in Mexico did those few things ( changed their now-subjective 
> morality away from socialism and corruption and made literacy and ecucation 
> a major national goal ) , their "fortune" would drastically change for the 
> better and they wouldn't need to sneak into the US.
>  
> 
>>: >: > Why aren't the militias lining up at the Canadian boarder?
>>: >:
>>: >: Why isn't our own government defending the borders of this country?
>>: >: Isn't that its job? We have a Coast Guard to supposedly defend our
>>: >: water borders, why isn't the government defending ALL our borders?
>>: >
>>: > economics.
>>:
>>: Nope, try again. They're spending $200-400 BILLION JUST to get Saddam,
>>: BTW. 
>>
>>perhaps the economic boost that they can get away with.  Most of the
>>200+ billion is being spent here, being paid to US corporations,
>>boosting our economy.  Almost everything is economics when you get right
>>down to it. 
> 
> 
> The money would be spent here, to guard our borders too. We could put up a 
> double row of tall fence with a land mine field between them and electronic 
> sensors along it, and all that money would be spend with US companies.
>  
> 
>>: Simply not true. You're making your own new definition, like when
>>: socialists claim that someone is a slave because they need to work for
>>: minimum wage. It trivializes the definition.
>>:
>>: Oh, I'm just a slave over that hot stove. Darn.
>>:
>>
>>you trivialize the definition - you know you need to eat so you work and
>>you can.  When the economic actions of one country shut down anothers'
>>economy - we have coercion. 
> 
> 
> We have done no such thing, and if we did we should of course stop it.
>  
> 
>>: > When you have to choose loss of liberty to feed
>>: > your kids, there is slave labor.
>>:
>>: What loss of liberty?
>>
>>when you have no choice but to become a "felon" in order to cross a
>>boarder - giving up all of your "rights" (is that an international thing
>>or not?) in order to feed yourself or your family because of economic
>>bullying - you have lost your liberty. 
> 
> 
> Assuming they don't have free will. Come on. This sounds like victim 
> culture.
> 
> 
>>: When I have to work for less than $100 an hour, I feel like slave labor
>>: too, but come on, that trivializes the word.
>>:
>>
>>yes, _that_ does trivialize the word.
> 
> 
> Exactly what you're doing. The people aren't coming here because they can't 
> earn money down there, they're coming here to try to earn more money. 
>  
> 
>>: Lots of people in this world, probably MOST, are doing things they'd
>>: rather not have to do, to survive.
>>
>>don't you realize that the level of things one would "rather not do"
>>varies greatly?
> 
> 
> Of course, and I also realize the definition of "slave".
> 
> slave (sl!v), n., v., slaved, slav�ing.
>  �n.
> 1.	a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond 
> servant.
> 
> Sorry, your definition just doesn't cut it and it DOES trivialize the 
> definition, just like using "ghetto" for part of a US city does with that 
> word. They're both hyperbolic trivializations.
> 
> I'm just a "slave" in the Lakewood "ghetto", I should know. ;-)
> 
> Nobody knows da trouble I seen...
> 
> 
>>Dependant directly upon who's government is bigger? 
>>The same government that wants to control handguns in the US is the same
>>government that is governing Mexico by economic proxy. 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't see it. As far as I can tell, Mexico is still a sovereign 
> nation, though they are reminding me more of "Atlas Shrugged", like 
> Venezuela is.
> 
> Socialism doesn't work, allowing rampant corruption doesn't work, and not 
> having values that appreciate a high literacy rate doesn't work. Those are 
> Mexico's problems. It doesn't have to do with racial inferiority or 
> "oppression" by those "selfish capitalists", it only has to do with those 3 
> things.
>  
> 
>> That doesn't equal slavery. It's a hyperbolic
>>: collectivist terminology for exactly that, when someone does something
>>: they'd rather not do, because they need to survive.
>>
>>There are 12 year olds that need to prostitue themselves in Thailand in
>>order to survive.  Is that hyperbolic?  You can't concern yourself with
>>only your own freedom and still have any. 
> 
> 
> I know that, that's why I've been advocating the IHRTKBA ( INDIVIDUAL Human 
> Right to Keep & Bear Arms ) in uk.guns. AND the Thailand situation also has 
> everything to do with economics and not with freedom. 
> 
> Come on, you're not a liberal democrat, I can't believe all this stuff about 
> the "oppressed masses who are victims and slaves of the evil capitalist 
> pigs". It sounds more like a Castro, Joe Lieberman or Ted Kennedy rant.
>  
> 
>>: > When your homeland is not in charge of
>>: > it's own destiny because of the social and economic engineering of
>>: > the World Bank and the IMF, there is slave labor.
>>:
>>: Hogwash, Mexico is not in charge because of absolutely rampant
>>: corruption, socialist value systems and little value for literacy.
>>
>>and I say many of the conditions that are present in Mexico today are as
>>a direct result of our policies - from both the D's and the R's.
> 
> 
> Then we need to examine and change our policies. If we did things to 
> perpetuate those things, we should change our policies, but it's not like 
> Mexico is a helpless victim, I don't buy it.
> 
> 
>>: >  There are some good solid reasons why
>>: > they are heading North and we are not innocent bystanders - the
>>: > problem is not solved at the boarder but rather at those underlying
>>: > problems that cause them to want to move here in droves.
>>:
>>: On that, I agree with you.
>>
>>People generally would prefer to remain in their homeland.  Something is
>>very wrong when they run away/to in droves.  Do you believe that the
>>only thing wrong with the US is the attack on the 2nd amendment?
> 
> 
> Of course not, that was just the tip of the iceberg until now. Now the 
> Titanic is in trouble. We could wind up just like Mexico if things continue 
> into a police state. The US might not last another 10-15 years IMO.
> 
> 
>>Could
>>the US government be in the business of erroding the rights of Mexicans,
>>just as it is in eroding the rights of its' own citizens?  I think so.
> 
> 
> If Mexico wasn't a sovereign country. And if that's so, they can easily 
> change that at any time.
> 

What a bunch of sophmoric crap.